norskog (02/23/83)
#N:fortune:6700012:000:619 fortune!norskog Feb 22 18:18:00 1983 It's a known fact that rushing water build up static electricity charges. Oil tankers have been lost by hosing out the tanks! Also, I would expect low-level static charges to build up in the earth. Obviously, these static charges are going to build up inside metal pipes, and there is going to be some electrical activity in same pipes. Unfortunately, I don't know the mathematics involved as to whether or not this electrical activity will create magnetic fields strong enough to influence a well-balanced very light piece of metal. Lets move this to net.physics, all right? Lance Norskog Fortune Systems
jcz (02/24/83)
References: fortune.798 No, don't move it anywhere! Dowsing (dousing, geomancy, et al) is the first @i(orgional) subject to be discussed on this net in the three years I have been scanning it. I have no doubt that water containing ions from solutes could produce a magnetic field as it rushes along underground. But could this be detected by someone holding bent coat hangers? How bout net.cranks? net.boin? (beleive it or not?) What experiences have you had that defied ration explanation (at least for a while)? -s/tion/tional/ --jcz
mmt (02/27/83)
Following up my note on subjective vs objective (scientific) probability,
I will give an example or two that YOU cannot consider evidence, but that
are evidence for ME that something beyond conventional physics is possible.
(i) The FIRST time my parents allowed me to gamble was on a Transatlantic
liner (I know, that dates me), on the last night before arrival in Britain.
There were about 250 people playing Bingo (for money) and I won three of
the five games (odds about (250**3)/30 if I got it right, or about
500,000:1). Now perhaps this happened to 2 in a million passengers, but
the fact that it happened to ME on my first try impresses me.
(ii) As a summer student, I worked in Chalk River, which at that time
was a place with not much to do in the evenings. I read Rhine's book on
ESP, and as a skeptic, tried calling suits from a deck of cards. Initially,
I averaged 18-20 correct per deck (chance = 13). Later in the summer,
my average went to chance and then down to 7-8, before recovering to
chance. This is just what Rhine said would happen. Again, I was impressed.
The most interesting part of that was the sequential statistics, which I
kept. The probability of a run of N correct should be 1/4 the probability
of N-1. This worked, up to runs of 5 or so, but after that, there was
too high a probability of long runs (10-15 in a row correct or more).
ALL the excess in the early stages came from long runs. 15 in a row
has a probability of 4**-15 starting at any particular card, or about 10**-9.
I certainly didn't attempt 10**9 cards, more like 10**4, yet I got
several runs of that kind of length, and subjectively, I felt that I
was not guessing during them. Once I told one of the other guys what I
was doing and he said I just knew (subconsciously) what the backs of the
cards looked like. He had a deck in his room, and asked me what was at that
moment on top of it. I said "Heart Heart Spade Diamond", without thinking,
and it was correct. Then he asked for what followed, and I told him I had
no idea, but would guess if he wanted. Of course (!) I was wrong.
(iii) I told the foregoing to 3 close friends when I got back to University,
and 2 laughed at me, whereas one had had a similar experience. So we did
a trial around the coffee table. Each of the 4 tossed a coin 25 times
for his right-hand neighbour. The coin was called while in the air, and
allowed to fall and roll howsoever it chose. Of the 100 calls, 84 were
correct, and 12 or 13 of the errors were my calls. In other words, the
other 3 called 71 or 72 correct out of 75. I don't know the numerical
odds on that, but they must be pretty large, from a SUBJECTIVE base.
>From an OBJECTIVE base, any one of 4*10**9 people could have tried
the experiment, so it doesn't count for anyone except the four people
involved.
There are others, but it seems to me that these inherently unreplicable
experiences are evidence to the one who experienced them, and to no-one
else. I think there is something there. I don't know what, and certainly
don't know how to make it reliable or useful. Accordingly, I act as if
it didn't exist, apart from writing articles like this one.
Martin Taylor