Can Science explain This?

[Doveaman]

I'm not guessing. It is very established that this is how the trick is done, because that's what it is: a trick.

Then provide evidence that it was a trick.You are making an unsupported claim. If it's a trick then prove it's a trick. Don't just claim it's trick just because you consider walking on water to be impossible.

I don't think we need to establish that he's walking on something, because he is in fact walking, therefore, he is walking on something.

Yes, he is walking on his shoes.

You assume that he must be walking on water because that's what you want to believe.

You assume he is not because you don't want to believe.

Considering the fact that he is not walking on the surface of the water, it's not a guess to understand that he is walking on something else. This is an established trick.

Boats are partially submerged when they float on water. No trick.

A man floating on water or walking on water may also be partially submerged.

 

[Cute Tink]

Then provide evidence that it was a trick.You are making an unsupported claim. If it's a trick then prove it's a trick. Don't just claim it's trick just because you consider walking on water to be impossible.

I'll just cite, in general, to the laws of chemistry and physics as to why I "consider" walking on water to be impossible...

Plus, he bills himself as a magician.

You provided the video. Prove he is actually walking on water. Video is not proof.

Yes, he is walking on his shoes.

Fail. His feet are in his shoes.

Boats are partially submerged when they float on water. No trick.

Do you really need that explained to you?

A man floating on water or walking on water may also be partially submerged.

Again. Seriously?

Back to point. First you establish that he is actually walking on water, not just with a staged video, as that is useless. I've been to the movies.

 

[Doveaman]

I'll just cite, in general, to the laws of chemistry and physics as to why I "consider" walking on water to be impossible...

Physically impossible maybe, but not necessarily impossible.

Plus, he bills himself as a magician.

So?

Not all magic involves tricks.

You provided the video. Prove he is actually walking on water. Video is not proof.

I provided a video and eye witnesses, all of which would hold up in court.

You’ve provided nothing but your personal skepticism.

Fail. His feet are in his shoes.

And his shoes are floating to keep him up.

Do you really need that explained to you?

Nope. I already know boats are partially submerged.

Again. Seriously?

Back to point. First you establish that he is actually walking on water, not just with a staged video, as that is useless. I've been to the movies.

Can you prove it was staged?

I didn’t think so.

I observed it, many others observed it, and it was captured on video.

We all have observational evidence. What do you have besides personal skepticism?

 

[Cute Tink]

Physically impossible maybe, but not necessarily impossible.
So?

Perhaps you would like to explain how a human walks on water. Feel free to detail the surface tension requirements and all that.

Not all magic involves tricks.
I provided a video and eye witnesses, all of which would hold up in court.

You provided video from a declared magician performing an explained stunt. Nothing more.

Also, videos detailing the trick provided in this thread would create what is known as "reasonable doubt" in court.

You’ve provided nothing but your personal skepticism.

Plenty of other people have provided videos detailing how this stunt is performed.

And his shoes are floating to keep him up.

Oh so you believe his shoes are magic now? Please provide your evidence that his shoes are responsible for this phenomenon. All I have is your personal statement.

Nope. I already know boats are partially submerged.

Buoyancy. Google it.

Can you prove it was staged?

I didn’t think so.

I could with the right access, which I don't have. I could replicate it if I had the funds. Care to bankroll that one?

I observed it, many others observed it, and it was captured on video.

Like any other magic trick.

We all have observational evidence. What do you have besides personal skepticism?

Enough videos explaining this trick in this very topic.

 

[Nithavela]

Can't be Christ, he has no sword in his mouth.

 

[durangodawood]

Until there is evidence to suggest otherwise, he really did walk on water.

Wow. What a sucker.

 

[stevevw]

Walking On Water

A invisible bridge perhaps?

Thats dynamo. He is a great Magician from England. He has been busted with some of his tricks and they are setup. But he is quite amazing if you dont know whats going on.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TB64oYV45rI

 

[Dave Ellis]

Provide evidence that what he did is only an illusion. Show me the submerged bridge.

Well, we do know he got a permit to build a submerged bridge....

To show you the bridge itself, I'd have to take you to London. Are you willing to cover airfare, food and hotel?

 

[Doveaman]

Perhaps you would like to explain how a human walks on water. Feel free to detail the surface tension requirements and all that.

If there was a scientific explanation I’m sure you would have one, but you don’t. Nor do I. That’s why it’s so impressive.

You provided video from a declared magician performing an explained stunt. Nothing more.

You did not explain Dynamo’s stunt. You explained a different stunt done by a different person(s). Big difference.

Also, videos detailing the trick provided in this thread would create what is known as "reasonable doubt" in court.

There are no videos detailing Dynamo’s stunt. There are only videos detailing how different people did their own stunt. Big difference.

Plenty of other people have provided videos detailing how this stunt is performed.

But not how Dynamo performed it. Big difference.

I could with the right access, which I don't have. I could replicate it if I had the funds. Care to bankroll that one?

But you don’t have a clue how he did it. You are simply assuming it was done your way.

Like any other magic trick.

Just because you cannot explain something doesn't mean it's a trick. It may simply mean you cannot explain it.

Enough videos explaining this trick in this very topic.

There are no videos explaining Dynamo’s stunt. There are only videos explaining what you and some others assume he did, but you have no proof he actually did it your way. You are simply being a skeptic, nothing more.

 

[Doveaman]

Can't be Christ, he has no sword in his mouth.

Very true.

In addition, Christ reproduced baked bread and cooked fish, but Dynamo only reproduced raw fish:

Fish From Empty Bucket

 

[Doveaman]

Well, we do know he got a permit to build a submerged bridge....

To show you the bridge itself, I'd have to take you to London. Are you willing to cover airfare, food and hotel?

I'll settle for evidence of the permit. Are you willing to provide it?

 

[Cute Tink]

You did not explain Dynamo’s stunt. You explained a different stunt done by a different person(s). Big difference.
There are no videos detailing Dynamo’s stunt. There are only videos detailing how different people did their own stunt. Big difference.
But not how Dynamo performed it. Big difference.

Oh please. Do tell. How did Dynamo perform it?

Btw, not a different stunt, same stunt in different locations.

But you don’t have a clue how he did it. You are simply assuming it was done your way.

My way? No. I don't have a way.

Just because you cannot explain something doesn't mean it's a trick. It may simply mean you cannot explain it.
There are no videos explaining Dynamo’s stunt. There are only videos explaining what you and some others assume he did, but you have no proof he actually did it your way. You are simply being a skeptic, nothing more.

I'm not making an assumption. I'm taking a reasonable explanation of a simple, if interesting, trick that I have no reason to doubt. What you are arguing is that the most unlikely, physically impossible (your words) explanation must be true.

I watched The Sum of All Fears the other night. I saw Baltimore leveled by a nuclear blast. There were dozens of eye witnesses on the video. So I should believe that I won't be visiting Baltimore any time soon?

 

[stevevw]

I know the one where dynamo is leaning backwards like in the matrix is done. He has a stiff flexible brace that sits snugly against the back of his legs against his calf. It has an L shape at end so that it goes under his foot when he puts his shoe on. Then there is a groove cut into the sole of his shoe which has one of those metal catches for a screw head like when you hand a picture or put a shelf up but it is pretty strong. So the he can go up to where the bolt or screw has been placed in the ground on a foot path or walkway and maneuver it into the groove on the sole of his shoe. So when he leans back it catches and keeps his foot from lifting. The flexible brace allows him to lean back and it will take his lower body weight so that he can lean back on an angle. The rest is just catching people by surprise. The last thing you'd expect is to see some person tilting back on the street for no reason in the middle of the day.

 

[[serious]]

I'll settle for evidence of the permit. Are you willing to provide it?

How about a video of the plice boat hitting the structure:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCSpPaUnsMc

It's at 2:35

The notice about the construction was previously available here: http://www.pla.co.uk/notice2mariner...stminster_Bridge_-_Arches_6_and_7_Closure.pdf

Way back machine has a archived copy:
https://web.archive.org/web/2013031...stminster_Bridge_-_Arches_6_and_7_Closure.pdf

 

[[serious]]

text of it:

Port of London - River Thames

NOTICE TO MARINERS No.M41 of 2011












LAMBETH REACH

WESTMINSTER BRIDGE

No 6 & No 7 ARCH CLOSURE

On the 24th June 2011 at 00.30 No 6 & No 7 arches of Westminster Bridge will be closed to navigation
and will re-open on or about 02.00 27th June 2011.
There will be an underwater obstruction just upriver of Westminster Bridge No 7 arch. This obstruction
will be marked with a small yellow buoy with a quick flashing yellow light. Vessels are not to navigate
inshore of this buoy.
Safety boat ‘LIMA LIMA’ will be on station throughout this closure and will monitor channel 14 VHF

Arches closed to navigation will be marked in accordance with the Port of London Authority River
Byelaws 1978 (as amended) namely:
 By day, three red discs 0.6 metres in diameter at the points of an equilateral triangle with the
apex downwards and the base horizontal.
 By night, three red lights in similar positions to the discs displayed by day.

Further details will be broadcast by London VTS on VHF Channel 14

 

[durangodawood]

....Until there is evidence to suggest otherwise, he really did walk on water.

Why do you presume the LEAST likely explanation is correct?

 

[Dave Ellis]

I'll settle for evidence of the permit. Are you willing to provide it?

We'd have to go to London for that

 

[quatona]

Walking On Water

A invisible bridge perhaps?

Why ask for a scientific explanation when a supernatural explanation is readily available?
Heissonear will love this miracle.

 

[apache1]

There is plenty of evidence that this man is not walking on water. For instance - it's physically impossible for a full grown human to walk on water (give it a try sometime). Several people have explained to you that he is not walking on water.

I suggest you apply rigor to this experiment, go out and walk across a river and see if you can replicate the results. If you can't replicate the results, perhaps you're willfully allowing yourself to be deceived.

You refuse to see the evidence because it contradicts what you want to believe. Your blind faith in miracles has crippled your ability to think.

Looks to me like something is under his feet, almost to point of being obvious.

 

[apache1]

Why ask for a scientific explanation when a supernatural explanation is readily available?
Heissonear will love this miracle.

Jesus walked on the water, and I know that's true....but sometimes I think that magician man would like to do a little walking too. Somewhat altering the words of Charlie Daniels' "Longhaired Country Boy".