Schumann Resonances, Electro Magnetism, and the Brain.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Amateurish at best.

How about you show me a study that you have conducted...
using your superior scientific mind.

ETA: either that or some science to back up your opinions...

Originally posted by burntheships

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Amateurish at best.

How about you show me a study that you have conducted...
using your superior scientific mind.

one of 25 or so

Originally posted by burntheships
ETA: either that or some science to back up your opinions...

I just want to note that I already provided "science" that went way over your head, which is the noise conditions apparently present, uncalibrated data recorder operating way out of its nominal frequency range (consequences unknown), and self-contradictory result that is not addressed. But you are not interested in all things common-sense, are you?

Originally posted by buddhasystem

one of 25 or so

That link did not work, and went to a Department of Energy
bridge link.

So you are the Department of Energy, you work for them or have
published studies there do you?

Do you have anything real?

reply to post by burntheships


Yes I work for DOE. By the way this has no relevance to the discussion.

reply to post by buddhasystem


I asked for a paper, scholarly paper you have written,
and you gave me a bad dead end link.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
one of 25 or so

Why did you do that?

Can you show me research that disproves that
man is electromagnetic?

Can you show me scientific research that disproves
mans connection with The Shcumann Resonance?

Can you show me scientific research that disproves
mans electromagnetic brain?

Originally posted by buddhasystem

I just want to note that I already provided "science"

No, you posted your opinion, which is not science.

the noise conditions apparently present, uncalibrated data recorder

Prove it. Where is your research?

Originally posted by burntheships
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

I asked for a paper, scholarly paper you have written,
and you gave me a bad link. Why?

The link works for me. It does show a "bridge" and then a PDF link. Did you click it?

Can you show me research that disproves that man is electromagnetic?

I can say "man is gravitational" and you can test this thesis by jumping out of the window. I can say "man is acoustic" and play a boombox right into your ear. I can say "man is chemical" and down a glass of vinegar. I find the statement "the man is electromagnetic" sadly narrow minded and dull at best, and nonsensical in reality.

Can you show me scientific research that disproves mans electromagnetic brain?

Can you read? I already said there is EM activity in humans. Nothing to be proud or ecstatic about.

And oh yeah, I can drive.

Originally posted by burntheships
No, you posted your opinion, which is not science.

Wrong. You apparently have no experience with circuitry and digital recording to appreciate the significance of frequency response (or lack thereof) in the recording apparatus. When I talk about overwhelming EM noise, which is even stated by the authors, this is completely lost on you. The need to calibrate equipment is something you are not capable of understanding.

Judging by the picture, they used TASCAM DA-P1 or a similar unit. They are not designed to handle signals in 1Hz range.
But once again, I'm trespassing Matthew 7:6.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

And oh yeah, I can drive.

i doubt it, and I see that paper you linked to has nothing to do
with the discussion here. Just an obviously childish trolling rubbish
baseless attempt at distraction...

Nu Xu for the NA44 Collaboration
Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos,

www.osti.gov...

So yeah, your now on (well deserved and earned ignore)

reply to post by burntheships


You asked me, I quote, for an example of a scientific study that I conducted using my superior mind. I provided an example of a scientific study that I conducted using my superior mind. But there is no way to appease ignorance.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Yes I work for DOE.

You've changed jobs?

reply to post by buddhasystem

Originally posted by buddhasystem
I work for ATLAS.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Yes I work for DOE.

You've changed jobs?

reply to post by buddhasystem

 

Originally posted by buddhasystem
I work for ATLAS.

DOE is a major funding agency for Atlas and provides facilities. Atlas is an international organization.

It's helpful to read something real once in a while, you know. New-Age free, so to speak.

Originally posted by burntheships
The Body Electric
Electromagnetism and the Foundation of Life, by Robert Becker, M.D.
p. 265/313/318. Monitoring Neuro electric information in the brain. E-M wave E.S.B.
www.scribd.com...

I'm reading this online. It's a good book!

Originally posted by buddhasystem
DOE is a major funding agency for Atlas and provides facilities.

Why didn't you tell the truth?

reply to post by Mary Rose


Enjoy!
I was glad to find it online, free and easily quoted.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by buddhasystem
DOE is a major funding agency for Atlas and provides facilities.

Why didn't you tell the truth?

Why aren't you capable of understanding simple facts? I do work for Atlas, and my employer is DOE. What's so hard to get?

reply to post by buddhasystem


How people can obfuscate with impunity and then be flippant about it. No, your employer is not DOE. Your employer is ATLAS. Your employer is a federal contractor.

Scientists need to be exact, you know? That's how truth is established.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

How people can obfuscate with impunity and then be flippant about it. No, your employer is not DOE. Your employer is ATLAS. Your employer is a federal contractor.

For a person who complains a lot about obfuscating, derailing and lack of relevance, you seem to be paying a lot of attention to how exactly my paycheck is routed through the accounting department, while not paying attention at all to the quality of material presented in this thread. Typical.

Scientists need to be exact, you know? That's how truth is established.

...and now I invite you to apply this standard to all those tons of sheer nonsense that you keep posting on ATS. Case in point, just how exact is Rodin when he's speaking about the non-existent "vortex"? And more on the topic of this thread, how exact can be a measurement done in overwhelming noise conditions while using a non-calibrated recording device?

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I'm reading this online. It's a good book!

I've just come to a passage that made me laugh out loud. From page 70, referring to Dr. Becker's experience applying for funding for an experiment that his extensive research coupled with his intuition indicated needed to be done:

The Tribunal

"Dr. Becker, could you please come to a special research committee meeting in one hour?" The committee's secretary was calling. I'd known something was up, two months had passed since I'd filed my proposal,and all my queries as to its fate had gone unanswered."I'll be there."

"It's not here in the research office. It's downstairs in the hospital director's office." Now that was really strange. The director almost never paid any attention to the research program. Besides, his office was big enough to hold a barbecue in.

It was a barbecue, ali [sic] right, and I was the one being grilled. The director's conference room had been rearranged. In place of the long, polished table there was a semicircle of about a dozen chairs, each occupied by one of the luminaries from the hospital and medical school. I recognized the chairmen of the departments of biochemistry and physiology along with the hospital director and chief of research. Only the dean was missing. In the center was a single chair—for me.

The spokesman came right to the point: "We have a very grave basic concern over your proposal. This notion that electricity has anything to do with living things was totally discredited some time ago. It has absolutely no validity, and the new scientific evidence you're citing is worthless. The whole idea was based on its appeal to quacks and the gullible public. I will not stand idly by and see this medical school associated with such a charlatanistic, unscientific project." Murmurs of assent spread around the group.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I'm reading this online. It's a good book!

Reading about the experiments Dr. Becker and his associates did and following his progress in helping patients is a wonderful read.

This is from pages 128 and 129 of 334:

By mid-1978 we'd successfully treated fourteen osteomyelitis patientswith the positive silver mesh wire. The funny thing was, in five of them we'd healed nonunions as a "side effect," without any negative current atall. Obviously it was time to revise our idea that negative electricity alone fostered growth and positive inhibited it. Andy Marino, Joe Spadaro, and I talked it over. Reducing the DC stimulation technique to its essentials, all you needed was an electrode that wouldn't react with tissue fluid when it wasn't passing current. Since a negative electrode didn't give off ions, any inert metal, such as stainless steel, platinum, or titanium, would work with that polarity. But we knew from our lab work that the situation was very different at the positive pole, where the current drove charged atoms of the metal into the nearby environment. We decided it must be chemical, not electrical, processes that were preventing the bacterial growth at the positive electrode. In that case, maybe polarity was unimportant in growth enhancement. We postulated that, because silver ions were nontoxic to human cells and the electrical aspect was right, we inadvertently grew bone with positive current. This idea turned out to be quite wrong, but we'll get to that story in due time.