It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Schumann Resonances, Electro Magnetism, and the Brain.

page: 13
120
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 10 2012 @ 09:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem


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.




protecting your paycheck is your agenda. you can try to muddy the waters with your biased "material" but you will never be able to comprehend this subject due to your materialistic conceptual framework. you have no credibility in this area and your studies don't apply
fail




posted on Mar, 10 2012 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
protecting your paycheck is your agenda. you can try to muddy the waters with your biased "material" but you will never be able to comprehend this subject due to your materialistic conceptual framework. you have no credibility in this area and your studies don't apply


What? What to you have to say in response to my analysis of the sloppy measurements done by a bunch of amateurs? Do you have detailed knowledge of the DA-P1 unit? Have you looked at the specs? Have you worked with sensitive electronics and had to deal with noise, and construct shielding? Note that I posted directly on the topic, and the more ignorant and arrogant members of ATS decided to talk about my paycheck because they have nothing, zelch, nada to say on the subject.



posted on Mar, 10 2012 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
protecting your paycheck is your agenda.


Good point. This is a common problem researchers have with hostile replies on threads. People who are content with what they have and where the world is at present don't want to hear about what's been suppressed and what they may be dead wrong about. They've got too much to lose. Although if they have children they ought to be thinking about what they have to lose.



posted on Mar, 10 2012 @ 02:01 PM
link   
Wow...so this thread was my morning read this morning being that I have reasons to be looking into electromagnetic effects on human beings.

I dont have anything to add except thank you to those that continued to stay on course of facts. I dont mind being skeptical, but I was utterly disgusted with the attitudes of the people towards those that kept bringing credible sources and explaining why the disagreed with what others were bringing to the thread, without becoming full of attitude and distaste, themselves.

And btw, when you offer 'reasons' why you disagree with something, like showing how something works in a scientific way and so it cant work in this other way......is not and opinion, like so many posts kept throwing these thoughts off as only that, opinions. There was alot of critical thinking put forth in this thread and I thank those on both side of the coin that stayed civil without nastiness.



posted on Mar, 10 2012 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 





People who are content with what they have and where the world is at present don't want to hear about what's been suppressed and what they may be dead wrong about.


Why say such a thing? What is your purpose?

I have not seen one reason to think that anyone on this thread is afraid of learning something that they could of been wrong about or about learning something they would not want to know. I think saying such things, makes your own self to feel more credible, as if these others just arent strong enough to accept all these truths your presenting huh. They just are not ready are they....too bad for them.


Someone could also say, when someone acts in a defensive way, they feel threatened.



posted on Mar, 10 2012 @ 02:33 PM
link   
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 


Hi!

Im trying to weed out here who is actually not bashing anyone....

I was wondering why you say




you can try to muddy the waters with your biased "material"


I would love for you to share all the biased material you are speaking of here so I can take a closer look, maybe I missed something somewhere.

Thanks!



posted on Mar, 10 2012 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by LeoVirgo
Why say such a thing? What is your purpose?


I have quite a bit of experience dealing with the debate technique of ridicule that comes from members who defend mainstream, "official" science and technology using the appeal to authority. It is clear to me that they are defending their own education, employment, and ego rather than searching for the truth, which takes quite a bit of time and effort, sifting through the lies and obfuscation put forth and enforced by powerful, vested interests.



posted on Mar, 10 2012 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
protecting your paycheck is your agenda. you can try to muddy the waters with your biased "material" but you will never be able to comprehend this subject due to your materialistic conceptual framework. you have no credibility in this area and your studies don't apply


What? What to you have to say in response to my analysis of the sloppy measurements done by a bunch of amateurs? Do you have detailed knowledge of the DA-P1 unit? Have you looked at the specs? Have you worked with sensitive electronics and had to deal with noise, and construct shielding? Note that I posted directly on the topic, and the more ignorant and arrogant members of ATS decided to talk about my paycheck because they have nothing, zelch, nada to say on the subject.



I'll repeat: "you will never be able to comprehend this subject due to your materialistic conceptual framework"



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 06:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
I'll repeat: "you will never be able to comprehend this subject due to your materialistic conceptual framework"


I frankly thought that the subject of this thread has to do with phenomena which are objectively measurable and hence "materialistic". Much emphasis has been made on science, and you know, science is not religion or a mystic teaching. If you want to start a New Age style thread about the harmony of vibratory resonance amplified by the sacred geometry of the ancients, sure. The subject, however, had to do with measurement techniques and what could be established by using scientific method, and it is apparent that you know jack about these things.



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 06:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
protecting your paycheck is your agenda.


Good point.


Mary, what does pointing out a severe flaw in a measurement have to do with my paycheck, your paycheck, President Obama's paycheck or any paycheck at all? The fact that you can't reliably record a 1Hz signal on DA-P1 unit without extensive calibration and testing is just that, a fact. If I point out that you are low on gas and your car is going to stall in a couple of miles, that has to do a lot with practical knowledge and nothing with paychecks.

However, you, having nothing of substance to say, keep obsessing with paychecks. Ridiculous. Do you have experience with digital recording techniques, and noise reduction during sensitive measurements? No? Then maybe you should keep quiet instead of going on your silly paycheck routine.



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 06:27 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Your paycheck came into play because of your claims about yourself on threads. You post with arrogance related to your perceived expertise due to your education and employment. You try to lord it over other members with whom you disagree based on your claims about yourself. I pointed out your inconsistency in your claims.



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 07:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Your paycheck came into play because of your claims about yourself on threads. You post with arrogance related to your perceived expertise due to your education and employment. You try to lord it over other members with whom you disagree based on your claims about yourself. I pointed out your inconsistency in your claims.


Well, I was asked about my background and I had to answer something, so it's not like I start every thread with a list of my publications or anything. Yep, I have the right background to form an educated opinion on things related to physics research. But that's not what you want. I'm sorry what I have to say does not conform with your bizarre parallel reality where a black hole is not actually a black hole, but in fact is something else that you can't explain anyway, and interdimensional portals can be opened by sexual abuse of young boys and tapping the enormous power of their erection (I can't make this up, not stuff like this, but this is what you actually believe, according to your posts about Swerdlow).

And you didn't find any inconsistency related to my background either -- virtually none of the US physicists working for ATLAS are paid directly by DOE, that's not how it works, but we are paid by DOE anyhow and carry IDs with DOE insignia So it's not lack of consistency, it's your lack of understanding of how US science is organized.



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
I'll repeat: "you will never be able to comprehend this subject due to your materialistic conceptual framework"


I frankly thought that the subject of this thread has to do with phenomena which are objectively measurable and hence "materialistic". Much emphasis has been made on science, and you know, science is not religion or a mystic teaching. If you want to start a New Age style thread about the harmony of vibratory resonance amplified by the sacred geometry of the ancients, sure. The subject, however, had to do with measurement techniques and what could be established by using scientific method, and it is apparent that you know jack about these things.


this guy does:



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 05:46 PM
link   
So again it end's like this? I don't care anyone's paycheck. Is there any chance this thread continues on topic?



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 07:51 PM
link   
reply to post by PapagiorgioCZ
 


No, it can't end like this. I want to know more about this but I don't have enough confidence in my limited knowledge on the subject to add much other than questions. Aren't brain waves caused by electric current flowing in the brain?



posted on Mar, 11 2012 @ 10:53 PM
link   
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 


The Persinger video is very interesting. My impression is that Dr.Persinger errs on the side of engaging the audience during his lecture, at the expense of scientific accuracy. It does seem like he likes to create a bit of word soup of his own, and speaks of certain hypothesis as it were fact.

And of course, he's asking, rhetorically, where there is a "homogeneous field to which we are all exposed".

"There are communication system of the Web, and the Internet, and the massive electromagnetic matrix that it creates."

Really? He does a dictionary highjack with the "homogeneous field", because whatever the ambient fields are, they are very far from homogeneous. But it sounds nice, doesn't it? So he decided to throw it in the mix. Same applies to "massive electromagnetic matrix". Why call it a matrix without any need for it? At about 33:45 he presents what looks like an abstractionist painting that doesn't add any substance to what he's saying, but it sure looks nice. At 34:00, he proceeds to say that "communication systems" generate some kind of shadow. I would like to know what sort of "shadow" a fiber optic cable creates. I suspect it creates none, but Dr.Persinger just loves pomp. And if that's not enough, he proceeds to proclaim "secondary homogeneous field". Wow.

"Very much of it is pulsed" -- what a stupid thing to say. All communications do happen by modulation of some signal, so ALL of EM fields used in communications are pulsed. But wait, he then says "they are pulsed in the range of human brain". Now, that's a complete lie. If he's talking about 7Hz, this has nothing to do with what frequencies are used in communications, and these are much higher, VHF and UHF.

I'll stop here, because it only get worse further in the lecture. For all his sleek appearance and smooth talking, Persinger does not seem credible to me.



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 12:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by PapagiorgioCZ
So again it end's like this? I don't care anyone's paycheck. Is there any chance this thread continues on topic?


Sadly the trolls tend to take over any topic that is of a certain variety that is in certain organizations interests to keep repressed.

They don't want people drawing conclusions about electromagnetism and classify patents as top secret national security interests.

This is a rather benign part of the over all picture, but it certainly shows part of it. I get so sick of the trolls I just trust that those who are supposed to see will see and it will spark their interest and get them thinking.

The more i look at this the deeper the rabbit hole goes and its part of a very big picture they don't want exposed.

Thank all of you who are on topic

edit on 12-3-2012 by pianopraze because: typo



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 01:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by pianopraze
I get so sick of the trolls I just trust that those who are supposed to see will see and it will spark their interest and get them thinking.


Threads like this need more people helping out with reading, analyzing, and posting in order to counteract the trolls and keep the thread productive. It's work.
edit on 03/12/12 by Mary Rose because: Grammar



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 04:00 AM
link   

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...


Here are screenshots of part of Dr. Becker’s description of electromagnetism in this 1985 book:





The part about the right angles is describing transverse waves.

This contrasts with Tesla's work:


Originally posted by Mary Rose
From peswiki.com:


Eric Dollard is the only man known to be able to accurately reproduce many of Tesla's experiments with Radiant Energy and wireless transmission of power.



Originally posted by Mary Rose
From pesn .com is Hank Mills' useful summary of the video:


* Eric Dollard states the sun does not transmit any transverse electromagnetic energy.

* When the longitudinal waves hit surfaces it converts the longitudinal waves to transverse waves.

* The space shuttle uses diffraction gratings on the windows to convert the longitudinal waves into transverse waves.

* Tesla claimed over and over again that he was not transmitting electromagnetic waves.

* Electrons have nothing to do with electricity.

* Electrons are the rate at which electricity is destroyed.


Note also that Tesla's technology involves longitudinal waves, not transverse waves.


I think we need to discuss transverse vs. longitudinal waves. Also, we need to incorporate subtle energies into the discussion. I think that electromagnetism and energy in general is an evolving field - no pun intended. Behind the scenes it is probably fully understood, and utilized, but publicly there needs to be debate.



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 06:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Here are screenshots of part of Dr. Becker’s description of electromagnetism in this 1985 book:


In case someone wants to quote, here is the same thing with tags:


Fifteen
Maxwell's Silver
Hammer


In considering questions as remote as the origin of life, science must skate toward new shores across the thin ice of speculation, but it also has a duty to warn us of present dangers as specifically as possible. Since the earth's electromagnetic activity has such a profound effect on life, the obvious question is: What are the consequences of our artificial energies?

Electromagnetism can be discussed in two ways—in terms of fields and in terms of radiation. A field is "something" that exists in space around an object that produces it. We know there's a field around a permanent magnet because it can make an iron particle jump through space to the magnet. Obviously there's an invisible entity that exerts a force on the iron, but as to just what it consists of—don't ask! No one knows. A different but analogous something—an electric field—extends outward from electrically charged objects.

Both electric and magnetic fields are static, unvarying. When the factor of time is introduced, by varying the intensity of the field as in a radio antenna, an electromagnetic field results. As its name implies, this consists of an electric field and a magnetic field. The fluctuations in the field radiate outward from the transmitter as waves of energy, although somehow these waves simultaneously manage to behave as streams of massless, chargeless particles (photons). As to just how this happens,again—don't ask! Sometimes the phenomenon is called an electromagnetic field (EMF), to emphasize its connection with the transmitter;sometimes it's called electromagnetic radiation (EMR), to emphasize its outward-flowing aspect. However, the two terms refer to the same phenomenon and are interchangeable. The only meaningful distinction is between static and time-varying fields.



Each energy wave consists of an electric field and a magnetic field atright angles to each other, and both at right angles to the direction thewave is traveling. The number of waves formed in one second is thefrequency; the distance the energy travels (at the speed of light) duringone oscillation is its wavelength. The higher the frequency, the shorterthe wavelength, and vice versa.




top topics



 
120
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join