It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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: 51
120
share:

posted on May, 15 2012 @ 11:49 PM
reply to post by Mary Rose

The key point is that the order of the Fibonacci Series has to be reversed --

by following the Fibonacci series backward.

I go into this in great detail in my book as the expose -- the "bait and switch" -- of the Rotten Root at the foundation of Western science from Freemasonry. It's also discussed in detail in the Devil's Chord thread.

Here's another Golden Ratio Schrodinger Equation paper pdf

So the real reason this occurs, as discussed in the Devil's Chord thread, is that when the infinite quantum potential is "collapsed" and then stabilized for measurement it is chaotic -- unpredictable -- and the most stable chaotic form is the Golden Ratio because it's the slowest converging irrational number.

Another way to think of the irrational number is that time as a parameter is infinite -- not bound by space -- so the irrational number as iterations is inherently unpredictable and chaotic precisely because it can not be bound by space.

The Golden Ratio can only be solved in a closed solution by reversing the order of infinity. Again I go into this in great detail in the Devil's Chord thread. I'm not going to repeat myself. My book also gives the details.

In actuality there is no "closed" form to the Fibonacci Series -- it's actually a sequence and not a series.

So infinity should not be reversed -- the reason it has to be reversed is to artificially or incorrectly "contain" infinity through geometry -- in quantum physics infinity is non-commutative so reversing the order changes the value of the result. The order has to reversed in order to get a symmetric or commutative equation for classical physics as the Golden Ratio.

Again this is also why Egypt did not have the Golden Ratio -- because Egypt was against converging geometry, as Corinna Rossi points out -- if you actually read the pdf I linked.

So this Noetic Institute propaganda is New Age hokum because it starts out claiming Egypt used the Golden Ratio when that is not true -- it was only the claim of some New Age dude. haha.

The ratios of music as 2/3 are not "contained" by the Golden Ratio -- nonwestern music is non-commutative as the Devil's Chord thread points out in great detail upon examination of the Harmonic Series.

So the lie that is the Golden Ratio is also the same lie created about the square root of two based on music theory -- from Archytas and Eudoxus.

So anything to do with the Golden Ratio is not about the quantum infinite potential which is the foundation of quantum physics -- the Golden Ratio only applies to the results of the commutative measurement -- again it has to be chaotic and the Golden Ratio is the most stable chaotic measurement. As a continued fraction the Golden Ratio is 1 plus 1 divided by 1 infinitely. So that's why it is so common in Western mathematics - it's the foundation of counting. As a continued fraction it is accurate but it is not "contained" -- so the "contained" solution is incorrect.

Real music harmonics does not use the Golden Ratio -- that's only Western music based on logarithmic tuning which goes against the natural resonance of the harmonic series that is non-commutative and truly resonates into the quantum infinite potential. Again the Devil's Chord thread gives all the details as well as my book.

Keep in mind that it is very very common for people to rely on classical physics -- commutative math -- and then project that onto quantum physics. That is the error of using the Golden Ratio. The foundation of physics is quantum physics not classical physics. Yet people learn classical physics first. The first physics class I took was quantum physics by a Harvard trained physicist -- Professor Herbert Bernstein -- and he said that people should learn quantum physics first because it is the foundation of physics, not classical physics.
edit on 15-5-2012 by fulllotusqigong because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 16 2012 @ 12:35 AM

Dude -- Persinger is definitely talking about miliHertz not Megahertz as you erroneously claimed.

In addition you never showed the source of the "mHZ" signal in the paper.

It's right in the abstract which I already quoted and said it was Persinger's description of the paper. Milihertz is then used throughout the paper! Hello?

No, I never made the mistake. Persinger was talking about MHz. The "mHz" is clearly not applicable here, given the window of observation.

You actually misread Persinger's abstract and went off on some wild claim about how could Megahertz refer to amplitude when Persinger never ever said Megahertz was amplitude. I then explained that Megahertz is amplitude modulated by the 7 hertz. You then continue to state I think Megahertz is amplitude after you first erroneously claimed Persinger said Megahertz was amplitude even though he never even said Megahertz!!!

Sorry but no one here is falling for this obvious attempt at distraction and obfuscation.

O.K. Persinger wrote milihertz and Persinger meant milihertz.

For Persinger's study the measurement of nT is the amplitude and the miliHertz is the period of the amplitude.

Consider this similar study:

The largest wave amplitude we observed was about 5 nT which occurred when the AE index was higher than 1500 nT. The period corresponding to the largest wave amplitudes was approx. 35 mins (approx. 0.48 mHz).

pdf

I hope that clarifies things for you. haha. Seriously -- it's truly hilarious that you go way out of your way to obfuscate things and cover things up and then claim to be some kind of scientist with some anonymous lab job and some anonymous teaching job about lab work. haha.

Meanwhile after you make mistake after mistake you then say that New Agers just want to talk about "frequency" and "pulses" -- but what about your buzz comment? haha.

Oh and you couldn't find the source of the magnetic fields in Persinger's paper -- I then provided you with the source, quoting Persinger, and then you state that I have not read Persinger's paper. haha. Too funny.

You obviously did not care to read the paper so you just keep spitting out your content-free pronouncements.

I'm the one having to correct your inability to understand Persinger's paper.

The whole spiel about "buzz" versus "pulses" and "standing" versus "static" -- is based on what you want to call Earth's field as not including the Schumann Resonance. O.K. so "standing" refers to Schumann Resonance. "Static" refers to "Earth's field." But "Earth's field" includes the Schumann Resonance. You then stated that the Earth's field affects Schumanns Resonance and not the other way around. Yes but that's not the point -- the point is that very precise resonance or entrainment happens based on the human brain and the Schumann Resonance and then the static Earth's Field will affect that resonance. O.K. so the resonance is stronger between the human brain and the Schumann Resonance, so that this is the defining factor and is stronger as a system for humans then the static Earth's Field. So the Earth's field is a factor of the entrainment between Schumann Resonance and the human brain.

Again this is just obfuscation on your part - first you go on a tangent about Megahertz as amplitude and how can it be amplitude and as soon as I mention amplitude you say that I think Megahertz is amplitude even though I've explained it's amplitude modulation and that Persinger never even mentioned Megahertz.

Now you go on about the Earth's field as not being pulsed nor a standing wave when I'm talking about Schumann Resonance which is a part of the Earth's field.

So those are nice semantic confusions -- which is not science at all -- you're not trying to explain anything but just trying to confuse people.

Either you say everyone is wrong or you just try to confuse people. haha.

Hey as long as you're having fun -- might as well keep at it.

O.K. now let's consider your big claim about the magnetometer not being up to par -- you're saying it can read modulations of amplitude. You also claim the triaxial fluxgate magnetometer model FM-300 MEDA can not be calibrated to the levels Persinger used. Hmm. So Persinger uses six minute sequences of 20 nT or 70 nT peak intensities or a sham.

MEDA's dc magnetometers use the fluxgate technique to measure very low magnetic fields in the 0.5 nT to 200,000 nT range.

Once again you make a claim with no evidence and you're wrong.

This instrument is not rated for varying fields, I looked at a few specs. It will show some readings, but these will be bullsh!t. Saying "moderately responsive" is not the same as actually calibrating the instrument (doubt these words mean anything to you, but somebody else will get it). So his 20 vs 70 nT comparison is all cr@p.

Sounds nice but is not actual evidence. I provided the actual evidence.
edit on 16-5-2012 by fulllotusqigong because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-5-2012 by fulllotusqigong because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 16 2012 @ 01:33 AM

Here's one of Persinger's references showing EEG of ELF waves correlated to geomagnetic storms

So the carrier wave is the 7 hertz.

The curve of the results is simple the average or center value of the results.

posted on May, 16 2012 @ 01:39 AM

O.K. so the frequency of Persinger's study is 7 hertz -- no modulation. It's not even an issue.

posted on May, 16 2012 @ 06:00 AM

Originally posted by xecoybh

In the present experiment subjects were exposed to either no field (sham conditions) or to either 20 nT or 70 nT, 7 Hz, amplitude modulated (mHz range) magnetic fields for 30 min.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Do you care to explain how a 7Hz (whatever this means) magnetic field can be modulated in MHz range and still count as 7Hz?

Originally posted by fulllotusqigong
Dude the 7 hertz is frequency and the megahertz is amplitude. So the Earth's field is electromagnetic but it is pulsing at 7 hertz frequency. For example: Effects of 7 Hz-modulated 450 MHz electromagnetic radiation on human performance in visual memory tasks

So, this argument got started because BS changed the lower case to an upper case, but Fulllotus did not correct that error, and made the statement that “megahertz is amplitude.”

Correct?

posted on May, 16 2012 @ 09:07 AM

Originally posted by fulllotusqigong

Dude -- Persinger is definitely talking about miliHertz not Megahertz as you erroneously claimed.

It's right in the abstract which I already quoted and said it was Persinger's description of the paper. Milihertz is then used throughout the paper! Hello?

This is what you said:

Dude the 7 hertz is frequency and the megahertz is amplitude

Hello?

I then explained that Megahertz is amplitude modulated by the 7 hertz.

So, was it or was it not, as applies to this paper?

You obviously did not care to read the paper so you just keep spitting out your content-free pronouncements.

I'm the one having to correct your inability to understand Persinger's paper.

You said that in this paper Persinger used the "God Helmet" to create the magnetic filed. Did he or did he not?

posted on May, 16 2012 @ 09:33 AM

Originally posted by fulllotusqigong
Keep in mind that it is very very common for people to rely on classical physics -- commutative math -- and then project that onto quantum physics.

Give an example of commutative math as it applies to physics. Further, give an example of how people "project" that on quantum physics (hint -- they don't).

The foundation of physics is quantum physics not classical physics. Yet people learn classical physics first.

Well maybe that's because most phenomena we experience everyday are adequately described by classical physics. You don't need quantum mechanics to build a bicycle or a garden shovel.

posted on May, 16 2012 @ 10:32 AM

Originally posted by fulllotusqigong

O.K. so the frequency of Persinger's study is 7 hertz -- no modulation. It's not even an issue.

Wrong. What does Fig.1 tell you?

posted on May, 16 2012 @ 04:04 PM

Fig. 1. The pattern of amplitude changes over the 6 min simulation of a sudden storm commencement. The pattern was identical for the two conditions except the absolute maximum intensity averaged either 20 nT or 70 nT in the volume occupied by the participants.

Dude -- the amplitude is nT with a period of milihertz as I've already pointed out. Just give it up already. haha.

You're wrong about Persinger's paper in so many ways it's tragic because you've claimed to have taught this subject or something.

1) You were wrong about the Megahertz and

2) you were wrong about what created the magnetic fields and

3) you were wrong about the carrier frequency.

4) You were wrong about the carrier frequency being frequency modulated.

5) You were wrong about the calibration of the magnetometer.

So now I've explained to you what the milihertz refers to -- it's the period of the nT amplitude. Apparently you're hoping to continue to confuse people -- hoping they won't realize that you've completely misrepresented Persinger's research.

Such latencies for electroencephalographic responses to weak magnetic fields within the nT to 1 T range have been shown in several other studies with different application geometries [16,17,20].

O.K. so again Persinger is measuring the amplitude changers of nT that's why the vertical measurement of fig. 1 says Amplitude (nT).

edit on 16-5-2012 by fulllotusqigong because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-5-2012 by fulllotusqigong because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 16 2012 @ 04:09 PM

Just read Peter Rowland's book on the foundation of physics. You'll learn lots about the commutative property and noncommutative property in physics.

I'm not going to babyfeed you with answers as you clearly think you already know the answers to the questions you're asking -- even though you're wrong. haha.

If you make a claim -- provide evidence. Again your tactic of "willful ignorance" is lame at best and at worst is an attempt to confuse people with misinformation.

I'm no longer responding to any of your fake questions or your claims without evidence as you've been consistently wrong about macroquantum reality, about Fourier analysis, and I can't remember everything else in this thread.

I look forward to a pleasant future of ignoring you and all I can recommend is that others do the same.

Oh yeah and don't stoop to misquoting me as that is a big mistake.

You said that in this paper Persinger used the "God Helmet" to create the magnetic filed. Did he or did he not?

Once again I will repeat myself -- again and again.

On what Persinger used to produce his magnetic field -- usually he has some sort of God Helmet that he's infamous for.

Now apparently your reading comprehension is sorely lacking. Am I saying Persinger used the God Helmet in this study? Nope. So don't misquote me.

Glancing at Persinger's paper -- indeed the source of the magnetic field is easily located:

O.K. so I already provided you the answer -- despite your first claim that it was not in Persinger's paper and then your continued claims that I said it was the God Helmet. Persinger tells us the answer and here it is -- again.

Subjects were seated in a comfortable chair within an acoustically-shielded chamber (Faraday cage) described elsewhere [19]. The chair was located equidistant between 2 coils separated by 1 m. The coils were made from 70 turns each of 30 AWG wire wrapped around two racks of 1.2 m2, and have been used in previous studies [12]. Each coil had a resistance of about 115 . The coils were interfaced with a DOS-based PC (personal computer) through a custom-constructed digital-to-analog (DAC) converter. The PC-DAC apparatus was located outside the chamber.

O.K. go away already with your misquoting and misinformation tactics. It's pathetic.
edit on 16-5-2012 by fulllotusqigong because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 16 2012 @ 04:45 PM

Originally posted by fulllotusqigong

Fig. 1. The pattern of amplitude changes over the 6 min simulation of a sudden storm commencement. The pattern was identical for the two conditions except the absolute maximum intensity averaged either 20 nT or 70 nT in the volume occupied by the participants.

Dude -- the amplitude is nT with a period of milihertz as I've already pointed out. Just give it up already. haha.

"haha" indeed! This is what you wrote:

O.K. so the frequency of Persinger's study is 7 hertz -- no modulation. It's not even an issue.

So, what was it? 7Hz or millihertz? Can you make up your mind? You keep contradicting yourself from one post to another and insert "haha" as an attempt to make it smooth, sorry, it's not working.

ou're wrong about Persinger's paper in so many ways it's tragic because you've claimed to have taught this subject or something.

1) You were wrong about the Megahertz

Yes, I freely admit that I misunderstood Persinger about mHz, as did you. Just goes to show how brilliant the paper is and how clearly it's all laid out.

2) you were wrong about what created the magnetic fields

Oh but that's false. You claimed it was "God Helmet" and you were indeed wrong.

3) you were wrong about the carrier frequency.

Where? I was asking you about the source of carrier frequency a few times but you never came up with the answer, with exception of an astonishing "megahertz is amplitude". Totally, dude.

So now I've explained to you what the milihertz refers to -- it's the period of the nT amplitude.

And you got it wrong again! Wow, just wow. See the above question about 7Hz.

edit on 16-5-2012 by buddhasystem because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 16 2012 @ 09:20 PM

Originally posted by fulllotusqigong

I'm no longer responding to any of your fake questions or your claims without evidence as you've been consistently wrong about macroquantum reality, about Fourier analysis, and I can't remember everything else in this thread.

I look forward to a pleasant future of ignoring you and all I can recommend is that others do the same.

I know it is so hard, as he just sits there attacking and antagonizing anyone who posts on topic, but this is the best course.

I do appreciate your explanation of this, it adds a lot to the thread. I'm learning and I know a lot of other people are as well in here.

~piano

posted on May, 16 2012 @ 11:08 PM

Pianopraze, the Persinger paper referenced Neil Cherry from Lincoln University New Zealand Natural Hazards article on Schumann you posted many pages back.

But I found one published in 1983 discussing Schumann in evolutionary terms too. This helps to track how far back this started in academia.

Note the journal today is 'Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine', but was published under a previous running title, 'Journal of Bioelectricity'.

informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/15368378309009845
Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine

The Genesis of the EEG and its Relation to Electromagnetic Radiation
1983, Vol. 2, No. 2-3 , Pages 111-121

Lorne K. Direnfeld
Department of Neurology, Boston University School of Medicine, 80 E Concord Street, Boston, MA, 02118

The dominant frequencies in the human electroencephlogram (EEG) are 8–13 Hz (Alpha), 4–7 Hz (Theta), less than 4 Hz (Delta), and greater than 13 Hz (Beta). The conventional explanation of the mechanism for these dominant rhythms involves the effect of electrical activity i n the thalamus on the cortical synaptic potentials that are recorded in an EEG (1,2). Although electrical activity in the thalamus is of prime importance in determining what is recorded Ly the EEG, it is not known why the dominant rhythms recorded are of those specific frequencies. These dominant frequencies may be related through evolution to some aspect of the environment. This paper is devoted to a consideration of the possible relation between the brain's electrical activity and external electromagnetic fields.

I plan to upload fulltext, but to advance refs 1 and 2 cited in abstract :

(1) Elul, Rufael: The Genesis of the EEG, Int. Rev. Neurobiology 15, 227-
272, 1972

(2) Adey, W.R.: Organization of Brain Tissue: Is the Brain a Noisy Processor?,
International J. Neuroscience 3, 271-281, 1972.

posted on May, 17 2012 @ 11:53 AM

Just to clear up the final lies by the B.S.er -- he's claiming that Persinger is using either 7 hertz or millihertz and it can't be both. The period of 7 hertz is 143 millihertz. Or the period is the inverse of the frequency so 1/7 cycles per second is

(1/7) second = 0.142857143 seconds

we don't have a statement that seconds and Hertz are the same! contrary to the below misquoting by the B.S.er. I repeat -- the period is the inverse of the frequency or the period of 7 Hertz is 1/7. For example:

The frequency is the reciprocal of the period. 1 / 10 Hz. = 0.1 seconds.

Dude stop trying to confuse people by misquoting me!! Your rampant misquoting is ridiculous.

O.K. to quote Persinger again:

chronic epileptic rats [18] could be produced by whole body application of 7 Hz amplitude modulated magnetic fields in successive steps from 1 nT to approximately 50 nT every 3 min (∼5.6 mHz) for 2 h.

Persinger is citing his earlier study also using 7 Hz amplitude modulated. What is modulated is nanoTeslas which have a fine resolution read by the DC magnetometer. The DC electrical field is static. The magnetic amplitude is modulated through changes in the voltage. Consider this biofeedback study on EEG:

Participants were trained to inhibit 4 to 7 hertz and then simultaneously produce 15 to 18 hertz. EEG neurofeedback indi-viduals progressively learned to decrease the voltage of the 4 to 7 hertz, while voltage of the 15 to 18 hertz was not lowered.

Persinger:

The PC was equipped with custom software (Complex2) used to generate the simulated geomagnetic storm by converting a column of numbers (each value between 0 and 256) into voltages (±5 V) that were then applied through the coils as electric current. The point duration (duration of each successive voltage presentation) for each of the 5072 points was 69 ms. A single cycle lasted about 5 min and 50 s. The magnetic field pattern ran for 5 cycles.

Here's a geomagnetic study for clarification:

The wave frequency band that Goertz and Smith [ 1989] mention as relevant to the substorm related heating is 1 to 5 mHz corresponding to ~3- to 16- min period. The wave amplitudes required are ~1 to 3 nT.

O.K. for Persinger for the rat study 3 minutes is the period with 5.6 millihertz as the frequency of the 50 nanoTesla amplitude modulation. The millihertz refers to the inverse of the period of the nanoTesla wave amplitude modulation applied to the 7 hertz. The same static frequency of 7 hertz could be used with an amplitude difference 1000 times stronger -- as Persinger discusses in the paper.

One research group conducted two studies [3,4] using the same 1.5 Hz and 10 Hz magnetic fields but applied the fields at two different intensities (100 T vs. 10 T) about a thousand times more intense than the ones employed in the present study.

geomagnetic pdf on comparison study

Persinger pdf

Persinger refers to the geomagnetic research and the rat research for this current Persinger study -- so he is basing his model on previous successful research:

The amplitude modulation pattern, which contained components and subcomponents within the mHZ range, is typical of geomagnetic power densities. The effectiveness of this particular pattern for producing electrical lability in rodents with histories of chemically-induced epilepsy has been shown.

So this clearly shows that the amplitude modulation is nanoTesla in the millihertz range.

The below B.S.er misquotes me saying:

"Modulation" cannot be "nanoTesla".

Nope that's not what I said: amplitude modulation is nanoTesla in the millihertz range.

For the currently discussed Persinger study the period as the steady-state displacement rate of change is 6 minutes and the frequency of the nanoTesla amplitude modulation is in the millihertz range. The DC static carrier frequency is 7 hertz -- not frequency modulated but a static field that is amplitude modulated.

Or to repeat what the B.S. quoted:

essentially a DC/static magnetic field detector and like all such devices it has a limited frequency range with some low level of sensitivity at very low field frequencies.

But wait the B.S.er below misquotes himself! haha.

DC means direct current and static values do not have any frequency, be it 7Hz or 1000Hz, this is nonsense.

The magnetometer reads a frequency of a D.C. field as quoted externally a DC/static magnetic field detector.

So you have a period of 6 minutes and a "steady-state displacement" of amplitude modulation in the millihertz range that is modulated on the static 7 hertz carrier frequency magnetic field. So the D.C. field is the vector of the A.C. field as in:

Ion Cyclotron Bioresonance in Regenerative Medicine piers.org/piersproceedings/download.php?file... Cells were exposed to a 7 Hz electromagnetic field (Bo field 9.2 μT) a commercially ... and Bo is the vector of the geomagnetic field (DC field) parallel to the

In addition, geomagnetic storm intensity is frequently described in terms of positive nanoTeslas per minute (nTs/min).

1 GHz NMR magnetic field is 23.5 Tesla.

Nano tesla sensor can detect weak magnetic field variation with a noise level of 1 nano tesla (1/10,000 of earth magnetism). This sensor consists of the one way detecting magnetic head (MI element) and the electric circuit operating that MI element. By restricting the cut-off frequency on the low frequency side to 0.1Hz, this model (sensor) cancels static magnetic field such as geomagnetism and respond to only moving ferrous object with high sensitivity.

The sensor used by Persinger:

MEDA's dc magnetometers use the fluxgate technique to measure very low magnetic fields in the 0.5 nT to 200,000 nT range.

So here is an abstract of geomagnetic ELF waves with peaks for the Schumann Resonance and storms/earthquakes - otherwise a static background level

This is what Persinger was replicating with the 7 hertz static magnetic field and then the onset of a storm amplitude modulation of nanoTesla.

The general conclusions are that more systematic research is needed, many more monitoring stations are needed, and full tri-axial electric and magnetic monitoring are required.

So the same tri-axial magnetometers are used to monitor the same type of geomagnetic and brain changes.

Brand new study on S.R. and ELF EEG waves pdf
edit on 17-5-2012 by fulllotusqigong because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-5-2012 by fulllotusqigong because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 17 2012 @ 01:07 PM

Originally posted by fulllotusqigong

Just to clear up the final lies by the B.S.er -- he's claiming that Persinger is using either 7 hertz or millihertz and it can't be both. The period of 7 hertz is 143 millihertz. Or the period is the inverse of the frequency so 1/7 cycles per second is

(1/7) second = 0.142857143 seconds

Oh, this is getting even more interesting! Just when I was contemplating how silly it is to say "megahertz is amplitude" (it's like "gasoline is exchange rate"), now we have a statement that seconds and Hertz are the same! Fantastic! 143ms=143mHz. Time out, guys, because that's already sad, not even ridiculous.

The amplitude modulation pattern, which contained components and subcomponents within the mHZ range, is typical of geomagnetic power densities. The effectiveness of this particular pattern for producing electrical lability in rodents with histories of chemically-induced epilepsy has been shown.

So this clearly shows that the amplitude modulation is nanoTesla in the millihertz range.

"Modulation" cannot be "nanoTesla". "Haircut" cannot be "electrical circuit". Enough of this mess already.

The DC static carrier frequency is 7 hertz -- not frequency modulated but a static field that is amplitude modulated.

DC means direct current and static values do not have any frequency, be it 7Hz or 1000Hz, this is nonsense.

edit on 17-5-2012 by buddhasystem because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 17 2012 @ 02:11 PM

The previous study was also misrepresented by the B.S.er.

A calibrated magnetometer was used to set a 60 Hz 50 microT field in the coil and an ammeter was used to measure the current required to develop the 50 microT field. At frequencies other than 60 Hz, the field strength was maintained at 50 microT by adjusting the Telulex signal output to keep the current constant. The field generated was monitored using a 10 turn coil connected to an oscilloscope. The oscilloscope reading indicated that the field strength was the same at all frequencies tested. To determine if there was a correspondence between the signals detected by a fluxgate magnetometer (FGM1) and the Toftness Sensometer both devices were placed in the Merritt coil and readings were recorded from the FGM1 and compared with the ability of a highly experienced Toftness operator to detect the 50 microT field.

So the fluxgate magnetometer is being compared for changes in frequency not changes in Tesla amplitude intensities

Clearly the B.S.er was confused when he had a hissy-fit about the magnetometer not reading changes in frequency while the B.S.er disregarded that the Tesla intensity was intentionally not changed.

O.K.

so end of discussion here -- there's tons of studies online doing the same thing -- changing or not changing the amplitude intensity of the nanotesla while the frequency of the field stays the same.

The optimal ameliorating effects upon experimental allergic encephalomyelitis for both the derived intensities (about 35 and 70 nT) and the frequency (7 Hz) were congruent with the empirical observations from previously published and unpublished experiments with rats involving about 1-5000 nT strengths of either 0.5, 7, 40, or 60 Hz magnetic fields. The hypothesis predicts that weaker magnetic fields within the nanoTesla to picoTesla range would optimally affect concentrations of melatonin (in this situation) within the micromolar range and that neurological states (epilepsy) or conditions (ethanol, antidepressants, sleep deprivation) that affect nocturnal melatonin levels in human beings would determine the optimal effective intensity within the 7 Hz range.

Another Persinger study

Three of the patterns (25 Hz, 50 Hz, or burst-firing) with intensities between 1 and 10 microT were presented for 1 s during the refutation process (immediately after the offset of “true” or “false”) for specific statements from a total of 28 statements. The fourth pattern was a variable approximately 7–10 Hz (10 nT) field generated from the circuitry that was present continuously during the entire experiment. When the statements were presented again, the groups who had received the burst-firing (“limbic”) or 25 Hz pulsed magnetic fields during the refutation process accepted about twice the number of false statements as true compared to those exposed to the 50 Hz field or sham-field conditions. Read More: informahealthcare.com...

A third Persinger study using the same nanotesla amplitude modulation

Female Lewis rats (n = 88) were inoculated with an emulsion of spinal cord and complete Freund's adjuvant. They were then exposed in 11 separate blocks of experiments over a year period for approximately 6 min every hour between midnight and 08:00 h during post-inoculation nights 1–7, 8–16, 1–16, or 9 and 10 to 50-nT, 7-Hz, amplitude-modulated magnetic fields or to sham field (control) conditions. Compared to the control rats those exposed to the magnetic fields for nights 1–7 and nights 9–10 displayed more severe clinical symptoms while those exposed for nights 1–16 or 8–16 showed less severe symptoms. There was a strong correlation between the severity of the clinical symptoms in the control groups and the global geomagnetic activity 9 and 10 days after inoculation. These results suggest that the immunosuppressive effects of weak nocturnal magnetic fields may depend upon when they are applied during various stages in the development of a disease.

A fourth Persinger study using nanotesla amplitude modulation milihertz range

They were then exposed for approximately 6 min every hour between midnight and 08:00 h for 2 weeks to either 7 or 40 Hz amplitude-modulated magnetic fields whose temporal pattern was designed to simulate a (geomagnetic) storm sudden commencement. The peak strengths of the fields averaged between either 30–50 nT (low intensity) or 500 nT (high intensity). Rats exposed to the 7 Hz, low intensity magnetic fields displayed significantly less severe overt signs of experimental allergic encephalomyelitis than rats exposed to either of the two intensities of the 40 Hz fields, the high intensity 7 Hz field, or the reference (

posted on May, 17 2012 @ 02:27 PM
Thanks, guys! I'm enjoying this immensely. You've given me lots of material to follow up on to try to figure out what in the hell you're talking about!!

I hope something good comes of all of this. Guess it's asking too much to have a meeting of the minds. But that would be the best outcome.

posted on May, 17 2012 @ 02:43 PM

Originally posted by fulllotusqigong
Clearly the B.S.er was confused when he had a hissy-fit about the magnetometer not reading changes in frequency while the B.S.er disregarded that the Tesla intensity was intentionally not changed.

Clearly, what I said went right over your head. I did not say anything about changes in frequency, you are making this up. Shame.

What I did was to quote SAME LINK AS YOU DO, expect I'm actually capable of understanding its meaning:

RESULTS:
The triaxial fluxgate magnetometer was determined to be moderately responsive to changes in magnetic field frequency below 10 Hz. At frequencies above 10 Hz the readings corresponded to that of the ambient static geofield. The practitioner operating the Toftness Sensometer was unable to detect magnetic fields at high frequencies (above 10 Hz) even at very high EMFs. The fluxgate magnetometer was shown to be essentially a DC/static magnetic field detector and like all such devices it has a limited frequency range with some low level of sensitivity at very low field frequencies. The interexaminer reliability of four Toftness practitioners using the Sensometer on 5 patients showed low to moderate correlation.

CONCLUSIONS:
The fluxgate magnetometer although highly sensitive to static (DC) EMFs has only limited sensitivity to EMFs in the range of 1 to 10 Hz and is very insensitive to frequencies above 10 Hz. In laboratory comparisons of the Sensometer and the fluxgate magnetometer there was an occasional correspondence between the two instruments in detecting magnetic fields within the Merritt coil but these occasions were not reproducible.

...and the meaning is (which I think should be clear to a fourth-grader since it's written there in plain English) that there is limited sensitivity in the range of interest. Of course, you never got that part.

posted on May, 17 2012 @ 02:46 PM
reply to post by Mary Rose

O.K. so 1 millihertz has the period of 16 minutes while 5 millihertz has the period of 3 minutes. Just do the inversion of seconds to minutes. So 3 minutes is 180 seconds which is 1 / 180 = 0.00555555556 or 5 millihertz.

Pdf lecture on math and physics

we have measured that the magnetic field gets stronger by 3.1 nanotesla for each ◦C the temperature falls, and gets stronger by 2.3 nanotesla for each extra miliHertz of frequency.

O.K. so there we have 2.3 nanotesla for each milihertz.

So again the milihertz is the frequency of the nanotesla as amplitude intensity while the minutes -- 6 minutes for Persinger as a geomagnetic storm period is the period of the nanotesla.

edit on 17-5-2012 by fulllotusqigong because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 17 2012 @ 07:46 PM

Originally posted by fulllotusqigong
O.K. so there we have 2.3 nanotesla for each milihertz.

Do you realize that this sentence from the write-up you quoted is arbitrary and doesn't have anything to do with Persinger, it was a random example to illustrate how derivatives work in math?

So again the milihertz is the frequency of the nanotesla

So again units of measurement do not have frequency, and besides the random example you found with Google is 100% irrelevant.

top topics

120