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: 57
120
<< 54  55  56    58  59  60 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 09:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


Mary -- PZ Myers is the "top" science blogger who has been criticized by Discover science magazine for being too dogmatic -- you can read it here

PZ Myers has also dismissed qigong healing and also any type of quantum biology -- even though quantum biology is now an accepted discipline.

I was banned from PZ Myers blog back in 2006 because I was promoting quantum biology but it wasn't an accepted discipline back then -- also I was promoted qigong and making fun of scientists in general.

PZ Myers called me a crank and I said -- yep I'm a crank which means a free online shrink for the close-minded scientists. haha.

PZ Myers gets sex wrong

Here's a nice expose on how quick PZ Myers is to dismiss things.

Third-grader ‘heals’ friends with magic, Fox News reports it as news Posted by PZ Myers on March 2, 2011

That's PZ Myers dismissing Spring Forest Qigong without knowing anything about it!

Now consider that PZ Myers lives in Minnesota -- the same location as Spring Forest Qigong's healing center -- PZ Myers could easily go take a class to see if Chunyi Lin is for real or not. PZ Myers then dismisses the Mayo Clinc, a world top medical research center, -- the Mayo Clinic study is a "gold standard" randomized controlled study proving external qi is real. That study also included the University of Minnesota -- but that's not good enough for PZ Myers.


When exploring complementary or integrative medicine approaches, open-minded skepticism is a good approach.
So the Mayo Clinic mentions qigong in their newsletter


Researchers from the University of Minnesota and the Mayo Clinic have found that an ancient Chinese practice can help patients’ chronic pain, specifically Qigong. two new research studies, one by researchers from the University of Minnesota and the Mayo Clinic, have found that an ancient Chinese practice can help patients’ chronic pain. The practice is called Qigong. The specific style studied is Spring Forest Qigong. “Subjects with chronic pain who received External Qigong experienced reduction in pain intensity following each Qigong treatment. This is especially impressive given the long duration of pain (>5 years), in the majority of subjects,” writes the study’s lead author, Ann Vincent, MD, MBBS, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN. Seventy million Americans suffer with chronic pain everyday and as the doctors noted in their study, “Adequate clinical management of chronic pain is an on going challenge and a purely pharmaceutical approach has proven inadequate.” Qigong is an ancient Chinese practice that promises to affect the body’s subtle energy system. Qi (pronounced – chee) also called ‘chi’ means energy. Gong means work. There are two types of Qigong, internal or personal practice and external. In external Qigong a practitioner uses his/her ability and knowledge to improve the flow of Qi for the person seeking help. All of the external Qigong treatments in the study were conducted at the Spring Forest Qigong Center in Eden Prairie, MN. The treatments were provided primarily by Chunyi Lin, who is the creator of Spring Forest Qigong. His associate, Jim Nance, provided the remaining external qigong treatments. Nance is Lin’s student and both men are certified qigong masters.


So this is amazing as it completely disproves PZ Myers' whole worldview about materialistic science

haha. The dude is a fanatic -- closed-minded and he lives in a small rural town so I think he has an ax to grind, afraid that the town bible belt types will come after him.

Hmm.. that old blog post from March on the qigong being fake -- doesn't seem to load up fully any more and you can't read the comments. So I guess his old blog isn't readily accessible after the new format was created.

Anyway I debated this with a couple of undergraduates who have grabbed on to the "atheist" science schtick -- The comments have the link to part 2 of that debate.

So basically PZ Myers is afraid of the truth. I'm not saying that the DNA fragment teleportation study is necessarily good science and I think it's great that PZ Myers exposes the journal director is the author of the study -- but until the study has been replicated then we really don't know.

Actually the author apparently does mention the earlier Russian studies that had showed the same thing.




posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 10:03 AM
link   
Luc Montagnier Is Not Losing It. Luc Montagnier Has Lost It.

I don't see any alternative. My question from last year is answered, as I'd feared. Word comes of an autism conference featuring the likes of Jenny McCarthy and Andrew Wakefield, which should be all any well-informed person needs to hear.

And Luc Monagnier is there, too. Not content with teleporting DNA molecules and defending homeopathy, he now says that he can cure autistic children with antibiotics, and is decrying the reception that these claims are getting. In fact, all of Montagnier's odd beliefs tend to run together, so in one way, his rubbing shoulders with the likes of the other speakers at this autism meeting is completely fitting. After all, they believe all kinds of weird stuff, too, so why not?

But on another level, it's just sad. Even if one might want to give Montagnier the benefit of the doubt, based on his past work, there's no way that anyone can be taken seriously after sharing a speaker's platform with the likes of Jenny McCarthy et al. The fact that he doesn't seem to realize this, or care, is just another piece of evidence: Luc Montagnier has lost it.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by fulllotusqigong
Mary -- PZ Myers is the "top" science blogger who has been criticized by Discover science magazine for being too dogmatic . . .


I hear you. The first thing I noticed is that the Wikipedia article stated:


In 2006, the journal Nature listed his blog, Pharyngula, as the top-ranked blog written by a scientist.


I am of the opinion that the journal Nature is not to be trusted with any topic that is controversial; ditto for Wikipedia. Think censorship and protecting the status quo.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 10:06 AM
link   
Luc and Autism


Jenny McCarthy has been a leader of the anti-vaccine movement for over a decade. She’s a former Playboy playmate and MTV host, with no medical qualifications whatsoever, who is convinced that vaccines caused her son’s autism. She’s been spreading her anti-vaccine message very effectively, with particular help from Oprah Winfrey and Larry King, who gave her prime television exposure countless times. Oprah even offered McCarthy her own show, until McCarthy ditched Oprah for NBC.
Andrew Wakefield, the thoroughly discredited doctor who falsified data in order to push his false hypothesis that autism is caused by the MMR vaccine – whose medical license was revoked in the UK, and whose famous 1998 paper on autism and vaccines was retracted after it was shown to be fraudulent – claims that his talk ”offers solutions [that] will be ignored by those in power and the more dire of its predictions will result.” Too bad I missed that one.
It’s no surprise that Jenny McCarthy and Andrew Wakefield, leaders of the anti-vaccine movement, are speaking at AutismOne. Much more surprising is the presence of Nobel laureate Luc Montagnier, co-discoverer of the link between the HIV virus and AIDS. What is he doing at this festival of pseudoscience?
Well, apparently Montagnier has gone off the deep end into pseudoscience himself. He claims that his new group, Chronimed, has discovered in autistic children
“DNA sequences that emit, in certain conditions, electromagnetic waves. The analysis by molecular biology techniques allows us to identify these electromagnetic waves as coming from … bacterial species.”
What the heck? In what seems to be a desperate effort to stay relevant, Montagnier is promoting wild theories with little scientific basis, and now he is taking advantage of vulnerable parents (see his appeal here) to push a therapy of long-term antibiotic treatment for autistic children.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by fulllotusqigong
I was banned from PZ Myers blog back in 2006 because I was promoting quantum biology


You don't know either quantum mechanics or biology, and I can only imagine what you were trying to "promote".


PZ Myers called me a crank


I see.



PZ Myers gets sex wrong

Here's a nice expose on how quick PZ Myers is to dismiss things.


If it's an "expose", what it exposes is this -- when PZ sees idiocy, he's not afraid to call it "idiocy". Props.


I'm not saying that the DNA fragment teleportation study is necessarily good science and I think it's great that PZ Myers exposes the journal director is the author of the study -- but until the study has been replicated then we really don't know.


Aah, typical! The onus of proving the claim is shifted on the person who doesn't think it's proven. Again, come and check out the dinosaur who frequents the woods in my neighborhood. I claim it's there.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 10:18 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Typical of you. That was quick. It's unbelievable what you will post. Anything to retort. And I mean anything, regardless of relevance, objectivity, or importance.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
. . . I can only imagine what you were trying to "promote".


I would say healing is what Fulllotus is trying to promote - both personal and collective, worldwide.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Typical of you. That was quick. It's unbelievable what you will post. Anything to retort. And I mean anything, regardless of relevance, objectivity, or importance.


a) what I posted is directly related to the offered link, hence it's relevant
b) you don't seem to be eager to crack open a physics textbook, claiming that it's corrupted by "mainstream science". When someone claims they "created a black hole on the workbench in the lab", you seem to be inclined to believe them without any semblance of critical thought. So really, when you extoll the virtues of "objectivity", I have plenty of reasons to write it off as hypocrisy.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
a) what I posted is directly related to the offered link, hence it's relevant


What you posted was a hit piece. Thus, my comment, which I stand by.

Regarding physics textbooks, I'm doing quite well educating myself regarding the issues of the day and picking sources who are interested in pursuing the truth, wherever it takes them.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Regarding physics textbooks, I'm doing quite well educating myself


I've been around here on ATS for many years, hence I feel safe making a conclusion to the opposite effect. And oh yeah, when offered a simple opportunity to educate yourself by making a measurement that once and for all settles the Rodin issue, by using a $6 multimeter, you declined. Just saying.



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by pianopraze
reply to post by sinohptik
 


hehe you just restated my whole OP in your own words.... looks like we have some similar conclusions


We most certainly do
I left some stuff out, as the time is not right for it yet.


I dont' think psychic is fru fru, I think it is EM fields and we are just now beginning to learn (or relearning forgotten knowledge) about how the body and our consciousness interact with the universe.

I think we are babies pretending to be all grown up while we know hardly a beginning. All the more so those "scientists" who are so sure of themselves. They seem fools on parade to me. I appreciate the rare scientists that look to see what is there, rather than impose what he knows to be true....


Honestly, I think much of what is claimed to be "psychic" is attributable to either a mental disorder, or keen awareness of a situation (strictly physical, or brain-reliant). This doesnt mean I feel all "psychic" phenomena are relegated to this position, but much like other areas, it dilutes the water so to speak. We frequently see it used to profit from others, instead of teaching others it is an innate ability in us all. To me, its an either/or scenario. Either we are all capable of these things, or it is all attributable to the brain alone. Either way, it paints the profiteers in a bad light. This is a big red flag to me, and I include people like John Edwards in this category.

The issue is that this type of act marginalizes the actual exploration of these phenomena. Of course, it is understandable since such things would certainly cut into profits. In this way, one can control those based entirely in duality as the "opposition" to these topics is more interested in discrediting than scientific exploration. We see this predictable behavior in this very thread! Much like religion, if an idea is proposed in a specific way, the "yea/nay" response can be completely controlled and will obfuscate the idea being presented with vague labels that either side can, and will, take to support their bias. The "yea" side will generally listen to the positive aspects as truth, and the nay side will simply deny them outright. Neither side will actually explore it for themselves. Both sides are, as we understand it, "wasting their time."

I like your posts, please keep it up



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 02:29 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


You are free to admit you do not understand my point(s). I wont think less of you, much the opposite actually.


Of course, to clarify (again), I am not "basically saying" anything about Maxwell's equations. Much the opposite actually. Maxwell's equations are nothing more than a human context for an already existing pattern. They are not complete, innately. It was a pattern/mechanic that existed long before Maxwell, or any scientist, and will exist long after humanity is gone. We simply have noticed a usable consistency in the universe around us, and have adapted our technology to utilize it. In our math (using the term generally), the numbers themselves are completely irrelevant, but what they represent is another story. The numbers are innately limited to the human experience and understanding, but the underlying current could be seen as Truth itself. Labels tend to hide what they name.

To put it into another context, Maxwell has nothing to do with anything, other than observing. Nothing is bound to anything he has ever done, recorded, or communicated nor will that ever be the case. Again, the laws of nature are not bound by our understanding of them. It is the other way around.

This is not trivial, it is why science exists. Please try harder



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by sinohptik
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


You are free to admit you do not understand my point(s).


Well maybe because you are simply vague. Or making trivial statements. Or both.


Maxwell's equations are nothing more than a human context for an already existing pattern. They are not complete, innately.


Yes. What else is new?


We simply have noticed a usable consistency in the universe around us, and have adapted our technology to utilize it.


Utility is a very small part of knowledge. We can be moderately successful in creating models of the objects we observe in the Universe, and then test the models. There is little utility in that.


To put it into another context, Maxwell has nothing to do with anything, other than observing.


There is more than just observation. One has to realize the symmetries and fairly non-trivial connections between parts of what's observed.



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Well maybe because you are simply vague. Or making trivial statements. Or both.


So, you are admitting the points are elusive to you? I agree I am being vague, though it is in response to you specifically. My responses to others tend to go as in-depth as the questions permit. As far as "trivial," well, what the numbers represent is much more relevant than the numbers themselves.
Im really just having fun. I have nothing to prove. And, given that I agree with much of what you say, and just regurgitate it in different words, I hope the irony of my "triviality" is not lost on you



Yes. What else is new?


Then, you agree that science is ever-evolving due to our innate limitations? This is a no-brainer.. (get it?
)


Utility is a very small part of knowledge. We can be moderately successful in creating models of the objects we observe in the Universe, and then test the models. There is little utility in that.


How do you define "utilization?" Would you mind expanding on this? Could this type of modelling be utilized in furthering technology, in any way whatsoever? Can we know the answer to that question before proper experimentation? In the presented context, "utilize" and "utility" refer to two different things. The former being an active application of knowledge, and the latter no more than passive subjective opinion.


There is more than just observation. One has to realize the symmetries and fairly non-trivial connections between parts of what's observed.


I do not view observation in such a minimalist light. I put all of what you said into "observation." I guess we could call it "productive observation" rather than simply "watching." But that delves into semantics, and that is getting old. In short, I agree.

What connections do you feel are between EM and the brain? Is it really that far-fetched of an idea that all physical matter, and interactions thereof, can be attributed to some form of wave function, at least within the human context? If yes, then I would humbly ask you to present cases where no cycle/wave can be applied. Keep in mind, this would also mean whatever you might come up with must have no beginning and no end. If no, then I would ask you if it is out of the realm of possibility that the interaction of these wave functions could be homogenized. Meaning, that at certain frequencies/amplitude, specifically at the edge of physical human perception, we can achieve strikingly similar results. Sound and EM both seemingly produce everything from "creepy" feelings to outright sensory hallucinations, even in the form of matrixing/pareidolia. Why do you feel it is more logical to deduce, without experimentation, that such phenomena are unrelated? And why do you feel that related or not, that such things have little to do with waveforms?



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 08:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by sinohptik

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Well maybe because you are simply vague. Or making trivial statements. Or both.


So, you are admitting the points are elusive to you? I agree I am being vague, though it is in response to you specifically.


So you are being vague on purpose. Well then it's not surprising that I don't get your points. And I find this sort of discussion entirely pointless.


Im really just having fun. I have nothing to prove.


...or to say. Have fun!


What connections do you feel are between EM and the brain? Is it really that far-fetched of an idea that all physical matter, and interactions thereof, can be attributed to some form of wave function, at least within the human context?


Again this it too vague to be meaningful, and you obviously can't shake that habit.



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 06:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by sinohptik
Sound and EM both seemingly produce everything from "creepy" feelings to outright sensory hallucinations, even in the form of matrixing/pareidolia.


Thanks for your input! I like it when members teach me new words. From The Free Dictionary, quoting Wikipedia:


Pareidolia is a psychological phenomenon involving a vague and random stimulus (often an image or sound) being perceived as significant. Common examples include seeing images of animals or faces in clouds, the man in the moon or the Moon rabbit, and hearing hidden messages on records played in reverse. The word comes from the Greek para- – "beside", "with", or "alongside"—meaning, in this context, something faulty or wrong (as in paraphasia, disordered speech) and eidōlon – "image"; the diminutive of eidos – "image", "form", "shape". Pareidolia is a type of apophenia. . . .

Apophenia is the experience of seeing meaningful patterns or connections in random or meaningless data. The term was coined in 1958 by Klaus Conrad,[1] who defined it as the "unmotivated seeing of connections" accompanied by a "specific experience of an abnormal meaningfulness".

In statistics, apophenia would be classed as a type I error (false positive, false alarm, caused by an excess in sensitivity).[citation needed] Apophenia is often used as an explanation of paranormal and religious claims, and can also explain a belief in pseudoscience.[citation needed]

Conrad originally described this phenomenon in relation to the distortion of reality present in psychosis, but it has become more widely used to describe this tendency in healthy individuals without necessarily implying the presence of neurological differences or mental illness.

In 2008 Michael Shermer coined the word 'patternicity', defining it as "the tendency to find meaningful patterns in meaningless noise."[2][3]


I hope you're on this thread for the long haul!

edit on 06/06/12 by Mary Rose because: Remove a word



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by sinohptikWhat connections do you feel are between EM and the brain? Is it really that far-fetched of an idea that all physical matter, and interactions thereof, can be attributed to some form of wave function, at least within the human context?


Again this it too vague to be meaningful, and you obviously can't shake that habit.


I actually felt I was being rather straightforward, given the context. Would you mind helping me by informing me what about it does not make sense to you? I will be more than happy to clarify. I have already stated that even when I am not being intentionally ambiguous, I struggle to put things into a form which can be easily understood by others. In fact, I am asking you for your perspective and not intending to make a factual statement. The irony of such a question being too vague to be meaningful is once again not lost on me, hope you get it too



Originally posted by Mary Rose
I hope you're on this thread for the long haul!


I will come and go, but this thread most certainly has grabbed my attention
You are welcome, and I thank you for your contributions. I hope you do not take this the wrong way, but I would really love to hear your input on these things as well. I see that you post many links, etc. When I asked you previously, you complimented me on my thinking. I am no less than flattered, truly, but I am curious as to your stance on these things as well. I know it can be difficult, given the complexity of some of these topics.. But regardless of your perceived lack of knowledge/wealth of knowledge, your perspective, specifically, has great value to me personally. I appreciate your contributions, really I do, but I am more interested in your perspective.

What do you think?



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by sinohptik
What do you think?


About black holes - I'm inclined to think that they do exist, but in conjunction with a white hole. They're like breathing I guess - black hole inhale, white hole exhale. I've also heard that on the other side of a black hole is a star in another universe. I like that idea.



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 06:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


Thank you so very much! Not requesting the same of you as I do buddhasystem would have made me more hypocritical than I already am, neh?


I like that idea too. Quite balanced, wouldnt you say? That doesnt necessarily mean I subscribe to it, as I feel the "balancing" is done in what I call the "physical realm," but I do like the idea and certainly do not discount it. After all, we are dealing with some pretty "out there" stuff!

Through your research, what do you think of the idea that the cycles of Earth derivatives (everything from plant life to animal life to human life) could be based on the Schumann Resonance itself? Or, more specifically, the standing wave based on the ionosphere/circumference (whatever label one may choose).



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
About black holes - I'm inclined to think that they do exist, but in conjunction with a white hole.


I'm the first one to admit that my expertise in General Relativity is severely and woefully lacking. At the same time, as these threads suggest, yours is a lot worse than mine. Why do you make random statements that aren't based on anything at all?

Scientists think that black holes do exist, but I'm not aware of any mandatory "conjunction".

Phew, what nonsense.

edit on 6-6-2012 by buddhasystem because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
120
<< 54  55  56    58  59  60 >>

log in

join