Schumann Resonances, Electro Magnetism, and the Brain., page 58


Pages: <<  55    56    57    58    59    60    61  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 116 times


reply posted on 8-6-2012 @ 08:28 AM by mlirenr
Hi there, just internally crossposting this from a just made post at another thread... ( US drone strikes 'raise questions' - UN's Navi Pillay, www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread848874/pg2#pid14289076 )



reply to post by CosmicEgg



Taking a "ride" from CosmicEgg's post, not that big leap to offtopic, helps illustrate what breaks through cracks... you then wonder what they never publish or classify for decades.

---------

Here's an example of military research, not on drones, but makes the point... while many discount such thing as pseudoscience or deny any such effect as a possibility...

The military I think deeply knows that any experimental results depend on interpersonal variation and adeptness.

On qi/biofield/bioenergy/biophysics/quantum biology/bioelectromagnetism etc so called fringe fields of science by likes of Randi

One of the authors( Juliann G. Kiang ) of the Springer literature paper from 2005! comes from those 2 military research institutions

1 Department of Cellular Injury, Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, Silver Spring Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences Bethesda MD USA

2 Department of Medicine Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences Bethesda MD USA

3 Department of Pharmacology Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences Bethesda MD USA

wrair-www.army.mil

www.usuhs.mil

Molecular and Cellular Biochemistry
Volume 271, Numbers 1-2 (2005), 51-59, DOI: 10.1007/s11010-005-3615-x

External bioenergy-induced increases in intracellular free calcium concentrations are mediated by Na+/Ca2+ exchanger and L-type calcium channel

Juliann G. Kiang, John A. Ives and Wayne B. Jonas


www.springerlink.com/content/p3g2228028ru8464/abstract/
Abstract

External bioenergy (EBE, energy emitted from a human body) has been shown to increase intracellular calcium concentration ([Ca2+]i, an important factor in signal transduction) and regulate the cellular response to heat stress in cultured human lymphoid Jurkat T cells. In this study, we wanted to elucidate the underlying mechanisms. A bioenergy specialist emitted bioenergy sequentially toward tubes of cultured Jurkat T cells for one 15-minute period in buffers containing different ion compositions or different concentrations of inhibitors. [Ca2+]i was measured spectrofluorometrically using the fluorescent probe fura-2. The resting [Ca2+]i in Jurkat T cells was 70 ± 3 nM (n = 130) in the normal buffer. Removal of external calcium decreased the resting [Ca2+]i to 52 ± 2 nM (n = 23), indicating that [Ca2+] entry from the external source is important for maintaining the basal level of [Ca2+]i. Treatment of Jurkat T cells with EBE for 15 min increased [Ca2+]i by 30 ± 5% (P le 0.05, Student t-test). The distance between the bioenergy specialist and Jurkat T cells and repetitive treatments of EBE did not attenuate [Ca2+]i responsiveness to EBE. Removal of external Ca2+ or Na+, but not Mg2+, inhibited the EBE-induced increase in [Ca2+]i. Dichlorobenzamil, an inhibitor of Na+/Ca2+ exchangers, also inhibited the EBE-induced increase in [Ca2+]i in a concentration-dependent manner with an IC50 of 0.11 ± 0.02 nM. When external [K+] was increased from 4.5 mM to 25 mM, EBE decreased [Ca2+]i. The EBE-induced increase was also blocked by verapamil, an L-type voltage-gated Ca2+ channel blocker. These results suggest that the EBE-induced [Ca2+]i increase may serve as an objective means for assessing and validating bioenergy effects and those specialists claiming bioenergy capability. The increase in [Ca2+]i is mediated by activation of Na+/Ca2+ exchangers and opening of L-type voltage-gated Ca2+ channels. (Mol Cell Biochem 271: 51–59, 2005)

Key words lymphoid cells - intracellular calcium - intracellular signal - calcium channel - Na+/Ca2+ exchanger - bioenergy




reply posted on 9-6-2012 @ 12:38 AM by fulllotusqigong
reply to post by Mary Rose



Yeah parapsychologist Nandor Fodor's motto is "Numen Est Omen" -- Name is Fate.

haha.


reply posted on 17-6-2012 @ 06:55 AM by Mary Rose
Originally posted by Mary Rose
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.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
I'm the first one to admit that my expertise in General Relativity is severely and woefully lacking. . . . Scientists think that black holes do exist, but I'm not aware of any mandatory "conjunction".

Phew, what nonsense.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
White hole

From the above link:

A white hole, in general relativity, is a hypothetical region of spacetime which cannot be entered from the outside, but from which matter and light have the ability to escape. In this sense it is the reverse of a black hole . . .

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Lollipop

Question: Why do you say you’re lacking in knowledge of general relativity, but you know more than me so my statement about black holes being in conjunction with white holes is "nonsense," then respond with sarcasm/ridicule about a Wikipedia article mentioning a white hole in reference to general relativity?

Do you know anything about white holes?


reply posted on 19-6-2012 @ 12:08 PM by sinohptik
reply to post by Mary Rose



I have significant amounts of respect for Einstein, as well as many of his contemporaries (Lorentz, etc).

I really dont think General Relativity is wrong, it is far too accurate in the patterns and consistencies it "predicts."

Incomplete? Yes. Wrong? No.

What makes you think it is "wrong" rather than incomplete?


reply posted on 19-6-2012 @ 12:28 PM by Mary Rose
Originally posted by sinohptik
I really dont think General Relativity is wrong, it is far too accurate in the patterns and consistencies it "predicts."


On another thread I've recently posted a 37 page .pdf of an essay that I find to be credible entitled
"Albert in Relativityland" that refutes popularly accepted claims that GR is backed up by observation.

I've even read lately that Einstein, himself, was unhappy with his own theories and felt that he was unjustifiably promoted by others.

I, personally, like reading Einstein quotes and I think he is a likeable personality (except for his womanizing ) but it seems that GR puts too much emphasis on gravity. I think the action lies in EM.


reply posted on 19-6-2012 @ 12:51 PM by buddhasystem
Originally posted by Mary Rose
Originally posted by sinohptik
I really dont think General Relativity is wrong, it is far too accurate in the patterns and consistencies it "predicts."


On another thread I've recently posted a 37 page .pdf of an essay that I find to be credible entitled
"Albert in Relativityland" that refutes popularly accepted claims that GR is backed up by observation.


That link seems to refer to one of the stupidest write-ups I've ever come across. Indeed, the auteur is arguing that routine measurements we do in the lab are all simultaneously wrong, for example ones that are related to apparent time dilation.

This is beyond pathetic.


reply posted on 19-6-2012 @ 01:06 PM by sinohptik
reply to post by Mary Rose



It is said it is much easier to poke holes in a security system, and compromise it, than it is to prevent them in the first place.

Einstein did feel his theory was incomplete, which is why he continued working. However, the focus on gravity I do not feel is misplaced as it is representative of an action that is clearly happening. The cause for this effect, however, still remains in the realm of possibilities. It is possible that gravity is an effect of EM, but the action is taking place and does so according to what is predicted by General Relativity. GR doesnt really attempt an explanation to the cause, only the effect.

I do agree with buddhasystem that until these people who deny GR's accuracy come up with something relevant, instead of just poking holes, that their words dont have much weight beyond being true representations of their perspectives. Its easy to nitpick, but not so easy to create something which can be nitpicked.


reply posted on 19-6-2012 @ 01:58 PM by sinohptik
reply to post by Mary Rose



Most certainly, one of the competing theories is my own

Though honestly, most seem to re-label the items, all the while keeping the mathematics similar if not exact. Then many will go on to claim how they have debunked GR with the "correct" labels. To me, that is the definition of pseudo-science.

Are you taking these theorists word for it, or actually doing the experimentation yourself? I know that you look into things a lot online, but are you also carrying out experiments? I honestly think you would really enjoy it, if you do not.

General Relativity does not explain the cause to many aspects of the Universe, but it does successfully predict many (if not all) of the behaviors it observes and includes. There have been many offshoots of the original theory, but the core theory is quite precise. Just incomplete.

Would you mind showing where the core theory of General Relativity is inaccurate in something it attempts to predict?
Pages: <<  55    56    57    58    59    60    61  >>    ^^TOP^^



Dumbing down reality
  Posted 5 days ago with 103 member flags
The 800 Pound Gorilla Everyone Ignores
  Posted 16 days ago with 67 member flags
The Illusion of Choice and Truth
  Posted 10 days ago with 52 member flags
A chronical of the BANKSTER WARS
  Posted 7 days ago with 42 member flags
Conspiracy Theory:The Lost Episode
  Posted 4 days ago with 39 member flags
666, NWO, Aliens and You!
  Posted 13 days ago with 36 member flags