Schumann Resonances, Electro Magnetism, and the Brain.

reply to post by buddhasystem

White hole

Brain oscillations in the theta frequency range (3-8 Hz) are often associated with the favourable induction of synaptic plasticity as well as behavioural memory. Here we report the activity of single neurons recorded together with the local field potential in humans engaged in a learning task. We show that successful memory formation in humans is predicted by a tight coordination of spike timing with the local theta oscillation. More stereotyped spiking predicts better memory, as indicated by higher retrieval confidence reported by subjects. These findings provide a link between the known modulation of theta oscillations by many memory-modulating behaviours and circuit mechanisms of plasticity.

memory formation is best at the Schumann resonance

Originally posted by sinohptik
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).

I think you've got me thinking about vocabulary again!! LOL. I've been puzzling over Earth "derivatives." But from context I guess it means life derived from Earth?

It seems natural and expected that the cycles of life would correspond to the cycles of its environment.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

White hole

edit on 06/06/12 by Mary Rose because: (no reason given)

Lollipop

Originally posted by fulllotusqigong
memory formation is best at the Schumann resonance

Smile. One of the authors is "Schuman EM."

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 to post by Mary Rose


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

haha.

Sorry I not been here, personal life in upheaval and haven't been on ats.

Thank you all for continuing conversation.

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?

Originally posted by Mary Rose
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?

Oh, I do have an answer. You see, I have knowledge of various fields of physics and I have been exposed to GR enough to realize that it requires a lot of dedicated work to acquire any degree of proficiency.

you, on the other hand, declared disdain for any and all of "mainstream" physics (which actually includes GR). It's safe to say that your knowledge of same can be safely discarded, even when compared with the vastly insufficient (but not zero) my level of understanding.

So when you are making a sure-fire and bizarre reference to anything that's based on mainstream physics without knowing an ounce of same, while refusing to provide any proof of rather radical claims, I'll abstain from judgement (not my opinion) and let the audience to determine the quotient of poor education, laziness, hypocrisy or mental problems this may represent.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Oh, I do have an answer. You see, I have knowledge of various fields of physics and I have been exposed to GR enough to realize that it requires a lot of dedicated work to acquire any degree of proficiency.

I'm beginning to wonder whether the reason for this is that the theory is wrong.

What do you think?

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I'm beginning to wonder whether the reason for this is that the theory is wrong.

I have the DVD Stars in an Electric Universe, produced by The Thunderbolts Project & Silver Wolf Productions Inc., which is of a lecture given by Wal Thornhill in 2011.

Here is a screenshot:



It seems that it's time now after more than a century has passed to discard the old and bring in the new - even if it's painful to admit that what's been accepted is wrong.

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?

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.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Here is a screenshot:

It seems that it's time now after more than a century has passed to discard the old and bring in the new - even if it's painful to admit that what's been accepted is wrong.

Oh, it's been clear for a while that bashing Einstein is your favorite pastime. Even though you freely admit you don't know physics (makes you wonder how the former is possible without the latter).

OK, I need to be going now, and I'll be driving using my GPS which is damn accurate, thanks to Dr. Einstein and science that he helped establish. Until the fools that say he's wrong, design something comparable (or anything at all, for that matter), I'll keep calling them such.

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 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.

Originally posted by sinohptik
Its easy to nitpick, but not so easy to create something which can be nitpicked.

Oh, but there are competing theories, for sure. Have you done any research?

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?

Originally posted by sinohptik
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.

I don't take the theorists' word for it. I explore what the theorists are saying and compare what they say with other theorists and try to connect dots. No, I don't do experiments. Sorry, but that makes me want to laugh! Yeah I'm going to do experiments in my kitchen!

Originally posted by sinohptik
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?

I'm not going to try to put into my own words that link I've already referred you to.

So, why don't you tell us about your theory?