Hendricus G Loos, Master of Mind Control

a reply to: Bedlam

so to recap,
1. photons are readily absorbed by sodium in the visual wavelengths.
2. photon absorption drastically changes the chemical properties of an atom momentarily
3. the rods and cones work the way they do because a cone fires with EVERY PHOTON that hits it.
4. regular dermal nerves would fire sporadically and randomly under the influence of a few to several excited Na+ ions

agree or disagree?

originally posted by: dashen
a reply to: Bedlam

so to recap,
1. photons are readily absorbed by sodium in the visual wavelengths.

Maybe. Again, it matters DRASTICALLY if you are talking metallic sodium, or one of various ionized states.

2. photon absorption drastically changes the chemical properties of an atom momentarily

It does for some substances. However, again, if every photon absorbed by any atom "drastically" changed its chemical properties, then you wouldn't survive the first rays of dawn, or even a flashlight attack. Because every atom that absorbed a photon would suddenly react, or fail to react. Yet that is obviously not true.

3. the rods and cones work the way they do because a cone fires with EVERY PHOTON that hits it.

I don't know about EVERY PHOTON. I would, in fact, NOT expect them to fire with every photon. Or you'd have every one of them firing non-stop from stray photons in the environment. Rods and cones also require something very special in order to sense light. And that is a specialized pigment that is doing the light detection. Without rhodopsin or a light sensitive color pigment, rods and cones are light insensitive and will NOT fire.

4. regular dermal nerves would fire sporadically and randomly under the influence of a few to several excited Na+ ions

agree or disagree?

Disagree. If this were true, turning on the light would have you shrieking in agony as you dissolved, as all the chemical compounds in your body came apart as the individual atoms began to change "drastically" with each photon absorbed, and every nerve fired away with each photon.

Obviously, that isn't true. Heck, even a rod won't fire if you stop rhodopsin production, and they're DESIGNED to fire with light input.

a reply to: Bedlam

lets put it this way. a photon reacting with Na+ would give it different properties.
not necessarily highly reactive ones. for instance i believe a sodium ion would lose its cation properties momentarily before emitting the photon.
if that happened enough times across the surface of a free nerve ending it would disturb the electric potential across the nerve membrane and cause it to spike.
Seeing as how it only takes a few sodium ions to begin a cascade across the neuron i believe it it a real phenomena.

originally posted by: dashen
a reply to: Bedlam

lets put it this way. a photon reacting with Na+ would give it different properties.

not necessarily highly reactive ones. for instance i believe a sodium ion would lose its cation properties momentarily before emitting the photon.

THAT one won't happen. Because you can't confer net charge with a photon. Just can't.

a reply to: Bedlam

and as far as that burning sensation, no need to call a doctor, stochastic filtering and sensory gating blocks out random, useless, or non patterned nerve firings.
otherwise we would freak out man,with our total perception of reality

a reply to: Bedlam

ok now. when a photon pushes a resting electron into an Na+ p shell,
it (the ion) would then behave differently . "charge" as far as ions are concerned are just the way they react chemically.

originally posted by: Bedlam

I don't know about EVERY PHOTON. I would, in fact, NOT expect them to fire with every photon. Or you'd have every one of them firing non-stop from stray photons in the environment. Rods and cones also require something very special in order to sense light. And that is a specialized pigment that is doing the light detection. Without rhodopsin or a light sensitive color pigment, rods and cones are light insensitive and will NOT fire.

The human eye is very sensitive but can we see a single photon? The answer is that the sensors in the retina can respond to a single photon. However, neural filters only allow a signal to pass to the brain to trigger a conscious response when at least about five to nine arrive within less than 100 ms. If we could consciously see single photons we would experience too much visual "noise" in very low light, so this filter is a necessary adaptation, not a weakness

originally posted by: Bedlam


If you want pair production to occur, the photon that's about to be traded for a particle pair MUST have as much equivalent energy as the mass of an electron and a positron. If you want them to go tearing out of there with some momentum, the photon has to have some extra to contribute to it. A photon with less energy than that needed to form a pair will NEVER form a pair.

Got it. e=mc2.

The conversation is about whether light from a monitor can stimulate nerves directly. The question at hand from Dashen is whether/how a photon can alter ionic states of metal atoms in/near a neuron, and the last few posts before yours are related to whether a photon can reduce an ion to a metallic state (it can't). You popped up with the interesting observation that pair production could create an electron.

That's true, but it produces a positron as well. And it requires gamma rays. That's not optional. So it seems obvious that your comment was aimed at implying that a photon could cause charge transport. Not only is that wrong, it requires a photon of majestic energy levels. One you won't get from a monitor. Or much of anything else lying about the house, really.

I see. I will continue to come back to this very interesting read.

Your metaphorical analogy regarding the baseball and the baseball bat what was I was if reference to. I suppose it may have been a bit off topic, but I just wanted to note that an electron lost, can be regained, though it would require two high intensity beams/photons to collide, and would also posit a positron.

Okay, okay, carry on. I do not want to derail.

originally posted by: dashen
a reply to: Bedlam

ok now. when a photon pushes a resting electron into an Na+ p shell,
it (the ion) would then behave differently . "charge" as far as ions are concerned are just the way they react chemically.

Not really. Charge is charge. If you're missing one due to ionization, you can't magic one back with a photon.

originally posted by: IlTuoFratello

Got it. e=mc2.

Bingo. That's the reason you have to have enough energy to make the particles you want. Plus bits left over for some momentum, if desired.

I see. I will continue to come back to this very interesting read.

Your metaphorical analogy regarding the baseball and the baseball bat what was I was if reference to. I suppose it may have been a bit off topic, but I just wanted to note that an electron lost, can be regained, though it would require two high intensity beams/photons to collide, and would also posit a positron.

Okay, okay, carry on. I do not want to derail.

It's not so much two photons colliding. It's more like enough energy in a photon encountering a sufficient charge gradient. I'm not sure you can pull the trick off without a charge being involved.

originally posted by: dashen
a reply to: Bedlam

and as far as that burning sensation, no need to call a doctor, stochastic filtering and sensory gating blocks out random, useless, or non patterned nerve firings.
otherwise we would freak out man,with our total perception of reality

If every photon fires a skin receptor, you won't be filtering it out. It just doesn't happen, anymore than your rods and cones will fire without the requisite pigment.

a reply to: Bedlam

but it wouldnt be EVERY photon firing EVERY nerve ending.
there are several things that would need to occur.
a photon would have to hit a Na+ ion dead on in order to energize the electron cloud.
several of these reactions would have to occur across the surface of a neuron simultaneously to change the membrane electric potential.
seeing as how that wouldnt be happening every single second, nerves would fire randomly as the prerequisite reactions happened here and there and be filtered out as noise

a reply to: Bedlam

charge is not charge. its early and im hungover, but i think the absorption and subsequent emission of a photon causes a temporary dipole as the electron falls back to its resting state as seen here

Origin[edit]
When an atom or molecule interacts with an electromagnetic wave of frequency scriptstyle[omega], it can undergo a transition from an initial to a final state of energy difference scriptstyle[hbaromega] through the coupling of the electromagnetic field to the transition dipole moment. When this transition is from a lower energy state to a higher energy state, this results in the absorption of a photon. A transition from a higher energy state to a lower energy state results in the emission of a photon. If the charge, scriptstyle[e], is omitted from the electric dipole operator during this calculation, one obtains scriptstyle[mathbf[R]_alpha] as used in oscillator strength.

a reply to: dashen

charge of an atom is a relationship between the opposing charges of the proton and electrons cloud of an atom.
adding energy to the electron field where an electron would jumpto the next valence shell would momentarily disturb that balance.

originally posted by: dashen
a reply to: Bedlam

charge is not charge. its early and im hungover, but i think the absorption and subsequent emission of a photon causes a temporary dipole as the electron falls back to its resting state as seen here

Your misinterpreting your source if you think it supports the idea that charge is not charge. Charge is charge, in fact this is a fundamental principle of physics.

Charge conservation

Charge conservation is a physical law that states that the change in the amount of electric charge in any volume of space is exactly equal to the amount of charge flowing into the volume minus the amount of charge flowing out of the volume.

So your photon entering the volume has no charge, thus it can't change the charge inside the volume. It can certainly send electrons into higher energy orbitals, and the rest of what your source said, but the charge inside the volume is unchanged by the photon. The charges inside the volume are distributed slightly differently if the electron moves to a different orbital but there's no net change in charge.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Would a sodium ion having an electron jump into the next valence shell affect its chemical reactivity enough to make A difference

originally posted by: dashen
Would a sodium ion having an electron jump into the next valence shell affect its chemical reactivity enough to make A difference

I can't prove a negative. Someone would have to prove to me that it can if they are making that claim, and I've never seen proof of that. My expectation is probably not but if there's evidence otherwise I'd be interested to see it.

I became a bit interested in this person, when I saw that it was claimed at least somewhere on the net, that this person doesn't exist.

I started investigating, and became a bit fascinated because I saw his address is listed as being down the street from my grandfather. (Who worked at Los Alamos and has a slightly mysterious past for me)

It seems he does exist, he and his wife, Jansje Loos, is recorded as being the owner of Cuewave corporation in Laguna and Fallbrook (calif). They do "laboratory research and development".

This kind of work is interesting to consider. Especially when we consider things like the alien abduction phenomena, in which I have considered it a high possiblity that memory could be manipulated. The "paralyzing" effect that goes with that, I have always wondered if it could be provoked with technology. I always experienced a "hum" before that happened- a sort of vibration I could hear/feel.

Just curious. I don't understand a thing about the last few pages, so can't follow the flow this thread. It sucks being uneducated.

So shall I assume that if I'm supposed to believe (in this case manipulation) your thread, then it is nothing more than a Remotely magnetic manipulation of nervous systems emitted in forms of MHZ through my screen?

a reply to: moronic

That's just one of the patents. the rest are electromagnetic, acoustic, and others