Schumann Resonance higher than ever before

originally posted by: Phage
...
That is a pretty good indication that some local source of interference came online and then offline.
...

You are simply making an assumption. Do you have any proof that it is a local source of interference?

originally posted by: Phage
Now, go to the display translated as "Electromagnetic Background Level." Here we see a much broader frequency range than the one which includes just the Schumann resonances. Notice that the same noise is affecting an extremely wide range of frequencies at the same time. Again, a strong indication that the source is from local interference or a problem with the equipment.

Again making assumptions Phage.

originally posted by: Phage
...
You seemed to be ignorant of what the spectrum monitor displays. You seemed to be ignorant of the difference between frequency and amplitude.

So what? he made a mistake phage, you also make mistakes but I have never seen you accept the fact that you also make mistakes. At least in this website you have never "owned" your mistakes. When you make a mistake and it is pointed out to you, in this website, you simply stop posting any responses.

BTW, the unit of frequency varies with what type of wave we are dealing with. Same for amplitude.
Amplitude can be measured in units of acceleration, displacement or velocity.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Do you have any proof that it is a local source of interference?

I didn't claim proof did I? I said these were good indicators. Evidence, not proof.

When you make a mistake and it is pointed out to you, in this website, you simply stop posting any responses.

Incorrect. I do however, tend to lose interest when the gish galloping starts.

originally posted by: Phage
I didn't claim proof did I? I said these were good indicators. Evidence, not proof.

It is still an assumption on your part Phage. It is not evidence. Correlation does not prove causation. Remember? Of course, in certain topics you imply that correlation does lead to causation, such as atmospheric CO2 and temperature. Even though you are wrong.

originally posted by: Phage
Incorrect. I do however, tend to lose interest when the gish galloping starts.

So in other words, when you can't stand when people's opinions differ from yours. You lose interest when evidence is provided that refutes your claims.

In this topic, you did give some insight, but you are also making assumptions which could be wrong.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Correlation does not prove causation.

Correct, on it's own correlation does not imply causation. But it is known that ELF detectors are very sensitive and thus subject to interference. It is also known that broadband interference is often the result of local sources.

It would also seem to be highly coincidental that the noise abruptly began on the hour and abruptly ended on the hour 24 hours later. But there's no such thing as coincidence.

Of course, the idea that there has been a radical change in the Schumann resonances could make more sense. What do you suppose could cause that? Seems like it would be noticed at other monitoring stations.

It would be great if you guys could stop bickering and start working together.

I’d really like to know what’s causing the influx in resonance

a reply to: LtFluffyCakes96

Didn’t the Maya say the end of the 13th Baktun in 2012 would bring in a shift of consciousness and time as we know it would speed up! 7 years later here we are...