Microwave brain scrambler?
in [Design]
|
From: Dirk Bruere at NeoPax on 16 Mar 2010 02:48 On 16/03/2010 05:38, Winston wrote: > On 3/15/2010 10:20 PM, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote: >> On 15/03/2010 21:52, Winston wrote: > > (...) > >>> >> Do you agree that Dr. Adey controlled the eye muscles of a lab >>> >> animal only by stimulating it's brain with modulated non-ionizing >>> >> radiation, >>> >> as shown in Dr. Adey's paper? >>> >>> 'Yes' or 'No' is all I ask for, guys. >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> >>> --Winston >> >> Spend $100 and build one yourself. >> It's trivial. > > I'll take that as a 'no'. > In that case, none of the findings I could generate would > change your mind. My last word on the subject: "...none of the findings I have generated have changed my mind." -- Dirk http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show
From: Winston on 16 Mar 2010 09:36 On 3/15/2010 11:48 PM, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote: > On 16/03/2010 05:38, Winston wrote: >> On 3/15/2010 10:20 PM, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote: (...) >>> Spend $100 and build one yourself. >>> It's trivial. >> >> I'll take that as a 'no'. >> In that case, none of the findings I could generate would >> change your mind. > > My last word on the subject: > "...none of the findings I have generated have changed my mind." Excellent! Thanks! --Winston
From: Bill Sloman on 16 Mar 2010 10:47 On Mar 15, 2:27 am, Winston <Wins...(a)bigbrother.net> wrote: > On 3/14/2010 4:35 PM,Bill Slomanwrote: > > > On Mar 14, 7:43 pm, Winston<Wins...(a)bigbrother.net> wrote: > >> On 3/14/2010 6:23 AM,Bill Slomanwrote: > > (...) > > > You'd beter find something more persuasive. > > Bill, I honestly believe that I could present you with > a zapped shoe salesman from Hoboken and you would remain > unconvinced of the possibility. If you machine existed, and created the effect you describe, I'd believe in it. You are a long way short of that, and my current scepticism is correspondingly rational, despite what you'd like to think. > That is good because > science is largely based on the attempt to invalidate a guess. > > If I had the funding and some amazingly generous > terminally ill volunteers, I would pursue the effect > and publish a report that you would find compelling. You could try. I don't like your chances of success. <snip> > No cyclotron necessary. Aim, dial in the power and press > the button. Cyclotron reasonace doesn't need a cyclotron - just an ion, a magnetic field and an RF field with a frequency that is a close match to the charge-to-mass ration of the ion and the magnetic field, and an environment for the ion where the mean free path is a lot longer than the circular path of the ion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_cyclotron_resonance Invoking it as mechanism for getting RF energy into the brain is evidence of an imprefect education in physics. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Winston on 16 Mar 2010 12:00 On 3/16/2010 7:47 AM, Bill Sloman wrote: (...) >> Bill, I honestly believe that I could present you with >> a zapped shoe salesman from Hoboken and you would remain >> unconvinced of the possibility. > > If you machine existed, and created the effect you describe, I'd > believe in it. That is fair. (Still, I would like a yes / no answer from you whether you believe there is evidence to support the theory that Dr. Adey *did* use modulated non-ionizing radiation to steer a lab animal's eyes against that animal's will, as he claimed in his paper.) > You are a long way short of that, and my current scepticism is > correspondingly rational, despite what you'd like to think. Bill, despite my attempt at humorously characterizing your position on this, I hope I have never implied that I believe you're anything less than perfectly rational. I don't claim another is behaving irrationally unless I have a good solid reason. Skepticism is good. Sometimes people who disagree with me are correct and my point is incorrect. Discovery of that is a 'teachable moment' for me and I relish it. >> That is good because >> science is largely based on the attempt to invalidate a guess. >> >> If I had the funding and some amazingly generous >> terminally ill volunteers, I would pursue the effect >> and publish a report that you would find compelling. > > You could try. I don't like your chances of success. That is also fair. > <snip> > >> No cyclotron necessary. Aim, dial in the power and press >> the button. > > Cyclotron reasonace doesn't need a cyclotron - just an ion, a magnetic > field and an RF field with a frequency that is a close match to the > charge-to-mass ration of the ion and the magnetic field, and an > environment for the ion where the mean free path is a lot longer than > the circular path of the ion. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_cyclotron_resonance Excellent! That will be the thing I learned today. Thank you. > Invoking it as mechanism for getting RF energy into the brain is > evidence of an imprefect education in physics. Guilty as charged. I took Dr. Adey's evidence about calcium movement at face value. I am skeptical about the resonance you point out as well. Resonance is by definition frequency dependent. Dr. Adey's transmitter effect is frequency dependent only at the EEG level (~16 Hz), not WRT carrier frequency. I feel calcium efflux is a side issue anyway. I claim I do not know *why* involuntary brain control apparently is always caused by a particular kind of modulated non-ionizing radiation and you claim that calcium efflux is very unlikely to have been caused by cyclotron resonance, in this case. If we never find out exactly *why* involuntary brain control apparently is always caused by a particular kind of modulated non-ionizing radiation it will matter much less than knowing *that* involuntary brain control apparently is always caused by a particular kind of modulated non-ionizing radiation, however the movement of calcium ions may be linked to the phenomenon or not. I still think the transmitter will work disturbingly well, based on Dr. Adey's research findings. :) Thanks! --Winston
From: Bill Sloman on 16 Mar 2010 18:49
On Mar 16, 5:00 pm, Winston <Wins...(a)bigbrother.net> wrote: > On 3/16/2010 7:47 AM,Bill Slomanwrote: > > (...) > > >> Bill, I honestly believe that I could present you with > >> a zapped shoe salesman from Hoboken and you would remain > >> unconvinced of the possibility. > > > If you machine existed, and created the effect you describe, I'd > > believe in it. > > That is fair. > > (Still, I would like a yes / no answer from you > whether you believe there is evidence to support the > theory that Dr. Adey *did* use modulated non-ionizing > radiation to steer a lab animal's eyes against that > animal's will, as he claimed in his paper.) He may have got the effect he described, but I doubt if the non- ionising radiation had much to do with it, apart - perhaps - from warming up the lab animals scalp. That sort of experiment offers room for a lot of confounds. <snip> > I still think the transmitter will work disturbingly well, > based on Dr. Adey's research findings. :) I think you are taking Dr. Adey's results a lot too seriously - his explanation is (to put it kindly) unlikely to be the only explanation that fits the data he presents. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen |