9. I will dig into the Australia map distortion question later.
When? You promised this nearly two years ago. How can flat-earthers argue an alternative without first possessing an accurate model? Where can I find the flat-earth "research" that produces an accurate flat-map of the flat-earth that does not distort Australia from East to West versus North to South? The often used Azimuth-Equidistant map is known to be distorted at different latitudes. The choice of putting the North Pole in the center is arbitrary. We can pick different origins, for example, at the South Pole, or the Sahara:
Who says RF isn't used to generate ROS in experiments? MRI has 3 components: 1) Static magnetic fields 2) Gradient or time-varying magnetic fields 3) Electromagnetic RF radiation wave
All electronic circuits have both a static magnetic field by default, and a secondary RF electromagnetic wave radiation emitted. So basically all electronic circuits are antennas by default even without being designed to be an antenna as such.
The way in which RF wave would generate ROS is that it applies rotatory motion to electron spin moments/vector which was previously aligned according to the direction of the static magnetic field first applied. To ensure non-transient and permanent generation just make sure you keep steady both the static magnetic field and RF wave duh! The equivalent meaning or effect of this statement in your daily lives is to continue using your laptops, mobile phones and other electronics which both emit static magnetic fields and RF waves at the same time, so prima facie is a good factory production line of uncontrolled and uncombined ROS species.
RF wave would impart rotational momentum to the static magnetic field. The definition of the electromagnetic wave of which RF is one is 'the rotating of the static magnetic/electric field'. The rotational momentum garnered then propagates it at the ratio of E/B which is the velocity (resistance) of the medium vacuum. Static magnetic field = static electric field, they are both the same thingy and used interchangeably!
However, I have no idea why no researcher has done any experiment for robust production of ROS but I suspect it's due to practical issues like getting a real human volunteer strapped down for 24 hours or 48 hours beside a giant MRI electromagnet non-stop. Of course they could do it with a dummy model but naysayers will always poke holes and say it's not real so that's the dilemma here.
Maybe you should read this one too although I find there are quite a number of errors and weaknesses but it might give you a good idea of why it's so hard to get robust production of ROS from both static fields and RF waves. Time varying magnetic fields do not really concern ROS production as no magnetic fields are induced in the human being only electric fields. And since it's electric fields the only concern is usually heating, cardiac and nerve twitching.
You know something, after having said so much above actually none of these peer reviewed papers from National Institute of Health matters at all because they were not done by real heavyweight and hardcore researchers from the US/UK/Russian military institutes!!!! Everybody knows that military science and research such as those from the CIA and KGB are light years ahead of NIH or all these other civil service institutions. THE PRIZE lies in the military research institutions! To that extent I rather save my breath and your time by just getting you to skip all these elementary research articles and head straight to the prize researches from the superpower military institutes of the past 100 years! (In particular I want you read ). These military institutes, CIA included, already GUARANTEED both the clinical and biological effects of anthropogenic RF emissions at the NON-THERMAL levels since 1950s and 1960s and here we are arguing about what???? There is nothing to argue about as the most perfect institutions of our existence which is the military who has every incentive and motivation to make such perfection for the purposes of security and superiority/deterrence has concluded that there is 100% harm and not one decimal less, except hidden away from YOUR VIEW because they are embarrassed for you to know! There is nothing to fear-monger about when these harm is virtually promised like a prophecy and not up for argument or debate any more!
The literature on biological effects of magnetic and electromagnetic fields commonly utilized in magnetic resonance imaging systems is surveyed here. After an introduction on the basic principles of magnetic resonance imaging...
Aerobic activity in the presence of and swarmed by anthropogenic RF radiation such as in the modern city is dangerous in the long-term. Maybe 1 or 2 races in the modern city like Eugene Oregon, or Budapest Hungary after having flown in from the training base mountains of Europe/America devoid of or far less of such RF radiation is not too harmful and might even be beneficial as it produces a stimulating effect on the nervous system but if an elite athlete continues his sojourn in the modern city, stays in it for 1 week, 1 month slowly he will notice he is no longer 'feels right' in his legs, just that little bit off you know what I mean? I mean he's still fast and competitive but to win you need to be literally perfect in all your nervous system and biochemical signaling processes you know? And living and training in a modern RF city is not gonna cut it and that's why most elite athletes subconsciously migrate out of the cities to go to altitude destinations to train not so much because of the altitude per se but the solitude and sanctuary away from modern RF radiation blanketing the city.
Most elite athletes don't consciously navigate their decisions and actions based on where there is less RF radiation and then rush over there to live and train unless they have magneto-reception like electrohypersensitive human beings who can sense such pollution and the distress it causes their biology and move their locations to relieve themselves. But most elite athletes do subconsciously do so anyway which means they choose to go to the mountains devoid of or far less of RF radiation ostensibly due to the altitude advantage and the 'mental focus/concentration' but in actual actuality in ways and words they don't know nor describe yet is actually due to far less density of RF radiation.
An example, everybody loves to go to Mother Nature or forests and jungles but why? The answer: it's not so much a conscious love for the trees and flowers and dirt trails but rather the unconscious (for which they can't readily put into words and phrases as well as the electrohypersensitive group of people) love for the lack of or RF radiation in these jungles and forests which then promotes calm and relaxation in the human nervous system. Hope the above is not too ingenious to understand. Now please don't say I don't have a paper for THE CAUSE OF electrohypersensitivity !https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935122007010
This post was edited 7 minutes after it was posted.
Flat-Earthers? Well, they're not the craziest. Why, there are people out there who believe that there is an invisible super-being who knows what every person on the planet is doing and thinking every micro-second of the day. Now, that really is crazy.
Everybody knows that military science and research such as those from the CIA and KGB are light years ahead of NIH or all these other civil service institutions.
Quite true, and the research isn't even secret, only how they're using it with directed energy weapons is secret.
American diplomats in Cuba got mind-zapped for years, never figured out how
Yes radiofrequency directed energy radiation is a state of the art weapon of war, and it's unbelievable portions of this technology is used in the communication between mobile phones and wireless digital devices used worldwide. It's no secret in the military but for some reason it is one in civil society and public life.
Havana Syndrome, an article from US intelligence experts made of up doctors and scientists from Stanford University
An intelligence panel investigating the cause of a spate of mysterious incidents that have struck dozens of US officials across the globe has said that some of the episodes could “plausibly” have been caused by “pulsed electr...
Who says RF isn't used to generate ROS in experiments? MRI has 3 components: 1) Static magnetic fields 2) Gradient or time-varying magnetic fields 3) Electromagnetic RF radiation wave
All electronic circuits have both a static magnetic field by default, and a secondary RF electromagnetic wave radiation emitted. So basically all electronic circuits are antennas by default even without being designed to be an antenna as such.
The way in which RF wave would generate ROS is that it applies rotatory motion to electron spin moments/vector which was previously aligned according to the direction of the static magnetic field first applied. To ensure non-transient and permanent generation just make sure you keep steady both the static magnetic field and RF wave duh! The equivalent meaning or effect of this statement in your daily lives is to continue using your laptops, mobile phones and other electronics which both emit static magnetic fields and RF waves at the same time, so prima facie is a good factory production line of uncontrolled and uncombined ROS species.
RF wave would impart rotational momentum to the static magnetic field. The definition of the electromagnetic wave of which RF is one is 'the rotating of the static magnetic/electric field'. The rotational momentum garnered then propagates it at the ratio of E/B which is the velocity (resistance) of the medium vacuum. Static magnetic field = static electric field, they are both the same thingy and used interchangeably!
However, I have no idea why no researcher has done any experiment for robust production of ROS but I suspect it's due to practical issues like getting a real human volunteer strapped down for 24 hours or 48 hours beside a giant MRI electromagnet non-stop. Of course they could do it with a dummy model but naysayers will always poke holes and say it's not real so that's the dilemma here.
Maybe you should read this one too although I find there are quite a number of errors and weaknesses but it might give you a good idea of why it's so hard to get robust production of ROS from both static fields and RF waves. Time varying magnetic fields do not really concern ROS production as no magnetic fields are induced in the human being only electric fields. And since it's electric fields the only concern is usually heating, cardiac and nerve twitching.
You know something, after having said so much above actually none of these peer reviewed papers from National Institute of Health matters at all because they were not done by real heavyweight and hardcore researchers from the US/UK/Russian military institutes!!!! Everybody knows that military science and research such as those from the CIA and KGB are light years ahead of NIH or all these other civil service institutions. THE PRIZE lies in the military research institutions! To that extent I rather save my breath and your time by just getting you to skip all these elementary research articles and head straight to the prize researches from the superpower military institutes of the past 100 years! (In particular I want you read ). These military institutes, CIA included, already GUARANTEED both the clinical and biological effects of anthropogenic RF emissions at the NON-THERMAL levels since 1950s and 1960s and here we are arguing about what???? There is nothing to argue about as the most perfect institutions of our existence which is the military who has every incentive and motivation to make such perfection for the purposes of security and superiority/deterrence has concluded that there is 100% harm and not one decimal less, except hidden away from YOUR VIEW because they are embarrassed for you to know! There is nothing to fear-monger about when these harm is virtually promised like a prophecy and not up for argument or debate any more!
Aerobic activity in the presence of and swarmed by anthropogenic RF radiation such as in the modern city is dangerous in the long-term. Maybe 1 or 2 races in the modern city like Eugene Oregon, or Budapest Hungary after having flown in from the training base mountains of Europe/America devoid of or far less of such RF radiation is not too harmful and might even be beneficial as it produces a stimulating effect on the nervous system but if an elite athlete continues his sojourn in the modern city, stays in it for 1 week, 1 month slowly he will notice he is no longer 'feels right' in his legs, just that little bit off you know what I mean? I mean he's still fast and competitive but to win you need to be literally perfect in all your nervous system and biochemical signaling processes you know? And living and training in a modern RF city is not gonna cut it and that's why most elite athletes subconsciously migrate out of the cities to go to altitude destinations to train not so much because of the altitude per se but the solitude and sanctuary away from modern RF radiation blanketing the city.
Most elite athletes don't consciously navigate their decisions and actions based on where there is less RF radiation and then rush over there to live and train unless they have magneto-reception like electrohypersensitive human beings who can sense such pollution and the distress it causes their biology and move their locations to relieve themselves. But most elite athletes do subconsciously do so anyway which means they choose to go to the mountains devoid of or far less of RF radiation ostensibly due to the altitude advantage and the 'mental focus/concentration' but in actual actuality in ways and words they don't know nor describe yet is actually due to far less density of RF radiation.
An example, everybody loves to go to Mother Nature or forests and jungles but why? The answer: it's not so much a conscious love for the trees and flowers and dirt trails but rather the unconscious (for which they can't readily put into words and phrases as well as the electrohypersensitive group of people) love for the lack of or RF radiation in these jungles and forests which then promotes calm and relaxation in the human nervous system. Hope the above is not too ingenious to understand. Now please don't say I don't have a paper for THE CAUSE OF electrohypersensitivity !
Generating ROS in cell cultures to see how they respond is a super common technique in biology. If predictable generation of ROS via RF is viable, I would expect there to be many devices on the market that can do it. As far as I'm aware, that's not the case - maybe you should patent one!
Yes I'm familiar with the components of an EM wave and how they interact with molecules. Again, my understanding of MRI machines is that they flip electron spins by using a combination of radio waves and an extremely strong electromagnet - like 100-1000x stronger than any other magnet you'll ever encounter in daily life. The spin flip effect cannot take place without this magnetic field. If it could, why are MRI machines built the way they are? If you know how to build an MRI machine without using a strong magnet, you should patent it.
I don't see why it would be difficult for a researcher to do a study where they take before-MRI and after-MRI blood samples as part of a clinial trial. If the effect you describe exists, that would be an easy slam-dunk paper, and people get MRIs all the time. And an in vitro test would be even easier. If you do find such a paper, please post it. I am willing to read through the papers that Kivrak 2017 cites, but honestly I'm disappointed that they all seem to gloss over the mechanism that cause the effects they see - and what's worse is that it seems like it would be very easy to produce experiments that dig into those mechanisms!
I don't have much to say about your strange CIA/KGB comments other than this: why would the CIA release information on this type of thing if they were just going to turn around and hide it from people?
There are a lot of reasons that running in a city is more dangerous than running out in the mountains - air pollution, sun exposure, getting hit by cars, etc - but it seems to me that RF exposure is a very minor factor. Plus, training at altitude would expose you to far more solar RF, wouldn't it? And that doesn't change the fact that our bodies do have robust mechanisms for dealing with ROS. After all, exercise generates ROS, but those ROS actually kickstart metabolic adaptations and healing pathways! Why do the ROS generated by RF not also stimulate the body to heal itself?
The fact that high-intensity and/or prolonged exercise promotes oxidative stress in humans was discovered more than 4 decades ago. The tissues most responsible for ROS production during exercise remain debated, but it is clear that contracting skeletal muscles are an important source of ROS production during exercise. The intracellular sites of ROS production in contracting skeletal muscles continue to be an active area of research, but mounting evidence implicates NADPH as an important source of ROS production during exercise.
The consequences of exercise-induced oxidative stress continue to be a controversial topic. In theory, exercise-induced ROS production could be a double-edged sword, whereby a moderate level of ROS production during exercise promotes positive physiological adaptation in the active skeletal muscles (e.g., mitochondrial biogenesis, synthesis of antioxidant enzymes, and stress proteins), whereas high levels of ROS production result in damage to macromolecular structures (e.g., proteins, lipids, and DNA). Although the impact of exercise-induced ROS production in skeletal muscle has been postulated to be a bell-shaped hormesis curve, there is not convincing evidence that prolonged, high-intensity exercise results in tissue damage and impaired physiological function. Indeed, research consistently demonstrates that long duration and high-intensity exercise provides the greatest health benefits. Therefore, based on the available evidence, it appears unlikely that rigorous and prolonged exercise results in an oxidative stress level that is detrimental to human health.
That paper does not discuss the physiological source of electrohypersensitivity in detail. All it does is present multiple different hypotheses, many of which contradict each other. e.g. a hypothesis is presented in one of the papers it cites, Belpomme 2020:
EHS and MCS can be characterized clinically by a similar symptomatic picture, and biologically by low-grade inflammation and an autoimmune response involving autoantibodies against O-myelin. Moreover, 80% of the patients with EHS present with one, two, or three detectable oxidative stress biomarkers in their peripheral blood, meaning that overall these patients present with a true objective somatic disorder. Moreover, by using ultrasonic cerebral tomosphygmography and transcranial Doppler ultrasonography, we showed that cases have a defect in the middle cerebral artery hemodynamics, and we localized a tissue pulsometric index deficiency in the capsulo-thalamic area of the temporal lobes, suggesting the involvement of the limbic system and the thalamus.
I'm skeptical that MCS aka multiple chemical sensitivity and EHS aka electrohypersensitivity have the exact same symptoms despite being caused by completely different phenomena that interact with completely different parts of the body. Moreover, Belpomme's data is taken from self-reported surveys. It seems to me that there is a singular cause at play here, and that cause is probably mental illness
The other papers that are cited in this review discuss various different types of structures: "pollutant" magnetite nanoparticles (Maher 2016), "cryptochromes", which are not demonstrated to exist in humans and are explicitly denounced in Wang 2019, and voltage-gated ion channels, whose interaction with EM is completely theoretical. I don't find any of these arguments particularly convincing, but I will read over them
You're thinking about it all wrong. It's not the distance that matters, it's how much energy it takes to get there. Downhill is always faster, and gravity (i.e. the curvature of space-time) tells you which way is down. All material shape is an illusion distorting the simple flow of energy.
Gravity makes you click that button to reply. Gravity makes you scroll down the thread.
Gravity roughly equals 32ft. per second near the surface of the earth. I assume that is at sea level. I assume above 10000ft., gravity is closer to 31ft. per second.
I cannot see airline flight routes and D.o.D.'s weapon system calculations, North Dakota to then Soviet Union making sense unless Earth is relatively round.
Think back to Desert Shield/Desert Storm. Some men and equipment traveled to SW Asia by ship, traveled in each direction. USN ships from Maine to Florida went east toward SW Asia. Ships up and down west coast went west toward SW Asia. How does that happen without a relatively round Earth?
I cannot see airline flight routes and D.o.D.'s weapon system calculations, North Dakota to then Soviet Union making sense unless Earth is relatively round.
You are missing the metaphysics here. Review what I wrote before; because gravity curves space-time itself, maybe it's not the Earth that is round, but the space-time it is in that is round. It looks round because it is in a round container, just as it would look red if you put it in a translucent red box.
Of course the planes and missiles appear to go in a round path, because the path itself is round. If not for the gravity, they would just go straight, except for spacecraft designed to maneuver in zero G.
In a way, talking about planes and missiles makes this easier to illustrate, than for a car driving on the ground. The curvature of the space they move through can be considered separately from the material and shape of the Earth itself. But can this not also be true at the surface, where space-time also exists?
This post was edited 3 minutes after it was posted.
"I don't have much to say about your strange CIA/KGB comments other than this: why would the CIA release information on this type of thing if they were just going to turn around and hide it from people?"
Are you kidding me or something? You have never worked in the military have you? You don't know how they operate do you? Have never heard of cold war either I bet! It's all about quasi-twisted psychological mind games and warfare my friend. It's all about leverage, power, dominance, superiority duh! I think you don't have an IQ issue, yours is an attitude issue as you use statements like "this type of thing"-------please show some more respect for radiofrequency and it's harmful effects will you? What does RF sound like to you? Shameful or Satan or what? It's precisely people like you in society that needs to get mentally counselled and even treated for demeaning and disparaging hallowed effects of RF. Your philosophy of science is passive-regressive, you need an active-progressive mindset to deal with RF. It's not just about absolute evidence here, nothing in this world comes with absolute evidence, so the mindset, attitude and moral/ethical traits employed are far more important. When material evidence fails, which it always does because it always needs to be falsified, one must shift towards morality/ethics to make a judgement and decision. The International Association for Cancer Research has classified radiofrequency as 'probably' carcinogenic' without the need for any absolute material evidence such as in the actual physical mechanism of interaction between RF and matter. It was decided based overwhelmingly on clinical and epidemiological data which is based more on morality/ethics than actual physical causes/evidences!
"And that doesn't change the fact that our bodies do have robust mechanisms for dealing with ROS."
Oh so you do seem to hint that there may be some people who may not have as robust mechanisms for dealing with ROS do you? Then maybe you have found yourself the answer that for whatever reasons or causes, there can and shall be people who do react to anthropogenic RF worse than some others, is that fair now?
"Why do the ROS generated by RF not also stimulate the body to heal itself?"
Where in my post did I deny that? We both simply didn't raise it until now and I don't disagree as well. Everything is bell curve in Mother Nature. Ever heard of the moral ethic 'too much of a good thing is actually a bad thing'-----well that's virtually proven without a doubt in RF science now. Beyond a certain limit of ROS production, and depending on physiological and physical tolerances of the individual human being, it can become harmful duh! Please be fair.....
"Plus, training at altitude would expose you to far more solar RF"
Solar RF? Mother Nature's energy packets come in waveforms, pulse trains, pulse durations that are therapeutic to the human mind and body. Ever heard of getting out in the sun to brighten your mood and day? Man-made RF however is nothing like solar RF and can never mimic the Creator's divine intelligence!
" I don't see why it would be difficult for a researcher to do a study where they take before-MRI and after-MRI blood samples as part of a clinical trial. If the effect you describe exists, that would be an easy slam-dunk paper, and people get MRIs all the time."
Umm no they can't and it's different. First you need the right conditions such as the right waveforms, frequencies, pulses, modulations, intensities and an experiment that lasts long enough for the individual to present relative and measurable changes in his/her physiology relative to himself/herself. MRI occurs at most 15 minutes max? Since real-life RF and EMF effects happen over days, months, years of accumulated non-stop exposure then before he/she ever volunteered for any MRI experiment, he/she would already have corrupted his/her physiology and ROS levels and defence mechanisms. Therefore, it's almost impossible to control the experiment perfectly as it's impossible to get an untainted human control subject! It's not as easy as you think and part of the reason why I mentioned a few paragraphs earlier that 'absolute evidence' on this planet earth is unattainable kinda like what we talking about earlier that the 'perfect theory' is also unattainable. This is why you need strong morals/ethics to back you up once the evidence fails or hits a road block which it will! Scientists and doctors apply the 'precautionary principle' as a backup moral ethic in the face of 'limited evidence'.
" Generating ROS in cell cultures to see how they respond is a super common technique in biology. If predictable generation of ROS via RF is viable, I would expect there to be many devices on the market that can do it. As far as I'm aware, that's not the case - maybe you should patent one!"
Yeah they did generate lots of ROS in micelles, a kinda culture like you mention based on the radical pair recombination experiment only. But they were kinda dissatisfied as they wanted to do on human beings and animals in vivo. They didn't like in vitro all that much. As I said earlier, people and opposing scientists are setting the bar really high, they literally want PERFECT ABSOLUTE/MATERIAL EVIDENCE OF CAUSATION because they have economic and political interest and affiliations to defend and this is something you need to man up to and stop probably denying it to me again! Science is and has always find competing interests from all other non-science related and aspects of society, it's just the way it is, it's corrupt duh! The most incorruptible scientist on earth is just least corrupt but not totally incorruptible! He still has interests because he still needs to use money from somewhere duh! There is no free lunch in scientific research!
This post was edited 14 minutes after it was posted.
Article ‘Proof of EHS beyond all reasonable doubt’. Comment on: Leszczynski D. Review of the scientific evidence on the individual sensitivity to electromagnetic fields (EHS). Rev Environ Health 2021; https://doi.org/10.1515/...
. Please use active-progressive morality/mindset and not passive-regressive one to consider. You wanted to see actual publications so I'm giving you what you wanna see. Most people I show these to are instantly sold but it seems you have an ulterior agenda God knows....
I do repeat, under the theory of falsifiability, there is no such thing as irrefutable evidence. This means there is no such thing as 'no evidence of harm' in RF/EMF science the same way that there is no such thing as 'total evidence of harm' in the same. The truth is a combination of both, and that's the ethic/moral trait you shall use to approach all the superb publications I present to you!
Oh and btw, if you think MCS and EHS are mental illnesses, don't forget to falsify it yourself using the above theory and paradigm I have for you!
There is that word "indoctrination" again. I "learned" that the earth is a sphere, by being shown the data behind it, and understanding the model and how the data fits in that model. In an ironic twist of projection indoctrination is indeed the primary mechanism for how FE propogates, hidden by phrases like "do your own research" and "ask questions". How can the uninformed or misinformed teach themselves? It's like the blind leading the blind.
As a side note, when I was a child, in my classroom, we did not have a globe, but flat maps that pulled down like window shades. These were various projections of the earth onto flat maps, with distortions indicated by a map scale in the legend.
Do your own research. Make your own observations. Start here for guidance -- things to look out for:
One fundamental problem with FE is that youtube "researchers" like Mark Sargent do not genuinely understand the history and the science of the globe earth they do not want to believe. It takes about 1 minute and Mark Sargent attributes the globe earth as something created by Copernicus around 1514. This is wrong by 1900 years: "The sphericity of the Earth was established by Greek astronomy in the 3rd century BC ...". They did this by visual observation (the primary tool of flat-earthers) of the stars and by shadows. This is long before NASA and Hollywood. For the next two millenia, it has only been confirmed and reinforced by Islamic astronomers, making better measured observations, and only recently was it "rediscovered" in Europe by scientists like Copernicus and Galileo in the Age of Enlightment.
I stopped after his "introduction" (I have already seen it years ago and was unimpressed by his science, but impressed by his faith and conviction that "they are lying" to you), as his first three "things you cannot fake" are also misguided or wrong. We do not need 1) a 180 degree pan or 360 degree sweep because we have 2) composite images -- many photographs put together; we also have continuous streaming now of the earth from the ISS, producing many real high-res photos. And 3) there are direct non-stop flights in the Southern hemisphere. He ends his introduction by admitting he has always been, and still is, a "conspiracy guy".
Another fundamental problem is that disproving a globe earth is not enough to prove a flat earth. That is a proposed alternative hypothesis which then must be confirmed with many measurements, then refined when measurements disprove it. There simply is no robust single comprehensive flat earth model that can explain the sun, the moon, eclipses, the seasons, gravity, space missions, GPS, direct-to-home satellite TV, etc.
For starters, the first thing to do would be to create a visual model, i.e. a flat earth map that isn't known to be distorted. The "popular" flat earth map visibly distorts Australia (and Antarctica). This should be a simple matter to take existing surveyors' data and create a non-distorted proportional scaled down mapping. Where are you, or any FE "researcher" with that?
An easy experiment every flat-earther can do is to repeat Al-Biruni's mountain top experiment: go to a modest height and measure the angle from your horizontal eye, to the horizon. If indeed the earth is flat, that dip angle should be observable and measurable at 0 degrees (i.e. horizon at eye-level), and your job is done. When Al-Biruni did the experiment, he observed a negative dip angle (i.e. the horizon was not at eye-level), and calculated fairly accurately the resulting radius of the spherical earth.
Come back to the real world -- we've known it's a globe for 2400 years.
I wish not to be sucked into this rabbit hole of insane conspiracy. I don't have the time or patience.
But can someone please answer how a flat earth reconciles the billions of visible planetary objects being spheres with the belief that we are on a unique dinner plate shape of some type?
Are you kidding me or something? You have never worked in the military have you? You don't know how they operate do you? Have never heard of cold war either I bet! It's all about quasi-twisted psychological mind games and warfare my friend. It's all about leverage, power, dominance, superiority duh! I think you don't have an IQ issue, yours is an attitude issue as you use statements like "this type of thing"-------please show some more respect for radiofrequency and it's harmful effects will you? What does RF sound like to you? Shameful or Satan or what? It's precisely people like you in society that needs to get mentally counselled and even treated for demeaning and disparaging hallowed effects of RF.
No, I haven't worked in the military. It seems strange to me that you have such a deep distrust of the scientific establishment but unfailingly trust information from the CIA - a group that specializes in "quasi-twisted psychological mind games". Honestly, this entire paragraph reads like mentally unstable word vomit
Khamis wrote:
The International Association for Cancer Research has classified radiofrequency as 'probably' carcinogenic' without the need for any absolute material evidence such as in the actual physical mechanism of interaction between RF and matter. It was decided based overwhelmingly on clinical and epidemiological data which is based more on morality/ethics than actual physical causes/evidences!
Well, unlike the IACR, I would like some absolute material evidence. It should be very easy to establish a causal connection between RF exposure and biological harm if the effects are as clear-cut as you say
Khamis wrote:
Oh so you do seem to hint that there may be some people who may not have as robust mechanisms for dealing with ROS do you? Then maybe you have found yourself the answer that for whatever reasons or causes, there can and shall be people who do react to anthropogenic RF worse than some others, is that fair now?
Sure, there is probably natural variation in antioxidant function. If RF exposure causes ROS, then we should be able to predict who will and will not be susceptible to it by looking at their ability to deal with ROS - again, a very easy test to do. Are there any papers on this topic?
Khamis wrote:
Where in my post did I deny that? We both simply didn't raise it until now and I don't disagree as well. Everything is bell curve in Mother Nature. Ever heard of the moral ethic 'too much of a good thing is actually a bad thing'-----well that's virtually proven without a doubt in RF science now. Beyond a certain limit of ROS production, and depending on physiological and physical tolerances of the individual human being, it can become harmful duh! Please be fair.....
Do you know what that limit might be? Do you think that things in daily life - e.g. too much sun exposure, too much exercise, certain non-RF-related illnesses, etc - might cause an individual to pass that limit? And if long-term RF exposure overwhelms our ability to deal with ROS and exhausts our bodies, it should not be possible to get good data experiments on antioxidant activity without taking RF exposure into account, right? And yet we do.
Khamis wrote:
Solar RF? Mother Nature's energy packets come in waveforms, pulse trains, pulse durations that are therapeutic to the human mind and body. Ever heard of getting out in the sun to brighten your mood and day? Man-made RF however is nothing like solar RF and can never mimic the Creator's divine intelligence!
Okay now we're jumping the shark. Can you explain how solar RF is differs physically from manmade RF? I was under the impression that the sun emitted a ton of radiation (including radio waves) across the EM spectrum.
Khamis wrote:
Umm no they can't and it's different. First you need the right conditions such as the right waveforms, frequencies, pulses, modulations, intensities and an experiment that lasts long enough for the individual to present relative and measurable changes in his/her physiology relative to himself/herself.
Why could those conditions not be created in the lab? The papers you cite describe harmful effects of RF on the human body caused by radiation identical in wavelenth and intensity to an MRI, so why does an MRI not cause ROS generation? The effect may be subtle, but I don't see how it could be undetectable
Khamis wrote:
Yeah they did generate lots of ROS in micelles, a kinda culture like you mention based on the radical pair recombination experiment only. But they were kinda dissatisfied as they wanted to do on human beings and animals in vivo.
A micelle is not a cell culture. It's not even close to a living cell. A micelle is basically a scientific term for a soap bubble
Khamis wrote:
As I said earlier, people and opposing scientists are setting the bar really high, they literally want PERFECT ABSOLUTE/MATERIAL EVIDENCE OF CAUSATION
The real issue isn't stupidity, I don't think. I mean, I don't think my grandpa would have been able to answer most of the questions flat earthers ask. The real issue is the degraded trust in the honesty and knowledge of scientists. This distrust has of course been cultivated for decades by Republicans, and accelerated during the Trump years.
Umm no, the CIA/FBI shot itself in the foot when it allowed a few individuals in the 1960s to gain top secret access to its secret vault of high-quality scientific experiments. The information from the CIA/FBI were leaked out rather than voluntarily publicly paraded, get it? And that's why you should trust the information because it was 'leaked' against their will kinda like Wikileaks and Fancy Bears if you have ever heard of them. Do you trust Edward Snowden who leaked top secret info of corruption in CIA? I bet you do otherwise you seem like the odd one out. And you need to do all this other filtering and selective bias we were talking about earlier by asking who between the US secret service or CIA, and, EMF/RF scientist like Kirk have more money or financial backing? Your answer to this question will tell you whose quality of science is infinitely greater than the other! Btw, you didn't bother to comment on this US Naval Institute expose did you? . The Hill Criteria for causation of harm about any toxin gives significant weight to epidemiological and clinical evidence, so you can virtually bid goodbye to the exact physical cause between RF and matter! You don't call the shots on what the proof of harm level should be, people like IARC do and ICBE-EMF do!!!
And no, yet again, it's possible to establish clear as daylight effects of non-thermal RF/EMF exposure without knowing the actual physical mechanism of cause because as I mentioned above there is weightage given to clinical and epidemiological evidences, including surveys which can be established by employing the right inclusion (into the survey) criteria. You don't just do a survey on any Tom, Dick or Harry on the street with no careful consideration of what you intend to control. Are you a newbie in EMF research knowledge and understanding? You seem to discount surveys like the novice, but I will cut you some slack since you are really a novice in this area compared to the seasoned veterans like me. As a radio engineer I have always been aware of the existence of RF/EMF harm making rounds in the scientific world, including the Havana Syndrome which despite the lack of proof of physical causation didn't hinder top medical experts and scientists from Stanford University and CIA to be very sure it was RF to blame.https://www.orsaa.org/uploads/6/7/7/9/67791943/__naval_research_1971_on_rf.pdf
For who can be predicted to be more susceptible to EHS or ROS I already showed you THIS PAPER but you conveniently ignored it. Is this paper too mentally distressing for you? Shall I quote what the multi-decade (compared to you) scientific expert Michael Bevington of UK EHS Trustee said in the publication?
Article ‘Proof of EHS beyond all reasonable doubt’. Comment on: Leszczynski D. Review of the scientific evidence on the individual sensitivity to electromagnetic fields (EHS). Rev Environ Health 2021; https://doi.org/10.1515/...
"Such EMF sensitivity occurs in 100% of people subliminally, and in 30% consciously [5]. Hypersensitivity is associated with the 1.2% severely disabled by EMFs." Just so you know, to the extent that you deny or disbelieve that EMF sensitivity (which is by default talking about non-thermal effects, not thermal ones) exists in you, a supposedly 'non-sensitive' person, YOU ARE STILL sensitive hence reacting to it nonetheless albeit subconsciously!!!
It's obviously very damning statement of the expert on the general disbelieving population like you or otherwise! The expert in effect says that EMF/RF harms you even without your consent nor your agreement. EMF/RF doesn't need you TO BELIEVE (MENTAL) that it will or should harm you in order to actually harm you precisely because it's NOT A MENTAL ISSUE/CASE! And to completely put paid to all 'mental' accusations, expert says "some unscreened studies hypothesised without evidence a different condition, namely a nocebo (mental) effect or electrophobia, known since 1903, but inapplicable to unaware adults, some of whom suffer physiological EHS. So right here you and I are guaranteed to suffer from physiological EHS since both you and I are unaware adults or adults who aren't consciously aware and self-confessed electrohypersensitivity people. If I can accept it and take steps to protect myself by employing Faraday shielding methods for my bedroom, so can you! It's your life to lose, not mine. The information provided by these multi-decade experts only benefits you, not me! You have everything to gain and nothing to lose.
Again your question about what the limit of harm might be depends from individual to individual. The same article from the same expert advocates a move towards customization/individualization in science where each and every individual in measured relative to himself/herself and not against the general majority or population. Everything is about customization these days, you would also want your preferences and tastes, health issues etc customized in your direction so why should science be the exception and still continue in its bell curve format of proof? Electrohypersensitivity isn't an examination or test to be compared to another human being, which also doesn't mean that somebody who fails the examination is considered 'stupid' or 'low IQ'. He/she just needs customization to maximize his/her potential and minimize his/her weaknesses! This is the mindset you need to employ these days, not your archaic 'absolute material evidence'. Only God has it and you ain't no God!
Hey, solar RF is good for you LOL!!! Because it's unpolarized!!! Man-made RFs are all modulated, pulsed, polarized, odd-shape-waves and just spatio-temporally skewed/twisted! You mean you didn't know, read this paper . Earth's electromagnetic field (unpolarized and natural) comes from the sun which is also unpolarized and natural. No sun, no earth, simple as that. The only time the earth's electromagnetic field harms is known as 'geopathic stress'. It's a very abstract and metaphysical realm this 'geopathic stress'. And the only time the sun's electromagnetic field harms is known as solar flare and this is more concrete and less abstract than 'geopathic stress'. Overall, natural electromagnetic fields can kill or result in death but it would be naturally caused at the background rate of the natural ambient electromagnetic environment. The addition of man-made EMFs just elevates the rate of death above the background rate although it seems to bring technological advance and convenience as well. xemptyzDid you read the papers, it's not that MRI does not cause ROS generation, it's that they don't want MRI to cause ROS generation LOL! It's a matter of wanting that is the problem, always is the case. If you want anything done, it shall be done in a jiffy! But when it comes to financial interests I'm sorry, all sorts of barriers to entry are given to obfuscate. MRI would cause ROS generation through non-thermal (quantum) effects such as calcium flux, ferritin, radical pair, NADH, paramagnetic H20, albeit further proof would be needed but not really necessary in my opinion.
The 'informational content' of Earth's electromagnetic signaling is like a set of operating instructions for human life. These environmental cues are dynamic and involve exquisitely low inputs (intensities) of critical freque...
I quote here from same article for you "For EHS, another electromagnetic EI, differences in individuals’ symptoms from man-made EMFs have been known since 1733. In 2008 the first genetic variant associated with EMF sensitivity was discovered, the XRCC1 Ex9+16A allele, a DNA repair polymorphism, linked with childhood leukaemia near substations and powerlines [2]. In 2014 it was reported that people with EHS were 9.7 times more likely to have GSTM1 + GSTT1 null genotypes [3], indicating a susceptibility to oxidative stress. This genetic variation can also increase the risk of multiple sclerosis, some cancers, Alzheimer’s and asthma, each sometimes associated with EHS. Such genetic variants seem more common at higher than lower latitudes and in women than men, with others associated with higher levels of mercury. EHS symptoms are also associated with some demyelinating neurodegenerative conditions. A causal link between electrosensitive symptoms and EMF exposures has also been proved for other mechanistic pathways in addition to genetic. Calcium flux through membrane depolarisation was discovered in 1974, involving the radical pair mechanism at ELF up to MHz, as in modulated cell phone signals. Unmodulated GHz radiofrequency can generate oxidative stress and may act through ferritin, calcium spikes or water modification, but further proof is needed."
Do you think it's fair to set the bar impossibly high and even shift the bar every time good evidence emerges for RF/EMF science when no bar is set or even needed for mobile phone manufacturers and telecommunication companies to bring their wireless equipment into the market? Please ask yourself this question. Please be fair....
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.
