Are "flat-earthers" an actual thing?

The nature of human existence is that everything moment in space and time is illusory, period. It's an eternal magnet for falsification. Flat earth does not need to mean linear straight line segments but could imply a flat disc which is still circular but not the sphere you thought it was. And of course as previously mentioned, even if flat-earthers are right about flat earth, Mother nature would never allow linear straight line segments and there will still be a curve angle somewhere so that it's always part of a circle.

You guys are making this way too complicated. Do you believe a shipping company and/or a navy can send a ship east and another ship west and both make it back to the same point or near the same point? If a shipping company and/or if a navy can send one ship east and one ship west and make it back to the same point, the world is round or close to round.

Navy = Government, and elites own the shipping companies. They're all in on it trying to keep us from the truth.

Just kidding. It's amazing there are real people out there that actually believe the Earth is flat.

It wasn't an expose - it was an ancient scanned 90-page list of literature references. It referenced over 2000 articles, but it did not specifically describe any of their findings or offer any conclusions

Why do they get to call the shots, but the FCC doesn't?

Actually, a random sample would be a great way to go about finding the type of data that would support your claim. You could start by identifying signs of long-term ROS damage - for instance, upregulation of specific genes that occur following ROS damage, or expression of proteins related to antioxidant pathways. Then you look for those signs in 1000 random people from aroud the world. Then you estimate their RF exposure. Since a major source of RF is comm towers, maybe you could use their address as a proxy for RF exposure. You could also ask them questions about MRIs, what type of appliances they have in their house, etc. Then you look for correlations between RF exposure and ROS damage. There, I designed a great study for you

That paper does not offer any predictions about which individuals might be prone to EHS or what characteristics those people might have. Such a prediction would look like "Individuals with a certain gene or a certain anatomical feature are 50% more likely to experience symptoms of EHS when exposed to RF of a certain wavelength at a certain intensity for a certain time"

Individual variation can be measured. Another thing that an actual predictive model of EHS would offer is an effect threshold - what is the average exposure required to induce EHS symptoms? Is there a population of hypersensitive people who have a much lower threshold?

Can you describe what such a measurement system would look like?

Some of it is, but certainly not all of it, and sunlight can easily become polarized when it enters the atmosphere. That's why we have polarized sunglasses

Hmm I thought it came from the enormous ball of iron in the core of the planet. I guess you don't believe there's a planetary core though

Oh look, a buried lede. So what you're saying is that EHS is actually just a neurogenerative condition associated with disrupted antioxidant function? It sounds like the neurodegeneration and the disrupted antioxidant funtion are sufficient to cause symptoms on their own. Are there any papers that compare the response of individuals with those risky genotypes to RF versus the response of individuals with different genotypes?

If the bar is impossibly high, why would I ever need to move it? And there is a bar that comm companies have to meet in order to continue to operate. The FCC regulates that kind of thing

please do keep responding! you are quite entertaining

@Khamis I have a followup question about the polarization of sunlight. You say that sunlight is healthy because it is unpolarized and manmade RF is harmful because it is

This gives me an idea because it suggests that the harmful effect of RF that you are so concerned about is due to the characteristics of the wave. Would be possible to counteract the harmful effects of polarized RF - or maybe even to cause novel beneficial health effects - by exposing individuals to carefully-engineered RF? Say, totally unpolarized radiation of a specific wavelength and intensity?

Not necessarily, and this illustrates my point about curved space-time.

Imagine this ships weren't quite modern (no compass or sun stone) and sailed in cloudy weather in what they thought was a straight line. They use the rudder to run right with the current.

But now suppose the current itself goes in a circle. The ship ends up back where it started, but not because of a spherical Earth, only because the water itself went back. This is what the space-time containing Earth does. You can move through it in a straight line, but it circles back in on itself.

And in the case of the space-time, it's really what's happening - you move in a straight line. Or another way you could say it is, there is no such thing as a straight line. All space time is curved to some extent by gravity, from the frame of reference of everything else in the universe. So anything moving inertially through it is going in a straight line only from its own point of view, and noone else's.

Don't kid yourself. Everybody has a "god." It could be money, power, women, porn or you just don't know what it is yet.

They're not things, they're people.

Oh dear. The big difference is that we can be pretty sure that porn, money, women and power exist!

valjean wrote:
Khamis wrote:
Btw, you didn't bother to comment on this US Naval Institute expose did you?
It wasn't an expose - it was an ancient scanned 90-page list of literature references. It referenced over 2000 articles, but it did not specifically describe any of their findings or offer any conclusions.

Khamis wrote:
You don't call the shots on what the proof of harm level should be, people like IARC do and ICBE-EMF do!!!
Why do they get to call the shots, but the FCC doesn't?
Again, be honest, you don't have a low IQ!! I don't need to tell you what to do or think unless you are telling me you have partial affection for moral/ethical corruption, dishonesty, deceit, fake science, or just pure mental delusion God knows! I"m not falling into your trap of explaining to you a simple answer of why FCC do not get to call the shots when it comes to such matters.
khamis wrote:
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.
Actually, a random sample would be a great way to go about finding the type of data that would support your claim. You could start by identifying signs of long-term ROS damage - for instance, upregulation of specific genes that occur following ROS damage, or expression of proteins related to antioxidant pathways. Then you look for those signs in 1000 random people from aroud the world. Then you estimate their RF exposure. Since a major source of RF is comm towers, maybe you could use their address as a proxy for RF exposure. You could also ask them questions about MRIs, what type of appliances they have in their house, etc. Then you look for correlations between RF exposure and ROS damage. There, I designed a great study for you.
They already did that for other types of damage different from ROS. A few were for heart palpitations, a few for migraines/headaches, a few for blood-brain permeability and/or CNS issues, a few for metal poisoning, but these were always part of other multi-symptoms and issues caused by EMFs/RFs, never just standalone. Therefore, ROS would never be standalone as it would always accompany a few other pathologies at once and together define EHS or EMF harms. And, it would also be different for different individuals. Finally, the critics still managed to find a way to poke holes at the end of the day by bringing up the case of there being no untainted human control subject. They basically want a model of human being from 1600 A.D or otherwise. There was no anthropogenic electricity and RF back then and so the intrigue. But these high IQ folks like you and I know that these politicians and insurers just want an excuse out of any liability !
Khamis wrote:
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?
That paper does not offer any predictions about which individuals might be prone to EHS or what characteristics those people might have. Such a prediction would look like "Individuals with a certain gene or a certain anatomical feature are 50% more likely to experience symptoms of EHS when exposed to RF of a certain wavelength at a certain intensity for a certain time"
Like I said earlier above, EHS and EMF harms are multi-system. So while a certain gene may indeed introduce 50% more chance of EHS, certain other weaknesses in the body may also overlap or co-vary with these EHS symptoms making it one heck of a genius illness! Only the high IQ folks understand this!
Khamis wrote:
Again your question about what the limit of harm might be depends from individual to individual.
Individual variation can be measured. Another thing that an actual predictive model of EHS would offer is an effect threshold - what is the average exposure required to induce EHS symptoms? Is there a population of hypersensitive people who have a much lower threshold?
Yes, it's been all done beyond any reasonable doubt. There is no threshold LOL. Didn't you read?!! "100% of folks experience subliminal EHS that of which is physiological EHS". That's you btw!!! Stop pretending!!
Khamis wrote:
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.
Can you describe what such a measurement system would look like?

Yes, it's called PROTOCOL. And there are 3 outstanding protocols in past half century. The first one by the extreme genius surgeon William J Rea the American cardiologist from Environmental Health Center in Dallas Texas! The second one by EUROPAEM 2016 EHS Diagnostic Protocol. And the 3rd one by the Belpomme EHS Protocol. So 3 protocols all from America and Europe. I would forgive you if you didn't know this as it's a little outside your scope I would think. This is the link to EUROPAEM PROTOCOL

degruyter.com

EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2016 for the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of EMF-related health problems and illnesses

Igor Belyaev

Chronic diseases and illnesses associated with non-specific symptoms are on the rise. In addition to chronic stress in social and work environments, physical and chemical exposures at home, at work, and during leisure activit...

Open link

Khamis wrote:
Hey, solar RF is good for you LOL!!! Because it's unpolarized!!!
Some of it is, but certainly not all of it, and sunlight can easily become polarized when it enters the atmosphere. That's why we have polarized sunglasses.
We are not talking about visible light. We are talking about invisible radiofrequency and microwaves. None of it should be polarized if it comes from the cosmos. RF would be in all directions and not in any one single direction.
Khamis wrote:
Earth's electromagnetic field (unpolarized and natural) comes from the sun which is also unpolarized and natural.
Hmm I thought it came from the enormous ball of iron in the core of the planet. I guess you don't believe there's a planetary core though.
Well there is molten iron in the earth of course but it still needs to be charged like a battery duh. You need to give iron electric/magnetic polarity from where the electromagnetic field is produced! The sun charges the earth using invisible magnetic tubules/tubes of force connected from the sun straight directly to the earth. There is no such thing as wireless charging. All wireless 'action at a distance' effects are actually mediated by direct physical tubes of force where transfer of energy is instantaneous and faster than speed of light. There is no speed limit in any case in Physics. Einstein's relativity is hogwash, Nikola Tesla's theory of dynamic force-fields reigns supreme!
Khamis wrote:
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.
Oh look, a buried lede. So what you're saying is that EHS is actually just a neurogenerative condition associated with disrupted antioxidant function? It sounds like the neurodegeneration and the disrupted antioxidant funtion are sufficient to cause symptoms on their own. Are there any papers that compare the response of individuals with those risky genotypes to RF versus the response of individuals with different genotypes?
I've done enough work for you. It's time you took the initiative to go into greater depth yourself. The fact that a comparison has been made shows that the papers do exist otherwise from where did these comparisons come from?! it sure didn't drop from heaven. these authors are multidecade experts who have been in the game for too long. I suggest you refer to the Bioinitiative Report for a more comprehensive view of everything. I'm sure you could find what you need.
Khamis wrote:
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....
If the bar is impossibly high, why would I ever need to move it? And there is a bar that comm companies have to meet in order to continue to operate. The FCC regulates that kind of thing
please do keep responding! you are quite entertaining

do you think you could have formatted your post any worse?

I have included everything you need to be 200% convinced of the truth of death of anthropogenic RF and electricity. Yes you heard that right, it includes the 50hz electrical power supply grid! Not saying you should stop using electricity forever, but just so you know it's not just electromagnetic waves.

There was a summary of some findings, but it doesn't reference any findings to any of the articles it cites, and it doesn't present any data on its own. If you wanted to reproduce the findings in the summary, it would be impossible to know where to start. It's hard for me to believe an actual scientist wrote it

Why do you need an "untainted" control? All you need is a treatment group (in this case, the treatment would be RF exposure) and an untreated control. Or, in a survey, you don't need a pre-control experimet. If ROS damage is associated with RF exposure - i.e. more RF exposure generates more ROS damage - then you should be able to draw a dose-response curve. A dose-response curve would be very convincing to me!

So do you think we could identify those genes?, and if we identified them, do you think we could predict who will show symptoms of EHS based on their genotype? Is there a paper where someone does this?

Can you describe to me yourself what the protocol is?

That's a fair point - we are not talking about sunlight. However, RF waves can also become polarized by interacting with the earth's atmosphere as well. You said you're a radio engineer, so I assume you know this. It's an important factor in long-range ratio communication

hmmm okay

Actually the FCC does regulate RF emission tightly. If I were to set up an antenna and start broadcasting RF outside of a permitted wavelength or past a permitted intensity threshold, they would triangulate my signal and show up at my door with federal LEO. They've busted lots of HAM operators for unauthorized emission. Again - you are a radio engineer, right? You should know this

bumping this question

For whoever still doubts that the "roundness" of objects is intrinsically bound to the roundness of the space-time around them? If not for the curved space-time, there would be no gravity; entropy would prevent the formation of just about any large objects at all.

Those objects that did form would not tend to be round; only gravity has that apparently centripetal force vector. But it's not a force, just the curvature of the space.

If that's the case, if you are not satisfied with one of those military institute publications, I suggest to move on to the next publication and read those. And triangulate the findings from more than 1 publication. It's not a perfect world, do some adjustment on your part. And perhaps it's important to exercise some discretion about how steadfast a publication leaked from the secret vault of CIA's needs to abide by the standard scientific rules of presenting information. These were military grade and these scientists and doctors don't need to be questioned or reviewed by civil institution scientists and doctors. They take some liberty to present information among themselves as they see fit.

There is no untreated group. Impossible for an untreated group that hasn't been exposed to anything. Impossible for a dose response curve as it's non-linear. Look through the Bioinitiative Report, there is talk of non-linear dose response curve meaning the lower the intensity the greater the biological effect! The FCC laughed it off as 'inconsistent' curve! Instead the only experiment that ever worked was the provocation testing where EHS subjects who cleared pre-filter criteria were able to detect a blinded source of RF or EMF and do it twice/thrice in succession for a 100% perfect score. Which shows the EHS humans can actually feel and know if an RF/EMF source has been turned on or off nearby! This one works. Check out William J Rea, most famous 1991 experiment.

Not possible to be use only genotype to predict EHS as experts say EHS is multi-system. You can say it's 'probable'.

Protocol includes provocation test, blood tests, urine tests, brain scans and EEG, ruling out other pathologies etc by a medical expert. Lastly, a whereabouts survey on one's residential, work, and other location exposures, duration of exposures, symptoms experienced etc. Food allergies, chemical allergies etc.

Nah RF polarization by the atmosphere is not what you think it is. You thought it was directional LASER?!! No way the atmosphere does such perfect LASER type polarization. The polarization at best is very limited and non-coherent. Without coherence, I won't wanna consider polarization. It's still technically unpolarized for me. Radio waves from terrestrial antennas are different, they are polarized from the very beginning, and gets reflected by the ionosphere as it travels long distances. The atmosphere does might absorb some radio waves along the way but it all depends on its frequency.

No we are not talking about that kinda regulation lol! We are talking about the regulation for RF causing death in the human population duh! It doesn't concern my trade at all! It concerns life and death!

Of course, it's called Rife Frequency Machine. Different variations exist called Bioresonance. But all these are still man-made. The best therapeutic RF is always natural sunlight and RF from the flora, fauna, soil etc. So I don't think a carefully engineered RF is an ethical path because only Mother Nature knows best. Carefully engineered RF in my opinion would be a carefully genetically modified food crop, both equally bad. Except for serious illness and disease like cancer, there is no need to use the Rife Machine.

Yes, curves often are nonlinear. Like I said, you don't need an untreated group to draw a dose-response curve. You just need differently-treated groups. A curve does not have to start at 0

This does not show that RF has any negative effect on health though

Might you be able to identify the different parts of the "multisystem"?

So there are other pathologies that might cause identical symptoms? What pathologies are those?

When did I say anything about a laser or coherence? When did I say the atmosphere polarized 100% of RF? It doesn't. But it can cause polarization, and it can interfere with certain polarized waves while letting others pass through. Radiation does not have to be coherent to be polarized

Correct, radio waves emitted by antennas are polarized with respect to the antenna's transmission axis. The ionosphere does reflect some RF, and the atmosphere does absorb RF at some frequencies

Luckily the FCC is looking out for you. The FCC regulates RF for many reasons, and one of them is the thermal health hazard that high intensity signals pose

I thought you said earlier that we were not talking about sunlight

Why is it not ethical to mimic nature in this way? Do you think that a track athlete could gain a competitive advantage by using this Rife machine?