Bishadi

WTF are you talking about? The very first responses to the OP directly addressed the question. Magnetic fields DO effect the brain. The question was flawed, examples given as to when and how these effects take place, hence no further discussion required.

the dahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

is the comment you made................

it is 'pulsating' magnetic fields that can be used on the brain and affects noted

as a 3 tesla magnet can pick up your car

The thing is, science is about clarity, not trying to deceive others and tricking them using words.

i agree

words are what enable comprehension while math describes experimental evidence

no matter the math, the knowledge must conform to experience over acceptance of laws (experience, rules over math but math can become the last word, if true)

words combine knowledge with experience

the problem is often rules subdue the progression (see religions for proof of that)

or

ie.... the second is not pure, just observe the 1st (it makes the second moot) reason? Where did the potential difference come from (causality).)

So, the point of this thread is to say that the sky looks different at night than it does during the day? Ok. Consider it said.

why not state it clearly; the sky 'in total' is better described as black with lil white dots than blue; as to leave earth; the blue is thereby almost exclusively observed upon the earth (naturally speaking of course)

some say, well the sky is the atmosphere; then i ask what is the night sky.

my point is 'observational' or having an expanded view offers far more than staying put just to retain assimilation to the 'classical' view of observation.

that is what science is all about.

for example; if we all within 'existence', and we are from evolved life that came to be able to 'create' words; then could it be realized or even asked:

is existence defining itself?

(see words as fractals)

can you get an idea of why i opened this thread?

you still haven't addressed the fact that a pure hydrogen/oxygen mix will burn with a nearly invisible flame (the emmissions are mainly ultraviolet) so it would be ****ing useless as a light source.

nearly but not (google burning Hydrogen) kids are doing it all over the world right now!

and then tell this forum what happens if you add a few elements (maybe even an alkali in the water vabor after the initial reaction of the H and O), could that add a wee bit of 'light'

 

The bitumen in the batteries is used as a sealant. it is one of the many uses for bitumen.

 

those pages do involve electrical calculations but there is bugger all to do with batteries.

it was to assist you with understanding the 2 parts of electricity (voltage, amperage)

i will leave the rest for others to observe (thanks for the addition)

The "Baghdad batteries" are only from the early centuries AD in Mesopotamia, millenia after Egyptian pyramids and not even in Egypt. Also, they are nearly identical to sacred scroll containers known to have been used during that period. Hence, it seems to me (and most archeologists) that resemblance to electrical batteries is just a tantalizing coincidence. Batteries of slightly modified design could have been used to electroplate, but there's actually no real evidence of this or any other use, nor have there been any artifacts from that period discovered that appear to have been electroplated.

thanks for the opinion

it seems like a good method of just shelving the B bats, the electroplating

the ideas of 'creating' light or basically the inclination any might have to tinker

thanks for that fine representation of just being complacent with what others represent

This is why we use unbiased equipment to measure things, and quantify them.

K, i love the pursuit of evidence that is verifiable. (ie... once the truth is established and the understanding of life is comprehended globally; the rituals of beliefs will be over)

i am on THE TEAM

It removes confusion and allows the spread of knowledge.

i am with you on that; we have the internet and why borders and direction of educational pursuits can be overcome.

If you noticed I posted experimental evidence that the sky is blue in results of a spectrometer, a quantitative measurement, in my first reply I mentioned that there was a requirement for such a thing. Humans are poor measurement devices. Very poor.

but in this case; the sky is more often black with lil'white dots than blue

such as life has abused entropy for billions of years and the evidence far exceeds any measurements

thats because of your refusal to accept even the possibility that you are wrong.

i have been wrong from the eyes of the 'community' for almost 3 decades

on more items than you can shake a stick at

don't mean i am wrong to myself (meaning; i have more integrity to seek truth, reality and the absolute; then a reason to live)

some talk about being absolute; some do it

so if i said the sky is black with lil' white dots; is it common sense with evidence or am i wrong just for observing in a different (albeit perfectly true) manner?

 

 

ie.... eddington did not provide evidence for einsteins postulate on the space bending (eclipse)

 

is what a mirage; the light from stars behind the sun are being diverted by the coronal energy of the sun.

 

see how common sense and perspective just expose reality over the accepted renditions of classical physics

is each line in this thread all true, of common sense

and with enough evidence that a child could comprehend it

Merged post follows:

You've offered nothing.

now any can say the sky is not blue and be able to back it up

I should be more clear. In your next post, answer my first question, what it is that "you say otherwise." What leads you to say that the sky is not blue? Keep in mind that if your answer is "common sense" then I'm closing the thread.

as ooooosual

i offer thoughts and get hammered

Evidence trumps common sense I'm afraid.

so if i said the sky is black with lil' white dots; is it common sense with evidence or am i wrong just for observing in a different (albeit perfectly true) manner?

ie.... eddington did not provide evidence for einsteins postulate on the space bending (eclipse)

is what a mirage; the light from stars behind the sun are being diverted by the coronal energy of the sun.

see how common sense and perspective just expose reality over the accepted renditions of classical physics

What is the purpose of this thread?

to share that the 'perspective' to classical physics is relevant

Electricity from trees? Not to be rude, but this sounds like definite pseudoscience.

did you test it?

is the quote from a guy in patent law? Did HE say, HE produced the potential (practically)?

I doubt it could generate the voltages described.

 

Furthermore, try and keep things relevant to the original poster's querry. I really don't see how hammering nails into trees, absentmindedly, and then seeing if you generate a current (highly unlikely anyway), would make for a fruitful inquiry.

because the attitude of yours is lost in contesting ME

not the idea, the guy in patent law (to contest literally) or the publisher

i posted an idea for a 'student' to think on as it was similar, easy and posted with something to read

your post was nothing but condescending (offered nothing but negativity to the thread)

at least i offered something the "inquisitive" may never have seen before

and go check for him/herself (or any who wish to GO BEYOND the current communities "reductionary" thinking)

It's pretty easy to stick a spectrometer at the sky and show it's blue. Not really a subject of debate.

What makes your claim so pure when common sense can shut that position down?

Merged post follows:

I'm probably going to regret asking, but what do you say otherwise?

because of evidence, common sense, reality!

so let's get this straight;

the OP is asking a question that not a one has addressed

but all have a love of me!

Why do magnetic feilds not affect the brain?

Why does a 3 Tesla magnet (MRI) not affect biological processes if living things run as classically interpreted?

Bishadi, you sure are obsessed with microtubules, although you seem to be confused as to what to call them. They aren't nanotubes. They aren't microtubes. They're microtubules:

funny post

at least 'ub' is correct

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microtubule

 

I assume from your obsession with them you have some passing familiarity with the Penrose-Hameroff hypothesis and its associated quantum mind mumbo jumbo?

wrong assumption

most say it is blue and talk about R scattering.

i say otherwise.

any wish to debate the color of the sky?

oh i know the physics(and the chemistry) behind it.

so what's the bitumen for?

 

but the fact of the matter is that the batteries are pretty crap in design.

not bad for a few thousand years old.

the voltage IS enough to electrolyse water but the current they are able to produce is pretty crap.

not enough surface area on the electrodes and high internal resistance.

otherwise you are not being very helpful with appreciating what pyramid builders built well before the idea of internet

the enrgy density is also crap. a few hundred joules at most per battery.

them are amps (see how electricity works http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/phys/Class/estatics/u8l4b.html

(keep that math close, it's important to life too)

and then see coulombs law (for kids)

http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/phys/Class/estatics/u8l3b.html

 

this does not amount to a lot of hydrogen per battery and the materials necessary for the construction of the batteries would be very expensive at that time.

that the tombs had to have light DEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP down in there to even carve a damn thing

as well, it 'could' work and be far more useful then plating, since there was LOW WOOD SUPPLIES and light is a big issue half the day

it is much more plausible that the batteries were used to electroplate objects. possibly with gold.

i think this is an ignorant claim based on following what is published

i consider that almost as nutty as believing in black holes, dark matter/energy and higgies (like huggies to an infant; required to keep the mess up)

I don't think the voltage is high enough for any decent amount of hydrolysis.

did you do the math?

did you take the bitumen into context?

if the voltage is 'x' (per bat) did you calculate the amps with 4,5, or even 100 in series?

Merged post follows:

you would need thousands of those batteries every minute to keep a substantial flame alive. not to mention, a 2:1 mix of hydrogen and oxygen doesn't really put out much visible light.

and even in this video, they share how basic solar panels can do it (electrolysis)

sure there maybe more items an mediums not covered in the OP (it was an idea i had from seeing the carving and remembering no one know what the B batteries were for; but they needed light in them deep tombs)

i opened a thread to give others a chance to think it through

here are physics on the matter

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/electrol.html

And I pointed out why it's fundamentally flawed. Microtubules are NOT nanotubes.

 

They have different chemistry, different structures, different properties, etc. You cannot meaningfully apply information about one to the other.

Do you even realize what microtubules *are*?

Carbon nanotubes are cylinders of nothing but carbon atoms bonded together via covalent bonds. Microtubules are cylinders made of proteins, each of which has hundreds of atoms of various sorts (mostly carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen), bound together using hydrogen bonds.

 

The *only* similarity between the two is that they're small cylinders. The molecular structures could hardly be more different.

When did I say it does?

for example; look at all the crap i took when you just couldn't read

 

I got involved in this thread because of your claims about microtubules and nanotubes, nothing more.

this is my post

look up (google) 'crystal structures and neuron'

the whole field is about to explode

(another item is to look up is the nano tubular-like structures of the cytoskeleton, then notice how well 'light' conveys within)

i said:

tubular-like

and notice how well 'light' conveys

everything is and will MOST always be consistant with me!

on the other hand

Mokele, the errors are all yours

the B batteries can be built

http://www.instructables.com/id/Building_a_quotBaghdad_Batteryquot/

and to create a potential and isolate Hydrogen and Oxygen from Water; to recombine them and you can create light.

some time back after seeing a carving on the wall of an egyptian tomb i noticed what looked like 5 B bats in series that had a lead going into a larger one and from that 'light'

now in the deep tombs, the oxygen is so low that lighting a lighter (bic) is tough but with electrolysis both the H and O are available

and if the B bats are offering the potential for the electrolysis, then PERHAPS they were for 'light'............ (any thinking folks like the idea?)

this thread is to offer any the ability to play with the idea and perhaps see if your school/community science group can 'create light' from this chemical configuration (self contained)

Enjoy

Merged post follows:

41 looks and not a comment or pole addition

is this a religious forum?

There's a little report triange in the corner of each post.

sorry

not real interested any further

i have played with these types for decades

trying to delete the material i wish to report to moderation

So, I can determine your muscle physiology by looking at bricks?

i shared the 'good' of why observing the cytoskeleton (microtubles) like nano tubes in which far more research is 'predictable' as the laws, rules and evidence can be cross referenced

and that was your comment

looks like you and i have a problem!

perhap get with current science (nanotubes is something you may wish to read up on)

http://www.nanotechwire.com/news.asp?nid=7419

2/14/2009 6:27:02 PM

DNA 'nanotubes' spark interest

In his research, Yan has been much inspired by nanoscale ingenuity in the natural world: “Unicellular creatures like oceanic diatoms,” he points out, “contain self-assembled protein architectures.” These diverse forms of enormous delicacy and organismic practicality are frequently the result of the orchestrated self-assembly of both organic and inorganic material.

 

Scientists in the field of structural DNA nanotechnology, including Dr. Yan’s team, have previously demonstrated that pre-fab DNA elements could be induced to self-assemble, forming useful nanostructural platforms or "tiles." Such tiles are able to snap together—with jigsaw puzzle-piece specificity—through base pairing, forming larger arrays.

you are a funny one

Really?

 

What evidence?

 

I've asked for evidence. Over and over again.

 

All you have is hand-waving theoretical gibberish.

 

You can convince me easily - SHOW ME EVIDENCE. Real evidence, in real neurons and real brains. Not theory, experimental evidence.

 

 

This is the basis of what all science is - you must present empirical evidence to support your claims. Theory and math are not enough. So far, you have failed to produce such evidence.

 

And if you think this is hard, you've never had to go through the peer review system.

this is not hard

i am used to it; material is offered and unless YOU have enough material knowledge YOU will not comprehend the bigger scope

the brain does not work like a CPU.

and it is because the brain does not work like the community believes it does...

Here is a FACT;

when you can comprehend how life works then you will be able to comprehend what i post; deal!

You claimed there was nothing random about life. Then predict mutations.

your child may look like you! (predicted)

Mokele, face it!

It's that time, wake up!

The ugly fact is that, whatever goes on at quantum levels, the end result is random.

i posted physical evidence, not the math in QM at the planck scale

you wanted something to hold in your hand and now you have it on every front but the only and i say ONLY thing, is that for you to cross the line, you know you have to break the law

Bullshit. Google "patch-clamp electrode" and "ion channel". Enjoy catching up on the last 60 years of neurobiology, since you've evidently read NONE of it.

you are suggesting that proves the ion channels are conveying electrically charged particles across the membrane.

M, your getting yourself lost

remember, if you EVER have a charged particle, whether positive or negative; a magnetic field can affect it.

Bullshit. Show me the paper.

you just said it was BS without a chance

And your wild speculation, even if published, is irrelevant with EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE

and what the last 30 years of compiliation was for.

Your pub is about material properties of one cytoskeletal element, NOT about the function of nerve cells as a whole.

it was offering you EVIDENCE to see what REAL scientist have performed in observance to specifics

Cite a damn source that actually supports your claims.

on what

"Why do magnetic field not affect the brain?"

i guess only you can answer that

I was talking about the use of X-ray crystalography to determine protein structure, still a popular method, IIRC.

First, whether they are "nano" or not is irrelevant - their *proper* name is "microtubule".

and microfiliments, actin and a whole host (structures)

2 benefits with talking 'nano-tubes'

a.... the scale

b.....evidence in the nano tech opens many doors to comprehending living things. (bridging)

Second, there is nothing magical about their growth. In fact, we understand it fully, and can induce it in vitro.

sorry....

I know michael king (nasa contractor, owns nano tech firm) take my word for it; they can set the 'environment' but the 'growth' is still MAGIC

No, they cannot. I am a biomechanist by training and I can 100% guarantee you that you are wrong.

that is your comment to this

or even 'common sense'; 2 men; each can lift a maximum but together they can lift more than the sum of their individual maximums (basics)

oooops!

you are scaring me

Merged post follows:

The irony is that you cited material that proves YOU wrong.

please share what you are claiming that supports this

you cited material that proves YOU wrong.

There is a long, long history of brain damage that results in loss of conscious thought, namely damage to the neocortex.

is this the kind of depth you have?

you are generalizing that consciousness is based on the neo with that as your evidence?

Merged post follows:

i wish to add something to this thread

i am not putting ME and being anything but an assistance for thinking

each item posted is based on addressing the questions of the OP and the why

telling me i am wrong without having the ability to really know what your talking about is rude

why not just observe what EVIDENCE and ideas are running RIGHT NOW all over the world and let's EVOLVE

otherwise, you folks are starting to seems like religious folks holding a book saying 'nah-huh not per my belief'