Satellite Based Sythetic Telepathy Weapon

[Anonymous No.1948994]

Long thought to be stuff of tin foil hats and potential candidates for nutter of the year award, Synthetic Telepathy is reviewed in a series of articles "Can a satellite read your thoughts?"

You will be shocked to here the true answer.

http://deepthought.newsvine.com

[Anonymous No.1949010]

Where is part one?

[Anonymous No.1949009]

really interesting

[Anonymous No.1949019]

Part One:

http://deepthought.newsvine.com/_news/2010/07/13/4656599-can-a-satellite-read-your-thoughts-physics-
revealed

[Anonymous No.1949039]

It's easy to expose this as a fraud.
A reverse search of an image shown here
http://deepthought.newsvine.com/_news/2010/09/20/5139785-can-a-satellite-read-your-thoughts-physics-
revealed-part-2

reveals they stole the 3D plot from something unrelated:
http://www.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/fileexchange/25710

And I'm not even counting the obvious absurd behind all that bullshit.

[Anonymous No.1949079]

I think it is just an example of what an FTT diagram would look like. As you failed to spot that, I think I will ignore your comment and actually read it for myself. It is clear that you skipped this part.

[Anonymous No.1949095]

Say hello to my little friend.

[Anonymous No.1949102]

Neuroscientist here.

If only we had the technology ;_;

[Anonymous No.1949105]

engineer here

the technology is not the problem, its the cost.

[Anonymous No.1949116]

>>1949079
lolno, double fail
It clearly says "Collated diagram representing electrical activity emanating from a single individual."
So 0/10.

>>1949105
It's not only the cost, but a matter of factibility. he signals are too weak to be detected. The low frequency means that you would also need very large antennae to pinpoint a single individual, to get a decent signal above noise and to resolve it from the rest. The ionosphere is also an additional problem. This is pure bullshit.

[Anonymous No.1949119]

>>1949105
No, it's the technology as well. Try measuring magnetic fields generated by the brain. You need a magnetically insulated room and an array of super conducting quantum interference devices (SQUIDS, no joke) all stationary relative to the brain, because those magnetic fields are in the order of 100 femto Tesla strong. Even then you can't interpret perception if the activity is not coupled with some behavioral task and lots and lots of trials.

If you measure electrical activity directly you need a bunch of electrodes in direct contact with the scalp via conducting gel to be able to measure anything. Even than you need a magnetically shielded room or your signal will be noisy as fuck.

At present it's not possible to measure brain activity from a distance other than with fMRI. Let alone from outer space.

[Anonymous No.1949130]

>>1949116
and speaking of collated diagrams...

[Anonymous No.1949133]

"It clearly says "Collated diagram representing electrical activity emanating from a single individual.""

its still an example.


"he signals are too weak to be detected."

care to prove that?


"The low frequency means that you would also need very large antennae to pinpoint a single individual, to get a decent signal above noise and to resolve it from the rest. The ionosphere is also an additional problem."

the earth and ionosphere would act as a waveguide at these frequencies. the signal strength that he shows is well within the reach of a modern satellite.


"This is pure bullshit."

please...as if you understand more than the basic principle...

[Anonymous No.1949138]

>>1949119
And I forgot to mention that it's impossible to directly measure electrical activity non-invasive from areas of the brain that are not oriented perpendicular to the surface of the skull and close to it. This means we can only measure cortical activity and not even from all of the cortex.

[Anonymous No.1949142]

>>1949133
>care to prove that?

See: [>>1949119] and [>>1949138]

[Anonymous No.1949144]

>>1949133
>its still an example.
see >>1949130
Anyway, it was stolen from something unrelated. There is no escape.
Credibility is immediately lost.

>care to prove that?
See >>1949119

>the earth and ionosphere would act as a waveguide at these frequencies
Which means it would act as a filter and the signal could not be detected from space. You just shot yourself in the foot.

>please...as if you understand more than the basic principle...
Physicist+astrophysicist here. lol

[Anonymous No.1949145]

The author states that the signals is around -200dBW at 500Km.

That's achievable.

[Anonymous No.1949146]

>>1948994
Omg assassins creed came true! D8

[Anonymous No.1949147]

Fortunately we all have our very own endogenous tin foil hat. It's called the skull.

[Anonymous No.1949148]

>>1949145
Gonna need some evidence for that claim.

[Anonymous No.1949152]

damn he's good, the science looks ok people. not a conspiracy in sight either.

[Anonymous No.1949163]

>>1949152
>>1949152
sure... sure...

[Anonymous No.1949179]

-200dBW in the sub-1000Hz range. Its about the same strength as a signal bounced of the moon:

http://www.nitehawk.com/w3sz/NEWSLinrad-2-2005FINAL.doc

say a 80m dish, with a fine wire loop antenna and you could get a 1/8 or 1/4 wave no problem. especially with the resources of the state.

[Anonymous No.1949203]

>>1949179
You are forgetting about the head movement problem. The receivers need to be stationary relative to the brain and you need multiple receivers around the brain to even be able to make inferences about current- or field sources within the brain.

I have no idea about the -200dBW, but like I said earlyer in this thread, the magnetic fields generated by the brain are in the order of 100 femto Tesla. I don't know how that translates to dBW, but it sure is too small to be measurable even from a meter away. Especially considering the magnetic interference from the earth itself.

[Anonymous No.1949207]

>>1949179
The data shown there is for 144 MHz. The figures will change for lower energies in the range < 1 kHz.

[Anonymous No.1949214]

>>1949203
The magnetic component is c times smaller than the electrical component and it's not the interesting part, anyway. Still, this bullshit has so many objections that it shouldn't deserve attention. However, some readers here may be misled by this crap. And well, debunking this shit is sometimes fun. It makes it easier to debunk further crap when it's really needed.

[Anonymous No.1949220]

not the power density, only the antenna size. just done a quick calc on the antenna and a 1/8 at 300Hz would be 390 000 feet / 118.872 kilometer.

Head movement would not be problem given the orientation of neurons involved in clusters. it would be transient anyway.

Its do-able guys, it just takes a lot of money.

[Anonymous No.1949226]

>>1949214
>The magnetic component is c times smaller than the electrical component
Yes, but electrical activity is smeared out by the skull, scalp and dura. Also, current sources that are parallel to each other cancel each other out due to volume conduction. Electrical activity from deep brain sources is not measurable for the same reason. This makes electrical activity a very unpractical measure if your goal is to measure it from a distance.
>Still, this bullshit has so many objections that it shouldn't deserve attention. However, some readers here may be misled by this crap. And well, debunking this shit is sometimes fun. It makes it easier to debunk further crap when it's really needed.
I agree. It's fun to feed the trolls sometimes because it keeps you sharp.

[Anonymous No.1949232]

>>1949220
>Head movement would not be problem given the orientation of neurons involved in clusters. it would be transient anyway.
Are you kidding me? How are you going to make inferences about the location of the current source?

[Anonymous No.1949233]

>this makes electrical activity a very unpractical measure if your goal is to measure it from a distance.

Hmmm...completely wrong technology. Won't listen to you again.

EEG is not radio...

[Anonymous No.1949234]

>>1949220
No. Frequencies in the relevant range are still blocked by the atmosphere.

[Anonymous No.1949242]

>>1949233
>EEG is not radio...
I know... That's why I assumed you'd be measuring magnetic fieds...

[Anonymous No.1949246]

>>1949226
> Yes, but electrical activity is smeared out by the skull
Sure, I agree with all that, but I was only steering the discussion to the relevant component of the electromagnetic field and the corresponding instruments needed.

> It's fun to feed the trolls sometimes because it keeps you sharp.
brofist

>>1949233
Care to read the thread? We are debunking the bullshit posted by OP.

[Anonymous No.1949260]

>-200dBW in the sub-1000Hz range. Its about the same strength as a signal bounced of the moon:

>http://www.nitehawk.com/w3sz/NEWSLinrad-2-2005FINAL.doc

>say a 80m dish, with a fine wire loop antenna and you could get a 1/8 or 1/4 wave no problem. especially with the resources of the state.

>not the power density, only the antenna size. just done a quick calc on the antenna and a 1/8 at 300Hz would be 390 000 feet / 118.872 kilometer.

This says it all. its realistic given modern tech.

[Anonymous No.1949269]

>>1949260
0/10
Try harder. This bullshit has been debunked easily.

[Anonymous No.1949283]

he's def onto sumit, lot of talk from the debunkers but nothing to back it up wif.

look like the debunker is one guy anyway.

[Anonymous No.1949298]

>>1949283
There have been at least two. But it clearly looks like a samefag defending this bullshit. You have been debunked with little effort, due to the dubious practices of the source, sloppy calculations, irrelevant references and lack of clear counterarguments. Deal with it.

[Anonymous No.1949305]

i don't accept that position. especially, when no one has offered anything but their opinion. The nay-sayers may be vocal, but their claims lack substance.

-200dBW is a very realistic goal and is done everyday.

[Anonymous No.1949316]

>>1949260
Keep ignoring my posts. [>>1949203], [>>1949226]
Also, samefag.

[Anonymous No.1949320]

>>1949305
>>1949305
It won't let me post the link so google "MEG 100 femto tesla" and click the second hit.

[Anonymous No.1949333]

>>1949305
Argumentum ad hominem.

And -200 dB in one specific context doesn't make the case presented viable, which uses a completely different frequency range, different sources with different extension, different noise sources, different signal coherence, and the atmosphere blocking the signal. Don't worry, we get your butthurt from your parroting of unsubstantiated defenses.

[Anonymous No.1949343]

>>1949298
Exactly. One is me (the neuroscientist guy) and I presume you're the physicist/astrophysicist?

[Anonymous No.1949356]

>>1949343
indeed

[Anonymous No.1949358]

>And -200 dB in one specific context doesn't make the case presented viable

as one poster pointed out, it is the signal strength returned from a signal reflected off the moon. the only difference is the antenna and there are a number of solutions to that.

also, signals at these wavelengths are not blocked at orbital distances, the E-Field will drop at most by -35dB.

This design would work.

[Anonymous No.1949371]

>>1949358
No. It. Would. Not.

Goddamnit.

Even if you would manage to pick up activity generated by a human brain you'd have no way of knowing what that activity means in terms of cognition...

[Anonymous No.1949384]

>you'd have no way of knowing what that activity means in terms of cognition

The article explains this. We have common neural networks which produce generalizable RF emissions.

Why would you be trying to debunk an article you have not read?

This is real, isn't it?

[Anonymous No.1949394]

>>1949358
> as one poster pointed out, it is the signal strength returned from a signal reflected off the moon.
At 144 MHz, not 1kHz.

> signals at these wavelengths are not blocked at orbital distances,
Calculations of the source use 500 km. The D and E ionospheric layers absorb radiation up to frequencies well over 1 kHz, and they extend to ~100 km over the surface of Earth. Sorry, no cake.

[Anonymous No.1949401]

>>1949384
>We have common neural networks which produce generalizable RF emissions.
See, this doesn't mean anything. We don't even have a conclusive theory of what neural processes underlie different frequency bands of activity. We don't even know if they're causally related to cognition of just epiphenomena. Unless the government has legions of neuroscientists working for them that have somehow managed to solve all the problems of contemporary neuroscience within a decade, this is bogus.

[Anonymous No.1949407]

>>1949394
Might I add that the predominant oscillations of the brain range from 1 to 100 Hz.

[Anonymous No.1949412]

>At 144 MHz, not 1kHz.

Power density is the same regardless of frequency. I don't think the OP was suggesting that someone bounce a 1Khz signal off the moon.

>The D and E ionospheric layers absorb radiation up to frequencies well over 1 kHz, and they extend to ~100 km over the surface of Earth.

They only reflect a proportion of the energy, it does not block signals. That's a simplistic view of the situation for beginners.

Someone else pointed out that a -35dB drop off in the E-Field is what would be expected.

[Anonymous No.1949420]

The author gets a Eureka for his moment of absolute genius.

[Anonymous No.1949438]

>See, this doesn't mean anything. We don't even have a conclusive theory of what neural processes underlie different frequency bands of activity. We don't even know if they're causally related to cognition of just epiphenomena.

you have not read the article either. The author describes a pattern matching algorithm examining a spread spectrum of frequencies and quite a few test subjects. it should be easy.

[Anonymous No.1949441]

>>1949412
> Power density is the same regardless of frequency.
Bollocks. Power depends on frequency.
http://hintlink.com/power_density.htm

> I don't think the OP was suggesting that someone bounce a 1Khz signal off the moon.
That is the frequency used in OP's sources, and then proceeded to use calculations in power loss at 144 MHz, considering that the size of the sources and appropriate detectors change with wavelength due to beam size.

> They only reflect a proportion of the energy, it does not block signals. That's a simplistic view of the situation for beginners.
Rigorously speaking, yes, but it was not taken into account in applying the example of the radio beams to the Moon to 1 kHz. no calculation has been presented here by any of you defending OP's bullshit. IF there is more than one, all of this smells like samefag.

> Someone else pointed out that a -35dB drop off in the E-Field is what would be expected.
Surely yourself. This claim needs sources, anyway.

>>1949420
yeah,it smells like samefag so hard

deal with it, this bullshit has been now shattered even more

[Anonymous No.1949467]

>>1949438
Actually I did read the article. You obviously didn't understand my post.

I'm done with this thread anyway. Good luck physicist guy. Happy debunking.

[Anonymous No.1949472]

>Bollocks. Power depends on frequency.

Here is a power density calculator:

http://www.calculatoredge.com/new/power%20density.htm

Note the lack of frequency in the equation. You know absolutely nothing and I will ignore the debunkers from now on.

You almost had me there. What is your malfunction?

[Anonymous No.1949476]

>>1949438
lolno
The lack of references in the website is disturbing.
It's only a bunch of pictures without citations, dubious sources and a few sloppy calculations.
The good sources I've found have broken links, or actually do not support the rest of the case. The author also makes unwarranted connections between them. There is use of stolen, unrelated plots.
No serious case has been presented.

[Anonymous No.1949487]

I disagree entirely. I have spent the last hour reading this and I get the impression that the author is describing a system for which no public reference exists and anything that would allude to it is not in the public domain. That's hardly surprising, the same thing happens with nuclear technology. Given that the technology is well within our capabilities and the physics is somewhat simple, I'd say he's correct.

[Anonymous No.1949494]

>>1949472
haha, you're so desperate!
It doesn't include it there because it already considers integrated power.
The integrated power depends on frequency.
The energy of an electromagnetic wave is E = h*f (with h=Plack's constant and f=frequency),
so power necessarily depends on frequency. Now, if you don't know the relationship between
power and energy, you're lost.
You are the one who doesn't know shit about this. Go and grab a decent physics book.

[Anonymous No.1949500]

>>1948994
>implying we can even read minds from inside the atmosphere

[Anonymous No.1949505]

Beware the debunk squad...

[Anonymous No.1949510]

I'll just leave this here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_law

[Anonymous No.1949516]

>>1949487
> nuclear technology
>not in the public domain

0/10
Try getting a decent education in physics and neurobiology first.
Even Christian apologists do better than you.

[Anonymous No.1949517]

THIS IS THE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT.

YOU DID NOT SEE THIS. THIS IS OBVIOUSLY UNTRUE. MOVE ALONG.

[Anonymous No.1949532]

>>1949505
tinfoil hat much?

I was accused of the same when I debunked the Norway spiral attributed to HAARPS using only my bachelor in physics and information available to everyone Even a second-year physics student can do it.

[Anonymous No.1949536]

>It doesn't include it there because it already considers integrated power.

So, in a practical scenario a 1KW transmitter at any frequency will have the same power density at a given radius.

In terms of a receiver, the -200dBW threshold comes down to the antenna and signal processing equipment.

[Anonymous No.1949540]

>mfw OP would rather believe a crackpot than a neuro-scientist and a physicist

[Anonymous No.1949556]

>>1949536
You keep avoiding important things: the atmospheric absorption, the different spatial resolutions due to different wavelengths, the source typical sizes, the still issue of background noise (not addressed by the source, as far as I've seen), the lack of reputable references, the dishonest connection between steps, etc.
Even if that sole part you mention worked fine, the rest is still lacking big time.

[Anonymous No.1949563]

>mfw OP would rather believe a crackpot than a neuro-scientist and a physicist

We have those badges too...

[Anonymous No.1949580]

>>1948994
He forgot to explain how the mind-reading part is supposed to work.

[Anonymous No.1949607]

>He forgot to explain how the mind-reading part is supposed to work.

It is explained, either you did not read it, or you did not understand it. Either way, that's not a good sign and I should really read this for myself.

[Anonymous No.1949612]

>>1949580
He forgot honesty and how to make a decent argument in every step.
I've seen much better fabricated bullshit before.

[Anonymous No.1949627]

>>1949607
Explain to me how he is supposed to get "thoughts" from brain waves.

[Anonymous No.1949634]

>>1949607
You call THAT an explanation???
Oh, wow... No wonder you believe all that bullshit.
It's as crappy as the "explanations" of HAARP conspiracy paranoids.

[Anonymous No.1949636]

>He forgot honesty and how to make a decent argument in every step. I've seen much better fabricated bullshit before.

What steps? Have you even read this? The articles are quite good and very accurate. So, the brain emits radio waves and the signals are within the limits of modern receivers in orbit.

Not so hard to understand, now is it?

[Anonymous No.1949644]

>>1949636
What about the step from waves to thoughts?

[Anonymous No.1949652]

>Explain to me how he is supposed to get "thoughts" from brain waves.

Did you not read the article?

Anyway, I give you my synopsis. A word or phrase causes a set of neural networks to emit weak radio signals in a specific pattern. The pattern is generalizable given that we all have an internal monologue. The circuitry is essentially the same.

Really simple stuff, you should try reading it first before trying to debunk based on second-hand fragments.

[Anonymous No.1949654]

OP just watched Dr. Who.

[Anonymous No.1949655]

>>1949627
not OP, but there are some (basic) good advances in the field:
http://news.discovery.com/tech/brain-mind-reading-tech.html

The difference is that this uses proven technology (microelectrodes), not that bullshit of OP's source.

[Anonymous No.1949668]

>>1948994
Brought to you by The Illuminatti, makers of the Orbiting Mind Control Lasers!

[Anonymous No.1949680]

>The difference is that this uses proven technology (microelectrodes), not that bullshit of OP's source.

That newfangled stuff called radiom waves is all tall tales.

[Anonymous No.1949695]

>>1949680
Straw man argument detected.
I'm talking about the whole idea in OP's source of detecting brain signals at 500 km over the ionosphere.

[Anonymous No.1949706]

Cletus wishes to express his outrage at the most unscientific postulate that radio waves emitted by the brain can be related to activity.

[Anonymous No.1949737]

>>1949706
straw men arguments
straw men arguments everywhere

[Anonymous No.1949773]

>straw men arguments everywhere

I agree. There is nothing here to suggest that a large antenna would not be capable of intercepting such signals. At the end of the day, this is the only real obstacle and it can be solved quite readily. This power density is used in radar all the time, so the signal processing stages are already in current deployment:

http://www.gmat.unsw.edu.au/snap/publications/glennon_etal2005a.pdf

[Anonymous No.1949788]

>>1949773
You must be really deluded to insist on this.
The straw man arguments have come from the one(s) defending OP's bullshit. (And I still think it's always samefag.)
The systems in the reference work in a different waveband. You have not presented any evidence that can be dignified some doubt in favor.
The neurobiologist and I have presented several objections, and none of them has been addressed to
a minimally satisfactory level. And I just thought of another one. The ionosphere will not only block at least part of the signal. It will affect its coherence and will scatter it, making the detection of a compact source even more difficult.
It's time to acknowledge you have nothing competent to present.

[Anonymous No.1949801]

>>1949773
Even more, we have criticized the statements as they have been presented. You clearly don't even know what a straw man argument is, or rather chose to dishonestly misrepresent criticism.
Whoever posted this
>>1949472
doesn't even have a minimally working knowledge of basic physics.
This is an ad hominem attack, but a well deserved one based on evidence.

[Anonymous No.1949845]

> The neurobiologist and I

I think the correct terminology is "My sockpuppet and I"...

Give it a rest mate, it obvious that it works, it just a damn radio!!!! You are talking rubbish...

[Anonymous No.1949857]

>>1949845
lolno
Let your butthurt rest. You have given no answer to the criticisms.
You have been defeated.

[Anonymous No.1949871]

>>1948994
Haha idiots. You can't even measure 75% of the brain from anywhere else but inside the brain. Fields are only created if neurons are aligned.

[Anonymous No.1949885]

>The ionosphere will not only block at least part of the signal. It will affect its coherence and will scatter it, making the detection of a compact source even more difficult.

haha even i know that we have low frequency satellites already in orbit

http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/1634/

he only saying they are more sensitive

[Anonymous No.1949902]

>>1949885
Not so fast. The abstract says:

This work is a feasibility study of the possibility of transmitting ELF pulses at 1.4kHz to the GEOS satellite. Design considerations point to the use of a 56km horizontal transmission line as an aerial. The radiation field of this aerial at 95km height is rigorously computed using a full wave program, and the wave field amplitude produced at GEOS is roughly estimated. It is concluded that observable signals may be produced at GEOS but that nonlinear triggered emissions would require a high degree of plasma instability.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1974evrw.conf..361N

Brain activity is often at f<100 Hz as far as I know.
There is no evidence of a significant radio signal detectable at even closer ranges. (I've only found a claim in a low-tier, not-peer-reviewed document of a possible detection in the range of a meter or so, so I would leave it at no necessary evidence provided yet).
Moreover, the mechanism described there is much more complicated and big.
So OP still scores 0 points.

[Anonymous No.1949914]

>>1949902
And even in this highly prepared case the detectability of the signal at a distance closer than 500 km requires special conditions.
So to recap:
- no _firm_ evidence of brain radio signals at close range
- no evidence that in the best case would be detectable
- stolen, unrelated plots
- lack of references for several important steps
- unreferenced plots
- sloppy calculations in OP's source
- unwarranted connections between pieces of argumentation
- high atmospheric opacity in the relevant range
- no reference on the possibilities of reconstructing a weak signal in the relevant range after passing the ionosphere
- no references to the problems of background noise
- no knowledge of basic physics by the apologists of OP's source
- etc

There you have it, a perfect 0/10.

[Anonymous No.1949915]

>Not so fast. The abstract says:

The poster was correct, there are low frequency satellites. Here's a full test 20Hz-20KHz:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/v6076g70t5l8854p/

>There is no evidence of a significant radio signal detectable at even closer ranges.

It just the equipment...$1000 antenna versus $500 million satellite.

[Anonymous No.1949922]

>- no _firm_ evidence of brain radio signals at close range

i just read one of the articles and this is false. do you even understand any of this?

[Anonymous No.1949928]

>>1949915
> The poster was correct, there are low frequency satellites. Here's a full test 20Hz-20KHz:
Fail. I've never said there are no satellites that can detect in that range. I said that a weak signal of the kind required would not be detectable at 500 km. The Interkosmos satellite studies the ionosphere and magnetosphere, which are MUCH ABOVE of the signals intended by OP, brains.

> It just the equipment...$1000 antenna versus $500 million satellite.
You have no idea what you're talking about. I'm talking of no evidence presented here of significant radio emission from a human brain (and related to the brain activity that OP's source claims can be detected, of course), detectable at close range.
If that evidence is presented, I would expect an measurement of radiated power, and feasibility for use in decoding. That means that you not only need to detect the signal, but to have BOTH spatial and temporal resolution better than what can be achieved with traditional methods, to compensate for further distortions in the signal. So this is yet another argument AGAINST OP's source, which is now a steaming pile of shit.

[Anonymous No.1949932]

>>1949922
I found no reputable source for that. Post it, if it's so legit. I would have no problem admitting I'm wrong.

Just remember that detection of radio signals related to brain activity is not a guarantee for decoding, which depends on localization of the sources of the signals within the brain, as I stated here: >>1949928

[Anonymous No.1949933]

>>1949922
>>1949915
What do you niggers not understand about this post
>>1949871

Here's a source as well.
http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Volume_conduction

[Anonymous No.1949940]

>>1949933
>http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Volume_conduction
>mfw I understand nothing of this

[Anonymous No.1949952]

>>1949933
Thanks! This is now pwnage of epic proportions.
OP has no place to hide.

[Anonymous No.1950044]

Volume conduction applies to fields generated by the motion of electrical currents. It does not apply to fields created by an electrical potential difference. That is, it applies to the motion of ions, not action potentials.

[Anonymous No.1950049]

>>1949952
It seems like it shut OP up. Finally.

[Anonymous No.1950062]

>>1950044
Action potentials ARE the flow of ions. Not that they create significant electrical/magnetic fields though. Only post synaptic membrane currents create fields because unless two action potentials fire at exactly the same moment in time, they cancel each other out. Current flowing out of one axon flows into another. Read the fucking article.

[Anonymous No.1950068]

>>1950049
Cheered too soon. Oh well.

[Anonymous No.1950074]

>Action potentials ARE the flow of ions

No, they are not. Action potentials are an electric field, that is propagated by ions entering and leaving the axon.

Volume conduction is inappropriate to this discussion.

My 2 cents, the OP and the author are correct.

[Anonymous No.1950087]

>>1950074
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_potential#Ions_and_the_forces_driving_their_motion

[Anonymous No.1950089]

...and this post over here, kids, is a marvelous example of scientific illiteracy...
>>1950044

[Anonymous No.1950102]

>>1950074
The samefags in this thread are so blatantly obvious it hurts my brain

[Anonymous No.1950105]

>>1950074
> OP and the author are correct.
Non-sequitur in any case. And I suspect you're OP.

[Anonymous No.1950112]

the two posters that mentioned the action potential has two components, this is accurate. The motion of the ions, in and out of the gates, depolarizes or hyperpolarizes the membrane. This changes the potential across the membrane causing the electric field to move.

So, they are bang on the money. Volume conduction applies to the current from the moving ions. The electrical field is under no such restrictions, as its relationship with the current is indirect.

[Anonymous No.1950123]

>>1950112
Stop samefagging idiot.

An electrical field is generated by the flow of ions. That's the definition of a <span class="math">{\bf current}[/spoiler]. The field it generates is the same for post synnaptic potentials and action potentials. Of cource volume conduction fucking applies, what else would it relate to? Even the first fucking scentence of the article I linked to states this:
>Volume conduction, a term used in bioelectromagnetism, can be defined as the transmission of electric or magnetic fields from an electric primary current source through biological tissue towards measurement sensors.
The sad thing is the skull smears and inhibits the field.

[Anonymous No.1950171]

>An electrical field is generated by the flow of ions. That's the definition of a {\bf current}. The field it generates is the same for post synnaptic potentials and action potentials.

The field is not generated by the flow of ions. The electric field is produced by the membrane. The ions merely change the electric potential of the axon's membrane.

Volume conduction is applicable to EEG and MEG. It is not applicable to the articles.

So, you are quite wrong on this.

[Anonymous No.1950185]

>>1950171
OP's article is a bunch of crap, anyway.

[Anonymous No.1950206]

>>1950171
I am facepalming so fucking hard here. "The field is produced by the membrane." Are you fucking kidding me? Do you even understand basic electrophysiology?

[Anonymous No.1950213]

>OP's article is a bunch of crap, anyway.

I don't see it. Its a good read and all nonsense aside, I don't think there would be a single person on this board that could assess it properly.

My gut feeling is that its accurate. As far as my knowledge goes, it seems to be roughly correct. Whilst a lot of the detail has obviously been left out and the equations are rough estimates, I can see the potential and what the resources of a state actor would add to it.

On balanced of probabilities, I'd say this is accurate. Whilst we are busy arguing this point, we are missing the elephant in the room. People are claiming to have been attacked by systems like this.

[Anonymous No.1950233]

>>1950213
You missed the part where it's totally ridiculous. You can't measure most brain activity from outside of the skull. If we could, there would be no need for invasive studies. Idiot. This idea is so fucking preposterous and is a slap in the face for modern science.

[Anonymous No.1950250]

>You missed the part where it's totally ridiculous.

I don't feel anyone has demonstrated that.

>You can't measure most brain activity from outside of the skull.

Of course you can, the articles show that neurons emit radio waves and it is detectable. That is a given.

EEG uses induction, and MEG uses magnetic induction, but nothing is looking at the emanations in weak radio signals from the action potential.

If memory serves, volume conduction is related to induction not radiation.


>If we could, there would be no need for invasive studies.

Not if it requires a half billion dollar satellite.

[Anonymous No.1950256]

>>1950213
> I don't see it.
Because you need a better education in science.

> Its a good read
As science FICTION

> and all nonsense aside,
there's nothing left

> I don't think there would be a single person on this board that could assess it properly.
So what. We've been more than two people. I'm the physicist/astrophysicist and I can clearly see the stupidity of the claims within my field and several in others related to the brain (because I took courses in biology too)

> My gut feeling
That has no value as an argument whatsoever.

> is that its accurate.
You can't even defend the simple points.

> As far as my knowledge goes,
Not far, I would say. You're not interested in assessing this in a rigorous way. You only want to be right.

> it seems to be roughly correct.
It's not even wrong. It fails in multiple ways.

> Whilst a lot of the detail has obviously been left out
Too much to even consider it as slightly likely.

> and the equations are rough estimates,
Not even that. They lack more in depth detail and they leave too much to speculation, besides omitting too many relevant details.

> I can see the potential
LOL

> and what the resources of a state actor would add to it.
Maybe as a sci-fi movie

> On balanced of probabilities,
This is not about probabilities. This shows you have no idea of what your'e talking about.

> I'd say this is accurate.
Oh, lol

> Whilst we are busy arguing this point,
Which one of all the failures?

> we are missing the elephant in the room. I've been arguing People are claiming to have been attacked by systems like this.

Claims, claims, claims. There are too many wild claims and not much evidence.
You have not submitted even the slightest piece of decent evidence, no even at the level required for a laboratory report in bachelor studies.

[Anonymous No.1950264]

>>1950250
> I don't feel anyone has demonstrated that.
Then you're not reading and/or not interested in a serious evaluation.

> Of course you can, the articles show that neurons emit radio waves and it is detectable. That is a given.
I've asked you to post the reference. Nothing yet. I could not find any in OP's source.
It's a fundamental part of your argument, post it.

> EEG uses induction, and MEG uses magnetic induction, but nothing is looking at the emanations in weak radio signals from the action potential.
Again, post evidence.

>If we could, there would be no need for invasive studies.
> Not if it requires a half billion dollar satellite.
For this specific case, if you can't do it a few meters away, no way 500 km away.

[Anonymous No.1950266]

>I'm the physicist/astrophysicist

...and I'm Stephen Hawking.

[Anonymous No.1950267]

>>1950250
>Of course you can, the articles show that neurons emit radio waves and it is detectabl
The article states this, but there's no evidence whatsoever. The referenced articles all 404.

[Anonymous No.1950274]

>Again, post evidence.

Isn't this in the articles? Did you not bother to read it?

[Anonymous No.1950284]

>>1950266
butthurt much?

>>1950274
I read and didn't find anything useful. Come on, post the reference, it should be easy for you. You've been dodging this for too long.

[Anonymous No.1950286]

>The article states this, but there's no evidence whatsoever. The referenced articles all 404.

Just checked and that's nonsense. The links are working fine, including the paper on low frequency radio emissions from the human body:

http://www.piers.org/piersonline/download.php?file=MDQxMjA4MTAxMzI2fFZvbDFObzJQYWdlMjI3dG8yMzAucGRm

[Anonymous No.1950290]

>>1950274
What I want is a reputable reference. A mere claim in OP's web site doesn't count as evidence. I want a peer-reviewed article.

[Anonymous No.1950300]

>>1950286
That article concerns EEG. Thank you for proving my point.

[Anonymous No.1950313]

>What I want is a reputable reference.

All requests should be directed to the following address:

NSA HQ
Fort George G. Meade
MD, 20755

[Anonymous No.1950315]

>>1950286
That link 404'd for me before. Now it worked.

That is NOT a peer-reviewed article. It's a conference proceeding, and has little value as evidence. If you didn't know this, now you do.
Anyways, I'm reading it. Brb.

[Anonymous No.1950323]

>>1950313
If you don't associate that with a claim or document, it's useless.

[Anonymous No.1950327]

>That article concerns EEG. Thank you for proving my point

What planet are you on:

Existence of Electromagnetic Radiation in Humans in
ELF Band
http://www.piers.org/piersonline/download.php?file=MDQxMjA4MTAxMzI2fFZvbDFObzJQYWdlMjI3dG8yMzAucGRm

This is not EEG or MEG. This is radio.

[Anonymous No.1950403]

>>1950327
Wow, this is the first sane thing you've said.

The study has several flaws:

- It's not peer reviewed. If it's "correct enough", it needs validation by independent groups. You just can't give credibility to this case based on only one study. If this can be reproduced consistently by more teams (and published), discarding clearly other possibilities, only then I would consider this as evidence.

-"Although this record was made in the screened free-field chamber, it is obvious from the time path that very strong industrial interference was present."
Then:
"The spectral analyse can give us more information."
A spectrum gives you not spatial information. They haven't proved the source is not elsewhere.

- They are not clear in the geometry of the experiment. They mention a stronger signal when "the inductive coil sensitivity for man presence was on its highest if oriented in east-west direction."

- I would expect the use of a medical dummy of similar size as a comparison.

- They only show one of several plots. I want to see the other ones.

That's poor as a source, sorry. It looked promising at first, but under attention to details, it fails.
Also, since these signals were supposedly detected in a field-free chamber. If they can detect the same signal _without_ the chamber with maybe more sensitive instruments, only then there would be a case. Then they would have to prove that:
- the signal comes from the brain and only from the brain
- the signal is persistent and related to specific brain activities
- you can associate these signals to specific stuff
If you can't detect this without a chamber, much less from orbit. And there are still several other problems with the claims of the article.

Sorry, but not convinced.

[Anonymous No.1950439]

>It's not peer reviewed

Not much to peer review in a signal.


>A spectrum gives you not spatial information. They haven't proved the source is not elsewhere.

If you are walking in front of the attena and it spikes every time, i'd say its pretty solid.


>They are not clear in the geometry of the experiment. They mention a stronger signal when "the inductive coil sensitivity for man presence was on its highest if oriented in east-west direction."

Not a big issue but interesting.


>the signal comes from the brain and only from the brain

It comes from neurons firing. That can be any neuron. Most likely they are seeing motor neurons.


>the signal is persistent and related to specific brain activities

That's by implication. DeepThought's articles show how this mechanism works.


>you can associate these signals to specific stuff

See the article.
>If you can't detect this without a chamber, much less from orbit. And there are still several other problems with the claims of the article.

$1000 antenna verus $500 million dollar satellite. I'm sure there would be more than a minor difference.

[Anonymous No.1950460]

>>1950403
And by " They only show one of several plots. I want to see the other ones" I mean that they should show more experimental runs.
I would also like more background noise measurements.
Oh, and by the way, the introduction sounds scarily too much pseudoscientific, which is more or less fixed with the sentences in the end, but not satisfactorily for my taste.
Still, I would not accept that text in that way.

[Anonymous No.1950625]

minor issues, it doesn't detract from the main point of the article. Humans broadcast detectable low frequency radio waves.

that provides a basis for the articles.

[Anonymous No.1950640]

>>1950439
> Not much to peer review in a signal.
Peer review is much more than simply looking at the signal. You also evaluate
the procedures, logical steps, you ask for more details, check plots, and can even ask
for some archived data. You clearly don't know much about the scientific process.

> If you are walking in front of the attena and it spikes every time, i'd say its pretty solid.
Correlation is not causation. You also must check the timing between walks and other possible periodic sources, and test other effects. It needs more plots of other runs.

> Not a big issue but interesting.
It is an issue since they were measuring in a radio-noisy place.

> It comes from neurons firing. That can be any neuron. Most likely they are seeing motor neurons.
There is no evidence for that there. You are trying to associate a measurement with a specific mechanism, but the experiment isn't even conclusive on the source. If these are signals from motor neurons, it's not a support for OP's article, concerned with brain activity.

> That's by implication. DeepThought's articles show how this mechanism works.
Those are mere claims, they are useless without evidence.

>you can associate these signals to specific stuff
> See the article.
The one about the experiment only makes _claims_ regarding that. It doesn't settle the case.
There IS a difference between a claim and scientific evidence supporting a claim. It seems you fail to see that.
It doesn't show the association experimentally. If it's the web page, those are mere claims.


> $1000 antenna verus $500 million dollar satellite. I'm sure there would be more than a minor difference.
Money cannot overcome just ANY natural limitation. It's like claiming that you can travel back in time and it's only a matter of money, without providing any evidence related to the physics of the problem.

[Anonymous No.1950683]

>>1950625
> minor issues, it doesn't detract from the main point of the article. Humans broadcast detectable low frequency radio waves.
Bullshit. There is only a possible correlation that needs independent confirmation.
That it's not a peer-reviewed article is a BIG FUCKING issue. If you can't understand this, you have even less credibility.

You have still not provided an experiment that shows clearly:
- that radio waves are produced by the human body as a product of neuronal activity, let alone brain activity.
- that these radio waves, if they exist, can be detected a few meters away.
- that money makes a difference for this specific case; if you don't have the physics, money is useless.
- that the signal would be detectable 500 km away.
- that the signal would carry some information on brain activity.
- that the signal can be processed over ambient noise and the information gathered to a satisfactory level.

[Anonymous No.1950690]

look for Captain John Tyler, he described the nervous system as almost like a radio. This was in 1990 tho.

[Anonymous No.1950716]

This is what you have provided (whether you've been always the same, or several people):
- A web site with unrelated, stolen and/or unreferenced plots; full of unwarranted claims given the limitations of the sources, some of them of bad quality.
The good ones only support primary ideas, but not the logical steps to build a solid argumentation.
- ONE non-peer-reviewed study that shows a seemingly temporal association between human presence and a signal that they already expected to find, in a radio-noisy place, omitting more plots. Poor treatment of geometrical factors and noise. Lack of supporting _additional_ papers that can confirm the validity of the experiment.
- Lots of bald claims, which are useless.
- Lack of decent knowledge in physics, since you can't see even the most basic problems in the sources.
- Arguments that do not help to the case, like the satellite that was rather directed to ionospheric/magnetospheric measurements, the GPS satellites that operate in different ranges at different resolutions, etc.
- Failure to understand and address the problems of atmospheric blocking and noise. Again, only claims of -35 dB. No source provided.
- Repetition of the same arguments that have already been debunked.
- An alarming lack of solid calculations and models.
- A claim of people being attacked by something you can't even prove it's remotely possible.

If you had provided a decent argument, I would have happily changed my mind.
But well, you _do_ seem to have serious issues with being proven wrong.

Anyway, I have to work and eat now.
Good day/night and please think about all this. I would say you're bordering insanity.
Too much time spent in your bullshit, but worth for the fun of it. :)

PS:
> look for Captain John Tyler, he described the nervous system as almost like a radio. This was in 1990 tho.
No publications, no cake. I can describe the human body like a giant bag of coffee if I really want.

[Anonymous No.1950792]

>If you had provided a decent argument, I would have happily changed my mind.

A little research on your part could have clarified matters. That said, given the range of statements you made that refer to your lack of knowledge of present science, I seriously doubt your capacity to understand it anyway.

[Anonymous No.1950828]

>This is what you have provided (whether you've been always the same, or several people):

its been 8 hours since this was posted, what do you think?

[Anonymous No.1950836]

>>1950792
Lol, whatever dude.
A mere reading of the thread shows you're full of shit and can't even grasp the basics of experimental science.
Good luck with your pseudo-scientific delusions.

[Anonymous No.1950845]

>>1950828
This is my first post >>1949039

Your samefagging is obvious, anyway.

[Anonymous No.1950870]

-200dBW is nothing. right antenna, it will work.

[Anonymous No.1950895]

Author gets thumbs up from Kakashi for awesomeness.

[Anonymous No.1951140]

i would like to say bullshit, but what the fuck do i know?