Quartz And Limestone: Recording Minerals?

[Dr B]

Dr. B: Now I have been trough the links you provide. They are all about magnetite content of human tissue and its possible use for diagnosing neural disorders, plus some abstracts about mapping deposits using magnetic indicators.

Indeed, the reason for them was because you claimed earlier that the idea of magnetic fields impacting on the brain was implausible - it is not. If i misundertood you, then I apologise. However, it seems important to make this clear.

It is just one set of findings showing links between fields and neural signatures and that a viable interaction exists.

At least, the material yielded a definite figure for the fields in question, namely 4mT. They call it a "relatively weak" field, but as electromagnetic emissions go, it is hardly a weak field. At least it would be easily detectable, even in equipment set up for other purposes. So I think we can safely assume that such fields, arising from geological activity, would have been well-known, had they existed.

Yes, I do not think geologically defined fields would exist much above a few tens of nT. The point of the above links was, as stated above, to show that such effects between brain and magnetism, in principle exits. The other names I have provided you with (cook, persinger, thomas etc) use similar methods but much weaker fields (on the 100snT range) which is much more like it. The weaker the field - the longer it takes to get an effect in neural processes (to a point - where I imagine there would be no effect). Really high pulsed fields get instananeous effects.

I have spoken to some that believe pico-tesla fields can be important - I find this too fanciful and have severe problems with it. However, weak (ish) fields, that are complex in nature have been used in the lab and documented in the field (with fields in the 10snT to 100snT range). However, as i said right at the begining - there is an interaction with neural susceptibility as well. A breakdown in inhibitory modulation processes in the brain (i.e., epilepsy / migraine with aura) makes brains easier to stimulate with these fields - its important not to forget this interaction.

So, woo's make the error of thinking that energy (like say a magnetic field) is evidence for recordings - not so. But, magnetic fields could be responsible for some experiences, whether such fields comes from geology, localised devices and objects, who knows. Each case would need to be investigated...it was that confusion I was trying to get at. Apologies if I was not clear at the begining...

 

[MRC_Hans]

Hi Hans

Yes, you are quite right I did introduce a tangental aspect - but one I feel Woowoo's get wrong all the time so I thought it was relevant as well. Let me explain.

*snip*
Anyway, I think we have cleared that one up.

Well, I suppose so. But next time you play devil's advocate, annouce it. Or expect to be argued against.

I have measured the fields around my home and office and there are many frequencies present near monitors etc - but you need to be near and the frequencies are very simple.

Any frequency is simple, but when you have enough of them, you get a complex signal. There are not only many frequencies present near monitors, you can actually decode the entire image currently present on the screen. If somebody is outside you building with the proper equipment, he can read what is on your screen. If that's not a complex signal ...

The mains is simple.....at least based on the measurements I have made so far.

Ehrm, what are you using for measuring it? Have you tried something simple like an oscilloscope?

The multi-frequency fields are still pretty basic - as they are constantly present and do not vary in amplitude that much over time...nothing like the complex fields the authors above talk about. Check stuff like the Thomas pattern as an example....

I can only wonder what you are measuring, and with what.

Hans

 

[Dr B]

Well, I suppose so. But next time you play devil's advocate, annouce it. Or expect to be argued against.

No, next time read the post properly instead of pouncing on people thinking you know what they mean - if in doubt, simply ask. Otherwise you end up making suprious comments (as you have) that mean nothing. I have shown why your arguments, as made originally at me, dont stand up. Indeed, I was not playing devils advocate - why not add that to the growing list of your unfounded claims about what I was saying. Find the bit where I was playing devils advocate.....? I merely added a tangent for discussion - or is that not allowed?

Any frequency is simple, but when you have enough of them, you get a complex signal.

Not the same as the complex fields I am talking about at all. Again, please go and read the papers / people i have mentioned. Of course lots of sine waves is a more dense environment than one sine wave - but because they are relatively stable over time - its not complexity in the way these other researchers, and myself, mean. It is the changing field that is crucial.

If somebody is outside you building with the proper equipment, he can read what is on your screen. If that's not a complex signal ...

Is that equipment a human brain? If not, I am not sure what you mean in terms of human experience.

Ehrm, what are you using for measuring it? Have you tried something simple like an oscilloscope?

I use digital 3-axis fluxgate magnetometers, high sampling and sensitive down to around 0.5nT. These are coupled to digital signal processing software like Sigview, AutoSignal and MatLab. From these I can pick apart waveforms over time, frequency, amplitude, do FFT, STFT, and Wavelets etc. In what way is this insufficient?

 

[Tirdun]

When quartz is compressed, it generates an electrical signal. Some buildings, especially hotels, tend to compress the earth beneath them more than smaller buildings. Thus more hauntings in old hotels. Heavier buildings 'force' more memories out of the quartz as electrical impulses.

How are the memories stored? Memories aren't purely electronic, and they don't leave the head + carry down into bedrock by any known means.

This would also explain why most house hauntings occur in two story homes. They are heavier than one story homes!

They why aren't big buildings screaming with ghost memories? An industrial or commercial building weighs roughly 100lbs per sq/ft. A residential, single family home is lighter becuase its all sticks and drywall on a masonry slab as opposed to steel and masonry throughout. Buildings like the pentagon should be squeezing ghosts out like a tube of toothpaste under a steamroller.

Theoretically the transmission would last as long as the quartz was compressed, because as signals are transmitted they are also re-recorded on other, neighboring quartz deposits, which subsequently re-transmit when the first recording is finished. The math gets complicated at this point, but it seems to work. Also, this wouldn't be possible if there wasn't as much nitrogen in our atmosphere as there is.

WHA?

Shouldn't every building on earth be haunted then? If you have a cascading transmission of data from rock to rock, it should ripple out like a pebble dropped in a pond. SOoner or later every rock will have recorded memories from every other rock. You'd wind up with copies of the ghostly memories everywhere.

 

[sat556]

electric ufos???? I have no idea what your talking about - please do elaborate

It's a book by Albert Budden. I think I referred to it earlier. He is a big Persinger fan too. One of his main arguments in there is that people exposed to EM over time become hypersensitive to it, and these are the people who will likely experience haunting phenomena if exposed again at a location.
I think you'd like that book.

I take it you are referring to Persinger with regards to his well known experiments in inducing sense of presence. What are you feelings on the Swedish report debunking it?

Sat556 - the nonsense I refer to is the case argued for Infrasound by Vic Tandy and colleagues in the UK. I have a paper coming out soon that argues against infrasound, at least based on current evidence.

I have been researching infrasound myself for a short time, and am yet to find any conclusive debunking of it, maybe you can point me in the right direction?

 

[Tricky]

Tricky - I would not say that rocks store information (but I am no expert in geology)

They do. You just have to know how to read it. Fossils are only one of the kinds of information they store. When the rock is formed, either by deposition (sedimentary), condensation of magma or lava (igneous) or by heat and pressure (metamorphic) they record the conditions that led to their emplacement. Sometimes, they enclose other things as well. I'm a geologist, so don't get me started.

I would say that certain rocks can, under certain circumstances, generate distortions in the magnetic field (due to either pressure or vibrations etc). These distortions may have their own impact on human perception - its a bit of a leap - but not as implausible as some have suggested.

It is indeed a bit of a leap. The amount of distortion due to the magnetism of rocks is so completely ovewhelmed by the earth's magnetic field that it takes very sensitive instruments to even detect it. There are, however, rare cases of areas being so rich in iron ore that they deflect the needle of a compass. I don't recall that those places are overrun with ghosts.

Indeed modern earthquake detection is moving towards detecting magnetic signatures as opposed to just vibration - though this is in its infancy.

I'm not aware of this. Do you have a link?

I agree about magnetite - as I understand it magnetite is the most naturally magnetitic substance (is this correct?). So depending on density, availability, proximity, etc, low amplitude (though not too low) complex distortions could occur....at least theoretically. It does of course need testing in the field but you get the point. Of course to work it would predict that some cases of hautning would need to have magnetite present in the local geology and possibly the building materials. A simple predicition easily tested...

It is the most strongly magnetic of common iron ores, but it is far less common than hematite. However, in sedimentary rocks, the magnitite content is usually very tiny. The overwhelming majority of the inhabited portion of the world is covered in sedimentary rock. I would say that if there is a "magnitite" effect, then you should see a lot more ghosts near the "craton", or the igneous central core of continents. The biggest exposure of the craton in North America is the Canadian Shield around Hudson Bay.

Low frequency, complex magnetic fields can interact with neural processes in individuals - particularly those with lower inhibitory conditions like eplilepsy, migraine with aura etc. However, simple fields seem to have no consequences at all (simple constant sine waves and basic DC fields). Interestingly, scientists have now found biogenic magnetite in deep brain structures (hipocampus / amygdala) which may be a source of interaction between field and brain - but again its early days.

Solid magnets, and by inference, rocks with magnetic componants do not have "frequency". They just have a steady field. But if there are any beneficial affects of magnetic fields on disease, then Randi has a million dollars for you if you can prove it.

I have never at any point here suggested magnetite stores souls.. ...though this maybe a misperception from the woo's. I am talking about magnetism and sources of magnetic distortions with the capacity to influence perception (hallucination) - thats all.

Well, that's a more reasonable statement. It even suggests that ghosts are hallucinations. The people who suggest "limestone and quartz store memories" would take exception to this. I realize that you are not among them.

I won't say that magnitism has no effect on humans. That is something that only research can determine. But at present, it is not a promising field. Humans contain far too few ferromagnetic compounds for it to affect them much. But as for light shows that look like hallucinations, it is great stuff! Have you ever seen the Northern Lights? Way cool.

However, magnetic fields are quite good for looking at the human body (like MRIs). The fact that they do so harmlessly says a lot about the helpful/harmful affects of magnetic fields on humans.

 

[Dr B]

Hi Sat556

It's a book by Albert Budden. I think I referred to it earlier. He is a big Persinger fan too. One of his main arguments in there is that people exposed to EM over time become hypersensitive to it, and these are the people who will likely experience haunting phenomena if exposed again at a location. I think you'd like that book.

I have to say I dont like the work of Budden - I think he has just grabbed ideas out there and tried to glue them together - it shows. Thanks for the extra information though . His hypersensitivity idea is not the same as a neuronal susceptibility due to problems with inhibitory modulation. There are no known implications to health from the stuff I am talking about in the way Budden means.

I take it you are referring to Persinger with regards to his well known experiments in inducing sense of presence. What are you feelings on the Swedish report debunking it?

Indeed, I mentioned Persinger above (amongst others). I think any study that claims to be a replication, needs to replicate the method in order to replicate the effect. They used a between-subject design (its always best to use people as their own controls), they used short exposure times, did not measure the fields produced appropriately, and generally did not try to repeat what Persinger does. They went to all the trouble of using double-blind procedures - to simply cock up other simple aspects of the study. I was not surprised they failed to get an effect. To be honest, I find some of Persingers stuff quite dodgy - i.e., the geological stuff and his TST stuff and his correlational stuff is little more than an exercise in meaningless statistics for me. However, the lab stuff is interesting and has been done under single and double-blind conditions. Other labs have also produced effects with a variety of methods (see links above for some examples) - so something is going on.

I have been researching infrasound myself for a short time, and am yet to find any conclusive debunking of it, maybe you can point me in the right direction?

Yes indeed, I have a paper coming out in the JSPR hopfully this year. You say you have yet to find a conclusive debunking of it, could you point me to a conclusive demonstration of it? - Tandy never did this, which is interesting. What particular paper do you find convincing? I would be interested in your thoughts on this one

 

[Dr B]

They do. You just have to know how to read it. Fossils are only one of the kinds of information they store. When the rock is formed, either by deposition (sedimentary), condensation of magma or lava (igneous) or by heat and pressure (metamorphic) they record the conditions that led to their emplacement. Sometimes, they enclose other things as well. I'm a geologist, so don't get me started.

Hiya tricky, I think I misunderstood what you meant by 'record information' - I got the impression (obviously wrongly) that you were talking a little more woo-like in terms of information. Of course, I am aware generally of the processes you describe above (to the level of a layman). The information you talk of all needs science to read it. The information woo's talk about needs either - certain conditions to replay it - or a psychic medium to tune in. You can imagine why I disagree with the latter.

It is indeed a bit of a leap. The amount of distortion due to the magnetism of rocks is so completely ovewhelmed by the earth's magnetic field that it takes very sensitive instruments to even detect it. There are, however, rare cases of areas being so rich in iron ore that they deflect the needle of a compass. I don't recall that those places are overrun with ghosts.

.

I always said it was a leap - and not mine. I introduced it as a tangent I have seen doing the rounds amongst woo-types. It is a kind of new-generation geological account starting to replace the quartz theory...To me it simply seems easy to test and refute / support. Seems to me, you have done a good job of that anyway .

I have found many non-man-made magnetic anomalies stronger than the earths field - but none from pure geology (i.e., objects). This would fit with your suggestions. However, I have more than one case where such anomalies are associated with strange experiences - i.e., magnetised objects that can vibrate / move producing large distortions in the field. I have other cases with man-made stuff (3-phase power supplies) where problems with the systems do cause very odd magnetic fields and pulses - but this is getting away from the issue of geology. .

There are a number of links on the internet on Earthquake detection and magnetic fields. It is controverisal, and many geologists are skeptical - quite rightly - I think a chap called Freund did some stuff on it. Google it and see.

Solid magnets, and by inference, rocks with magnetic components do not have "frequency".

I know and I never said they did. I said vibrations of magnetic substances will induce changes in the field that vary in smypathy with the vibration - this gives a frequency.

But if there are any beneficial affects of magnetic fields on disease, then Randi has a million dollars for you if you can prove it.

Who said anything about this???? Not me???? Its not my claim, and I never said anything about disease???? I am talking about magnetically induced hallucinations - nothing to do with health.

Well, that's a more reasonable statement. It even suggests that ghosts are hallucinations. The people who suggest "limestone and quartz store memories" would take exception to this. I realize that you are not among them.

Cheers, yes you are quite right - I am not among them. I dont buy the quartz thing - never have. I have always been confused by TST and I know geologists are skeptical. My main point throughout this thread is that, if any geology is going to have any effect (not that it does) it will most likely be via magnetic compounds like magnetite. However, you have given many excellent reasons why that would still be difficult. So it seems, on the whole, that geological sources for magentic anomalies with the potential to produce stimulatory fields, are unlikely.....cool.

I won't say that magnitism has no effect on humans. That is something that only research can determine. But at present, it is not a promising field. Humans contain far too few ferromagnetic compounds for it to affect them much.

Actually, magnetic fields do have effects on humans - see the above links in the previous posts. My hunch is that the field needs a sufficient degree of energy to rise above the background noise of the brain, but it needs sufficient complexity to impact on the perceptual gestalt as well. The evidence is consistent with this. The question now is one of sources.

Weak fields have impacted on EEG spectra and experience.

MRI scans use simple magnetic fields of high amplitude - not complex ones of low amplitude

many thanks for the information on magnetite - very interesting indeed.

 

[Dr B]

One final thing. Many people here seem to assume that if the magnetic hypothesis has merit (be it from geology, objects, man-made sources), that we should find them in all cases of reputed hauntings. This is completely incorrect. Indeed, this was never the claim.

The idea, as it is proposed in the research, is that magnetic anomalies could be implicated in 'some' cases of a haunting. Instances have been documented where this has been seen, and many exist where no magnetic component is present. The point is there will be many explanations for these experiences depending on individual, psychological, neurological, situational, contexutal, and energetic factors etc. No one account explains all instances.

The haunt experience will be explained by a variety of well-researched natural theories. Magnetic fields is one account, that will have a role to play in some cases.

 

[MRC_Hans]

No, next time read the post properly instead of pouncing on people thinking you know what they mean - if in doubt, simply ask. Otherwise you end up making suprious comments (as you have) that mean nothing. I have shown why your arguments, as made originally at me, dont stand up. Indeed, I was not playing devils advocate - why not add that to the growing list of your unfounded claims about what I was saying. Find the bit where I was playing devils advocate.....? I merely added a tangent for discussion - or is that not allowed?

Seems I am not the only one not understanding your "tangent", so perhaps you should after all rethink your debate strategy.

Actually, I am still not sure exactly what you are arguing, but the nearest I can guess is that when it comes to magnetic disturbances, the recording theory has the merit that the observations are indeed due to geological phenomenon, but they are not recordings. Is that right?

Not the same as the complex fields I am talking about at all. Again, please go and read the papers / people i have mentioned. Of course lots of sine waves is a more dense environment than one sine wave - but because they are relatively stable over time - its not complexity in the way these other researchers, and myself, mean. It is the changing field that is crucial.

I did read them. I still disagree. All those were special cases, and they were relatively strong fields. If they were to act from a geological layer below a topsoil, and perhaps inside a building, they would need to be VERY strong.

I think you don't understand signal complexity. If you make a momentary sample, NO signal is complex. Likewise with your magentic signal. A magnetic field has only two vectors in a given moment and location: Direction and strength. This is true no matter how many magnets take part in its creation. It is only in the time-domain that there can be complexity (or in the distribution over a large area, but that is irrelevant in this case).

Is that equipment a human brain? If not, I am not sure what you mean in terms of human experience.

Duh, I mean that you are sitting in a very complex wave phenomenon.

I use digital 3-axis fluxgate magnetometers, high sampling and sensitive down to around 0.5nT. These are coupled to digital signal processing software like Sigview, AutoSignal and MatLab. From these I can pick apart waveforms over time, frequency, amplitude, do FFT, STFT, and Wavelets etc. In what way is this insufficient?

So you have no idea of wave shapes, then. You are only seing the frequency domain. Do yourself a favor, and look at some of the signals on an oscilloscope, so you get an impression of the time domain. All signals, no matter how complex, can be broken down to a set of pure sine components, but that will only ever tell you half the story.

I'm sorry, but you remind me more and more of Roger Coghill. He is also making measurements with unsuited instruments and making conclusions from the results.

Hans

 

[Dr B]

I did read them. I still disagree. All those were special cases, and they were relatively strong fields. If they were to act from a geological layer below a topsoil, and perhaps inside a building, they would need to be VERY strong.

Hans - i agree - please read the posts. I said it establishes the principle of a magentic / brain interaction. This was directed towards your much earlier claims that magnetics cant do that [when you went off ranting about audio waves - something no one else here mentioned] - they can, and you were wrong on that point. The point is, that the research I cited (among a good deal of other research) establishes the principle of an interaction. I notice you have not followed up any of the other names i gave you - which actually use much weaker fields - why was that?

I suggest you revise your strategy as you seem to like leaping all over the place and your memory really is letting you down. Never mind.

I think you don't understand signal complexity. If you make a momentary sample, NO signal is complex.

Who said anything about taking momentary samples? - I have long term measurements from the environment. Of course they are all non-stationary (which i think is what you meant to say) to some degree, but some of my research suggests that fields in certain areas are much more complex. Hans, I take time-linked simultaneous baseline measurements as well - the anomalies, on occasion, appear only in the areas associated with strange reports (we have also found this when controling for lamps / devices etc). We have found anomalies with three-phase EMF systems, poor grounding (we suspect), and highly magnetised objects. None of this has anything to do with geology or recordings - but you should know we have made these measurements which support the lab evidence you wont read.

Yes - time based complexity is crucial - I have always said this, but in the presence of big distortions you get directional effects as well.

So you have no idea of wave shapes, then. You are only seing the frequency domain.

You obviously have no idea what the system is capable of, otherwise you would not say such a thing. I can use the software to 'play-back' the signals in the time AND frequency domain (raw signal and processed signals) - at the same time. I can look at shapes, both domains - as you will also know, are related.

Do yourself a favor, and look at some of the signals on an oscilloscope, so you get an impression of the time domain.

Could you explain to me how an oscilloscope would give me anything my digital software (including digital oscilloscopes) wont give me (apart from the obvious small differences between analogue and digital)? Trust me we are looking into this with digital oscilloscopes = if you knew about the software - you would know what it can do. It addresses your concerns quite easily.

All signals, no matter how complex, can be broken down to a set of pure sine components, but that will only ever tell you half the story.

Some will break down easier than others - and thats my point. It allows us to show that magnetically, some regions look different and the more complex regions just also happen to be the only ones where experiences have been reported (for cases where magnetic fields are important). Even when we have controlled to some degree for visual context and suggestibility.

I'm sorry, but you remind me more and more of Roger Coghill. He is also making measurements with unsuited instruments and making conclusions from the results.

Sorry Hans, but are you not making a few logical fallacies here by trying to tarnish me with others - shooting the messenger rather than dealing with the message? I have nothing to do with the research you talk of and resent the implication. If you took the time to read and digest (clearly your biggest failing here) you will see its nothing fo the sort. Please justify your sweeping statements by saying how my equipment is not suited to tell the difference between the fields. You have not even asked me about the hardware yet - and here you are making ridiculous statements like that. You are the one behaving like a woowoo - without recourse to the actual facts or any urgency to go and get them.

You claimed magnetic fields could have no effects - I showed you that you were wrong (now you shift on that - which is good). You claim all fields around us are complex - not so, its a continuum not an absolute. I measure fields regularly and around the house / office they are not that complex at all. You claim I need an oscilloscope without realising that I have a digital one as part of the software I use - which I did hint at in the previous posts. Go and see stuff like www.systat.com and look up autosignal (http://www.systat.com/products/AutoSignal/). Go and look at www.sigview.com and (http://www.sigview.com/screenshots.htm). Go and look at Matlab, and so on.....I mentioned all these before...but you seem to have missed that.

I am afraid you cannot hide your misunderstanding by personal comments. I can see right through it. So, now you know the equipment is not insufficient where now for your sweeping unfounded claims?

Could we get the debate back on track? I originally raised the suggestion of magnetite / ghosts that is a growing one I have encountered amongst woo's. Both you and Tricky have given excellent reasons why there may be problems with that account - even in terms of just being the source of complex magnetic fields (if it was vibrating say via geological stressors). It seems unlikley it could be a source of anything really. Fine. However, at points we have gone off and discussed the role of magnetic fields in general and their interaction with neural processes and you seem to be debating issues relating to that and then brining it back to the geological point. The two are not connected directly. One sets up and establishes the principle (one you denied) the other is a big-leap extension of that principle. It is the refutatiojn of the leap I accept, not the refutation that magnetic fields, in principle, have been shown to be important in some cases.

(note - nothing to do with recordings).

 

[sat556]

Yes indeed, I have a paper coming out in the JSPR hopfully this year. You say you have yet to find a conclusive debunking of it, could you point me to a conclusive demonstration of it? - Tandy never did this, which is interesting. What particular paper do you find convincing? I would be interested in your thoughts on this one

I can't point you to anything conclusive myself, and therefore I have not found anything 100% convincing. This is why I have decided to look into this for myself. It seems to be quite a well liked theory. Maybe I have missed something somewhere.
You will have to let me know when your paper is going to come out, maybe if I have enough information after this we can compare notes
You'll have to send me a link to it though, I not longer get the SPR journals due to that rediculous price hike a year or so ago.

 

[cloudshipsrule]

Here's hoping you all knew I was being facetious with my post on heavy buildings pushing out the recorded memories. Anyway, thanks for the debunking!