FrankM

I stated in post #148, "The brain is very sensitive to EM radiation." CraigD took exception to that statement in post #153 by stating, "I don’t think this is true in the way you mean it." The purpose of the Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) regulations is to prevent cellular level heating, which will occur if cells are exposed long enough to electromagnetic radiation, of even moderate power, that have wavelengths that can efficiently couple their energy to cellular structures. The Nittby reference, (9), in my paper, vixra.org 1502.0159, reveals what happens to neuron structures that receive too much EM radiation exposure. This also suggests that brain neuron structures can be stimulated by an outside EM source that provides a signal, with the correct wavelength, that will couple enough energy to the structure to create a neuron pulse. First we have to be able to identify the correct wavelength and power level required to stimulate a neuron structure remotely, without damaging it. Identifying the wavelengths for specific neurons is step one. An EM wave is attenuated when it goes through various biological material, so getting the correct power level to a specific area within the brain is going to be challenging. Also, an EM wave with a specific wavelength that passes through a material that has an index of refraction greater than one will alter the wavelength. However, somewhere in our brains there are assembler areas that produce what we call thoughts and this can include images. This is where you want to couple VR devices. Although this would be a great way to become immersed in a game, it would be an impressive teaching device. By the way, it has been determined that our brains continue to grow new neurons. “Newborn neurons in adult brain may help us adapt to environment” Science Daily, February 21, 2015. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150221192244.htm.

MRI deals with hydrogen atoms and does not produce a broadband electromagnetic pulse as does a chemical explosion. Please read the paper "The Electromagnetic Cause of Shell Shock." vixra.org 1502.0196

Moderation note: the 1st 3 posts of this thread were moved from "How Long Until We Could Make A Real Sword Art Online (sao) Nerve Gear Type Device" because they are a discussion of a different topic related to "FulDive" technology. The brain is very sensitive to EM radiation. EM fields passing through the brain tissue can create heating. If the axon neural circuits have lengths that are close to specific frequencies the EM energy can be transferred efficiently; the circuits act like an antenna that has a length for a specific frequency. An example of how low power can damage a mammalian brain is in the following URL: http://www.pathophysiologyjournal.com/article/S0928-4680(09)00013-3/pdf Whatever the ultimate interface to the brain will be has to consider how sensitive the axons are to damage. A lot of broadband EM power can do serious damage. See my post: http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/28182-electromagnetic-cause-of-shell-shock/?do=findComment&comment=335386 The purpose of the Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) regulations is to limit cellular heating from exposure to EM radiation. It is possible to externally modify neural signals. See following article in IEEE Spectrum: http://spectrum.ieee.org/biomedical/bionics/smart-neural-stimulators-listen-to-the-body It would be better if you can do this without the wires.

I have found reports that identify the EM frequencies produced by a chemical explosion. I have revised my original paper to include this information. http://vixra.org/abs/1502.0196 The brain damage produced by a cell phone is covered in my new version, see ref. (11). Is the damage identified in the Neuropathologica publication, ref. (4) equivalent what is shown in ref. (11)? I don't know how to compare the human brain damage to that of a rat. There should be more attenuation going through a human skull as compared to a rat, but an explosion puts out a lot more EM power than a cell phone. When referring to microwave radiation, the JRE report cited in my new version stated, "The intensity of this radiation much surpasses intensity of thermal radiation.” The EM intensity occurring in an explosion needs to be measured for specific spectrum bands. The frequencies detected kept getting higher and higher as the various reports became more recent; there were improvements in the frequency detection instruments. Everyone should learn why the term shell shock was banned by the Brits after WW1. Read ref (5), titled, "Traumatic Brain Injury, Shell Shock, and Posttraumatic Stress Disorder in the Military —Past, Present, and Future"

When I reviewed the LANL report, I found this statement, "The field components are transverse and the radiation pattern is independent of r." If the sensor antennas LANL used are all oriented for receiving transverse modes that is exactly what one will expect when a signal is or is not detected. An explosion is a massive cloud of agitated electrons and ions, very unlike the method of using a conducting wire to create a propagating EM wave. It is the motion of charged particles that creates a propagating EM wave. All charged particles are not created equal. The following is a question I have submitted to two different IEEE editors-in-chief, "Does the magnetic moment of electrons and ions influence the polarization of propagated electromagnetic fields?" I have submitted that question to knowledgeable individuals outside of IEEE, and so far I have a uniform answer. I have one editors answer. What is yours?

Craig, thank you again for your well balanced comments. The John Hopkins newsletter mentioned that the professor involved in the study had published a paper in Acta Neuropathologica Communications, an open access publication. The report is also available in epub format. http://www.actaneurocomms.org/content/pdf/s40478-014-0153-3.pdf EMP refers to electromagnetic pulse. It will need to be established whether the electric field, the magnetic field or both, of the propagating EMP waves are responsible for creating the damage to the axonal fibers. It is a moving magnetic field that creates a current in a conducting structure. Unfortunately, the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) report, cited in my paper, does not expand on the statement The emission of electromagnetic radiation from a chemical explosion is well established. Almost all munitions detonations create a prodigious amount of EM energy in the form of light and heat. It is unreasonable to assume that the high rate of change motion of electrons and ions created by the exothermic reaction do not produce broadband EM radiation. In a revision to my paper, I quoted a Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) article that stated, The report did not distinguish between how much of the 20 billion watts was due to EM or mechanical work. The 5,500 kelvins are referring to heat, an EM emission. A steel helmet will seriously attenuate an EMP, but a composite helmet will provide little attenuation.

Craig, thanks for doing a lot of background research on the shell shock issue. I look at the conclusions reached by researchers before the 1980s with skepticism, as the instruments available that could detect and properly record broadband microsecond EMP characteristics were not readily available. The conclusions reached in the 1967 US Naval Ordnance Lab (NOLC) paper would have to be tempered by limitations on the EM spectrum that could be detected and recorded at that time; I worked for that organization during that time period. The detection instruments that led to the conclusions made in the Glasstone and Nolan 1977 references in the wiki article were slightly better than those available to NOLC in 1967. Please note that I question the conclusions made in the LANL report because the references were all before 1992. It was in the mid-1990s that gamma and x ray emissions were identified in high altitude EM events; consider the instruments currently used to record the EM spectrum of sprites. Every decade we get slightly better detection and recording instruments, thus one must be careful when making broad conclusions that are based upon incomplete information, the limitations of the measurement instruments of a given era. I believe my term hard trauma is an appropriate description to differentiate the differences between other types of trauma where the victim has no obvious physical damage. Look how long it took to find the honeycomb type damage related to shell shock. I consider my shell shock paper a work in progress. I am receiving other comments and I will revise my paper if I consider them technically relevant. I do intend to include the John Hopkins University (JHU) news release; it was not mentioned on the professors JHU page. I will not revise my paper "ad infinitum." I suspect my paper will prompt some reexamination of the EM spectrum produced by chemical explosions, all types.

Post-traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) is the new term which includes multiple traumas that occur to members of the U.S. military. I note the difference in the report. I refer to shell shock as a hard trauma, there is physical damage, whereas others can be labelled as a soft trauma when there is no physical damage. I talked to some individuals at a VA facility recently about the issue and I have revised my viXra article based upon the comments I received. I just received notification that my revision has been posted on viXra. edited - Took the doube-P out of PTSD. My revised paper will not be posted on viXra until tomorrow at the earliest.

A recent news article stated that the cause of shell shock had been identified. They identified the unique brain damage associated with the brain damage but did not identify the mechanism that caused it. Shell shock was quite prevalent in WWI, but not as prevalent in WWII, the Korean War and in Vietnam, at least for U.S. soldiers. The erratic emotional responses that are characteristic of a shell shock victim has reappeared in recent military engagements. There is a specific thread that links the cause of shell shock. Chemical explosions create a intense electromagnetic pulse (EMP). The military head protection gear is the common link. EMPs do not readily penetrate steel. http://vixra.org/abs/1501.0196 The paper is work in progress and a number of changes have been made, and these may or may not have been updated on the viXra site.

I had stated in the #3 entry to this thread that the BIPM had excised from their website the recommendations of the Consultative Committee on Units 2005 report, which was a stand-alone report. I found the recommendations in a different report, below, on page 16. "the consensus that now exists on the desirability of finding ways of defining all of the base units of the SI in terms of fundamental physical constants so that they are universal, permanent and invariant in time;" Consultative Committee for Units (CCU) Report of the 17th meeting Section 5 of the above report deals with a redefinition of the Kelvin. However, SI units are being readjusted because of the new methods of measuring the Planck constant. History and progress on accurate measurements of the Planck constant

Considering the E8 geometric form being a fractal is not original to me. Fractal Forum

If the E8 geometric structure was considered to be a fractal antenna, what frequencies would it support?

You did not state how far away from the prism you were attempting to view the spectrum.

Planck's constant is being pushed around. I was unaware of the existence of the document until recently. The document does not change my original posting question, as the document does not mention polarization. Steiner, R. “History and progress on accurate measurements of the Planck constant,” 2013 Rep. Prog. Phys. 76 016101 doi:10.1088/0034-4885 76/1/016101 History Planck's Constant Measurements Some researchers are using the term non-spherical decay in their reports rather than polarization. Some reports use non-spherical without the hyphen.

It is well known that the equations for Newtonian mechanics do not have a speed of gravity factor relative to distance, gravity has to be effectively instantaneous for solar system distances. Your arXiv article, 1301.2758v6.pdf, makes the conclusion, in Section 2, Are you inferring this gravity medium is responsible for instantaneous gravity in solar system distances?