13 Aug 2019, 8:15 am
rdos wrote:
Mona Pereth wrote:
You're talking about the kinds of distances for which even the simplest electromagnetic signal, from a source as small as some organ of the human body, definitely would require something like an amplifier and an antenna. And the amplifier would have to be big and powerful enough to be quite obvious -- unless there's something else in the natural world serving as a natural equivalent of cell phone towers, but that would need to be big and powerful enough to be quite obvious too.
They would need to be at least around 1 GHz, in order for the wavelength to be short enough not to require an antenna large enough to be highly visible.
They would need to be at least around 1 GHz, in order for the wavelength to be short enough not to require an antenna large enough to be highly visible.
It is possible to build radio transmitters in the nanoscale: Nano transmitter
How powerful could such a tiny transmitter be, though?
rdos wrote:
Also, creating a transmitter for the typical FM band around 100MHz that can reach a few kilometers could be done by an amateur using only a small 9v battery and a couple of centimeters of normal wire as an antenna: https://www.instructables.com/id/The-Ul ... ansmitter/
Going from a few kilometers to 300 km is only a factor 100 or so. Note that transmitters use a dB-scale which is logarithmic. If I remember it correctly doubling the signal results in a 6dB increase. Here we are talking about 7 (2^7 = 128) doublings or 43dB. If the detector was 43dB more sensitive, then the above device would work over the distance of 300km. In practice, the receiver would be flooded by noise, but by use of smart coding, it could still detect the signal.
I once was a radio amateur, and it certainly is possible to use only a small wire as an antenna for the 27MHz band as well. It might not be optimal, and you might damage the transmitter, but it certainly works.
Going from a few kilometers to 300 km is only a factor 100 or so. Note that transmitters use a dB-scale which is logarithmic. If I remember it correctly doubling the signal results in a 6dB increase. Here we are talking about 7 (2^7 = 128) doublings or 43dB. If the detector was 43dB more sensitive, then the above device would work over the distance of 300km. In practice, the receiver would be flooded by noise, but by use of smart coding, it could still detect the signal.
I once was a radio amateur, and it certainly is possible to use only a small wire as an antenna for the 27MHz band as well. It might not be optimal, and you might damage the transmitter, but it certainly works.
Indeed, for the signal to be able to travel up to 300 km, it would probably need to be in the shortwave frequency range (3 to 30 MHz), so it can bounce down from the ionosphere -- a detail I forgot about when writing my previous post.
rdos wrote:
IOW, I don't think it is impossible for evolution to figure out a solution that could transmit (and receive) electromagnetic signals a few 100kms at the nanoscale in a few 100s million years or more.
I also wonder why many ESP experiments use electromagnetically shielded rooms during their experiments? What exactly are they afraid of?
There is so much electrosmog right now so this is a daunting task. Would have been much easier to do before we had some much electronics and radio transmitters. Also, as anybody that has experimented with radios know, there is a lot of background noise present, and this was the case before much of the modern electronics and cellphones came into use as well.
I also wonder why many ESP experiments use electromagnetically shielded rooms during their experiments? What exactly are they afraid of?
Mona Pereth wrote:
Scientists have not been able to decode them, but at least there's no question that these signals exist. On the other hand, the alleged signals you're talking about, from human beings, have never been detected by scientists at all, as far as I'm aware.
There is so much electrosmog right now so this is a daunting task. Would have been much easier to do before we had some much electronics and radio transmitters. Also, as anybody that has experimented with radios know, there is a lot of background noise present, and this was the case before much of the modern electronics and cellphones came into use as well.
Even with background noise, it should be possible for an experimenter to detect, at short range, these hypothetical natural radio transmitters in the human body. So it's still surprising that these things have not been found yet, given the many investigations into electrical activity of the human nervous system.
13 Aug 2019, 9:06 am
Mona Pereth wrote:
Indeed, for the signal to be able to travel up to 300 km, it would probably need to be in the shortwave frequency range (3 to 30 MHz), so it can bounce down from the ionosphere -- a detail I forgot about when writing my previous post.
Maybe a bit above too, but it has to be in the MHz area at least.
Also, my original perception was that it only worked up to 200 km, and I think the longer distance is based on extensive training & use.
Mona Pereth wrote:
Even with background noise, it should be possible for an experimenter to detect, at short range, these hypothetical natural radio transmitters in the human body. So it's still surprising that these things have not been found yet, given the many investigations into electrical activity of the human nervous system.
I can see several problems with detecting them. For one, I suspect they are only active when transmitting something, and few people probably use them. Even the direction sense is likely dependent on some kind of polls being sent out. If you just measure human brain activity in a scanner on some NT, the chance of something being sent this way would be minimal. It's a bit like click sounds from whales. They are only sent when whales want to communicate something. To have these things turned on all the time would waste lots of energy.
You could compare it to human talking to. Many people, although not all, only talk when they have something interesting to talk about.
14 Aug 2019, 11:30 pm
rdos wrote:
Also, my original perception was that it only worked up to 200 km, and I think the longer distance is based on extensive training & use.
I can see several problems with detecting them. For one, I suspect they are only active when transmitting something, and few people probably use them. Even the direction sense is likely dependent on some kind of polls being sent out. If you just measure human brain activity in a scanner on some NT, the chance of something being sent this way would be minimal. It's a bit like click sounds from whales. They are only sent when whales want to communicate something. To have these things turned on all the time would waste lots of energy.
You could compare it to human talking to. Many people, although not all, only talk when they have something interesting to talk about.
Mona Pereth wrote:
Even with background noise, it should be possible for an experimenter to detect, at short range, these hypothetical natural radio transmitters in the human body. So it's still surprising that these things have not been found yet, given the many investigations into electrical activity of the human nervous system.
I can see several problems with detecting them. For one, I suspect they are only active when transmitting something, and few people probably use them. Even the direction sense is likely dependent on some kind of polls being sent out. If you just measure human brain activity in a scanner on some NT, the chance of something being sent this way would be minimal. It's a bit like click sounds from whales. They are only sent when whales want to communicate something. To have these things turned on all the time would waste lots of energy.
You could compare it to human talking to. Many people, although not all, only talk when they have something interesting to talk about.
I see your points here.
But it would be great if you yourself could devise some objective way to detect the RF signals that you believe yourself to be capable of emitting. Given your background in amateur radio, hopefully you'll be able to find a way to do this.
Until the existence of these signals can be objectively demonstrated, it's not reasonable to expect the rest of us to devote time and energy to learning how to send them.
15 Aug 2019, 6:51 am
15 Aug 2019, 6:56 am
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
He didn't look ugly at all, he was a handsome Euro-Asian.
He's moron tho that he obsessively fixated on the attention of White women, he could SO easily get a lot of attention from Asian or African women or any other non-white ethnicity, a mixed white-asian in Asian communities is considered very attractive.
If I relied on Caucasian women, I would have remained a kissless virgin.
Yes most white women won't give attention to a non-white man, I did this experiment myself on dating apps and on a large scale, it's strikingly true. (Mona, if you are curious of what I am talking about: viewtopic.php?t=275336).
He's moron tho that he obsessively fixated on the attention of White women, he could SO easily get a lot of attention from Asian or African women or any other non-white ethnicity, a mixed white-asian in Asian communities is considered very attractive.
If I relied on Caucasian women, I would have remained a kissless virgin.
Yes most white women won't give attention to a non-white man, I did this experiment myself on dating apps and on a large scale, it's strikingly true. (Mona, if you are curious of what I am talking about: viewtopic.php?t=275336).
What is one supposed to do if they fare better romantically with minority women but have racist family?
15 Aug 2019, 8:14 am
15 Aug 2019, 8:17 am
15 Aug 2019, 9:43 am
15 Aug 2019, 9:50 am
15 Aug 2019, 10:57 am
15 Aug 2019, 11:04 am
The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 42
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,371
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.
15 Aug 2019, 11:30 am
15 Aug 2019, 11:40 am
15 Aug 2019, 12:04 pm
15 Aug 2019, 3:18 pm
"Incel" is almost an anagram of "nice" with the "l" tacked on the 3 end. 
15 Aug 2019, 6:17 pm
