spin inversion

someone told me the cause of electrosensitivity is spin inversion,
the electrons turn the other way round, has been triggered by a
magnetic field. If so, I would call the cure spin reversion. Should
also be triggered by another magnetic field, logically. Does anyone
have experience and knowledge about this?

Frans

> someone told me the cause of electrosensitivity is spin inversion,
> the electrons turn the other way round, has been triggered by a
> magnetic field. If so, I would call the cure spin reversion. Should
> also be triggered by another magnetic field, logically. Does anyone
> have experience and knowledge about this?

I think you are referring to something from Quantum Mechanics, called
an electron spin. A "positive spin" (right) is life-enhancing, while
a "negative spin" (left) is life-depleting. Some of the EMF protection
devices on the market advertise that their products change the spin
of the environment (and you) from the negative to the positive.
I believe that both of the product lines I use (Springlife and Quantum)
do this, and I'm sure that there are others as well. The "Cosmic
Energy Transformers" make a big deal about this in their advertising,
but I didn't find these to be strong enough for my purposes.

Marc

I know the spiral is important in finding the answer, sacred geometry, squaring the circle. Have not fully realised the meaning yet. My "guru" was delighted when we reached Ometepe, Island of Spirals and Spheres (energy) The Ancient knowledge is scientific as well as spiritual, since they are bound to come together. Get there through study, antroposophy, sacred geometry, physics..

I do not think however there is a way back. I think the magnetic force I experienced was the kundalini awakening and trust that the energy will clear all blocks. The only thing to do to speed the process along is to recognize where the blocks are and try to correct them. (your hands will speak) I believe fear is the biggest cause of what I am going through and it has to be transmuted, to realise this force, God, is Love. I believe it is my resistence to Love that caused the imbalance. Heal and forgive the past, live in the moment. Love and Joy will fix this.

Light


franspppp <[hidden email]> wrote:

someone told me the cause of electrosensitivity is spin inversion,
the electrons turn the other way round, has been triggered by a
magnetic field. If so, I would call the cure spin reversion. Should
also be triggered by another magnetic field, logically. Does anyone
have experience and knowledge about this?

Frans









---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/eSens/

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[hidden email]

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In [hidden email], "franspppp" <franspppp@y...> wrote:
>
> someone told me the cause of electrosensitivity is spin inversion,
> the electrons turn the other way round, has been triggered by a
> magnetic field. If so, I would call the cure spin reversion. Should
> also be triggered by another magnetic field, logically. Does anyone
> have experience and knowledge about this?
>
> Frans

The quantum mechanical term "spin" does not literally refer to the
rotation of an elementary nuclear particle such as a proton, neutron,
or electron about an axis passing through itself. Nor does it refer
to the orbital angular momentum of an electron about the atomic
nucleus.

The term "spin" was created to infer a property being experimentally
observed as being similar to something possessing intrinsic classical
angular momentum (even while not rotating). It is a purely quantum
mechanical quantity without a classical mechanical equivalent though
you may see it spoken of as "intrinsic angular momentum". A way to
highlight the difference between "spin" and angular momentum is to
note that "spin" is not even a vector quantity as is angular momentum;
instead "spin" is described mathematically by structures known as
spinors. Also, no experiment to date has observed an electron
spinning.

Curiously, like all quantum mechanical behavior, the "spin" is also
undefined until forced to take on a value by external conditions.
This "intrinsic angular momentum" in the case of a charged particle
also has linked with it a "spin magnetic moment", something similar,
but again not equivalent, to the magnetic moment generated by a
classical rotating charged body. I bring up the electron "spin
magnetic moment" because it will point out that electrons don't have a
definitely oriented "spin" until forced to take on a orientation by an
externally applied magnetic field. And this orientation is completely
dictated by the direction of the magnetic field.

This can be seen through a Stern-Gerlach type experiment. If you pass
a beam of electrons through a magnetic field where the field increases
in strength in a particular direction (let's call it the x-direction),
the electrons will be deflected either in the x-direction or directly
opposite to it. Statistically, half will deflect in the x-direction,
half the in opposite way. If you change the direction of the magnetic
field's strength gradient, the electrons will now deflect exactly in
the new direction of the gradient or opposite to it. This shows the
electrons don't have an independently defined "spin" they travel
around with.

This, too, shows a difference between "spin" and classical angular
momentum. An ensemble of classical charged rotating bodies would have
a random distribution of angular momentum, and hence, a random
distribution of magnetic moment. When these classical bodies are
passed through the type of magnetic field described above they would
create an evenly covered, dispersed areal pattern. The electrons,
however, have just two sharply defined values of "spin" that appear
only when exposed to the magnetic field, and only in the direction of
the field's gradient. This quantum behavior results in a line that
sharply encloses the areal pattern predicted for classically behaving
particles.

All this to say that electrons don't run around holding a positive or
a negative/reversed rotation or a "spin". They adapt to the
circumstances at hand in a 50-50 way as far as has been experimentally
seen only when externally excited. From the evidence we have so far,
then, we can only say that a body has "up-spin" and "down-spin"
electrons when constraints cause that quality to appear, always an
equivalent amount in both categories, and always in an precise
alignment determined by the external conditions and not the electrons
themselves. (It is exactly this dictatable alignment of "spin" that
allows for things like electron paramagnetic resonance imaging.)

Other thoughts on this: If electrons did generate an bulk effect
based on some rotational behavior and their charge (like magnetism in
iron) you'd have to get a large majority of them to align their axes
of rotation in a specific direction and hold it before it would
manifest (as is the case in solid magnetite). For non-crystalline,
mutable structures like the non-osseous portions of the human body,
without very strong magnetic influence around all the time, and a
statistically very very low probability that the electrons were
initially tending towards the aforementioned direction, this alignment
probably won't happen due to entropy and the thermal nature of our
body. And, if somehow the body could constantly enforce a specific
alignment of all the trillions upon trillions of electrons within it
(probably requiring energies and field strengths similar to a magnetic
resonance imaging device), pivoting the body 180 degrees along an axis
perpendicular to the electron "rotational alignment" would reverse the
rotation with respect to any external field and the interactions would
then be healthful. (This is the same as "clockwise" movement on a
clock becoming "counter-clockwise" to an observer if it is pivoted 180
degrees along an axis laying in the plane of the clock's face). If
the alignment, and subsequent bulk effect, comes from the bony
portions of the body, the above conditions discussed would have to
consistently exist during the majority of bone formation process while
its constituents were not solid (a really long time). Maybe this is
the case for some exposed to a long-term magnetic field??

I've never found changing the way I face or standing on my head to
effectively mitigate my ES, though I'd be happy if it did! Have any
others found this?

-Beau

Thank you so much for your answer, Beau, anyway the health angel from
Amsterdam does not interprete 'spin' in the right way. I understand
it is very unlikely that it is true what he says and if so, then not
in the weak parts. Like you I never found it helpful to lessen my
symptoms by turning around 180 degrees left/right or upside/down
(actually I tried) ;-) More likely I think the radiation is
interfering with processes in the body or chemical balances in the
body and because they are distorted we feel pain, dizziness etcetera.
Frans.

--- In [hidden email], "Beau" <netfarer2@y...> wrote:
>
> --- In [hidden email], "franspppp" <franspppp@y...> wrote:
> >
> > someone told me the cause of electrosensitivity is spin
inversion,
> > the electrons turn the other way round, has been triggered by a
> > magnetic field. If so, I would call the cure spin reversion.
Should
> > also be triggered by another magnetic field, logically. Does
anyone
> > have experience and knowledge about this?
> >
> > Frans
>
> The quantum mechanical term "spin" does not literally refer to the
> rotation of an elementary nuclear particle such as a proton,
neutron,
> or electron about an axis passing through itself. Nor does it refer
> to the orbital angular momentum of an electron about the atomic
> nucleus.
>
> The term "spin" was created to infer a property being experimentally
> observed as being similar to something possessing intrinsic
classical
> angular momentum (even while not rotating). It is a purely quantum
> mechanical quantity without a classical mechanical equivalent though
> you may see it spoken of as "intrinsic angular momentum". A way to
> highlight the difference between "spin" and angular momentum is to
> note that "spin" is not even a vector quantity as is angular
momentum; have a
> definitely oriented "spin" until forced to take on a orientation by
an
> externally applied magnetic field. And this orientation is
completely
> dictated by the direction of the magnetic field.
>
> This can be seen through a Stern-Gerlach type experiment. If you
pass
> a beam of electrons through a magnetic field where the field
increases
> in strength in a particular direction (let's call it the x-
direction),
> the electrons will be deflected either in the x-direction or
directly
> opposite to it. Statistically, half will deflect in the x-
direction,
> half the in opposite way. If you change the direction of the
magnetic
> field's strength gradient, the electrons will now deflect exactly in
> the new direction of the gradient or opposite to it. This shows the
> electrons don't have an independently defined "spin" they travel
> around with.
>
> This, too, shows a difference between "spin" and classical angular
> momentum. An ensemble of classical charged rotating bodies would
have
> a random distribution of angular momentum, and hence, a random
> distribution of magnetic moment. When these classical bodies are
> passed through the type of magnetic field described above they would
> create an evenly covered, dispersed areal pattern. The electrons,
> however, have just two sharply defined values of "spin" that appear
> only when exposed to the magnetic field, and only in the direction
of
> the field's gradient. This quantum behavior results in a line that
> sharply encloses the areal pattern predicted for classically
behaving
> particles.
>
> All this to say that electrons don't run around holding a positive
or
> a negative/reversed rotation or a "spin". They adapt to the
> circumstances at hand in a 50-50 way as far as has been
experimentally
> seen only when externally excited. From the evidence we have so
far,
> then, we can only say that a body has "up-spin" and "down-spin"
> electrons when constraints cause that quality to appear, always an
> equivalent amount in both categories, and always in an precise
> alignment determined by the external conditions and not the
electrons
> themselves. (It is exactly this dictatable alignment of "spin" that
> allows for things like electron paramagnetic resonance imaging.)
>
> Other thoughts on this: If electrons did generate an bulk effect
> based on some rotational behavior and their charge (like magnetism
in
> iron) you'd have to get a large majority of them to align their axes
> of rotation in a specific direction and hold it before it would
> manifest (as is the case in solid magnetite). For non-crystalline,
> mutable structures like the non-osseous portions of the human body,
> without very strong magnetic influence around all the time, and a
> statistically very very low probability that the electrons were
> initially tending towards the aforementioned direction, this
alignment
> probably won't happen due to entropy and the thermal nature of our
> body. And, if somehow the body could constantly enforce a specific
> alignment of all the trillions upon trillions of electrons within it
> (probably requiring energies and field strengths similar to a
magnetic
> resonance imaging device), pivoting the body 180 degrees along an
axis
> perpendicular to the electron "rotational alignment" would reverse
the
> rotation with respect to any external field and the interactions
would
> then be healthful. (This is the same as "clockwise" movement on a
> clock becoming "counter-clockwise" to an observer if it is pivoted
180
> degrees along an axis laying in the plane of the clock's face). If
> the alignment, and subsequent bulk effect, comes from the bony
> portions of the body, the above conditions discussed would have to
> consistently exist during the majority of bone formation process
while
> its constituents were not solid (a really long time). Maybe this is
> the case for some exposed to a long-term magnetic field??
>
> I've never found changing the way I face or standing on my head to
> effectively mitigate my ES, though I'd be happy if it did! Have any
> others found this?
>
> -Beau