Posted by evie15422 on
URL: https://www.es-forum.com/Garth-I-have-more-now-tp1541394p1541449.html

Hi, Snoshoe and All,
   
Ok, maybe I was wrong about others supporting the idea that EMFs emit from everything! lol I at least can now relate a little better to what this means since reading your cake batter explanation. Hey, not all of us can be rocket scientists! ;)
   
Thanks, Snoshoe,
Diane

snoshoe_2 <[hidden email]> wrote:
Well put I think Bbin. (And Garth too.) If it seemed I was confusing
emf and chemicals, that is not the case, although again it depends on
the level you look at it, in energy or "just" solid matter.

"But some people do react to chemicals just in proximity in
> a hermetically sealed container, no mass contact involved. The
nature > of this interaction is not well understood, but it could be
due to the > energetic emissions of the substances involved. But some
type > of energetic signature interaction seems plausible since
people can > react to holding a homeopathic remedy made from a
chemical even if > their is no longer any of the chemical present,
say like in a 200C> preparation."  

This rather proves the point right here don't you think? Look at how
unaccepted things like scalar waves have been, and Tesla's info. and
just how far technology and science have advanced in the last 30
years from so many things that "were not" at that time, because it
was not familiar, not necessarily unknown.

I was just listening to part of a show I caught about quantum physics
and current experiments earlier this week. They were talking about
it, and how things can be affected from a distance. It boils down to
frequencies and resonance. Also stated that the world's biggest
pollution now is electrosmog. (Anybody familiar with black boxes from
20 years ago? Emits the the frequency of the enclosed item, having
it's vibrational effects on it's target- or sometimes unintended
target. Effects good or bad depending. There was no direct contact
between the original source and the recipient.)

Because all things, ALL things, have an inherent emf. That is one of
the laws of radiation. "All things emit radiation." Looking at Dr.
Carey Reams' work again; he figured out the frequency for humans. The
further out it goes, the finer tuned it gets, till it is uniquely us
as an individual. If our large earth has it's own, and us, why not
the smaller things?

Let's go back to the beginnings a bit. That all things have an emf is
one of the first things you'll learn about electromagnetism. Heck,
this is being taught in highschool physics now. Every one of those
frequencies has it's own wavelength, sound, and it's own color.

I don't know if anyone noticed I posted a link with a list of the
frequency in Hz for many elements?  

The frequency of each of them can also be found on a table of
elements here: BIG FAT Sigh. It's not any of the ones I thought, so
I'll have to look some more. I'll try and find it. Okay, my
connection is tryint to drop, this is not the one I wanted, but it
may be useful: http://www.chem.tamu.edu/services/NMR/periodic/

Wikipedia has a nice definition and outline of the spectrum. The
wavelengths, frequencies, and electrical energy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectrum

If you have the frequency, wavelength, color, or sound, you can find
out the rest of these about any item. There are converters like the
one on this page or others:
http://www.cem.msu.edu/~reusch/VirtualText/Spectrpy/InfraRed/infrared.
htm

Wien's law just says that the wavelength can be manipulated. It
doesn't mean there isn't one. (Leading to possible transmutation?
That's something else though.)

Chemistry and physics,as much as I dislike it myself, can't be
entirely separated. What is a chemical reaction anyway? A shift of
substance, or electrical energy, an exchanging of ions. What is
electricity? Same thing isn't it?

When incoming radiation fields from phones, x-rays come to us, what
is happening but the same thing? Ionization.

So on the surface, yes, chemicals may not seem the same, because we
haven't ususally been taught past that. But under the surface, there
is all kinds of electrical exchanges going on. It's what makes us
go.  

We live in a cake batter world, with flour electricity, sugar
chemicals, a pinch salt for some separate magnetism, all mixed
together, and we really can't separate them entirely, although
somewhat. I strongly suspect that as the earth's magnetic field
continues to decrease, and our electrosmog increase, the way we are
use to things normally working, will no longer be the norm.

~ Snoshoe :)



--- In [hidden email], "bbin37" <netfarer2@...> wrote: threshold
> of our current sensing instruments. (For more, look up discussions
> and explorations of Wien's "Law".)
>
> Since all masses observed so far are above 0 deg K (and quantum
> mechanics predicts that no mass can be at 0 deg K) we can extend the
> observed results with some sense that the rest of the untested
> material masses locally residing around us behave the same as their
> tested counterparts. With this in mind, all dense bodies on Earth
> possibly radiate electromagnetic energy at all types of
wavelengths.
> This is kind of surprising!
>
> However, the issue is intensity, like both you and Marc have
> mentioned. For example, the microwave emissions from our bodies'
mass
> constituents is *extremely* small compared to the emission of a cell
> phone. So for all intents and purposes we don't consider most
masses
> as microwave emitters compared with wireless emissions. And the
> statement about a bucket of sodium flouride emitting the same amount
> of EMR as a bucket of water is thought to be accurate if both masses
> are the same temperature since the thermal electromagnetic spectrum
of
> the EMR emission only depends on temperature.
>
> Chemical sensitivity and electrical sensitivity
> -----------------------------------------------
>
> Chemical sensitivity symptoms are very similar - and for some people
> the same - as electrical sensitivity symptoms. Maybe this is
leading
> some to think that chemicals and electromagnetic radiation are
somehow
> identical. Though the symptoms can be the same, the natures of the
> incitants are not identical.
>
> For chemical sensitivity, usually very close proximity interaction
> with some amount of a chemical is needed to provoke reaction. For
> most this usually means skin contact interaction or absorption into
> the body. But some people do react to chemicals just in proximity
in
> a hermetically sealed container, no mass contact involved. The
nature
> of this interaction is not well understood, but it could be due to
the
> energetic emissions of the substances involved. However, the
> presently measurable electromagnetic radiation emitted most likely
> isn't a factor here because the spectrum shape is only a function of
> temperature and not what type of substance is involved. But some
type
> of energetic signature interaction seems plausible since people can
> react to holding a homeopathic remedy made from a chemical even if
> their is no longer any of the chemical present, say like in a 200C
> preparation.
>
> In the case of electrical sensitivity, the symptom trigger is the
> presence of an electromagnetic field whether it be in radiative form
> like radio waves, non-radiative form as is the case for
electrostatic
> and magnetostatic fields, or a combination like the presence of an
AC
> field and its attendant EMR. The interaction mode is not externally
> introduced chemicals interacting with chemicals in the body. It
seems
> to be some kind of bodily reaction to the properties of the EMR or
> EMF, namely its frequency and intensity, or in the case of a static
> field the amount of energy stored in the field. And the distance
from
> a measurable field can be substantial while provoking symptoms.
>
> On the use of the acronym EMF
> -----------------------------
>
> The acronym "EMF" does sees usage in the area of gas emissions,
i.e.,
> emission of gaseous substances not electromagnetic radiation. There
> are references made in this context to the Energy Modeling Forum at
> Stanford University which studies the environmental impact of
chemical
> pollution (like greenhouse gases) from energy generation like the
> burning of coal, oil & gasoline, and natural gas.
>
> Maybe this has contributed to some confusion around the issue of gas
> and the term EMF that this group uses to refer to electromagnetic
> fields or electromotive force.
>
> b
>







SPONSORED LINKS
Health and wellness Health wellness product Health and wellnessprogram Health promotion and wellness Health and wellness promotion Business health wellness
   
---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

   
Visit your group "eSens" on the web.
   
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[hidden email]
   
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

   
---------------------------------
 



               
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2¢/min or less.

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