Sifting new age nonsense from scientific fact

[Barachem]

I have seen several threads been opened by people, who post new age fiction among with scientific fact to prove that the end is near and could be in some year. [2012, i'm looking at you there.]
I also have seen enough threads where scientific reports of disturbing nature were posted and people jumped the gun to generalize scientists and paint the mas a bad atheist bunch.
I'm fed up with both and want to debunk `new age myths while showing that science is but a tool and that scientists can be devout christians and vice versa, as i am both.

The Schumann resonances fact and fiction post:

In lighthouse's thread Space Weather (http://www.rr-bb.com/showthread.php?t=466) he links to several websites that give us information about the Schumann resonances, which are natural electromagnetic resonant vibrations of the earth's atmosphere incited by electric discharges, lightning bolts to be precise.
Some of these websites however tell us of an increase of the frequency of the lowest and therefore fundamental Schumann resonance and the disastrous effects this will have in the year 2012.

It is stated that the fundamental Schumann resonance was at about 7.83 periods per second [Hz] in the 80s and has risen to almost 12 periods per seconds [Hz] by now, which is from the following website: http://www.cubanow.net/global/loader.php?&secc=12&c=2&item=2617

Another website has similar claims of the rise of the fundamental Schumann to about 11 periods per second [Hz]: http://www.gaiaresonance.com/Psychobiology.html
And it is claimed in the same article that the rise of atmospheric temperature by one degree doubles the amplitude of the Schumann resonances.

One thing to ask is, are there Schumann resonances and if they do exist, do their frequencies increase like told by these websites?

Yes, there are real Schumann resonances and as explained before, they are electromagnetic oscillation resonances of the earth's atmosphere, specifically the ionosphere.
Also read http://www.answers.com/topic/schumann-resonance?cat=technology
&
http://www.oulu.fi/~spaceweb/textbook/schumann.html
They occur when electromagnetic energy is put into the ionosphere due to an electric discharge, which is are lightning bolt strikes.
The generated electromagnetic fields travel all around the earth over and over again and make the ionosphere "ring" until those fields dissipate.
This happens at certain frequencies and these frequencies are determined by the shape and size of the earth's ionosphere and which resonance mode it is.
If you want to calculate the resonance frequnecies, here's the formula: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v613/Barachem/a51a5c916b907118b62e89810550c077.png
Where fn is the frequency of mode n, c is the speed of light and a is the radius of the earth
In the ideal case, the fundamental Schumann resonance, which is mode 1, has a frequency of 10.59718 periods per second [Hz], which is just short of the claimed 11 or 12 periods per second [Hz] claimed by those websites.

But because the ionosphere is a far from ideal conductor of electromagnetic waves, the fundamental Schumann resonance frequency is smaller than that value and is about 7.8 periods per second [Hz], with the higher resonances having frequencies of 14, 20, 26, 33, 39, and 45 periods per second [Hz].
As far as is known, the ionosphere has not changed, nor has the earth's radius shrunk or the velocity of light gone up.
The 10.6 periods per second [Hz] is the theoretically highest frequency under ideal conditions and barring miracles cannot be crossed physically.
Even the experimental value of 7.8 periods per second [Hz] is practically THE value for the fundamental Schumann resonance frequency and only changes temporarily in small amounts.
The following two articles deal with the frequency of the fundamental Schumann resonance up to 2001 and 2003 respectively:

http://www.oa.uj.edu.pl/konferencje/2004dwerniczek/prezentacje/Jurij.Maltsev/maltsev_bieszczady.pdf

http://www.ncedc.org/ncedc/em.intro.html

And current measurements show that the fundamental Schumann resonance is indeed still at 7.8 periods per second [Hz] and the other resonances at their respective frequencies: http://www.vlf.it/livedata.html [This is live data that refreshes every hour and shows the latest 4 hours worth of data.]
The first Turquoise band at the bottom of the first picture is just noise, the one above that is the fundamental Schumann resonance and is situated at about 8 periods per second [Hz].
Furthermore, the other turquoise bands above it are situated at about 14, 20, 26, 33, 39, and 45 periods per second [Hz], which is identical to the previously mentioned frequencies of the other Schumann resonances.

What does this mean?
It means that looking at the data from the latter two linked articles and the live stream, that one can conclude that the frequencies of the Schumann resonances, especially the fundamental one, have not changed significantly and long enough to affirm the claims made by the first two linked new age articles of an increase in the frequency of the fundamental Schumann frequency.
Furthermore, due to the lack of references in the new age articles and the usage of scientific references, the latter are to be considered more credible.

Concluding, it is clear that sufficient evidence has been shown to affirm that the fundamental Schumann frequency has stayed the same within small and temporary changes and has not increased from 7.8 Hz to about 11 to 12 Hz in the time between the 80 s until now.
Which means that those claims in first two linked articles are new age fiction and wishful thinking and not fact, as they are not backed up by research and contemporary research and data disprove their claims.

So i think i have made a good stand in refuting that part of the new age false claims.
What do you people think?
Should i continue refuting false claims like this? [I sure like to continue :heh]

[Maggie]

Yeah, it's ok with me if you continue refuting false claims. I am only interested in truth, not myths.
Thanks for doing that in this thread, by the way. I don't understand a word of it, ha ha, but thanks!

[Barachem]

Thanks for encouragement. :hat

So you do not understand a thing?
Aw chucks, i made it too technical too. :doh

But anyway, i'll put it in layman terms.

The Schumann resonances are oscillating waves in the whole ionosphere of the earth, comparable to the movement of water inside a kitchen sink when you disturb it.
For instance, when you fill your kitchen sink with water and punch in the water, the water sloshes around regularly, with a certain amount of time between each slosh.
Something similar happens when lightning strikes and disturbs the ionosphere with electromagnetic waves it emanates.
The waves spread through the ionosphere and slosh around the earth in a regular fashion and a certain time period between each slosh.
Now the frequency is just the inverse of such a period of time between two consecutive sloshes, it is 1 divided by that time.
Do you understand what i am saying here?

I assume you do and go on.
Now, if you are very observing, you can see not just the big sluggish slosh in the kitchen sink, but also smaller and faster sloshes, which are also periodic like the big one, but harder to see.
These faster and smaller ones have a shorter time period between their consecutive sloshes and therefore their frequency, which is 1 divided by period, is higher.
The big sluggish slosh is called the ground harmonic oscillation or fundamental resonance mode, because it shows that the water in your kitchen sink is resonating at its slowest harmonic oscillation.
The smaller and faster sloshes are called higher harmonic oscillations or higher resonance modes, because they are modes in which the water in your kitchen sink is resonating faster.
What i told you about the oscillating and resonating sloshes in your kitchen sink also holds true for the electromagnetic sloshes in the ionosphere.
The fundamental and higher oscillation resonances of the electromagnetic field in the ionosphere are just called Schumann resonances because som e scientist with the name of Schumann discovered them and thus they are called after him.
Do you understand this?

Now for a little experiment.
If you haven't done already, go to your kitchen sink and fill it half-full with water.
Then put your hand or anything else in the water and move it in a direction and back.
Try to find the best movement that makes the water slosh very well.
Congratulations, you found either the fundamental oscillation resonance frequency of the water or the second one.
Try increasing the frequency of you hand movement until you make the water slosh well again.
This is the next oscillation resonance, the second or third one.
Note that the oscillation frequencies are distinct and that their respective frequency does not change.
Now fill more water into the sink until it's three quarters full.
Repeat the above procedures.
The oscillation frequencies should be lower now because of the increased volume and mass of the water, decreasing the oscillation frequencies.
You did the above, didn't you?

Now i'll go to the crux of the story i'm trying to tell.
The water in the sink has a certain fundamental resonant oscillation frequency, which depends on the size of the sink and how full it is.
This is normally fixed, no matter what.
That frequency can only change if the dimensions and form of the sink change, the volume of the water changes and/or the water is replaced with a different liquid.

Similarly, the fundamental electromagnetic resonant oscillation frequency of the ionosphere of the earth does not normally change.
It only changes if the ionosphere changes in temperature and/or composition, the size of the earth changes and/or the speed of light changes.
As the ionosphere is far from an ideal conductor for electromagnetic waves, its resonant frequencies are significantly lower than would be in the ideal case.
The fundamental frequency is 7.8 periods per second, while the ideal fundamental frequency is 10.6 periods per second.
Now some changes in fundamental frequency do occur on a daily, weekly, monthly and even yearly basis, because the ionosphere does change considerable, but they are quite small and at most 0.2 to 0.3 periods per second in any given time frame.
Past research and current live data tell us that the fundamental frequency was and is still around 7.8 periods per second and thus stable with fluctuations.
Do you understand this?

Now the new age websites i mentioned, which are easily to discern as new age, claim some rather interesting things.
First of all they claim that the fundamental frequency has risen since the 1980s from 7.8 periods per second to close to 12 periods per second.
They also claim that when the winter solstice of 2012 comes, which is also the end of the Mayan calendar, that the increase of the fundamental frequency will culminate and some conscious shift will occur or something else really spectacular.
Do you understand this?

But the thing is, this does not line up with theory and also not with past scientific reports and current data.
Currently the fundamental frequency is around 7.8 periods per second and not close to 12 periods per second.
And 10.6 periods per second is the theoretically highest value the fundamental frequency can achieve anyway.
Apart from that those two new age articles have no scientific references nor do they link to any and they are hosted on new age websites.
Do you understand this?

Altogether it is clear that the claims of an ever-increasing fundamental Schumann resonance frequency is bogus and that there will be no culmination of that increase on 12-21-2012.
The fundamental Schumann resonance had a frequency of 7.8 periods per second and still has.
New age claim debunked, myth busted.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v613/Barachem/Debunked.png

PS: I'm just asking if you understand the parts, because i want you to understand them.
I you do not understand them, i'll have to express myself clearer then. :thumb

[dramama]

we have our own mythbuster!!!! :yeah

[Maggie]

Thanks so much for the explanations!
If I read it a few times without concentrating too hard - sort of like reading it with a relaxed brain...:lol2
I'm a very visual learner, apparently, and your visuals helped a lot. It's funny, I'm not really stupid but I never learned science basics so you have to explain it to me like a 4th grader.
My daughter and I are going to do the experiments in the bathtub tonight. That should be fun and educational.
So - do I understand about the misinformation the new age puts out? Oh yeah!
I was into that once and by the time I sat down with a pastor and he led me to the Bible, I hardly knew up from down anymore. Another good way to become increasingly confused is to listen to NPR all day!:heh
Thanks again! Looking forward to more myth-busting information!

[funmudder]

Sooooo happy to read this thread :thumb

[zhan]

Maybe they'll listen to you. I'm on ignore I think. Heh, oh well, that's life I guess.

Good luck with it :nod

Though I do have to comment: When on a board where a large portion of the time science is brought up, it's in some way trying to disprove the existence of God and/or most assuredly Christ's divinity, you'll have to expect some flack thrown back. Not it's not all, but it certainly appears to be a majority from our perspective.

[Barachem]

we have our own mythbuster!!!! :yeah

I also wear glasses and have left much facial hair. :aha

Thanks so much for the explanations!
If I read it a few times without concentrating too hard - sort of like reading it with a relaxed brain...:lol2
I'm a very visual learner, apparently, and your visuals helped a lot. It's funny, I'm not really stupid but I never learned science basics so you have to explain it to me like a 4th grader.

You're welcome. :hat
Anyway, it's good to be able to explain these things to people like you in order to clarify what is fact and what is fiction.

My daughter and I are going to do the experiments in the bathtub tonight. That should be fun and educational.

Clean and periodic fun. :thumb
I hope you enjoyed it and have taught your daughter a thing or two about oscillatory physics.

So - do I understand about the misinformation the new age puts out? Oh yeah!
I was into that once and by the time I sat down with a pastor and he led me to the Bible, I hardly knew up from down anymore. Another good way to become increasingly confused is to listen to NPR all day!:heh

What often happens is that new age people see something mysterious and interesting and then make up their own theories as they're going through the motions.
The well educated (wo)man is able to discern fable from reality.

Thanks again! Looking forward to more myth-busting information!

I'll do my best. :nod

Sooooo happy to read this thread :thumb

Good that you enjoy it. :hat

Maybe they'll listen to you. I'm on ignore I think. Heh, oh well, that's life I guess.

Can you explain what you mean with that in a PM? [Better to talk about private things in private.]


Though I do have to comment: When on a board where a large portion of the time science is brought up, it's in some way trying to disprove the existence of God and/or most assuredly Christ's divinity, you'll have to expect some flack thrown back.

I think satan uses this to make science look like a big evil boogie man out to get us christians from believing in Jesus Christ.
But in reality most science is not concerned with beliefs and religion and just tries to explain how the world works.
A minority of scientists abuses science to promote atheist agendas and cracks down on believers as stupid and well, folks here tend to pick up news centered around that much more easily than what kind of spin-flux is generated by some exotic material.
And these militant atheist scientists tend to be very vocal.

Not it's not all, but it certainly appears to be a majority from our perspective.

Yet in fact it's a minority.
Prejudice and ignorance are no excuses to dismiss a very powerful and handy tool and the rightful users thereof.
Should we offend fellow christians only because we wrongfully think that most scientists are rabid militant atheists?
I think that we should get more educated about science, so we can see things in the right perspective and acknowledge it as the circumstantial beneficial tool it is, instead of condemning it as satan's horrid and exclusive tool.

[Hootmon]

I think satan uses this to make science look like a big evil boogie man out to get us christians from believing in Jesus Christ.
But in reality most science is not concerned with beliefs and religion and just tries to explain how the world works.
A minority of scientists abuses science to promote atheist agendas and cracks down on believers as stupid and well, folks here tend to pick up news centered around that much more easily than what kind of spin-flux is generated by some exotic material.
And these militant atheist scientists tend to be very vocal.



Yet in fact it's a minority.
Prejudice and ignorance are no excuses to dismiss a very powerful and handy tool and the rightful users thereof.
Should we offend fellow christians only because we wrongfully think that most scientists are rabid militant atheists?
I think that we should get more educated about science, so we can see things in the right perspective and acknowledge it as the circumstantial beneficial tool it is, instead of condemning it as satan's horrid and exclusive tool.Good post.

Saying that all Science is atheistic because of a few vocal atheist scientists is like saying that all of Christianity is evil based on the actions of a few errant 'pastors' (like Benny Hinn, etc.)

You need to know what is right before you can recognize what is wrong. That works for both Science and Religion.

[LookingUplinda]

Good post.

Saying that all Science is atheistic because of a few vocal atheist scientists is like saying that all of Christianity is evil based on the actions of a few errant 'pastors' (like Benny Hinn, etc.)

You need to know what is right before you can recognize what is wrong. That works for both Science and Religion.

:nod:yeah