Notices
Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Current theories about magnetism are wrong

  1. #1 Current theories about magnetism are wrong 
    Rob
    Rob is offline
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    10
    The information I will link to in this post is not pseudoscience, it has been confirmed by numerous scientists. In fact, you can personally verify this on your own by duplicating a few simple experiments (written in the book, Magnetism and Its Effects on the Living System, by Albert Roy Davis and Walter C. Rawls, Jr.).

    In 1936 Albert Roy Davis discovered that the North and South poles of a magnet are two separate and distinct energies with opposite effects on all matter. The North pole energy spins counterclockwise and causes matter to contract, while the South pole energy spins clockwise and causes matter to expand. Davis discovered that there is absolutely no measureable amount of magnetism at the direct center of any and all magnets, which is why they are described as separate energies.

    For decades Davis experimented on plants, animals, fluids, gases, etc., and found that the two poles had different effects each and every time. This article provides a little detail on some of the amazing discoveries that Davis and Rawls (his associate) have made over the years. Their work will be legendary in the future. The only question is, how many more years will it take for that to happen?
    http://www.teslatech.info/ttstore/re...1art/scope.htm


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Albert Roy Davis and Walter C. Rawls, Jr. 
    Rob
    Rob is offline
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    10
    If you haven't read the article that I linked to in my first post, I highly recommend that you do now. Believe me, it is a fascinating read and you won't be disappointed.

    Here is another good link that describes the groundbreaking work of Davis and Rawls. http://keelynet.com/biology/biomag2.htm


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Magnet therapy? Welcome to pseudoscience.

    The link you have provided appears not to be peer-reviewed. Could you provide links to peer-reviewed research papers which confirm the effects that you are talking about? Preferably large-scale (n>100) human studies that are randomised and placebo-controlled.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    One problem with a theory of Biomagnetism affecting humans is the holistic effect. Tell someone you're curing them, and if they believe it, then they often get better just because they believe it.

    To a certain degree, ordinary science holds no opposition to this paper (despite it's claim of being dramatically opposed). You've got Iron in your blood. The fact that your blood is constantly in motion means that you probably are actually magnetic. It works the same as how people believe that the Earth's magnetic field is caused by internal motion of the Earth's core. We might similarly expect the circulation of iron laden blood to generate a small magnetic field.

    And, once that iron is generating its own magnetic field, it will no longer respond to both ends of a magnet equally.

    The real question is whether this interaction between your magnetized blood and an external magnetic force can actually help you. It seems like it would be more likely to hurt you, except maybe under very carefully applied/ well planned circumstances.

    Trial and error over centuries of practice might yield some decent treatments, but medical science today doesn't like to just blindly use people as test subjects. It prefers to have a theory going in, so only a few strategically placed tests are necessary.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    One problem with a theory of Biomagnetism affecting humans is the holistic effect. Tell someone you're curing them, and if they believe it, then they often get better just because they believe it.

    To a certain degree, ordinary science holds no opposition to this paper (despite it's claim of being dramatically opposed). You've got Iron in your blood. The fact that your blood is constantly in motion means that you probably are actually magnetic. It works the same as how people believe that the Earth's magnetic field is caused by internal motion of the Earth's core. We might similarly expect the circulation of iron laden blood to generate a small magnetic field.

    And, once that iron is generating its own magnetic field, it will no longer respond to both ends of a magnet equally.

    The real question is whether this interaction between your magnetized blood and an external magnetic force can actually help you. It seems like it would be more likely to hurt you, except maybe under very carefully applied/ well planned circumstances.

    Trial and error over centuries of practice might yield some decent treatments, but medical science today doesn't like to just blindly use people as test subjects. It prefers to have a theory going in, so only a few strategically placed tests are necessary.
    The iron in your blood doesn't even react to an MRI scanner and that's a whopping great magnet. Why would it react to some wimpy bracelet sized thing? If this idea had merit, shouldn't we see MRI scanners making people healthier? It's not as if we haven't done randomised controlled trials on the safety of those things.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Remember what I said: It seems to me that it would be more likely to hurt you than help you. (Unless someone has worked out a skillful sort of way of applying it)

    You meet people every day who can't wear a watch because their body drains the battery. The idea that the iron in your blood would be totally unreactive to magnetism demands that it contain a weird sort of iron, doesn't it?

    A more likely possibility: The iron in your blood is such a small part of the mass, that an MRI scanner does not noticeably move your blood in the short time that a person spends being scanned.

    That doesn't mean all the iron taken together won't generate a magnetic field. It means that, in any one cell, the iron component makes up too small a fraction of the mass to cause the whole rest of the cell to move with it.

    So, no, we're not going to see your blood cells move around in the veins from a magnetic cause. What we're more likely to see is a subtle change to the internal chemistry of the cell, as the iron component attempts to move, and the rest of the cell doesn't want to move with it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7 The truth can't be found in the mainstream media 
    Rob
    Rob is offline
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    10
    Here is a study that showed magnetism can improve memory. Keep in mind that Davis and Rawls discovered that magnetism can improve memory over 35 years ago! http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle1832267.ece

    Many other studies have been done, but they rarely if ever receive any media attention. Here's one example. http://www.magnetage.com/Journal_Report.html

    The schools (including colleges) were taken over many years ago and they've been completely corrupted. Don't believe it? Read this article written by John Taylor Gatto. http://4brevard.com/choice/Public_Education.htm

    Gatto graduated from Cornell University, and his wife from MIT. I just read his most recent book titled, Weapons of Mass Instruction. The schools are not designed to do what we've been led to believe (educate students), and Gatto backs that statement up with facts, not speculation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Rob, newspaper articles are not scientific publications. They're about as far from it as you can get without reading cereal packets. I'm looking for peer-reviewed primary literature. Preferably large scale studies. The first article is interesting and I've read the research behind it before, but it doesn't seem to have much to do with the work of Davis and Rawls and it doesn't deal with the indications normally targetted by magnet therapy. TMS is also a system which, beyond using electromagnets, doesn't really resemble magnet therapy as it's presented by CAM practitioners. Poles are irrelevant and the magnetic field is modulated rather than static.

    The Journal of the National Medical Association is reasonably good source, but it seems to concentrate on "brief communications" a style of research publication which is very short, deals with minimal original research and does not detail methods. This paper is no exception. Research was minimal and used only an in vitro model, a carcinoma cell line in culture. Materials and methods are not specified and the results, being in a transformed cell line, are of dubious relevance on a clinical level. The article didn't generate much interest (it's been cited 4 times in 19 years), which could be due to the fact that it was a small and weak study in a low impact journal. Mind you, it does look like something was going on there, though the results don't seem to have been reproduced by anyone (and it would be easy to do- I could do it) nor refuted.

    So my interest is piqued by that source. I'll do some more reading on the matter

    The rest I'm not all that interested in. Gatto certainly has his beef with the US education system, but that system is not alone in the world and there's certainly nothing stopping me from conducting such research in Europe. Gatto also has nothing to say on this subject in particular so I'm not sure it's all that relevant. Sounds rather like a conspiracy theory, and this is not the place for conspiracy theories, even if they relate to science.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Rob
    Rob is offline
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    10
    Here is a study that showed that magnetic exposure of seeds prior to planting resulted in an increase in growth. http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/j...TRY=1&SRETRY=0

    Davis and Rawls found that exposing seeds to either the North pole or the South pole gave superior results to exposing them to both boths simultaneously. They invented a seed magnetizer that utilizes an electromagnet. Laying seeds on a static magnet of between 1500-2500 gauss for several days to a week gave excellent results too. I've done this personally and seen the results myself. It works. Davis made these discoveries at least 45 years ago!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Your link is broken there.

    Was this work confirmed by others?

    Also, how does any of this indicate that our current theories regarding magnetism are wrong? I mean, these sources suggest we haven't done much research on how magnets interact with biological systems (which may or may not be correct), but that doesn't really impact on our understanding of magnetism itself.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,216
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax

    The idea that the iron in your blood would be totally unreactive to magnetism demands that it contain a weird sort of iron, doesn't it?
    No, it doesn't. The magnetism of Iron is due to the arrangement of the orbital of its electrons. When Iron combines with other elements to form compounds, these orbitals are rearranged, and the resulting compound can be no more responsive to a magnetic field than any other material.
    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    I think it should still interact but the iron, even in one haemoglobin macromolecule, makes up a fraction of a percent of the total mass, so I'm going to speculate that any movement of the iron is going to be limited. There have been a number of studies examining whether magnets can influence blood flow and they have all come up negative.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Rob
    Rob is offline
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    10
    Here is the link for the magnetic exposure of seeds again. http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/j...TRY=1&SRETRY=0

    Researching how magnetic energies affect biological systems does increase our knowledge and understanding of magnetism. When you use a magnet with sufficient separation of the North and South poles, you can use just one magnetic polarity to study its effects. It quickly becomes obvious that the two poles are completely different, and that is not what is taught in schools today.

    Here is a quote from "Magnetism and Its Effects on the Living System". "There have been more books written on magnetism than possibly any other subject in existence today. None offers the desired answers to the natural laws that are offered by actual physical and biological studies of the effects of magnetism on matter or on the living system itself."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Rob
    Here is the link for the magnetic exposure of seeds again. http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/j...TRY=1&SRETRY=0

    Researching how magnetic energies affect biological systems does increase our knowledge and understanding of magnetism.
    No, it increases our knowledge and understanding of how magnetism is relevant to biological systems. There's no reason to believe that the interactions rely on any new principles. To study magnetism itself you'd do physics experiments, study its interactions with much simpler systems.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rob
    When you use a magnet with sufficient separation of the North and South poles, you can use just one magnetic polarity to study its effects. It quickly becomes obvious that the two poles are completely different, and that is not what is taught in schools today.
    Completely different in what respect? We're certainly taught that they're different in schools- the direction of the field lines is opposite.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15 How does this differ from Pyramid Power 
    Forum Sophomore hokie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    175
    The claim of pyramid power is that it works. It is not what is taught in school. That the power of pyramids has been known for thousands of years and has recently been rediscovered by modern man.

    The magnetic material used in magnetic tape and floppies is ferrous oxide. So an iron compound can be magnetic.

    Are the ends of a magnet different? Sure. We can easily tell one end from the other. Can we ever find an end without the other end? Not so far. Both ends are part of a single entity.

    How much iron is in the human body? It seems that iron pills for iron deficiency deliver 18mg a day. That's not much iron in the body is it?

    I don't see how claims that people that damage watches supports something about magnetism. You might be interested to know that watch claims cover everything from wind up to battery to solar.

    Finally, scientific papers are done typically with a 95% confidence level. That means that 95% of the time the results are correct. That still leaves 5% of the results as possibly wrong due to random events. This is despite the diligence of the authors. That's why single experiments have to be checked.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16 Re: How does this differ from Pyramid Power 
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by hokie
    The claim of pyramid power is that it works. It is not what is taught in school. That the power of pyramids has been known for thousands of years and has recently been rediscovered by modern man.
    If you want to talk about that nonsense you can start a new thread about it.

    Quote Originally Posted by hokie
    The magnetic material used in magnetic tape and floppies is ferrous oxide. So an iron compound can be magnetic.

    Are the ends of a magnet different? Sure. We can easily tell one end from the other. Can we ever find an end without the other end? Not so far. Both ends are part of a single entity.

    How much iron is in the human body? It seems that iron pills for iron deficiency deliver 18mg a day. That's not much iron in the body is it?
    I would imagine that most of it is not assimilated, so it would be even less.

    Quote Originally Posted by hokie
    Finally, scientific papers are done typically with a 95% confidence level. That means that 95% of the time the results are correct. That still leaves 5% of the results as possibly wrong due to random events. This is despite the diligence of the authors. That's why single experiments have to be checked.
    Certainly individual papers must withstand wider peer review. Not sure about that specific confidence interval though. Where did you get that number?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Rob
    Rob is offline
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    10
    Here is another good article about the discoveries of Davis and Rawls that draws attention to the fact that they were the first to discover that there are two vortices of magnetic energy at each pole, not one. Yet another discovery they made is that magnetic energy is not composed of "lines of force" as it is still taught is schools, but "cables of force", as they describe in Magnetism and Its Effects on the Living System. http://lifeforcegenie.com/problems-with-magnetics.html
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    And how do you know that the website you've just posted is anything more than pure fantasy? Where is the evidence? The independent confirmation? Are you merely going to take the author's word for it?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Sophomore hokie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    175
    Biologista you seem to have missed my point about pyramid power. I used it as an example of what the other person had written. Maybe I should have quoted them.

    About the iron? Thank you for agreeing with me. I am sure that part of the 18mg goes through you. So if someone were to claim it was completely kept in the body it is still small.

    The 95% confidence interval is the standard. Some people mention it, some don't. It's the reason initial studies are often done with 5 people or rats. If the chance of a positive from a test is a flip of the coin, then its has 50-50 odds. The probability of 5 positives is then (1/2)^5 = 1/32 < 1/20 = 5%. So there is only a 5% chance (actually less) that random chance will deliver 5 positives if the experiment has a 50-50 chance of working.

    The number of experimental cases has to be greatly increased if the results do not have simple distribution. Some people use 6 subjects in case 1 drops out or becomes unusable.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by hokie
    Biologista you seem to have missed my point about pyramid power. I used it as an example of what the other person had written. Maybe I should have quoted them.
    Ah yes, so I did. I can see now that you were comparing that example to show up the illogic of the OPs claims. Sorry about that.

    Quote Originally Posted by hokie
    The 95% confidence interval is the standard. Some people mention it, some don't. It's the reason initial studies are often done with 5 people or rats. If the chance of a positive from a test is a flip of the coin, then its has 50-50 odds. The probability of 5 positives is then (1/2)^5 = 1/32 < 1/20 = 5%. So there is only a 5% chance (actually less) that random chance will deliver 5 positives if the experiment has a 50-50 chance of working.

    The number of experimental cases has to be greatly increased if the results do not have simple distribution. Some people use 6 subjects in case 1 drops out or becomes unusable.
    I misunderstood what you were originally saying about confidence intervals. Yes, you're quite right, though 95% CI are rarely reported outside of clinical trials and I'd go so far as to say that they are probably not even considered by most researchers outside of that area (though they should be). But your point is quite correct. Error exists even when research is perfectly designed and carried out to the highest standard. And so all findings are subject to objective confirmation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •