 |
| CQ CQ CQ Wx-104 Got your ears on? |
This includes memes, microbes, viruses, memory corruption, and even meteorites (you name it and I search it out).
Today, I announce several new potential sources for those wily rascals that generate toxins of power.
Before getting into the wireless hypothesis, remember that molecular (chemical) signalling, messaging, and/or communication has been considered here before (see e.g. Microbial Hermeneutics, 2).
To move into the additional wireless signalling aspect of communication, let's begin by first checking out a Dredd Blog post which furnishes the following information:
It is well accepted that all objects, whether living or nonliving, are continuously generating electromagnetic fields (EMFs) due to the thermal agitation of their particles that possess charges. Interest in EMFs as alternative forms of cell-to-cell communication can be traced back to at least the second decade of the 20th century. Interactions between EMFs and biosystems have been intensively studied for over a century and a quantitative understanding of many interaction mechanisms exists, There is much evidence that biological processes can be induced or modulated by induction of light of characteristic frequencies.(On the Origin of the Genes of Viruses - 11, quoting science journals). This means that molecular, chemical communication or the corruption of that molecular, chemical communication between and/or among cells within the human microbiome is not the only potential source of miscommunication --a potential source of "toxins."
Recently, distant interactions between mammalian cells through EMF coupling have been shown. Distant (non-chemical) interaction in biosystems is not limited to interactions at the cellular level. Biosystem interaction has been reported at the level of plants, insects and other biosystems.
In 1997 Cosic proposed that there is a resonant interaction between macromolecules that plays an essential role in their bioactivity. The key point of Cosic's finding is the assignment of specific spectral electromagnetic (EM) characteristics of proteins to their specific biological function. Proteins with common biological functionality are known to share one significant peak, called the Consensus Frequency, which is acknowledged to represent the region responsible for the biological functionality. Bio-molecules with the same biological characteristics recognize and bio-attach to themselves when their valence electrons oscillate and then reverberate in an electromagnetic field. Protein interactions can be considered as resonant energy transfer between the interacting molecules. In simple words each protein and biomolecule has its fingerprint electromagnetic characteristics that can be used for its identification. In living systems long-range electromagnetic fields exchange messages across a distance because of matching emissions and absorption spectra. Non-resonating, unwanted random signals are excluded simply because they do not resonate.
...
The chemical mode of communication [between and among microbes] is the best studied of all. Nevertheless, bacteria also use electromagnetic signals as part of sophisticated signaling [systems] that function over distances that are substantially larger than cellular dimensions (which are the order of one to a few micrometers). The following descriptions focus mainly on the investigations in the area of electromagnetically mediated communication of microorganisms.
Research into the electromagnetically mediated communication of microbes started immediately after the discovery of mitogenetic radiation (MR) by Alexander Gurvitch in the 1920s. His observation stimulated early research, which led to over 500 publications on the ability of information exchange by means of electromagnetic fields between micro-organisms.
Today, I want to focus on a hypothesis I conjured up circa 1994, which is that human brain cells use wireless communication at certain junctures (synapses) within the brain circuitry system.
That is, the human brain circuitry has a wireless component at or in the synapses, which is in addition to the molecular, chemical communication components at or in the synapses.
These hypothetical wireless components are in addition to the known molecular, chemical communication that is conducted between human cells and microbes within our human bodies.
Over the past few years we have already considered, as potential toxin sources, the molecular, chemical communication (or miscommunication) between and/or among microbial and human cells in our bodies.
Wireless communication is the new potential source that we are contemplating today, as well as the potential for corruption of those wireless signals.
 |
| Figure 1: Synaptic communication |
First, as a contemplative example, imagine that human brain synapses have wireless modules, in addition to the chemical, molecular modules which facilitate communication.
Figure 1, to the right, illustrates synaptic locations - (click to enlarge).
In future posts the construct of those wireless modules will be discussed in more detail.
A closer look at the known chemical, molecular communications, as well as the hypothetical wireless communications that take place in the brain, at synapses, is shown in Figure 2.
 |
| Figure 2: chemical-molecular & wireless signals |
The Figure 2 graphic shows the traditional, comparatively slow molecular, chemical communications within the human brain synapse, as well as the hypothesized practically instant communication by wireless, photon signals which are also sent and received in the same synapses in the human brain.
Some cognition in the human brain takes place far too fast and too efficiently for it to be a system composed solely of waiting for slow chemical transfers to take place at synapses.
Therefore, the hypothesis goes, there is also electromagnetic wireless communication which takes place at the speed of light (because the components of that communication, photons, only travel at the speed of light).
If bacteria and viruses can do some wireless communication for efficiency and immediacy, human brain cells must handle at least the most urgent communication in the same or similar wireless fashion don't you think?
Wireless signalling takes place orders of magnitude faster and more efficiently than chemical, molecular communication can take place.
Further, since photons are orders of magnitude smaller that molecules, far less material (matter) is required for wireless communication.
Next, to address the issue of toxins in this process, consider that our civilization's communication system could be disrupted by, for example, CME bursts from the Sun (Coronal Mass Ejection).
That phenomenon tends to disrupt communications (wireless, etc.) between and/or among electronic devices on Earth, including orbiting satellites (ibid).
Disruption and/or corruption of communication can also take place in our brains when viruses, microbes and/or other cells (including brain cells), are conducting wireless communication.
In closing this first post of this series, I want to be clear and emphasize that viral and microbial communication with human cells is not conducted at human brain synapses.
Only human brain cell to human brain cell (neuron to neuron) signalling is being considered in the synapse to synapse depiction and discussion.
Wireless virus and microbe communication would seem to be done in an entirely different location and manner that at synapses.
Thus, we can focus on the origin of toxins of power in this context as arising in the area where hypothesized signal corruption or disruption would take place, which is at or in the synapses of human brain cells.
