PDA

View Full Version : NASA and Schumann Resonance



Runningman
2007-Aug-01, 05:07 PM
I have recently been battling Geopathic healing and have come accross a very specific claim that should be easy to refute. Unfortunately, I don't really want to embarrass myself by writing to NASA, and surely someone must have done this already.

Geopathic healing, water dousing, and Feng Shui all make claims about earth vibrations. This site (http://www.fengshui.co.uk/GeopathicStress.htm specifically states that "NASA builds in imitations of this earth's electromagnetic frequency into their space shuttels, known as Schumann Resonators to safeguard the health of astronauts when they are outside of the influence of the earth and its vital frequency."

Has anyone ever debunked this?

Gillianren
2007-Aug-01, 06:01 PM
Welcome to the board!

How do they determine what's "outside the influence of the Earth" in the first place?

sts60
2007-Aug-01, 08:10 PM
Hi, runningman. Welcome to the board.

The simple answer is that the claim is factually incorrect; NASA does not incorporate "Schumann resonators" on the Shuttle. Period.

The premise is also wrong. Earth doesn't have a fundamental frequency; it has all sorts of different characteristic electromagnetic and acoustic frequencies. Schumann resonance, due to the "waveguide" formed by the Earth's surface and the ionosphere, causes a set of characteristic frequencies in the ELF (Extremely Low Frequency) band.

Actually, there seems to be a decent debunking of this nonsense claim here (http://www.qi-whiz.com/node/494).

Runningman
2007-Aug-01, 08:14 PM
Well, basically, they start with a little bit of science. Schumann resonance actually does exist. It refers to electromagnetic waves that travel between the surface of the earth and the ionosphere.

The pseudoscientists have developed an intricate theory that these waves are impacted by underground water, and that there are places on the earth where the waves are distorted. Since we have evolved over millions of years to depend on a specific frequency, being in the wrong place is responsible for all manner of health problems.

So, now the medicine show enters the picture. You can correct these problems by hiring someone to rearrange your furniture. You can also hire someone to tap into these forces and find water for you.

However, several of them make the claim that even NASA recognizes the necessity of these waves and equips space craft with devices to replicate this resonance. (Any vehicle above the ionosphere would be outside of the influence of these waves.) This is a specific claim that should be able to be refuted. I'm just wondering if anyone has already done this?

Runningman
2007-Aug-01, 08:25 PM
Thanks, sts60, that reference was just what I was looking for.

dgavin
2007-Aug-02, 04:17 AM
Touching on Water Dousing, I'll step out on a limb and say that I have practicle experience using dousing rods to find water, for a well on my dad's place.

However I can not explain -why- it works. However I have three thoughts on what might cause it to seem to work.

1. Gravitaional changes. The water bearing strata is denser then dry strata, therefore a minor increase in gravity is picked up by the rods, causing them to tilt in towards each other. Not really a pratical idea by a remote posibility.

2. Changes in Ground Conductivity. Self explainatory, in that water increases the conductivity of soil. The rods pick this up somehow. Also Not really a pratical idea by a remote posibility.

3. Random chance. During dousing you get a lot of rod cross overs. Random chance dictates that some of these will be over a water source. This is probably how dousing really functions.

Z28Jerry
2007-Aug-02, 11:34 AM
Random Chance.

Kelfazin
2007-Aug-02, 06:06 PM
Touching on Water Dousing, I'll step out on a limb and say that I have practicle experience using dousing rods to find water, for a well on my dad's place.

However I can not explain -why- it works. However I have three thoughts on what might cause it to seem to work.

1. Gravitaional changes. The water bearing strata is denser then dry strata, therefore a minor increase in gravity is picked up by the rods, causing them to tilt in towards each other. Not really a pratical idea by a remote posibility.

2. Changes in Ground Conductivity. Self explainatory, in that water increases the conductivity of soil. The rods pick this up somehow. Also Not really a pratical idea by a remote posibility.

3. Random chance. During dousing you get a lot of rod cross overs. Random chance dictates that some of these will be over a water source. This is probably how dousing really functions.

If you can do it in front of the JREF you could be rich :)

Grashtel
2007-Aug-02, 07:25 PM
3. Random chance. During dousing you get a lot of rod cross overs. Random chance dictates that some of these will be over a water source. This is probably how dousing really functions.
Yep, that and if you dig a deep enough hole pretty much anywhere you will usually find water (though how much and weather it refills at a worthwhile rate is a different matter) which is counted usually as a hit by dowsers.

Swift
2007-Aug-02, 08:57 PM
You know, if you look at our new banner, the BA might not be boxing on the moon, he might be dousing water (look at how he's holding his hands) and the artist just didn't do a good job of showing the rod. :think:

mugaliens
2007-Aug-04, 10:10 PM
The premise is also wrong. Earth doesn't have a fundamental frequency; it has all sorts of different characteristic electromagnetic and acoustic frequencies. Schumann resonance, due to the "waveguide" formed by the Earth's surface and the ionosphere, causes a set of characteristic frequencies in the ELF (Extremely Low Frequency) band.

Actually, there seems to be a decent debunking of this nonsense claim here (http://www.qi-whiz.com/node/494).

I respond to this in my next post about what NASA might actually have, and why.

mugaliens
2007-Aug-04, 10:17 PM
However, several of them make the claim that even NASA recognizes the necessity of these waves and equips space craft with devices to replicate this resonance. (Any vehicle above the ionosphere would be outside of the influence of these waves.) This is a specific claim that should be able to be refuted. I'm just wondering if anyone has already done this?

I wonder if they're confusing Schumann Resonance with the Schuler Cycle, also known as Schuler Tuning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schuler_tuning)? Discovered by Max Schuler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Schuler), a German engineer who's principle is used in all mechanical gyroscopes to minimize the effects of translation on errors. The principles are still used in B-52s, and other older aircraft (http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-634.html).

dgavin
2007-Aug-05, 01:59 AM
If you can do it in front of the JREF you could be rich :)

Bring them on! I don't mind being an experiment to prove that dousing works by random chance. If it turns out to be gravitational or conductivity, I'd have to eat my hat on TV I guess.

Would be entertaining eaither way.

sts60
2007-Aug-05, 12:10 PM
I wonder if they're confusing Schumann Resonance with the Schuler Cycle, also known as Schuler Tuning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schuler_tuning)? Discovered by Max Schuler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Schuler), a German engineer who's principle is used in all mechanical gyroscopes to minimize the effects of translation on errors. The principles are still used in B-52s, and other older aircraft (http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-634.html).Here's the thing I like about this forum. Not only does the conversation wander to cover a lot of interesting information, but much of it is just so darned useful in everyday situations. I mean, here I've been blithely just hopping into my F-16 and rolling out in the morning on the way to work all this time, and I've not once taken the Schuler effect on my INS into account...

Interestingly, the last link contained this bit:

We are talking late 60's technology. The A-7D used the same computer that the Lunar Module used to put Armstrong and others on the moon! Pretty capable machine in its time.
A bit of casual searching didn't enlighten me. Does anybody else know about this?

mugaliens
2007-Aug-05, 11:41 PM
I mean, here I've been blithely just hopping into my F-16 and rolling out in the morning on the way to work all this time, and I've not once taken the Schuler effect on my INS into account...

Ah. That explains the drift!


Interestingly, the last link contained this bit (about the A-7D sharing a computer with the Lunar Lander).

A bit of casual searching didn't enlighten me. Does anybody else know about this?

Obscure, but true.

If you really want to get your feet wet with early, practical computer applications, visit the Memorial at Pearl Harbor. Take some time to wander through the naval museum next to the main building, particularly the manually-cranked fire control computers used to calculate (wind) shell ballistics based upon not just wind, but atmospheric conditions, as well.

PhantomWolf
2007-Aug-06, 01:41 AM
Bring them on! I don't mind being an experiment to prove that dousing works by random chance. If it turns out to be gravitational or conductivity, I'd have to eat my hat on TV I guess.



Would be entertaining eaither way.



Either way you wouldn't win the $million. The $million is for a proven Paranormal effect. If you proved that it was caused by a normal effect that we just hadn't thought of, it'd no longer be paranormal and thus would be Ineligible for the money. :(

dgavin
2007-Aug-07, 02:22 PM
Either way you wouldn't win the $million. The $million is for a proven Paranormal effect. If you proved that it was caused by a normal effect that we just hadn't thought of, it'd no longer be paranormal and thus would be Ineligible for the money. :(

Darn it! I so wanted to by a Prowler with the money too!:cry:

Mister Earl
2007-Aug-08, 04:32 PM
Mr. Randi has stated many times that Dowsing is an acceptable test for the JREF prize of $1,000,000. He has had many dowsers test, and so far none have won. If you legitamately believe that you can dowse water, then go ahead and fill out thier application. If you read the JREF rules, you'll note that they cannot legally back out of a test. If you do your dowsing, per a test co-designed by both you and JREF, and you PASS, then go from the initial test to one attended by JREF witnesses. If you pass that, you get the $1,000,000.

Seriously, if you read thier rules, you'll see they don't leave any wriggle-room for themselves. But I highly advise you to conduct some basic double-blind tests yourself so that you can be sure you can actually do this. Here's a simple test you can do:

1.) Get two friends to assist you, ten cardboard boxes, and ten empty plastic milk containers. Fill one full of water.
2.) The first person takes the materials in another room, arranges the milk jugs, and covers each with a box.
3.) The person leaves the room, and you go in with your witness to dowse. Pick the box you think has the water, then you both leave without touching the boxes. Write down which you think it was.
4.) First person goes back in the room, and rearranges ALL boxes so none are in thier original position.
5.) Repeat steps 1-4 nine more times.

Statistically speaking, you should hit the water once. Get three or more, and you have something...

Mister Earl
2007-Aug-08, 04:45 PM
But just to give you something to think about:
1.) If dowsing rods can really detect water, why can it detect water under many tens of feet of dirt, yet not be deflected by the large water source that is your body?
2.) If you take your dowsing rods to a lake, stream, or pool, why don't you get a very strong deflection?

Mister Earl
2007-Aug-08, 05:07 PM
Here's another fun, easy-to-do test: Put a dowsing rod in a the end of a pipe that is perfectly perpendicular to a level surface. Stick the dowsing rod in the end of the pipe, then wave a glass or bottle of water in front of the rod. Does it move?

mugaliens
2007-Aug-08, 09:35 PM
Here's another fun test: Take the dowsing rod from the dowser, throw it as hard as you can, and wait until Fido retrieves it.

Repeat as required for maximum enjoyment.

Ignore the rantings of the dowser.

PetersCreek
2007-Aug-08, 09:50 PM
The A-7D was my first airframe way back in '79-80. I maintained the Pave Penny sensor. I sure don't remember that tidbit about the computer, though. Interesting, indeed.

Perhaps I can put a liitle more shine on that fact. The base to which I was assigned...the 23rd Tactical Fighter Wing at England AFB LA...won the RAF Tactical Bombing Competition two years running with the Corsair II. Not bad for hoaxed technology, eh?

mugaliens
2007-Aug-09, 06:39 PM
The A-7D was my first airframe way back in '79-80. I maintained the Pave Penny sensor. I sure don't remember that tidbit about the computer, though. Interesting, indeed.

Perhaps I can put a liitle more shine on that fact. The base to which I was assigned...the 23rd Tactical Fighter Wing at England AFB LA...won the RAF Tactical Bombing Competition two years running with the Corsair II. Not bad for hoaxed technology, eh?

Not bad at all, Brett! And good on 'ya. I won something from some land once in the 1990s, said land which shall remain nameless, and said platform which shall also remain nameless.

Hell of a lot of fun, though.