Schumann Resonator

These posts can get a little off target sometimes but most of the time the tweaks large and small do have merit and are grounded in science or at least a physical relationship between what is perceived and what is real.  Schumann resonators however are not one of them.  First, Schumann resonance is an electromagnetic field not an acoustic signal.  Second the amplitude of the field is on the order of 1 picotesla and can only be detected with highly sensitive antennas and instruments.  The magnetic coil used to detect Schumann resonance typically consists of tens to hundreds of thousands of turns of wire wound around a highly magnetic core. Further, 1 picotesla is many orders of magnitude smaller than the earths own magnetic field.  All this is to say the idea of a Schumann resonator improving sound is pure nonsense.  However It does beg the question as to what a person thinks is true versus what they want to think is true.  What do you think millercarbon?  Perhaps it is time to go back to the books.            

All this is to say the idea of a Schumann resonator improving sound is pure nonsense. However It does beg the question as to what a person thinks is true versus what they want to think is true. What do you think millercarbon? Perhaps it is time to go back to the books.

First SOME change in the noise floor of my house may be detected by audible effects... Adding or substrating a number of appliances is an example of this...

Second the connection of the S.G. to the electrical grid of the house modify it, no question.... Is it audible? Yes by me and some others who experiment it ...Why? Perhaps by virtue of the low frequency and his addition to the noise floor and his effect on it...I am not a scientist tough for sure... Why can i differentiate 2 distinct effects when i put quartz or shungite on the S.G. or on top of the main electrical box of the house? i can differentiate it and anybody can replicate that in his own main electrical box.... Those who NEVER experiment has no right to always speak of "placebo", being theONLY explanation for ALL cases, when the experiment proposed is SO SIMPLE to try and verify...

Third dont turn an intelligent remark of you in a war against a user which is by the way not responsible of the S.G. publicity by himself.... It is me, among others, who speak about the S.G. to him...

Four in science some undetectable very small effect could stay undetectable without the appropriate instrument to detect it or even a human sense to perceive it.... Ears are not only the biased gross measuring apparatus that it seems only and always to be for some.... Hearing is very complex phenomenon.... And ears can detect something very faint, directly undetectable at his own scale, percolating from some scale to another scale by his effect producing finally an audible effect.... It is one possibility...There is many others...


Five Wait before concluding in a definitive condemnation, the story has not ended yet...Take a breath and try a simple experiment... If not wait....,

Further, 1 picotesla is many orders of magnitude smaller than the earths own magnetic field. All this is to say the idea of a Schumann resonator improving sound is pure nonsense.

Six apply your wise maxim to yourself also, before warring against another poster, perhaps it is time to try a simple experiment:

However It does beg the question as to what a person thinks is true versus what they want to think is true. What do you think millercarbon? Perhaps it is time to go back to the books.

«Imagination cannot be completely replaced by doubt if we want to fly»- Anonymus Smith

«Music is like flying, the sounds are the wings, my imagination is the air sustaining them»-Groucho Marx listening to his new speakers without any Schumann generator in the room yet...





To be a bit provocative i will make this citation from a anteresting book: 

"Eyes lie," says auditory neuroscientist Seth Horowitz. "But the ears don’t."

@mahgister,

Good link but you could take its argument any way you chose.

In any case, external interference in scientific research ("flagrant conflicts of interest") cannot be a good thing. 

Or are scientific independence and impartiality already things of the past? 
Did they even exist then? Or ever?

In any case we must surely be at a stage of enquiry that's unprecedented in the whole of human history.

So many subjects now find themselves under an increasingly bright worldwide spotlight at the same time by so many people. 

From election conspiracies, the legitimacy of the moon landings, the relevance of the 7.83Hz Schumann Resonance, the supposed death of Paul McCartney, the assassination of JFK, 911, false flags, the covid response, flat earth proponents, the decades old digital v analogue debate, spikes v springs etc.

A kind of intellectual theoretical Darwinist battle is being played out on a daily basis. What will eventually emerge may well be the truth, or it may not. 

Hopefully some bright sparks with never before seen levels of accessible data at their disposal, will be able to make the same kinds of groundbreaking discoveries that the ancient Greeks were able to via sheer force of reason.


------

Skeptical of Medical Science Reports?Carlton Gyles  Oct 2015

'More recently, Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet, wrote that

“The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue.

Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.'

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4572812/

larryh111-

First, Schumann resonance is an electromagnetic field not an acoustic signal. Second the amplitude of the field is on the order of 1 picotesla and can only be detected with highly sensitive antennas and instruments. The magnetic coil used to detect Schumann resonance typically consists of tens to hundreds of thousands of turns of wire wound around a highly magnetic core. Further, 1 picotesla is many orders of magnitude smaller than the earths own magnetic field. All this is to say the idea of a Schumann resonator improving sound is pure nonsense. However It does beg the question as to what a person thinks is true versus what they want to think is true. What do you think millercarbon?

I think we are talking about two different things. You are talking about an extremely weak field, and we are generating the same sort of frequency only about a billion times stronger. All you have to do is compare something as obviously simple as the circuit boards power consumption to figure that one out. You spent a lot of time Goolaging up factoids without bothering to understand a word of it. That is what I think.

Schumann Resonators over 12,000 views and coming up on page 6....who would have thunk it!