Could a cell membrane provide an electromagnetic shield ?

k p Collins kpaulc at [----------]earthlink.net
Wed Feb 11 04:58:16 EST 2004


Hi Matthew,

"Matthew Kirkcaldie" <Matthew.Kirkcaldie at removethis.newcastle.edu.au> wrote
in message
news:Matthew.Kirkcaldie-BB7C69.18010611022004 at tomahawk.comms.unsw.edu.au...
> In article <mikWb.20372$jH6.15339 at newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
>  "k p  Collins" <kpaulc@[----------]earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > The magnetic field would vary with
> > the distribution of the cellular constitution.
>
> The question was about an electric field -
> not a magnetic field.

The thread Title is: "Could a cell membrane
provide an electromagnetic shield ?"

And besides, show me an "electric field"
without a magnetic field.

> > So, depending on the field strength,
> > you don't get a a uniform action, but
> > one that [literally] reflects the cellular
> > constituents.
>
> Oddly enough, related to the dielectric
> properties which you dismissed as "resistance".

I stand on what I posted in our other
discussion.

> > This is what "magnetic Resonance
> > Imaging" [MRI] is [why it gives detailed
> > images].
>
> No, MRI has nothing to do with detecting
> changes in a magnetic field induced by tissue
> constituents.  The magnetic field is used to
> hold the tissue's atoms in a state where they
> can be imaged by detecting their interactions
> with radio waves of specific frequencies.

I stand on what I posted.

Why do you think the RF is interpretable?

It's the always-there-ness of both E and H.

Set H, and you also set E.

Think I'm "imagining"? Or post-posting?

Google sufficiently, and you'll see that
I've accurately discussed it all in the past.

> I feel you should stop "explaining" things
> you don't understand - it  certainly doesn't
> help anyone.

Hey, that's not my 'fault'.

But the Problem you've noted is worth
discussing, a bit.

I work at the edges, Matthew. That means that
the stuff I discuss has never been discussed
before. It's always this way. With respect to
the post that we're both discussing, here, the
'point' from-out-at-the-edges that I was dis-
cussing was [is] with respect to the way that,
within nervous systems, "directionality"
underpins information-content.

The way I wrote my post was [literally] calc-
ulated to evoke an image of "directionality"
within the reader's consciousness.

To do this, I used folks' awarnesses of MRI
images, and referred them to the way that "The
magnetic field would vary with the distribution
of the cellular constitution."

I was 'painting a picture' of "directionality", and
how one sort of information-content, an MRI
image, is derivable in-it.

Am I "satisfied" with the imagery?

No.

Which is why I'll keep explaining stuff that
folks, probably including you, don't [yet] understand.

"It's not easy being green" [Kermit the Frog]

"Green", as in the Springtime of Understanding.

K. P. Collins






More information about the Neur-sci mailing list