About Ken [was: Could a cell membrane provide an electromagnetic shield]

k p Collins kpaulc at [----------]earthlink.net
Wed Feb 18 01:28:56 EST 2004


"NMF" <nm_fournier at ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:VauYb.5132$d34.785101 at news20.bellglobal.com...
> Please define cD? (crucial data?).  If you actually think that the
> geometrical shape of a neuron plays no role in the coordination
> spatiotemporal regulation of neuronal activity, I would say your
completely
> wrong.  Moreover, with respect to the geometrical shape and organization
of
> specific brain structures within brain space, there have been papers that
> have placed the importance of such factors with respect to brain
> functioning. This is most notably the case regarding the shape and
> development of the hippocampus.  The topological configuration as well as
a
> electrophysiological properties are the reason for the robust excitable
> nature of the hippocampus.  Paul Nunez has written extensively on this
> subject.  There are many neuronal topological based studies that have
> investigated the three dimensional properties of epileptic brain tissue
> compared to non epileptic tissue.  There is often differences.  Moreover,
> even the distribution and topological arrangement of endogenous magnetite
> has been shown to be peculiar in some epileptic brains, explaining why
> certain pulsed magnetic fields within specific frequency bands can elicit
> epileptoform activity readily.
>
> I think there is a real problem where a post that was originally designed
to
> discuss if a cellular membrane could act as an electromagnetic field
shield
> has now become a discussion that has absolutely nothing to do with the
> former. (actually the electrical field component would be mostly
attenuated,
> however, the B-component would be able to permeate with relative easy.
> Ludwig did these calculations in the 60's.). Does anybody see a problem
with
> this?  I'm not criticizing anybody in particular but I just don't see the
> point.
>
> I actually read this entire thread today.  Although there are some
extremely
> excellent discussions; however, some people should just refrain from
> discussing things that are completely outside of their level of expertise.
> For example, I do not remember who stated it, but I absolutely cringed
when
> I read something like, "Show me an electric field without a magnetic
field".
> That is entirely incorrect and that person really doesn't know what they
are
> talking about.  Magnetic fields and electric fields can occur in
isolation.
> (Consult a high school physics textbook next time).


Henceforth, please leave the context
in replies to discussions in which I
participate.

Your comments in this reply of yours
can be ambiguously-construed, which,
retaining the context, including the
headers, prevents.

I've got to comment, briefly, because
of the resultant ambiguity.

It was me who said "something like,
"`Show me an electric field without
a magnetic field'", and, because we're
talking about nervous systems, I stand
on that which made you 'cringe'.

Even if there're little 'permanent mag-
nets' in-there, be-cause of the ionic-
conductance of nervous systems,
there's never H without B.

[It's not [yet] accepted by others,
but the same with respect to all
of physical reality. The 'magnetic
field' of a 'permanent magnet' de-
rives in the ordering of the UES-
flow, local to the 'magnet', that's
actualized in the SSW<->UES
harmonics which comprise the
'magnet'.]

And "shape" is relevant =only= with re-
spect to its correlation to, and within the
global neural Topology.

But, Topology has nothing to do with
"shape".

A "cube", a "sphere", and a "pyramid"
are all topologically the same.

k. p. collins






More information about the Neur-sci mailing list