Sorry Ken. My response was to something that DynaSoar wrote earlier that I
wanted clarification on.
Also I didn't know that you were the one that made the comment about
electric and magnetic fields. I read the post and didn't look at who posted
it. All that was salient about it was that the statement was wrong. With
respect to the nervous system then your right. I thought you meant in
general electromagnetic physics you could never have an electric field
without the presence of a magnetic field and vice-versa. (Actually in
perspective, my comment was entirely
irrelevent especially seeing how it was discussed so long before).
"k p Collins" <kpaulc@[----------]earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:ICDYb.9663$W74.5189 at newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> "NMF" <nm_fournier at ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:VauYb.5132$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
> > wrong. Moreover, with respect to the geometrical shape and organization
> > specific brain structures within brain space, there have been papers
> > 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
> > 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.
> > even the distribution and topological arrangement of endogenous
> > has been shown to be peculiar in some epileptic brains, explaining why
> > certain pulsed magnetic fields within specific frequency bands can
> > epileptoform activity readily.
> > I think there is a real problem where a post that was originally
> > discuss if a cellular membrane could act as an electromagnetic field
> > has now become a discussion that has absolutely nothing to do with the
> > former. (actually the electrical field component would be mostly
> > 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
> > this? I'm not criticizing anybody in particular but I just don't see
> > point.
> > I actually read this entire thread today. Although there are some
> > excellent discussions; however, some people should just refrain from
> > discussing things that are completely outside of their level of
> > For example, I do not remember who stated it, but I absolutely cringed
> > I read something like, "Show me an electric field without a magnetic
> > That is entirely incorrect and that person really doesn't know what they
> > talking about. Magnetic fields and electric fields can occur in
> > (Consult a high school physics textbook next time).
>>> Henceforth, please leave the context
> in replies to discussions in which I
>> 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
>> 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
>> A "cube", a "sphere", and a "pyramid"
> are all topologically the same.
>> k. p. collins