Did you know your heart produces an electromagnetic field that extends outside of your body?
[img]https://i.imgur.com/VL67kb6.png[/img]
Did you also know the electromagnetic signals of the heart can influence those around us? And that they are influenced by our own thoughts and emotions, with chaotic and incoherent signals produced by negative emotions such as anger and coherent signals produced by positive emotions such as gratitude?
[img]https://i.imgur.com/7ahqPjy.png[/img]
Yep, [url=https://www.heartmath.org/research/science-of-the-heart/energetic-communication/]little known facts[/url] yet absolutely fascinating.
Did you know your heart produces an electromagnetic field that extends outside of your body?
Did you also know the electromagnetic signals of the heart can influence those around us? And that they are influenced by our own thoughts and emotions, with chaotic and incoherent signals produced by negative emotions such as anger and coherent signals produced by positive emotions such as gratitude?
Yep,
little known facts yet absolutely fascinating.
I'm...Going to call a lot of pseudoscience on this. Only one of the people involved in this "organization" has a Ph.D, the rest of them, including the founder, don't have any form of certification or experience in anything related to medicine.
Not to mention, a lot of the sources they cite are from the 1970s.
I'm...Going to call a lot of pseudoscience on this. Only one of the people involved in this "organization" has a Ph.D, the rest of them, including the founder, don't have any form of certification or experience in anything related to medicine.
Not to mention, a lot of the sources they cite are from the 1970s.
Tell me your desire
while you pull me from the fire
and we'll seal the deal with a kiss
@
Demonically This is real science, not pseudoscience. The Ph.D you mention is Rollin McCraty, he has been studying the effects of coherent heartbeats for over two decades. It is only ironic that these discoveries are old, in fact it has been known for over a century that the heart produces an EM field.
His scientific publications can be found on Google Scholar:
https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=UF0BuLIAAAAJ&view_op=list_works&sortby=pubdate
And a list of scientific publications done by independent researchers of the HeartMath institute can also be found here:
https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=frIB6zgAAAAJ&btnA=1&view_op=list_works&sortby=pubdate
Quoted from McCraty,
Quote:
The current scientific conception is that all biological communication occurs at a chemical and molecular level through the action of neurochemicals fitting into specialized receptor sites, much like keys open certain locks. However, in the final analysis, the message is actually transmitted to the interior of the cell by a weak electrical signal.
From these and related findings, a new paradigm of energetic communication occurring within the body at the atomic and quantum levels has emerged--one which is compatible with numerous observed phenomena that could not be adequately explained within the framework of the older chemical/molecular model.
I've known about the Institute of HeartMath for several years. A book I am currently reading, Mind to Matter by Dawson Church, published just last year, cites their work among the hundreds of other studies that affirm the significance of subtle energy in the human body such as electromagnetism in his book.
Related to heart coherence is also the science behind meditation and mindfulness.
@
Demonically This is real science, not pseudoscience. The Ph.D you mention is Rollin McCraty, he has been studying the effects of coherent heartbeats for over two decades. It is only ironic that these discoveries are old, in fact it has been known for over a century that the heart produces an EM field.
His scientific publications can be found on Google Scholar:
https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=UF0BuLIAAAAJ&view_op=list_works&sortby=pubdate
And a list of scientific publications done by independent researchers of the HeartMath institute can also be found here:
https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=frIB6zgAAAAJ&btnA=1&view_op=list_works&sortby=pubdate
Quoted from McCraty,
Quote:
The current scientific conception is that all biological communication occurs at a chemical and molecular level through the action of neurochemicals fitting into specialized receptor sites, much like keys open certain locks. However, in the final analysis, the message is actually transmitted to the interior of the cell by a weak electrical signal.
From these and related findings, a new paradigm of energetic communication occurring within the body at the atomic and quantum levels has emerged--one which is compatible with numerous observed phenomena that could not be adequately explained within the framework of the older chemical/molecular model.
I've known about the Institute of HeartMath for several years. A book I am currently reading, Mind to Matter by Dawson Church, published just last year, cites their work among the hundreds of other studies that affirm the significance of subtle energy in the human body such as electromagnetism in his book.
Related to heart coherence is also the science behind meditation and mindfulness.
Like I said. I'm very, very wary of any scientific work that uses papers that are close to 50 year old.
Like I said. I'm very, very wary of any scientific work that uses papers that are close to 50 year old.
Tell me your desire
while you pull me from the fire
and we'll seal the deal with a kiss
So why don’t magnets stick to your chest?
So why don’t magnets stick to your chest?
@
Pheonyx Because we aren't made of metal?
The energy fields of the body requires sensitive equipment to detect, but it is detectable. Google it yourself.
@
Pheonyx Because we aren't made of metal?
The energy fields of the body requires sensitive equipment to detect, but it is detectable. Google it yourself.
Pseudoscience. It's no different than Reiki, Ayurveda and other "alternative medicine" that also claim to have studies to back them up. Those studies are always done with only a few people, no real control, and a few PhDs at most, all of whom are extremely biased and are often disgraced.
As usual some of what they say is true. Bioelectricity is a thing. However, as usual for things like this, they go wild with theories that have no basis in reality. It's a familiar pattern. "Bioelectricity is real." "Yep." "Therefore we can affect our surroundings with our thoughts." "... what."
It's nonsense.
edit:
There's a perfect example of what I'm saying in the suggestions on Amazon when I look up your pseudoscience book. There's one called "Real Magic: Ancient Wisdom, Modern Science, and a Guide to the Secret Power of the Universe." It's written by someone with a PhD. The description is: "The chief scientist at the Institute of Noetic Sciences (IONS) turns a critical eye toward such practices as telepathy, clairvoyance, precognition and psychokinesis. Are such powers really possible? Science says yes."
Science does not say yes, of course. His theories (beliefs, really) are nonsense as well.
A PhD does not automatically make someone correct, nor do studies that are heavily biased and not well-controlled. Nor do papers that are not peer-reviewed with additional (well-controlled) studies being done.
You might get mad at me, OP, but I feel the need to say something because I'm beyond tired of seeing people pushing pseudoscience and not understanding how scientific studies work. It's not just "someone with a PhD does a study so they're right" but that's a common belief.
Pseudoscience. It's no different than Reiki, Ayurveda and other "alternative medicine" that also claim to have studies to back them up. Those studies are always done with only a few people, no real control, and a few PhDs at most, all of whom are extremely biased and are often disgraced.
As usual some of what they say is true. Bioelectricity is a thing. However, as usual for things like this, they go wild with theories that have no basis in reality. It's a familiar pattern. "Bioelectricity is real." "Yep." "Therefore we can affect our surroundings with our thoughts." "... what."
It's nonsense.
edit:
There's a perfect example of what I'm saying in the suggestions on Amazon when I look up your pseudoscience book. There's one called "Real Magic: Ancient Wisdom, Modern Science, and a Guide to the Secret Power of the Universe." It's written by someone with a PhD. The description is: "The chief scientist at the Institute of Noetic Sciences (IONS) turns a critical eye toward such practices as telepathy, clairvoyance, precognition and psychokinesis. Are such powers really possible? Science says yes."
Science does not say yes, of course. His theories (beliefs, really) are nonsense as well.
A PhD does not automatically make someone correct, nor do studies that are heavily biased and not well-controlled. Nor do papers that are not peer-reviewed with additional (well-controlled) studies being done.
You might get mad at me, OP, but I feel the need to say something because I'm beyond tired of seeing people pushing pseudoscience and not understanding how scientific studies work. It's not just "someone with a PhD does a study so they're right" but that's a common belief.
@
Rainbowe I see the word pseudoscience thrown around but I don't see you using anything other than opinions to back your claims. I've presented evidence that the science is valid in the form of scientific publications on a credible platform, some of which have hundreds of citations, and you're dismissing all of it based on the notion that it's nonsense for reasons such as the scientists are all extremely biased. Hypocrisy much?
Have you honestly examined any evidence for yourself before you came to the conclusion that all of this is nothing but pseudoscience?
If you're beyond tired of people pushing pseudoscience then why don't you support healthy scientific discourse and prove that the science is fake as you say it is rather than opine about it. What good is it doing if this is acceptable way to judge what science is and isn't.
@
Rainbowe I see the word pseudoscience thrown around but I don't see you using anything other than opinions to back your claims. I've presented evidence that the science is valid in the form of scientific publications on a credible platform, some of which have hundreds of citations, and you're dismissing all of it based on the notion that it's nonsense for reasons such as the scientists are all extremely biased. Hypocrisy much?
Have you honestly examined any evidence for yourself before you came to the conclusion that all of this is nothing but pseudoscience?
If you're beyond tired of people pushing pseudoscience then why don't you support healthy scientific discourse and prove that the science is fake as you say it is rather than opine about it. What good is it doing if this is acceptable way to judge what science is and isn't.
A paper being published on credible platforms means nothing. After all, the paper that claimed vaccines causes autism was a "scientific publications on a credible platform". We all know how scientifically factual that claim is.
I have written research papers over the years and even conducted a study (quite a few players from FR answered my survey, actually). While they were all for classes and haven't been published, I was still held to a high standard: none of my sources could be older than 10 years and no older than 5 years was preferable.
Science, medicine, and knowledge about human physiology has changed drastically in just the past decade alone. For a paper to be using sources older than me (I'm 30), raises a lot of red flags just in itself. That's going into a time period where doctors considered high blood pressure to be a good thing. As we know now, high blood pressure is not a good thing.
I've had multiple classes, as part of my professional degree, to teach me to examine scientific research papers and articles to judge them on their accuracy and factualness. Just because a paper has "hundreds of citations" doesn't mean anything. I wouldn't be surprised if I started digging into the sources if the authors didn't misconstrue what the authors of the sources wrote. It happens a lot. Data getting tweaked happens a lot, too.
tl;dr: I have enough education in science/medicine that it's old enough to be calling me dad and asking for an allowance.
A paper being published on credible platforms means nothing. After all, the paper that claimed vaccines causes autism was a "scientific publications on a credible platform". We all know how scientifically factual that claim is.
I have written research papers over the years and even conducted a study (quite a few players from FR answered my survey, actually). While they were all for classes and haven't been published, I was still held to a high standard: none of my sources could be older than 10 years and no older than 5 years was preferable.
Science, medicine, and knowledge about human physiology has changed drastically in just the past decade alone. For a paper to be using sources older than me (I'm 30), raises a lot of red flags just in itself. That's going into a time period where doctors considered high blood pressure to be a good thing. As we know now, high blood pressure is not a good thing.
I've had multiple classes, as part of my professional degree, to teach me to examine scientific research papers and articles to judge them on their accuracy and factualness. Just because a paper has "hundreds of citations" doesn't mean anything. I wouldn't be surprised if I started digging into the sources if the authors didn't misconstrue what the authors of the sources wrote. It happens a lot. Data getting tweaked happens a lot, too.
tl;dr: I have enough education in science/medicine that it's old enough to be calling me dad and asking for an allowance.
Tell me your desire
while you pull me from the fire
and we'll seal the deal with a kiss