[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Main Board ]

like this

Posted by .nm on February 23, 2011 at 20:24:52:

In Reply to: A fairly respectable characterization of "biofield" posted by SGTex on February 19, 2011 at 20:58:21:

: I have a skepticism bordering on ridicule for "the energy arts" or alternative healing. I say one turns down that street at one's own risk, as most of the addresses are vendors of baloney, horsefeathers and what Ernie Ford called "barnyard mulch." At some time I may post a bit on how laughable some of the claims and explanations are --- for instance there is the transparent fraud on TV right now known as the i-Renew bracelet. But for now, in all fairness or because I am charitable as the Dickens about it, I would like to offer this essay I found a while ago that invokes the most honest and most legitimate scientific support I have seen for this idea of an "energy field" one might affect for health results. An excerpt:

: "I define the biofield in part as the endogenous, complex dynamic electromagnetic (EM) field resulting from the superposition of component EM fields of the organism. This biofield is proposed to be involved in self-organization and bioregulation of the organism. [The components of the electromagnetic biofield are the EM fields contributed by each individual electrically-charged moving particle or ensemble of particles of the organism (ion, molecule, cell, tissue, et cetera), according to principles of conventional physics.]"

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup




Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Main Board ]