>>16731498
oh yeah? >neuronal current spikes are about 10 nanoamps to a microamp >while cuddling, brains can be 10 cm apart >1 microamp of current generates a magnetic field of 2 picoTesla by biot-savart law >faraday's law states this induces a current on the order of 10^-28 amperes, far lower than can influence a neuron >meanwhile, in reality, brainwave entrainment is a well-observed phenomenon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainwave_entrainment https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-04464-4
here we see the science shows brain-to-brain entrainment is observed, in direct contradiction to the prediction of maxwell's equations that describe magnetism. so, tell me again how well understood this is
>>16731516
None of that appears to demonstrate entrainment purely mediated by the brain waves themselves. The wikipedia article mentions entrainment mediated by external processes such as lights and sounds, and the paper is explicitly about entrainment mediated through speech. Why are you being such a faggot?
>>16731513 >Oh we understand [Thing]? >Well can you violate core principles of how [Thing] works? >Thought not, chud! Checkmate!
You are more stupid than you think
>>16731521
Yes. What does that have to do with >neuronal current spikes are about 10 nanoamps to a microamp >while cuddling, brains can be 10 cm apart >1 microamp of current generates a magnetic field of 2 picoTesla by biot-savart law >faraday's law states this induces a current on the order of 10^-28 amperes, far lower than can influence a neuron >meanwhile, in reality, brainwave entrainment is a well-observed phenomenon
?
It doesn't matter how strong the field is. The entrainment is mediated through speaking and listening, not directly by the magnetic fields produced by the brain.
>>16731525
Are you retarded? Any perception produces currents in the brain. How exactly does that work? It's complicated. Anyway, I'm finished with (you).
>>16731629
I'm merely using his terminology. Whether it's technically a "current" is completely irrelevant, because the point is that the purported entrainment has nothing to do with direct brainwave/field interaction.
>>16731318 (OP)
Defining what magnetism "is" without resorting to nonsense equations spam is a major problem in the philosophy of science. >t. not OP but probably read the same paper as OP
We don't really understand gravity either. Sure we can predict it and write pretty accurate equations, but we don't know why these things happen, just that they do.
>>16731513
ive literally made monopoles since I was a kid
if you cant figure it out then youre too retarded to be using the internet imo >>16731662
what part do you not understand? we live in a universe with fields. is gravity also a mystery to you lot?
>>16731671
i don't remember the paper an can't be asked, but I believe K Popper talked about it as well.
the point is moot though, I can tell in your posts you're a zealot who is already confused why anyone would pose such a question.
