Everything about you are fields perturbating generated from a perpetual state of imperturbation.
What keeps the blood flowing? The heart is a light "pump" or imploder. It has not a strong enough force to "pump" the blood. It must be vortexing through the 'plasma' (which I would assume has a charge, a charge that would allow for such a flow). That charge is what emits this field that is stronger than that of the brain's. The power it takes to "push" the blood through the veins that of which (if are all stretched out would extend around the circumference of the earth twice.) are electromagnetic. This is seen through the process of the mitochondria within the neurons. The body is mainly composed of molecular phosphorus compounds and is photoelectric in all process (which means our body is holographic). Phosphorus is a God in Greek mythology also known as The Light Bringer or Venus or the Morning Star. Phosphorus is needed to illuminate the screens of 'all' devices. Phosphorus is an essential nutrient for plants and animals in the form of ions PO43- and HPO42-. It is a part of DNA-molecules, of molecules that store energy (ATP and ADP) and of fats of cell membranes.
Water wants to stack in crystal structural formations.
Hydrogen and Oxygen are need to complete those formations in your DNA. Water ionized with phosphorus gives way to more charge.
~This follows the work of Viktor Shauberger and the imploding (not exploding) vortex energy field. We are electromagnetic beings. Everything is frequency, vibration and energy. Everything.
The Heart is Not a Pump – The Blood Pumps the Heart
Abstract
In 1932, Bremer of Harvard filmed the blood in the very early embryo circulating in self-propelled mode in spiralling streams before the heart was functioning. Amazingly, he was so impressed with the spiralling nature of the blood flow pattern that he failed to realize that the phenomena before him had demolished the pressure propulsion principle. Earlier in 1920, Steiner, of the Goetheanum in Switzerland had pointed out in lectures to medical doctors that the heart was not a pump forcing inert blood to move with pressure but that the blood was propelled with its own biological momentum, as can be seen in the embryo, and boosts itself with “induced” momenta from the heart. He also stated that the pressure does not cause the blood to circulate but is caused by interrupting the circulation. Experimental corroboration of Steiner’s concepts in the embryo and adult is herein presented.
Introduction
The fact that the heart by itself is incapable of sustaining the circulation of the blood was known to physicians of antiquity. They looked for auxiliary forces of blood movement in various types of etherisation' andpneumatisation’ or ensoulement of the blood on its passage through the heart and lungs. With the dawn of modern science and over the past three hundred years, such concepts became untenable. The mechanistic concept of the heart as a hydraulic pump prevailed and became firmly established around the middle of the nineteenth century.
The heart, an organ weighing about three hundred grams, is supposed to pump' some eight thousand liters of blood per day at rest and much more during activity, without fatigue. In terms of mechanical work this represents the lifting of approximately 100 pounds one mile high! In terms of capillary flow, the heart is performing an even more prodigious task offorcing’ the blood with a viscosity five times greater than that of water through millions of capillaries with diameters often smaller than the red blood cells themselves! Clearly, such claims go beyond reason and imagination. Due to the complexity of the variables involved, it has been impossible to calculate the true peripheral resistance even of a single organ, let alone of the entire peripheral circulation. Also, the concept of a centralized pressure source (the heart) generating excessive pressure at its source, so that sufficient pressure remains at the remote capillaries, is not an elegant one.
Our understanding and therapy of the key areas of cardiovascular pathophysiology, such as septic shock, hypertension and myocardial ischemia are far from complete. The impact of spending billions of dollars on cardiovascular research using an erroneous premise is enormous. In relation to this, the efforts to construct a satisfactory artificial heart have yet to bear fruit. Within the confines of contemporary biological and medical thinking, the propulsive force of the blood remains a mystery. If the heart really does not furnish the blood with the total motive force, where is the source of the auxiliary force and what is its nature? The answer to those questions will foster a new level of understanding of the phenomena of life in the biological sciences and enable physicians to rediscover the human being which, all too often, many feel they have lost.
Overview
Implicit in the notion of pressure propulsion in the cardiovascular system are the following four major concepts.
(1) Blood is naturally inert and therefore must be forced to circulate.
(2) There is a random mix of the formed particles in the blood.
(3) The cells in the blood are under pressure at all times.
(4) The blood is amorphous and is forced to fill its vessels and thereby takes on their form.
However, there are observations that challenge these notions. It is seen that the blood has its own form, the vortex, which determines rather than conforms to the shape of the vascular lumen and circulates in the embryo with its own inherent biological momentum before the heart begins to function. Just as an inert vortex in nature pulses radially and longitudinally, we tentatively assume that blood is also free to pulse and is not subject to the pulse-restricting pressure implied in the pressure propulsion concept. The blood is not propelled by pressure but by its own biological momenta boosted by the heart.
When the heart begins to function, it enhances the blood’s momentum with spiraling impulses. The arteries serve a subsidiary mimical heart function by providing spiraling boosts to the circulating blood. In so doing the arteries dilate to receive the incoming blood and contract to deliver an impulse to increase the blood’s momentum.
Paradoxes about the Heart as a “Pump”
• The sheer volume of work which the heart would have to do if it were solely responsible for pumping inert blood through the vessels of the circulatory system. Blood is five times as viscous as water. According to the propulsion premise the heart would have to pump 8000 liters of blood a day in a body at rest and considerably more during activity, through millions of capillaries the diameters of which are sometimes smaller than the red blood cells themselves – a huge task for a relatively small, muscular organ weighing only 300 grams.
• Once the questions start being asked, the anomalies in currently accepted dogma become apparent. For instance, if blood were pumped under pressure out of the left ventricle into the aorta during systole, the pressure pulse would cause the aortic arch to try and straighten out, as happens in any Bourdon tube pressure gauge. In practice the exact opposite happens; the curve increases, indicating that the aorta is undergoing a negative, rather than a positive, pressure.
• Another paradoxical finding concerns the mechanics of fluid flow under pulsatile pressure. When a pressure pulse is applied to a viscous fluid in a closed vessel, the liquid initially resists movement through its own inertia. The pressure, therefore, peaks before the fluid velocity peaks. In the aorta, exactly the opposite happens where a peak flow markedly precedes peak pressure, a fact which was observed in 1860 by Chaveau and Lortet. So just what is going on inside the circulation?
Four Faulty Premises of the Heart as a “Pump”
As Marinelli et al point out, the pressure-propulsion model of blood circulation rests on four major premises:
1. blood is naturally inert and must, therefore, be forced to circulate;
2. there is a random mix of formed particles in the blood;
3. blood cells are under pressure at all times;
4. blood is amorphous and is forced to fill its vessels and take on their form.
All of these premises can be shown to be faulty. For example, far from having a random mix of the blood components in vessels, the cellular elements arrange themselves in a highly organized flow pattern in which the heavier red blood cells flow nearest to the axis of the vessels while the lighter platelets are nearer to the periphery. All of the formed elements are surrounded by a sleeve of plasma which is in contact with the vessel wall. However, a major misconception about how blood circulates is the assumption that it flows in a laminar fashion, whereas in reality the main pattern appears to be a vortex. This leads to a whole new concept of circulatory dynamics–one which goes a long way towards explaining the close interaction between the heart and the blood– both of which are derived from the same embryonic material.
Clues to circulatory physiology are found in embryology. Two of the main embryological observations have been that the blood starts circulating before the heart has been fully formed and that it circulates in a spiraling fashion, as in the single-stage tube heart of the chick before the valves have developed.
Why are we concerned about the way in which the blood circulates and the `heart as a pump’ paradox? Do we not already know enough about circulation in conventional terms for all practical purposes? No. Is all this really relevant? Yes. Not only should truth be sought for its own sake, but therapy based upon faulty premises can only be bad therapy.
The Heart is Not a Pump – The Blood Pumps the Heart
Abstract
In 1932, Bremer of Harvard filmed the blood in the very early embryo circulating in self-propelled mode in spiralling streams before the heart was functioning. Amazingly, he was so impressed with the spiralling nature of the blood flow pattern that he failed to realize that the phenomena before him had demolished the pressure propulsion principle. Earlier in 1920, Steiner, of the Goetheanum in Switzerland had pointed out in lectures to medical doctors that the heart was not a pump forcing inert blood to move with pressure but that the blood was propelled with its own biological momentum, as can be seen in the embryo, and boosts itself with “induced” momenta from the heart. He also stated that the pressure does not cause the blood to circulate but is caused by interrupting the circulation. Experimental corroboration of Steiner’s concepts in the embryo and adult is herein presented.
Introduction
The fact that the heart by itself is incapable of sustaining the circulation of the blood was known to physicians of antiquity. They looked for auxiliary forces of blood movement in various types of etherisation' andpneumatisation’ or ensoulement of the blood on its passage through the heart and lungs. With the dawn of modern science and over the past three hundred years, such concepts became untenable. The mechanistic concept of the heart as a hydraulic pump prevailed and became firmly established around the middle of the nineteenth century.
The heart, an organ weighing about three hundred grams, is supposed to pump' some eight thousand liters of blood per day at rest and much more during activity, without fatigue. In terms of mechanical work this represents the lifting of approximately 100 pounds one mile high! In terms of capillary flow, the heart is performing an even more prodigious task offorcing’ the blood with a viscosity five times greater than that of water through millions of capillaries with diameters often smaller than the red blood cells themselves! Clearly, such claims go beyond reason and imagination. Due to the complexity of the variables involved, it has been impossible to calculate the true peripheral resistance even of a single organ, let alone of the entire peripheral circulation. Also, the concept of a centralized pressure source (the heart) generating excessive pressure at its source, so that sufficient pressure remains at the remote capillaries, is not an elegant one.
Our understanding and therapy of the key areas of cardiovascular pathophysiology, such as septic shock, hypertension and myocardial ischemia are far from complete. The impact of spending billions of dollars on cardiovascular research using an erroneous premise is enormous. In relation to this, the efforts to construct a satisfactory artificial heart have yet to bear fruit. Within the confines of contemporary biological and medical thinking, the propulsive force of the blood remains a mystery. If the heart really does not furnish the blood with the total motive force, where is the source of the auxiliary force and what is its nature? The answer to those questions will foster a new level of understanding of the phenomena of life in the biological sciences and enable physicians to rediscover the human being which, all too often, many feel they have lost.
Overview
Implicit in the notion of pressure propulsion in the cardiovascular system are the following four major concepts.
(1) Blood is naturally inert and therefore must be forced to circulate.
(2) There is a random mix of the formed particles in the blood.
(3) The cells in the blood are under pressure at all times.
(4) The blood is amorphous and is forced to fill its vessels and thereby takes on their form.
However, there are observations that challenge these notions. It is seen that the blood has its own form, the vortex, which determines rather than conforms to the shape of the vascular lumen and circulates in the embryo with its own inherent biological momentum before the heart begins to function. Just as an inert vortex in nature pulses radially and longitudinally, we tentatively assume that blood is also free to pulse and is not subject to the pulse-restricting pressure implied in the pressure propulsion concept. The blood is not propelled by pressure but by its own biological momenta boosted by the heart.
When the heart begins to function, it enhances the blood’s momentum with spiraling impulses. The arteries serve a subsidiary mimical heart function by providing spiraling boosts to the circulating blood. In so doing the arteries dilate to receive the incoming blood and contract to deliver an impulse to increase the blood’s momentum.
Paradoxes about the Heart as a “Pump”
• The sheer volume of work which the heart would have to do if it were solely responsible for pumping inert blood through the vessels of the circulatory system. Blood is five times as viscous as water. According to the propulsion premise the heart would have to pump 8000 liters of blood a day in a body at rest and considerably more during activity, through millions of capillaries the diameters of which are sometimes smaller than the red blood cells themselves – a huge task for a relatively small, muscular organ weighing only 300 grams.
• Once the questions start being asked, the anomalies in currently accepted dogma become apparent. For instance, if blood were pumped under pressure out of the left ventricle into the aorta during systole, the pressure pulse would cause the aortic arch to try and straighten out, as happens in any Bourdon tube pressure gauge. In practice the exact opposite happens; the curve increases, indicating that the aorta is undergoing a negative, rather than a positive, pressure.
• Another paradoxical finding concerns the mechanics of fluid flow under pulsatile pressure. When a pressure pulse is applied to a viscous fluid in a closed vessel, the liquid initially resists movement through its own inertia. The pressure, therefore, peaks before the fluid velocity peaks. In the aorta, exactly the opposite happens where a peak flow markedly precedes peak pressure, a fact which was observed in 1860 by Chaveau and Lortet. So just what is going on inside the circulation?
Four Faulty Premises of the Heart as a “Pump”
As Marinelli et al point out, the pressure-propulsion model of blood circulation rests on four major premises:
1. blood is naturally inert and must, therefore, be forced to circulate;
2. there is a random mix of formed particles in the blood;
3. blood cells are under pressure at all times;
4. blood is amorphous and is forced to fill its vessels and take on their form.
All of these premises can be shown to be faulty. For example, far from having a random mix of the blood components in vessels, the cellular elements arrange themselves in a highly organized flow pattern in which the heavier red blood cells flow nearest to the axis of the vessels while the lighter platelets are nearer to the periphery. All of the formed elements are surrounded by a sleeve of plasma which is in contact with the vessel wall. However, a major misconception about how blood circulates is the assumption that it flows in a laminar fashion, whereas in reality the main pattern appears to be a vortex. This leads to a whole new concept of circulatory dynamics–one which goes a long way towards explaining the close interaction between the heart and the blood– both of which are derived from the same embryonic material.
Clues to circulatory physiology are found in embryology. Two of the main embryological observations have been that the blood starts circulating before the heart has been fully formed and that it circulates in a spiraling fashion, as in the single-stage tube heart of the chick before the valves have developed.
Why are we concerned about the way in which the blood circulates and the `heart as a pump’ paradox? Do we not already know enough about circulation in conventional terms for all practical purposes? No. Is all this really relevant? Yes. Not only should truth be sought for its own sake, but therapy based upon faulty premises can only be bad therapy.
No comments:
Post a Comment