Tag: morphic resonance

The general theme of the talk is that contemporary physics, as usually described, is mechanical, materialistic, insufficient to describe biology, inheritance or consciousness and is in any case incomplete of itself. Modern science is therefore deluding itself if it thinks it has the answers to everything or even that it could supply the answers to everything, as it is hampered by its own self-imposed constraints.

This is only partly true. There is a strong streak of ‘materialistic’ thinking in all sciences certainly but field physics and in particular the Theory of Objectivity of Konstantin Meyl do not deal with ‘matter’ or even ‘forces’ as fundamentals of nature and therefore paint a very different picture from the one to which we are accustomed.

The desire to reject ‘materialism’ is fuelled in part by an incomplete description of what actually constitutes ‘materialism’.

---

The ten points:

1. Nature is mechanical or machine-like
2. Matter is unconscious
3. The laws and constants of Nature are fixed
4. The quantity of matter and energy is constant and was fixed by the big bang
5. Nature is purposeless and evolution is without direction
6. Inheritance is via the continuity of the structure of some physical substance (genes)
7. Memories are retained in the brain as material traces
8. ‘Mind’ is inside the head and consciousness is just brain activity
9. Apparent paranormal abilities such as telepathy are the illusions of Bad Science
10. Mechanistic medicine is the only one that matters

---

3. The laws and constants of Nature are fixed
Yes! Of course they are! If not then how does the universe run? How does it maintain pattern, order and stability? If the laws that maintain order are changing all the time then there must be some meta-laws that determine how these changes occur.

The alternative is that things just happen and anyone who thinks that can just give up on pretending to be a scientist.

The problem we have is not whether or not the laws are fixed but whether or not the laws and constants that scientists use to describe reality are in fact the fundamental laws and constants of reality. Countless observational oddities and internal inconsistencies suggest that they are, at best, incomplete.

The laws of physics as described by Konstantin Meyl are described by a single field equation and from this can be derived the laws of gravity, the Schrödinger equation and the laws of general relativity. So Meyl’s equation can reasonably be described as ‘fundamental’ but the other laws cannot. They are just mathematical representations of isolated laboratory observations.

---

The speed of light. In his talk Rupert mentions that the speed of light slowed down by about 20 km/s between 1928 and 1945 before resuming its approved value. The response of the standards authorities was to simply re-define the length of the metre in terms of the speed of light so as to correct for the difference
So the speed of light is now a constant by decree (but not by observation) and length is no longer fundamental. But what about ‘time’? Is that not fundamental?

We have no direct way of measuring time and the best we can do is to count the number of oscillations of an atomic clock and declare the result to be representative of elapsed time. A big problem with this is the following chart which shows that two atomic clocks in the same room but oriented differently will keep very good time with each other – except during an eclipse!

So we are stuck with a science that somehow regards length as a variable quantity and has no reliable way of measuring elapsed time and we can therefore ask: “What then is meant by speed?” or “How on can we measure distance travelled per second when we have no stable definition of either a metre or a second?”

We have too many variables and no clear idea as to which are to be regarded as ‘fundamental’.

---

The solution.

Konstantin Meyl cuts through the confusion with a single field equation (below). This equation only is ‘fundamental’ and nothing else.

This is the entire equation and there are no three types of mass, no separate force of inertia, electrostatic attraction, gravity etc. and as a consequence, no need for multiple ‘constants’ to mediate between such entities.

Both time and distance and the speed of light are dependent upon field strength, with high field strength leading to a shrinking of distance and a slowing of time. Light speed can vary in absolute terms but measurements of it will remain constant to the observer because as lengths shrink, so will time slow down, giving the impression to the observer of a fixed light-speed.

The observer is now part of the experiment and will shrink or speed up along with the experimental equipment and the observed phenomena.

It is the variations of the rate of atomic clocks owing to changes in the solar neutrino stream that is likely leading to variations of the measured speed of light.

---

4. The quantity of matter and energy is constant and was fixed by the big bang. Classical physics is clearly struggling on this one. There can be no explanation of such an initial event in terms of known physics simply because the bang itself, having created the laws of physics must therefore precede them and hence cannot be derived from them.

According to Meyl, ‘matter’ is a stable balance of positive and negative field elements which together cancel each other out. Matter can be materialised from non-matter and can be destroyed again to leave nothing behind. The total amount of ‘energy’ in a particle is always zero and so the total amount of ‘energy’ in the universe is in fact constant and equal to zero.

Einstein’s famous E=mc² is incorrect and Tesla agreed with this, having claimed to have destroyed billions of atoms with no ill effects.

Note that Meyl’s assertions concerning mass and energy derive straight from his single field equation which therefore remains the single fundamental assertion with all other physical entities being emergent properties of those equations.

Contrast this with mainstream physics where the well studied entities matter and energy are held to be fundamentals and obeying the laws of nature but at the same time all coming from the big bang and so cannot really be fundamental. They even derive from something that is not itself part of the laws of nature, is not describable by them and is fundamentally unmeasurable, untestable and un-falsifiable.

The whole framework is topsy-turvy and badly structured. We need a single testable hypothesis but what we have a patchwork quilt thrown together from ideas which are good enough of themselves but bear not much relation to each other.

---

6. Inheritance is via the continuity of the structure of some physical substance (genes) This is just not true. The phenomenon of Telegony is proof of this, the page on The DNA delusion confirms that inheritance has nothing to do with DNA and the page Evolution and Inheritance puts a good case that inheritance is via some sort of informational field.

It is this field that is responsible for morphogenesis and inherited or ‘innate’ behaviour – does anybody really believe that the nest building abilities of a bird for example could be encoded in a few gigabytes of DNA?

Mainstream biology now only ascribes the function of protein construction to DNA and even then there are only 20,000 genes to encode for 100,000 proteins.

What is inherited is, in most general terms, a dynamic pattern of biological activity, or a set of rules for a molecular or neural network. Stable, dynamic patterns are best represented in terms of ‘attractors’ or closed loop control systems and the suggested physical mechanism for these is the magnetic scalar waves as described by Konstantin Meyl. They are stable, dynamic, can co-exist with matter and are not measurable by modern instruments which s why they gave been missed by scientists so far.

These scalar waves are by far the best candidate for Sheldrake’s morphic field.

---

Physics doesn’t provide a good explanation as to how groups of billions of molecules can apparently ‘know’ what each other are doing so some new physics is needed.

The snowflakes are arranged according to some template which is going to be electro-magnetic and cymatic in nature. It looks like some force-field is creating a pattern in the way the molecules are bonding together. However Martin Chaplin claims that even this is not true, with there being no fixed pattern of bonds and instead a constantly shifting landscape of molecular connections which somehow seem to maintain a precise overall shape.

“In the case of ice the hydrogen bonds also only last for the briefest instant but a piece of ice sculpture can ‘remember’ its carving over extended periods.”

“.. the behaviour of a large population of water molecules may be retained even if that of individual molecules is constantly changing.” – Martin Chaplin: The Memory of Water

So what is it that is constant? What is it that determines the overall shape?

---

7. Memories are retained in the brain as material traces Ideas that the brain works by arrangements of neurons or movement of chemical currents have been ditched I think for ideas that it works by electric fields or currents but this still isn’t correct. The brain most likely works as a scalar wave processor (What is the brain?)

Scalar waves are stable of themselves and have all the characteristics required of a medium for the hosting of cognitive computation:

• Parallel processing
• Associative memory
• Speed of light response
• Energy renewed by solar neutrinos (?)
• De-coupled from the physical brain

The last is particularly important. The physical brain has its own supply of energy and nutrients. Brain cells will de and be renewed. To have conscious thought somehow coupled to the physical maintenance of the brain or to even use the same processes as are used by that maintenance would surely result in chaos and confusion?

We require that cognition is kept separate from maintenance somehow. We do not want every physical change in the brain leading to, or being perceptible as, a ‘thought’ and nor can we have ‘thoughts’ requiring physical changes in the brain – this is just too slow.

The first computers used mechanical levers to implement logic circuits but they were very slow, the maintenance cost was proportional to the amount of thinking and the complexity of thought was limited by the complexity of the physical structure of the machine.

Modern computers are a big improvement, are much faster and the complexity has been factored out into the software which runs as electric currents. ‘Portable’ software means that the computations are now independent of the hardware that they are running on.

Computers do not maintain themselves however so that electric currents are available for computation whereas in the human brain, electric currents have physical consequences not necessarily related to the intent of conscious thought. Using scalar waves is therefore a much better solution for thought processes that are to be largely independent of the physical state of neurons.

---

So modern science is really asking for a whole set of interrelated miracles which seem finely tuned to permit the existence of life:

“The universe looks more and more like a great thought rather than a great machine. Mind no longer appears to be an accidental intruder into the realm of matter… we ought rather hail it as the creator and governor of the realm of matter.” – James Hopwood Jeans (Physicist, mathematician, idealist)

“The characterization of the universe as finely tuned intends to explain why the known constants of nature, such as the electron charge, the gravitational constant, etc., have the values that we measure rather than some other (arbitrary) values. According to the “fine-tuned universe” hypothesis, if these constants’ values were too different from what they are, “life as we know it” could not exist. – Wikipedia

“The fine-tuned universe is the proposition that the conditions that allow life in the universe can occur only when certain universal dimensionless physical constants lie within a very narrow range of values, so that if any of several fundamental constants were only slightly different, the universe would be unlikely to be conducive to the establishment and development of matter, astronomical structures, elemental diversity, or life as it is understood. Various possible explanations of ostensible fine-tuning are discussed among philosophers, scientists, theologians, and proponents and detractors of creationism.” – Fine tuned universe

So a little confusion maybe with the scientists unable to explain in terms of science how the fundamental constants arise and the creationists seizing the opportunity to preach intelligent design. However, both are basing their views on what is apparent and not what is real; both are assuming that the description they have of reality is the best available.

Meyl has calculated, just from his single equation and with no additional input, the masses of the elementary particles and the radii of the elements [more]

So we really are in a situation now where we only need a single ‘miracle’, which is the prior existence of some medium, the behaviour of which is consistent with the field equation.

“Sooner or later even the last natural scientist will realize, that nature does not provide ‘constants’ at all. If ‘constants of nature’ did exist, as listed in textbooks and encyclopaedias, then they aren’t consistent with causality, since we don’t know the cause, why the factor should have exactly this size and no other. Behind every so-called constant of nature unnoticed is hiding a physical closed loop conclusion. (solution)” – Scalar waves p. 599

So ‘causality’ here remains within the realm of the physical world or more accurately, within the (theoretical) confines of the Theory of Objectivity.

---

9. Apparent paranormal abilities such as telepathy are the illusions of Bad Science The root cause of this attitude I think is not that there is lots of bad science around (there certainly is) but that paranormal phenomena have, by definition, no plausible mechanism within the accepted scientific frameworks.

This leads to a view that “If there is no mechanism then it isn’t science and so it isn’t really happening.” This isn’t quite true of physicists though. Reading books and papers on biology and consciousness written by physicists it seems that almost all of them believe in some sort of telepathy and even life after death.

The reason is that they are used to working with ‘insubstantial’ entities such as force fields, ‘information’, quantum entanglement and action at a distance. The brain is assumed to work by electric fields and these are the ideal candidate for transmission of thoughts.

Konstantin Meyl describes instead magnetic scalar waves and wave resonance as being the medium of choice for thought transference. These turn out to have precisely the properties required to describe many experiments on ESP.

• Are hypothesised to be the medium for cognition
• Can form persistent connections between two individuals
• Can penetrate walls
• Resonant connections do not diminish with distance
• Connections may be stronger between related individuals (The ‘Hill effect’)

The existence of a putative mechanism now means that there is something to investigate, something to try and measure or in other words some chance of doing some proper science.

---

The problem with random number generators however is that there is no guarantee that they are in fact ‘random’. Many are based upon some assumed random process from nature such as radio-active decay but The Shnoll Effect shows that these figures depend upon planetary alignments such as eclipses and the page Neutrinos, eclipses and plagues gives the mechanism as variations in the solar neutrino stream.

One experiment from Radin showed an apparent ability of subjects to introduce a bias into the double slit experiment by thought alone. The choice of slit for a particle to go through had a slight bias that was different from a control experiment.

Dean commissioned some statisticians to repeat the experiment and to comment on the results, [here]. Wallacczek, and Stillfried were unable to produce the results . In addition to this they tried the experiment again but this time with no test subjects at all. They found that they still got a positive result, a difference in bias between the two setups, even with no ESP attempted!

The authors offer various explanations for why this might be, including: “For example, the detection method may manifest a sensitivity to (as-yet) unknown physical factors which are beyond the ability of the particular method to reveal, track, and identify“

So variations in the neutrino stream could conceivably be influential in the irreproducibility and could even be the cause of the effects manifest in the first place.

Despite their best efforts then, ESP researchers may be discovering, not paranormal abilities, but subtle physical influences unknown to most scientists.

---

2. Matter is unconscious Whether or not this is true depends upon precisely what is meant by ‘unconscious’ but the page The origins of life presents an argument that there is effectively a world parallel to the physical that might be called etheric and consists of an informational field which organises and animates all physical matter.

Assumptions that there is ‘something else’ need to re-examined now, as it is entirely possible that with the recent discoveries by Meyl, we have everything we need in order to explain all of the observations and measurements that we can make of the world.

No sensible discussion on consciousness can take place until we have a reasonable definition or characterisation of: consciousnes

---

Now quite apart from the fact that DNA has very little to do with inheritance (The DNA delusion), the way that neo-Darwinism is phrased somewhat skips the fact that all development must be according to the laws of physics and must involve rather stable patterns of molecular arrangement or we are finished before we have even started.

The interpolation of DNA and some imaginary transcriptional mechanism has conceptually de-coupled the evolutionary process from any physical law or principle and reduced it to theoretical randomness whilst at the same time giving the impression that almost any end product is possible. In reality though, the construction of a human being must obey some quite restrictive conditions and must be stable to perturbations at all stages of development and evolution.

The ‘direction’ of evolution therefore is towards ever more efficient ways of transducing solar energy into functional shapes and units: Evolution and entropy.
Organisms use the laws of thermodynamics to their evolutionary advantage instead of fighting against them, as explained by Baverstock and Rönkkö:

“In summary, we propose that the life process is based not on genetic variation, but on the second law of thermodynamics .. and the principle of least action, as proposed for thermodynamically open systems by De Maupertuis (Ville et al. 2008), which at the most fundamental level say the same thing. Together they constitute a supreme law of physics..” – Baverstock and Rönkkö

“All results of the evolution in the biosphere that have arisen between the ‘capacitor plates’ of the earth itself and its ionosphere can be regarded as structured capacitor losses, which also apply to humans” – Konstantin Meyl

---

The impression that our thoughts and visions are ‘out there’ is a clever and necessary illusion created by the structure of our cognitive system. (see video above).

The brain maintains spatial awareness by constructing a (literal) internal space with the ‘self’ at the centre. The outside world is big but the brain is small so the internal space is wrapped around in a nested torus system so as to fit it all in.

---

“The Regularities of Nature are essentially habitual” – Rupert Sheldrake
The field equations of the Theory of Objectivity are fixed but will organise into stable and adaptive control systems at a very early stage and hence manifest as higher ‘laws’ which may well have become ‘habitual’ over a million years of evolution.

Habituation, then , is not at the roots of the laws of physics but an emergent feature of them.

R.S. gives an example of the growth of certain crystal structures which once seemed impossible but now are routine. It seems to be assumed that crystals are formed by the random banging together of molecules which fall into some natural alignment because of their regular shape but if we hypothesise for one moment that there exists a hidden field that induces organisational forces on the molecules then the situation becomes clearer.

Existing crystals lead to an attendant magnetic field which is the entity that acts as the nucleating structure, not the molecules themselves, promoting further growth. Changes in geophysical factors such as the Earth’s magnetic field or variations in neutrino stream operate on this field directly and thence on the the physical molecules indirectly, to produce the changes in the patterns observed.

The experiments of Giorgio Piccardi clearly show time variations of measurable parameters in both biological and chemical processes.

Things which seem both variable and fundamental at the same time are certainly not fundamental but ’emergent’. This is the main reason behind the Science Delusion itself:, that downstream effects have been mistaken for root causes and and variables taken for constants:

“The Science Delusion is the belief that science already understands the fundamental nature of reality in principle, leaving only the details to be filled in” – Rupert Sheldrake

---

---

References:

Rupert Sheldrake’s ‘Banned’ Talk – The Science Delusion at TEDx Whitechapel
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hO4p3xeTtUA

Scalar waves – Konstantin Meyl
https://avalonlibrary.net/Nikola_Tesla/Books/Meyl%20-%20Scalar%20Waves%20(First%20Tesla%20Physics%20Textbook).pdf

Atomic clocks
https://www.timeanddate.com/time/how-do-atomic-clocks-work.html

TED “Bans” the Science Delusion
https://www.sheldrake.org/reactions/tedx-whitechapel-the-banned-talk

Interview with Konstantin Meyl – YouTube
https://youtu.be/tKTkpC-DHZ8

Big Bang is a Big Bluff says Meyl – YouTube
https://youtu.be/xwIJ-URG_P8

The website of Konstantin Meyl – http://meyl.eu

False-Positive Effect in the Radin Double-Slit Experiment on Observer Consciousness as Determined With the Advanced Meta-Experimental Protocol
Authors: Jan Walleczek, and Nikolaus von Stillfried
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6714546/pdf/fpsyg-10-01891.pdf

The evolutionary origin of form and function – Keith Baverstock, Mauno Rönkkö
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24882811/

The Memory of Water: an overview – Martin Chaplin
https://www.academia.edu/47898216/The_Memory_of_Water_an_overview

---