sheldrake – The Library of Atlantis

Homing pigeons

A couple of videos from Rupert Sheldrake concerning the abilities of homing pigeons provide convincing evidence of our ignorance of this phenomenon. It isn’t just that nobody has any idea how it happens but that there doesn’t seem to be any chance at all that we could describe it in terms of any currently known scientific theories.

Points of interest:

Released pigeons typically fly straight home
A pigeon separated from the flock can still get home eventually
They can be blindfolded and put on a rotating table and still get home
They can navigate on a completely overcast day
Connection to the environs of the loft as opposed to the construct itself
A flock can, however, find its way to a moving loft on a ship at sea
Trans-generational communication of migratory patterns
All ‘reasonable’ mechanisms have been ruled out

There appears to be no explanation for these phenomena in terms of conventional science so we need to look further afield:

Theoretical constructs from vortex physics (Konstantin Meyl)
Evidence showing effects derived from the theory
Similar ‘patterns’ of geomagnetic awareness from Frank Brown
Multiple experiments demonstrating extra-sensory communication

Scalar wave connections

In videos such as the one below, Konstantin Meyl has demonstrated the transmission of power via Scalar Waves, also know as Tesla Waves, and theorised that this set up can be used also to transmit information.

The waves are electromagnetic in nature
Connection is one-to-one between the metal spheres
Once a connection is made there is no power loss
There is no inverse square attenuation of the signal
Such signals are unaffected by ‘matter’ and can tunnel through the Earth
The connection itself can absorb energy from solar neutrinos leading to more power arriving than was originally sent

So an obvious hypothesis then is that the pigeons are somehow communicating with each other at least via this system. A connection, once established, is robust and distance is not an issue as the field itself is self-maintaining via the absorption of external energy.

Pigeons will be able to communicate over the horizon easily enough. The signal does not bend around the Earth however but simply tunnels through it; any pigeons left at home will act as a beacon for the displaced flock.

The brain

Meyl has stated simply that “The brain is a scalar wave computer” and that the nerves are scalar wave conductors. The waves are magnetic in nature and travel in the insulating myelin sheath around the nerve, with an electrical component travelling down the conductive body of the nerve.

This electrical component is a pale reflection of the true nature of the signal but it is this ‘current’ that has been assumed to be the only relevance to the functionality of the nerve by modern science. The structure of the magnetic part is the actual carrier of the information.

No transduction of energy or information is therefore required for this kind of telepathy as the electromagnetic activity of the brain is transmitted unmodified through the air using the same medium as the brain itself.

The phantom leaf effect

A leaf placed between two layers of plastic will leave behind some sort of ‘imprint’ that can later be photographed under a strong magnetic field.

What has happened is that vortex energy from the living leaf has moved to the plastic sheet, which, being an insulator will favour the stabilisation of such energy into magnetic scalar waves. The electrical component has been minimised owing to the poor conductivity and a magnetic vortex system remains.

My suggestion is then, that something similar happens with pigeons, that a whole flock will leave some sort of trace upon their environment and it is with this imprint that a connection is maintained thereby enabling an accurate homing navigation.

Connection to ‘place’

Pigeons whose loft was moved whilst they were away, first returned to the original location of the loft and not the loft itself, which suggests that the connection was maintained, not with the dead material substance of the loft but with the living ‘field’ of the forest surroundings.

Other snippets, however, have lofts on the roofs of high rise flats or on a ship at sea. Different materials have different conductive properties and different structures of scalar waves may form. Since the connection itself is absorbing neutrino power, it is conceivable that the integrity of the transmission be maintained in such a fashion.

The nature of the connection

The connection is that of one electromagnetic field to another. The brain works via a set of nested toroidal vortex fields and directly absorbs similar energies from the environment.

In one video it is suggested that magnetic particles (i.e. ‘matter’) are required in order to detect the Earth’s field but this is not necessary; magnetic vortices will enter the field of the brain and have a direct effect on its operations. If there are any magnetic particles that are coerced into movement by magnetic forces then the only way that the body can detect such movement is via its effect on an electromagnetic field anyhow – so why did we need particles in the first place?

Field information is absorbed directly into the brain with little need for translation or interpretation.

So the whole of brain field itself is the antenna for the reception of electromagnetic field activity and no specific organ is needed for this function. How would it work anyhow? It would still need to have some means of collecting information and this will be an electromagnetic field complex.

There is no need to interpolate ‘matter’ in the middle of electromagnetic field interactions and in any case it is too crude a substance to play any part in conscious activity.

An extended consciousness?

The energy field of the physical brain is said to be measurable several feet away from the head and since this field is now almost synonymous with the ‘etheric’ brain itself, it maybe isn’t too fanciful to ask if this extension of the energy field might have some practical purpose.

The physics espoused by Konstantin Meyl allows for far more complex behaviour in electromagnetic fields than that of classical science. ‘Movement’ is intrinsic and the field structure has a tendency to form spiral structures. Energy and information are guided towards a vortex centre and the second law of thermodynamics is inverted. A concentration of energy takes place alongside the more familiar dissipative structures and all of this is highly propitious for the formation and maintenance of living systems.

Consider then that information external to a pigeon’s physical brain is caught in its brain vortex and will then spiral inwards towards the physical bird. We than have an antenna that is considerably larger than a tiny bird brain and the whole concept is starting to sound more likely.

A tadpole had its eyes taken out and grafted onto its hindquarters (mentioned in a paper by Michael Levin) and after recovering from the shock could navigate its surroundings quite happily. So it doesn’t seem to matter how the information gets into the body; it will be processed correctly nevertheless.

The bio-field of the heart is much larger than that of the brain so we can maybe think of this also as a receiver of scalar waves. Energy can radiate outwards at the same time as information spirals inwards; the whole of a pigeon can be considered as a scalar wave antenna.

Watch a single celled organism find its way around a microscope slide in order to chase down food. It has no sensory organs no brain and not even a nervous system but is still aware of what is going on and manages to coordinate its movements accordingly.

A hive mind?

If a whole pigeon is a sensory system and pigeons are in constant communication with each other via scalar waves then what happens when they all gather together?

Is it in any way possible that the flock as a whole now forms a collective bio-field? A ‘hive mind’? Such a thing would surely increase both the power and sensitivity of the field. Being spread out over a greater volume it would have the capacity to receive a much weaker signal simply by collecting more of it.

In one study the behaviour of a termite colony differed depending upon whether or not it was separated from another colony by an aluminium sheet, suggesting some electromagnetic connection between the two groups. See: Distant cellular interaction

What happens within a murmuration of starlings? Are they merely exercising their wings prior to migration or are they creating a semi-permanent hive mind in preparation for navigation? A coherent field is formed that connects all the birds and this not only acts as an antenna but also a collective memory and possibly even has its own independent computational capacity.

The idea that this sort of disembodied mind could even exist will cause some to recoil I know, but the actual mind is disembodied, in a sense, anyhow as it is really just an electromagnetic field whose machinations are decoupled from the physical structures of the brain.

Again, if anyone thinks that the idea of a ‘consciousness’ emerging from the mere proximity of bird brains should reflect that the mainstream concept of consciousness is just this: an emergent property of the proximity of cells! If electrified jelly can make decisions then so can a connected set of pigeon brains.

Pigeons don’t need murmurations as they all live in close proximity anyhow.

Classical physics

Note that the above speculations are not even possible with classical electromagnetism. Here electric fields are either static, meaning they have no movement and don’t go anywhere, or they are photons which means they must necessarily shoot off at the speed of light in a straight line.

Neither of these configurations suggests the possibility of a self stabilising complex of vortex fields that can retain information whilst renewing its energy from external sources.

Again, the classical concept of electric currents is that of moving charge (electrons), which relies upon the idea of a voltage to push the tiny particles around as they have no motive energy of themselves.

This idea is just not very useful in any area of biology. Better is to think of circuits comprised of ‘field movement’ forming closed loop and helical vortex structures according to the updated Maxwell-Heaviside equations of Konstantin Meyl.

Vortex energy

Where do migrating birds get all their energy from? It does sound incredible that sufficient energy is stored as fat in a small bird and so we should consider Meyl’s idea that they are breathing in electromagnetic vortices along with the usual oxygen supply and that this is being somehow being used in mechanical action to aid flight.

Gerald Pollack has written a paper giving credible arguments to suggest that breathing has not much to do with oxygen anyhow and that in fact there is no gaseous exchange in the lungs at all! Pollack is suggesting an input of electrical energy in the form of electrons. However replacing ‘electron’ with ‘field vortex’ makes for easier reading.

Questions: Can this vortex energy enter the body via any other means than the breath? Is it possible that the general discharge from the ionosphere could be gathered by the collective flock vortex? Could this help to maintain the field and could some of that energy enter the body of a migrating bird to help it in its flight?

Inheritance of migratory paths

Inheritance of acquired characteristics does exist and has been demonstrated in laboratory experiments.

In one example, rats were made to fear the smell of cherry blossom and their offspring inherited the fear. In another, a caterpillar was trained to crawl towards a red circle and the behaviour was inherited by the emergent moth. Behavioural pattern such as this have been transferred from one snail to another simply by injecting material from one animal to another (Michael Levin).

This all works because inheritance has nothing to do with DNA (See: The DNA delusion) but everything to do with the transference of a scalar wave complex from one generation to the next (See: Telegony and Evolution and Inheritance).

The rapid ‘evolution’ of bird migration paths is therefore no surprise from this point of view. Memories, intents and complete behavioural patterns are codified into scalar waves and these are precisely the format that is needed for inheritance, persistence and communication between individuals or groups of individuals.

These wave vortices are a biological Theory of Everything.

Navigation by scent

In one video, the idea of navigation via smell is mentioned but discarded because of the observed fact of pigeons homing with the wind behind them. Maybe, maybe not. Most people will assume that ‘scent’ consists of a chemical discharge but evidence and argument suggest otherwise: Scalar waves and nerves.

Scent is conveyed via scalar waves and is absorbed directly into the olfactory nerve conduit. The possibility now exists of a direct scalar wave connection between scent detector and target, with reduced attenuation, enhanced sensitivity and magnification via neutrino absorption.

Consider the abilities of certain moths to detect a mate several miles away. Can they really detect the direction at this distance by the sampling of molecules or is it rather the case that an essentially electric connection has been formed and that it is this that provides the necessary information? Is it just the physical antenna that are receiving the information or the whole of a bio-field?

Scents can easily leach through a plastic bag. Is this really caused by molecule leakage or by scalar waves tunnelling through an insulator?

The intensity of a small clearly varies with wind direction which does rather indicate that it is emanating from freely floating molecules. However, that does not preclude the possibility of an additional, semi-permanent connection with a fixed source of the scent vortices.

A global navigational map?

Stunning work from Frank Brown demonstrates the ability of various animals, shellfish, plants and bacteria to synchronise to cosmic rhythms.

Organisms seem to know the time of year, day and position within the lunar cycle. They are aware of latitude and seemingly respond to external pressure changes even when kept at constant pressure within a laboratory. Storm conditions are predicted two days in advance using precisely this ability.

Faraday cages reduce these abilities and so the effects are assumed to be electromagnetic in nature. It is quite credible then that a pigeon or a flock of pigeons know quite well what is going on in their locale and exactly how it relates to solar, lunar and weather conditions. This isn’t quite the same as having a static map though and it isn’t obvious that navigation is possible from local information alone.

The point here though is that the Earth’s magnetic field is not just something that points North or South but has local geographic and temporal refinements that carry a large amount of information that has functional interpretations by every organism on the planet.

Scientific instruments are just fancy compasses and do not possess the refinements necessary to interpret such field information. Theories of electromagnetism inevitably reflect the crudity of the measurements that support them and are therefore themselves necessarily oversimplified. The result then is a science that effectively rules out half of the things it is trying to explain!

Connection to what?

Birds whose loft has been moved will initially return to the precise spot where the loft used to be – so what is it about this spot that is so special?

On the other hand, birds released from a ship at sea will return to the current position of the ship – so, again, where is the source of the connection?

The phantom leaf experiment showed a precise imprint of a leaf in some polymer sheets that persisted for only a few seconds, which doesn’t sound like a very good candidate.

Several considerations may be pertinent:

Plastic polymers are electrical insulators which would therefore encourage the formation of scalar waves where the electrical component in minimised and hence the magnetic activity maximised. These are described by Meyl as magnetic potential vortices and are of great biological significance.

Electrical conductors such as the steel of a ship will form electrical eddy currents by a similar mechanism to the above.

Biological systems prefer the magnetic versions of the waves for both internal regulation and the conjectured extra sensory communication. Internal vortices are friction free (no energy loss) and will in any case absorb energy from heat and other sources within the body.

Once a connection has been established, the connection itself will absorb energy along its length from solar neutrinos to maintain itself and will therefore grow proportionally stronger as the endpoints become further apart. (Sheldrake’s elastic band analogy is accurate in this respect).

So it seems likely then that a connection is made with some biological activity in or around the loft. In the case of pigeons released from a rural location this might be the grass and trees of a forest and in the case of birds accustomed to living in a ship or at the top of a block of flats it is the crew of the ship or the pigeon handlers themselves that are utilised as a useful anchor.

Related pages:

The nature of gravity

The idea of gravity as consisting of attractive forces emanating objects with ‘mass’ is easy enough to understand but leads to problems as explained in a paper by Tom Van Flandern. Anomalies can be resolved by thinking about gravity in a slightly different way and by analogy with the flow of water in a river.

Key anomaly

The Earth is said to orbit the sun but the position of the sun is not fixed – it is displaced by a distance of over a million kilometres by the gravitational fields of the Earth and other planets. Despite this, the gravitational pull on the Earth seems to be always towards the sun at the present and never where it was a few minutes ago,

Some scientists are expecting that the gravitational field of the sun will radiate out from the sun at the speed of light. It takes 8.3 minutes for the light to travel from the Sun to the Earth and so the light we see always comes from a position where the sun was 8.3 minutes ago. It is expected then that we should always experience on Earth a gravitational pull that was generated 8.3 minutes in the past.

This gravity vector travels towards us and will exert a pull towards the place from which it was created 8.3 minutes ago. This never happens and the pull is always towards the ‘present’ position of the sun thereby giving the impression that the gravitational field has travelled almost instantaneously from the sun to the Earth.

“Standard experimental techniques exist to determine the propagation speed of forces. When we apply these techniques to gravity, they all yield propagation speeds too great to measure, substantially faster than lightspeed.” – Van Flandern

Newton’s law: “Every particle attracts every other particle in the universe with a force that is proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between their centres. Separated objects attract and are attracted as if all their mass were concentrated at their centres.” – Wikipedia

Newton did not like this: “That one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one another, is to me so great an absurdity that, I believe, no man who has in philosophic matters a competent faculty of thinking could ever fall into it.” – Newton 1692 – Wikipedia

Tom Van Flandern: “The most amazing thing I was taught as a graduate student of celestial mechanics at Yale in the 1960s was that all gravitational interactions between bodies in all dynamical systems had to be taken as instantaneous. This seemed unacceptable.. “

Confusing, certainly, but acceptable nevertheless if viewed from a slightly different viewpoint. Gravitational interactions are not actually between bodies at all but between a body and its local gravitational field even according to Newton. The interaction is in fact instantaneous but is local rather than distant; there is no need for it to ‘travel’ Moreover, cause can be said to flow from the force to the body and not the other way around.

There is no need to suppose that the bodies ‘know’ about each other, only that they are both subject to some sort of coordinated influence that will tend to move them closer together.

There is equally no need to assume that the force is caused by either object, only that it exists and has certain properties, will form certain patterns. Superfluous assumptions lead to confusion.

Such a cause is never observed directly and nor is a distant influence of one body upon another. Neither of these assumptions is necessary to make effective predictions about how the bodies will behave.

All we really observe is two objects coming together according to certain ‘laws’. The inverse square law is easily observed but the dependence upon mass is problematic.

Mass is never observed and is only ever measured by the degree to which attraction occurs and so strictly speaking we have no such thing as ‘mass’, only observed acceleration of objects towards each other.

Objects falling to the ground will accelerate towards the Earth at a rate that is independent of their mass.

Mass is merely a computational convenience. The idea of ‘force’ likewise is a fictitious construct to mediate between gravity, inertia, electromagnetism and mechanics.

A water vortex analogy. The substance of water is analogous to an all pervasive ‘field’ in space that influences the motion of the planets and stars, In the image, right, nobody imagines that it is the vortex that is causing its own little whirlpool, rather that it is the global vortex activity that gives rise to the sink at its own centre..

Similarly, the galactic centre is not creating and directing its own spiral arms via gravity, instead all the matter in the galaxy moves according to local field forces that organise the solar systems and have a tendency spiral inwards much as the water in the whirlpool.

Similar forces organise our solar system and will concentrate energy towards the sun where it is converted to photons and ejected at the speed of light to form sunshine. The Sun will therefore never run out as it is an energy transducer rather than a big bonfire.

In the image above the vortex is happy to conform with the general flow of the river and flow hither and thither with the rest of the stream. The centre of the vortex will not usually be out of step with the main vortex as it is caused by the vortex and part of it.

Similarly our sun will not be out of step with the gravitational fields of its own planets as its movements are determined by them, It has no motive force of its own.

If the water were to encounter an obstacle such as a rock, there would be an adaptive change to the vortex shape and its internal forces and this change would in due course lead to and altered trajectory of the vortex centre. The change would take some time to have an effect and this time would depend upon the precise evolution of the vortex geometry. Effects spiral inwards.

With no external influences, the flow would move in stereotypical patterns that would, after some investigation, be amenable to scientific description, with stories of forces and inertia being sufficient to make quantitative predictions. Big vortices have a large ‘mass’ and hence ‘momentum’ and this allows them to push smaller vortices out of the way but in reality this is due to the large field forces surrounding the vortex as opposed to any innate property of the vortex centre itself.

The motion of a speck of dust on the surface of the water can be described with a radial and a tangential component and this can be interpreted as free movement (inertia) around the orbital with some sort of ‘force’ pulling the speck (mass) towards the centre of the spiral. What is observed however is motion, not forces.

Similar considerations then apply to our solar system. Space is permeated by a ‘living’ field which influences all the celestial bodies and is ultimately responsible for their movement and indeed creation. It is not the case that the stars are sending out radiative fields to pull other bodies towards them; the Universal Field instead oversees all cosmological organisation.

Is space really permeated by an infinite unseen force field?
Well this is what Newtonian theory says and most people seem content to think so.

Is it really the case that a weak disembodied force can influence the movement of the sun or entire galaxy?
See answer above.

If the force is not radiative then what is the inverse square law?
See the image of the whirlpool. Energy spirals inwards here and forces become stronger towards the centre. The inverse square law is solely a consequence of geometry whatever the nature of the actual force

What would happen if there were an explosion on the Sun?
This is similar to what would happen if a firework were tossed into a water vortex. The vortex field would be disturbed and the effect would propagate outwards from the centre at a speed we call the speed of sound in water. This is analogous to speed-of-light effects propagating out from the sun. This is not, however, the same as the sun radiating out gravity waves on a daily basis to keep the Earth in orbit.

Just because some gravitational effects propagate out from the Sun it doesn’t mean all of them do. The formulation of a gravitational field supposedly emanating from mass together with the inverse square law has caused scientists to attribute all of the effects they see as being caused by the same radiative force called gravity all coming from a centralised source.

Laws are formulated under this assumption and because they seem to make good predictions they are then accepted as some fundamental truth.

Does a Gravitational Field Continuously Regenerate, or is it “Frozen?”
The field does not need to regenerate as it is not produced by anything let alone the sun. It is self-generating and operates according to its own laws with the inverse square law being a simplified observation of something that happens near planets. The field is in a constant state of ‘movement’, it contains its own ‘energy’.

What is this ‘Law’ you speak of?
The field equation of Konstantin Meyl.

What is fundamental?
The field equation is fundamental. This is analogous to the field equations that describe the flow in water: the Navier-Stokes equations.

What is not fundamental?
Everything else; everything that happens that we actually observe. Ripples travel through a whirlpool with some consistency but this doesn’t mean that they form a separate fundamental entity called ‘photons’ or whatever; they are an emergent phenomenon dependent upon the underlying properties of water.

Two small sticks move closer together on a pond via a resonant ripple effect. They are both emitting gravity waves which attract each other? No! This is just an illusion; it is the water, the substrate, that is causal here, not an inert bit of wood. Planets do not attract each other it is just that space moves them together.

What is the field ‘like’?
The field is dynamic version of Maxwell’s equations where electricity and magnetism are merely different aspects of the same thing. Constant movement of the field makes it ‘alive’ and enables propagation of emergent effects such as light. Other effects contribute to the concept of ‘energy’ which again is not fundamental but a way of expressing observations of specific patterns in field movements.

How does light propagate?
As ripples moving across a pond may traverse a water vortex so is light merely a modulation of the ambient field and so will its trajectory be determined by that field. The field itself is the substrate for field modulations.

“There is only the Field” – Meyl

Ripples will follow a vortex and move at the speed of light (sound) within that vortex and as a consequence its speed is added to that of the vortex moving through space. Two vortices moving towards each other may therefore view light in the opposite vortex as moving faster than Einstein’s ‘c’.

Where does the energy come from to move massive objects?
All objects are just manifestations of the Field themselves and will operate according to local field conditions. There is no matter or even mass as distinct from field configurations and so no need for any transfer of ‘energy’ between different type of fundamental stuff.

An object in a gravitation field is moving under its own ‘steam’ . The local field is propagating according to local conditions. Propagation is on a point by point basis and each point has no concept of the total ‘mass’ of the object. This makes it obvious that the acceleration under gravity is independent of the mass of the object.

Precession of the equinox. The Earth is said to undergo ‘precession’, to rotate in the sky in synchrony with the Pleiades star cluster, Sirius and the whole of our Solar System. The whole cycle takes about 26,000 years. Nobody believes that all these bodies are somehow dragging each other around by means of a radiative force. [video]

What is happening is that all these ‘masses’ are caught up in the same galactic helical field vortex which spans several light years and is responsible for the rotation of all bodies within its sphere of influence.

To try to imagine this as a collection of radiative forces is just too difficult but to picture it as a giant eddy current in a flowing galactic ‘river’ gives a nice idea of what is going on.

Newton’s concerns: “That one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one another, is to me so great an absurdity that, I believe, no man who has in philosophic matters a competent faculty of thinking could ever fall into it.”

Newton’s basic view of the Universe, which is reinforced by his mathematical theories, is therefore one where a collection of solid objects called ‘matter’ float about in an all pervading ‘vacuum’ that by definition has no properties or useful qualities of its own.

This world view pretty much rules out the development of any theory of gravity acceptable to Newton himself!

Matter is regarded as basic and fundamental but again has no ‘qualities’ as such and needs additional properties such as ‘mass’ and ‘charge’ to somehow allow it to interact with the rest of the universe. The rest of the universe meaning other chunks of matter separated by a lifeless vacuum.

The idea of gravity is an embryonic field theory but Newton was trying to graft it on to a system already overloaded with unnecessary concepts. He was trying at the same time to regard matter and space as being at the heart of reality whilst denying them the possibility of distant communication.

He needed to discard these ideas and start from scratch with Field Theory as fundamental and to then add matter and space back in as being subservient to the field, as emerging from it rather than somehow creating it.

General Relativity. Einstein was on the right track with the idea of an all pervasive universal field but in the rubber sheet concept (right), space and matter are still fundamentally different concepts and the idea of a force arises from the interaction between two such different ‘stuffs’.

“Matter tells spacetime how to curve, and curved spacetime tells matter how to move” – J.A, Wheeler

This is circular and mind-bending with causality being shifted from pillar to post and back. Moreover, it doesn’t say how these things communicate with each other. In our example, the Sun would be the cause of a large dimple in space-time, with movement of the Sun registering as further deformations of the field which propagate at light speed.

This doesn’t help our case as no light speed propagation is observed and the data suggests ‘synchrony’ of Sun and Earth rather than distant ‘influence’.

Einstein was still bewitched by the illusion of ‘matter’ as being solid, real, fundamental and indeed causal in somehow orchestrating cosmic events.

Imagine the diagram above but without the mass. We do not need the mass itself as we can easily detect its ‘presence’ by the distortion of space with which it is now synonymous. No mass ‘moves’ as now the rubber sheet itself is endowed with the properties which will cause movement of the dimple i.e. movement within the field itself. Movement which is consistent with the observed laws of physics.

David Bohm, like everybody else, saw separate objects moving around independently of each other and yet at the same time seemingly in step to produce what he called the Explicate Order. Since inanimate objects are not normally capable of organising themselves there must be an unseen Implicate Order responsible for these patterns. [page]

The Implicate Order then is the field equation of Meyl (above) and the Explicate Order is everything else that we see and measure, from the movement of galaxies to the double-slit experiment of quantum mechanics.

The equation specifies the evolution of the field at every point in space and time with field propagation at light-speeds giving the impression of conventional causality.

This evolution, it is to be stressed, is local and confined to an infinitesimally small point, meaning there is no influence from one point to another over any distance at all, even a trillionth of an an angstrom; there is no granularity to reality.

Global order is maintained by a finite propagation speed with the solutions to the equation leading to the large scale patterns we observe, as with the water vortex.

This is the seeming paradox of field equations, that the rules are strictly local but the solutions global. The Implicate order is not a global plan but a local description of field properties, whilst the Explicate Order is the emergent patterns that we actually observe and measure and have mistaken for the Fundamental Laws of Nature.

Related pages:

References:

The Speed of Gravity – What the Experiments Say
Author: Tom Van Flandern
https://www.intalek.com/Index/Projects/Research/TheSpeedofGravity-WhattheExperimentsSay.htm

The speed of gravity: A conversation with Rupert Sheldrake
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmbaqmX016M

Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gravitation

Precession is one of the biggest failures in the mainstream gravity only model! What is it hiding? – See the Pattern
https://youtu.be/-oPE3l5E8uk

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

Sheldrake’s TED talk

Rupert Sheldrake’s TED talk , “The Science Delusion”, listed ten points of contention concerning ‘accepted’ tenets of modern science. The presentation caused quite a stir and was “taken out of circulation by TED, relegated to a corner of their website and stamped with a warning label.” – Sheldrake

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:

Nature is mechanical or machine-like
Matter is unconscious
The laws and constants of Nature are fixed
The quantity of matter and energy is constant and was fixed by the big bang
Nature is purposeless and evolution is without direction
Inheritance is via the continuity of the structure of some physical substance (genes)
Memories are retained in the brain as material traces
‘Mind’ is inside the head and consciousness is just brain activity
Apparent paranormal abilities such as telepathy are the illusions of Bad Science
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.

A bio-field to create the shape of a snowflake? The image, taken from a Michael Clarage lecture shows distinctive looking patterns in the formation of snowflakes. At the same time it is asserted that all snowflakes are different so how do they achieve self-consistency and variety at the same time?

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.

One free miracle: “As Terence McKenna observed, ‘Modern science is based on the principle: ‘Give us one free miracle and we’ll explain the rest.’ The one free miracle is the appearance of all the mass and energy in the universe and all the laws that govern it in a single instant from nothing.” – Sheldrake

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.

Konstantin Meyl provides the most consistent description of physical reality so far with his Theory of Objectivity. This is based upon a single field equation (see above) and all the ‘fundamental’ constants are derived from this so there is nothing fundamental about them at all.

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.

Dean Radin (pictured) is arguably at the forefront of ESP research and is mentioned by Sheldrake. He and others have tried to make a science out of PSI research by introducing rigorous controls and by attempting to remove bias by the introduction of random number generators.

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

5. Nature is purposeless and evolution is without direction The standard view of evolution is one of small random variations of DNA leading to small random variations of phenotype which are then selected for, with propitious variant surviving to reproduce.

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

9. ‘Mind’ is inside the head Yes. Various people have postulated various levels of exotica including a whole extra dimension to house all our memories, but a magnetic scalar-wave network seems sufficient to describe consciousness.

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

Related pages:

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

From Einstein to Meyl

Konstantin Meyl describes a Unified Field Theory that eluded Einstein. Relativity is hard to understand but Meyl is harder, lacking even the comforting ideas of foundational space and time upon which to anchor the laws of physics. Instead, movement of field forces forms the foundations of physics, with space and time being emergent properties of these movements.

In his famously banned Ted Talk, Rupert Sheldrake mentions that the speed of light slowed down by about 20km/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, thus keeping the speed of light constant as required by the theory of relativity.

This is fine from the point of view of relativity, which views the speed of light as a fundamental constant but does in fact allow both length and time to vary according to local conditions.

So why did they change the definition of the metre and not the definition of the second? Why not consider that time may have sped up which makes it seem that it is taking longer for light to move from one place to another?

What does it even mean that time is going ‘faster’, and what sort of physics is it when we have an actual choice over which variables we consider to be ‘fundamental’ and which are the ones that are derivable from the others?

Time is measured via atomic clocks. The frequency of some sort of oscillation is measured via statistical means and the time elapsed is calculated from this frequency: “After exactly 9,192,631,770 oscillations, a second has passed.”

So we are not measuring time directly and cannot therefore say that it is a fundamental property of the universe. We are defining a ‘second’ loosely speaking as “The number of things that have happened since the last time I checked“.

This got me to thinking that we should be regarding ‘something else’ as fundamental and then defining ‘time’ in terms of that ‘something else’.

We can try regarding ‘frequency’ as fundamental which sounds promising as it is precisely what is measured via atomic clocks; they use the phenomenon of ‘resonance’ to measure frequency. Once we do this we can then calculate elapsed time as above by counting oscillations and dividing by the frequency.

Frequency = Cycles per Second (definition)
so
Number of cycles = Frequency (multiplied by) Time elapsed (rearranging)
therefore
Time elapsed = Number of Cycles (divided by) Frequency

The assumed model by which ‘frequency’ is produced however is via vibration (i.e. movement) of atomic particles within space and time, so it seemed to me that we are back to space and time as fundamental. This is intuitively comfortable but doesn’t address the issue of why it is the speed of light that can be fixed as constant if it is space and time that are considered fundamental.

A big chord was struck for me then upon listening to Konstantin Meyl explain his ideas:

I think most people will take space and time for granted as fixed, immutable properties of the universe, within which all activity (movement) takes place but Meyl turns this all around to make things somewhat counter-intuitive but at the same time more consistent.

There is only The Field:

It is this field that completely determines the nature of space and time.
Matter is comprised of toroidal field vortices.
Field strength determines ‘distance’ and the speed of light (field propagation).
Gravity is an illusion, an emergent property of field geometry.
Einstein’s E = mc² is incorrect

The field is electromagnetic in nature in that is has dual components which create each other via relative movement. Magnetic forces arise from movement relative to charge and similarly, a charge field arises from movement relative to a magnetic field.

Electricity and magnetism are not separate forces in Meyl’s field and are just components of the same entity. Therefore, the field properties arise from movement of the field relative to .. itself.

Meyl: “Without movement, there would be no forces or energy .. nothing”

And: “Which brings us to the question: ‘What is movement?‘”

To clarify (or maybe not), classical physics imagines all movement taking place in an already existing space. It supposes that such a thing as an empty vacuum can exist, does exist and comes ready made with all the requisite properties needed in order to host and propagate electric or gravitational fields.

Einstein’s relativity is a little more flexible, viewing gravity as a deformation of space itself by the matter contains within it. The matter then moves according to the curves in space created by the matter itself. Space and matter are still separate but act upon each other somehow: “Matter tells spacetime how to curve, and curved spacetime tells matter how to move” – John Wheeler

Within Meyl’s universe there is no separation of space, time and matter; there is only he Field. It is the configuration and movement of this field that creates the stuff we know as ‘matter’. The forces which appear to act upon the matter are really just emergent properties of the field acting upon itself. It is the field strength and ‘direction’ that determines the apparent metrics of distance and time, not the nature of space causing the field to behave differently.

The field itself is the primal cause, not a pre-existing space-time universe or a monstrously crude and fantastical Big Bang a few billion years ago.

Measurements of the speed of light for example can now be seen for what they are which is to say, transformations of various sets of observed field phenomena to some (almost arbitrary) common basis so that a comparison can be made in order to say “This is the same as that” or “This measurement is greater than it was last week” etc.

The measuring instruments themselves and the human observers using them are all themselves field phenomena and are therefore subject to the same rules and irregularities. This, according to Meyl, is the explanation for the results of the Rutherford experiment whereby the speed of light appeared constant no matter what direction it was travelling in or at what speed the Earth was travelling through space.

Light, Earth, equipment and observer all inhabit the same local reference frame and all are subject to the same influences. As the equipment shrinks so the speed of light slows and the two effects compensate for each other thereby appearing to remain constant. Atomic clocks may well change their behaviour but our subjective experience of time also follows the rules of the Field and so nobody notices.

So when we have laboratory set-ups where subject, equipment and observer are all part of the experiment, how can we do objective science? The situation is similar to that of relativity where there is considered to be no global frame of reference and so all experiments can only reflect local laws and conditions.

Meyl, however, prefers to construct a global (absolute) frame of reference within which to perform calculations. Measurements from a local experiment are transformed to this (theoretical) global framework, where calculations are performed before transformation back to the local experimental conditions.

Importance.

Is all this just theoretical sophistry or is there any practical use for this? Does this help with existing results that currently defy explanation?

One place to look may be experiments that give different results dependent upon whereabouts they are in the universe. We wouldn’t usually expect atomic clocks to be affected by subtle changes in gravitational fields. However, something like this appears to have happened in the experiments of Simon Shnoll, where biological, chemical and purely physical phenomena show results that vary in a cyclic fashion seemingly dependent upon the configuration of the solar system.

Piccardi and Kaznacheev similarly found many anomalies that depended upon season, lunar cycles and even eclipses.

Related pages:

References:

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

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

Sheldrake’s Banned TED talk: https://youtu.be/JKHUaNAxsTg?t=590

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