I love his curiosity and playful delight in science. He has discipline but that doesn't mean he has boundaries, which is why he's an outsider. We can't have a free spirit in science it seems.
Over twenty years ago, I worked in the Federal Public Service in Western Australia,. A colleague approached me on one occasion and asked me if I would like to join a Chi Gong group, run by a Chi Gong practitioner, who was also a physiotherapist. I had no idea what the term entailed, so I said, 'Why not.' Right from the beginning, Irena. the leader was at pains to demonstrate the action of the 'Chi,' in a palpable manner. All twelve of us formed a circle; one half of the circle would breathe-in, raising their arms vertically and then as their arms came down to their lowest level, the other half of the circle would raise their arms similarly, to the vertical level. As this process continued, the leader asked each of us, individually, to stand in the center of the circle, while the rest of us in the group continued the reciprocal arm movements. To my surprise, the person standing in the middle of the group, swayed back and forth,in accordance with the arm movements of those in the circle. When it became my turn, I could feel myself irresistibly being pulled from one side of the group to the other, in an inexorable swaying motion. Also, it fitted within the parameters of empiricism and was repeatable, albeit, invisible fields.
This is a very compelling discussion. The influences of the unseen, that part of the universe that is invisible to all of our senses, but can be measured by the "extra-sensory" instruments our minds have devised. Thank you so much for this (and all the other) dialogues.
I’d like to thank both of you, Mark Vernon and Rupert Sheldrake, for this delightful podcast. It is a pleasure beyond words; though, I am confident that both of you are well equipped to eloquently deliver my feelings through the medium of verbal expression.
Great discussion. The article on A N Whitehead in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy contains the following relevant passage: In Whitehead’s eyes...the development of Maxwell’s theory of electromagnetism constituted an antidote to Newton’s scientific materialism, for it led him to conceive the whole universe as “a field of force-or, in other words, a field of incessant activity” (1934 [2011: 27]). The theory of electromagnetism served Whitehead to overcome Newton’s “fallacy of simple location” (1925 [1967: 49]), that is, the conception of nature as a universe of self-sufficient isolated bits of matter. Indeed, we cannot say of an electromagnetic event that it is "here in space, and here in time, or here in space-time, in a perfectly definite sense which does not require for its explanation any reference to other regions of space-time." (1925 [1967: 49]) The theory of electromagnetism “involves the entire abandonment of the notion that simple location is the primary way in which things are involved in space-time” because it reveals that, “in a certain sense, everything is everywhere at all times” (1925 [1967: 91]). “Long ago”, Whitehead wrote, Faraday already remarked “that in a sense an electric charge is everywhere”, and: "the modification of the electromagnetic field at every point of space at each instant owing to the past history of each electron is another way of stating the same fact." (1920 [1986: 148]) The lesson that Whitehead learned from the theory of electromagnetism is unambiguous: "The fundamental concepts are activity and process. … The notion of self-sufficient isolation is not exemplified in modern physics. There are no essentially self-contained activities within limited regions. … Nature is a theatre for the interrelations of activities. All things change, the activities and their interrelations. … In the place of the procession of [spatial] forms (of externally related bits of matter, modern physics) has substituted the notion of the forms of process. It has thus swept away space and matter, and has substituted the study of the internal relations within a complex state of activity." (1934 [2011: 35-36])
It's strange how physical science is taught with the focus almost exclusively on calculating quantities and solving equations, rather than on understanding the nature of the physical phenomena and processes the equations describe. Children could learn a lot more about the physical world early on if teachers had an intuitive understanding of the physical phenomena behind the equations. All of us could have a much richer general, qualitative understanding of the physical world. Right now, for the most part, you either learn to solve the equations or you don't learn the phenomena.
My experience of studying meteorology 40 + years ago and the constant overdose of calculus to explain atmospheric science (e.g. Coriolis Effect, etc.), largely ignored intuitive abilities. Observation and dimensional experiences should have more emphasis in conceptual understanding of fields and dovetails into the study of quantum physics. Just sayin'
Huygen's is an extraordinarily important precursor of morphic fields. Temporally self-preserving form: the cycloid arc. Through his study of pendulums, Huygen's proved that cycloid is it's own involute (the term involute was given by Huygens). The most mind-boggling, hard to grasp aspect of cycloid is its incredible simplicity as the unification of time and gravity.
The speed of light is not a constant as once thought, and this has now been proved by Electrodynamic theory and by Experiments done by many independent researchers. The results clearly show that light propagates instantaneously when it is created by a source, and reduces to approximately the speed of light in the farfield, about one wavelength from the source, and never becomes equal to exactly c. This corresponds the phase speed, group speed, and information speed. Any theory assuming the speed of light is a constant, such as Special Relativity and General Relativity are wrong, and it has implications to Quantum theories as well. So this fact about the speed of light affects all of Modern Physics. Often it is stated that Relativity has been verified by so many experiments, how can it be wrong. Well no experiment can prove a theory, and can only provide evidence that a theory is correct. But one experiment can absolutely disprove a theory, and the new speed of light experiments proving the speed of light is not a constant is such a proof. So what does it mean? Well a derivation of Relativity using instantaneous nearfield light yields Galilean Relativity. This can easily seen by inserting c=infinity into the Lorentz Transform, yielding the GalileanTransform, where time is the same in all inertial frames. So a moving object observed with instantaneous nearfield light will yield no Relativistic effects, whereas by changing the frequency of the light such that farfield light is used will observe Relativistic effects. But since time and space are real and independent of the frequency of light used to measure its effects, then one must conclude the effects of Relativity are just an optical illusion. Since General Relativity is based on Special Relativity, then it has the same problem. A better theory of Gravity is Gravitoelectromagnetism which assumes gravity can be mathematically described by 4 Maxwell equations, similar to to those of electromagnetic theory. It is well known that General Relativity reduces to Gravitoelectromagnetism for weak fields, which is all that we observe. Using this theory, analysis of an oscillating mass yields a wave equation set equal to a source term. Analysis of this equation shows that the phase speed, group speed, and information speed are instantaneous in the nearfield and reduce to the speed of light in the farfield. This theory then accounts for all the observed gravitational effects including instantaneous nearfield and the speed of light farfield. The main difference is that this theory is a field theory, and not a geometrical theory like General Relativity. Because it is a field theory, Gravity can be then be quantized as the Graviton. Lastly it should be mentioned that this research shows that the Pilot Wave interpretation of Quantum Mechanics can no longer be criticized for requiring instantaneous interaction of the pilot wave, thereby violating Relativity. It should also be noted that nearfield electromagnetic fields can be explained by quantum mechanics using the Pilot Wave interpretation of quantum mechanics and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle (HUP), where Δx and Δp are interpreted as averages, and not the uncertainty in the values as in other interpretations of quantum mechanics. So in HUP: Δx Δp = h, where Δp=mΔv, and m is an effective mass due to momentum, thus HUP becomes: Δx Δv = h/m. In the nearfield where the field is created, Δx=0, therefore Δv=infinity. In the farfield, HUP: Δx Δp = h, where p = h/λ. HUP then becomes: Δx h/λ = h, or Δx=λ. Also in the farfield HUP becomes: λmΔv=h, thus Δv=h/(mλ). Since p=h/λ, then Δv=p/m. Also since p=mc, then Δv=c. So in summary, in the nearfield Δv=infinity, and in the farfield Δv=c, where Δv is the average velocity of the photon according to Pilot Wave theory. Consequently the Pilot wave interpretation should become the preferred interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. It should also be noted that this argument can be applied to all fields, including the graviton. Hence all fields should exhibit instantaneous nearfield and speed c farfield behavior, and this can explain the non-local effects observed in quantum entangled particles. *RUclips presentation of above arguments: ruclips.net/video/sePdJ7vSQvQ/видео.html *More extensive paper for the above arguments: William D. Walker and Dag Stranneby, A New Interpretation of Relativity, 2023: vixra.org/abs/2309.0145 *Electromagnetic pulse experiment paper: www.techrxiv.org/doi/full/10.36227/techrxiv.170862178.82175798/v1 Dr. William Walker - PhD in physics from ETH Zurich, 1997
Many thanks for your post, I will spend many hours looking at it and on a personal level which I admit is not scientific would love Bohm's theory to be largely correct.
@@christophergame7977 Unfortunately it is not want we wish is true that matters. It is what we can prove rigorously using theory and experiment. I have presented both, which has now been verified independently by many researchers. See my RUclips presentation and the papers that support it.
The discussion of the use of the English word "field" (making the analogy from a cleared agricultural field to a field of force) intrigues me, because of the influence a particular form of agriculture has on one of the most fundamental concepts of science. You clear a woodland and get a "field," into which (usually) a single crop is planted under intensive human management. This appears to lead toward the predominant idea of scientific reductionism, the goal of breaking everything down ("clearing the field") until you are left with something that is ultimately simple, a "unified field" as a kind of blank slate. However, what if we had been practicing Permaculture, or horticulture or land management in a Native American style? In those practices, a complex interactive dynamism of multiple crops and animals on the same "field" is the aim, operating according to ecological principles with humans as participants rather than godlike controllers. If our fundamental principles of physics started with diverse ecological interactivity (and in spirituality: polytheism/animism) rather than ultimate reduction to utter simplicity (and in spirituality: monotheism), how would that affect the physics that emerges?
Hello there, Your fieldapproach attracts me. If i visualize the tiniest particle, and want to make a drawing, it will allways have a shell, no matter how many billions of times you cut- never ending story.. In fact, leadbeater and annie bennet meditated and found the first elements, including quarks, the right amount, so they had part of the periodic system before bohr, or whom ever it was constructing it. At the shell, they zoomed it in, and found bubbles. Still, if there is a bubble, it contains a shell- consisting of what? Another version: our mind; a tiny part of our mind- nonphysical, created our ego, and this ego created our 5 senses, and those senses creates what we percieves. The solid world- a trick we cant track down. James Mahu, in principle. Another version, similar: Each of us, our mind, creates our universe, many.. Sometimes they interfere. Well, Rupert Sheldrake, you are one of the few. And you are created in my mind..- yes, scary heavy shit! So, the suggestion from Mahu, stop thinking- accept- and know you are one eternal spirit, non physical, and all what we percieve, is a creation of our ego- field or not. Do have a shot Rupert- you are nice to listen to. And please ad remoteviewing to your physics- farsight.org- they are hard to wave away
Rupert, you were on the way to discover that repelling does not act like vested science suggests. It is the first time I encounter someone who also discovered this figuration of bar magnets that result in just attraction (I used ten of them in the 70-ties). Your next try could use the small round magnets you seemed to use. Take one or two of the string and try to have them repelled. In the literal sense you won't be able to. This small magnet will NOT be repelled but turn viciously till it gets attracted. Only when one fixates this magnet between one's fingers, it will counteract = repel. Nature (the electron) only wants to direct it's orientation to optimise their common field. (And so electrons attract each other!!!) Concerning The electric fields we have conflated Coulomb's law with the (righteous) definition of the electric field WHICH EXCLUDES REPELLING, BECAUSE THERE IS NO VOLTAGE DIFFERENCE. Coulomb forgot or wasn't able to analyse that surroundings and equipment caused huge fields that ATTRACTED the blades. Remember the red hot electron tubes in old TV's. No other way to get them electrons escape their kathode because they are really stuck. We suffer a huge shortage of electrons (and why they are shared in molecules). If you would analyse the 100 million volt lightning, one should consider first how these tiny droplets stay together in the first place (until the lightning evolves) as in exploding silo's with granulated materials. Off course these particles tend to have a similar tendency to acquire charge like any molecule or element (and off course all elements are all electro negative, meaning they attract electrons). It's obvious like hell, but all science is poisened with an indoctrinated education in which our "second" zero and it's wished for companions + and - are prominently confusing physics. I have proven that electrical repelling does not exist (only electro-magnetic) by dividing a sphere into like 20 halfround alu blades individually mounted and fed by a vandeGraaff generator. The discharge happens on one place where (influenced) particles exchange charge and visible fields emerge. Some of the blades there are evading (looking to maximise the exchange) ALL THE OTHER BLADES DON'T MOVE while being charged as well. Lately I started to doubt repelling between protons as well (I used to believe the schoolbooks) since I read the original Rutherford experiments last year In stead of considering a similar reaction from the gold atoms as the radon or other radio active substances they took the old adagium of "positive charge"= repelling as an axiom. They should have thought that if an alpha particle escapes an atom, it is ALWAYS with considerable force\speed\momentum and so that could as well happen when being bounced back from the gold atom. Now science is showing a spallation example in where one proton with 800 GEV manages to peel off up to 25 neutrons and no protons (except for the one used to shoot at this target proton). On top of that there is diproton that enholds more binding energy as a deuteron. These are unacceptable contrarian situations and ask for a re-examanation. There is more to it, but let me finish for the moment and remind you that J.J. Thomson was degraded in a terrible way by N. Bohr on page 19 of his letter to philosophical magazine (Poincaré seminar 2013; On the constitution of atoms and molecules by N. Bohr. On that page he adopts the charge e proposed by Rutherford and he turns J.J. Thomson's findings up side down by claiming it supportive (Down the page in an annotation. However J.J. Thomson says: HYDROGEN IS THE ONLY ELEMENT WHICH NEVER OCCURS WITH A POSITIVE CHARGE CORRESPONDING TO THE LOSS OFMORE THAN ONE ELECTRON (annotated on page 19). Furthermore is J.J. Thomson the only person to deny repelling forces (for protons). For this visit Eric. P. Dollard's website. His free video "history of energy synthesis" shows this on the 47th minute. Conclusion is also that not Rutherford discovered the proton but J.J. Thomson (Wikipedia mistake) by experiment. vosforr@gmail.com
It's facinating how while there has been a shift away from the aether field more generally the theories of field throughout many fields remains wildly popular and important.
His theory about people being aware that they are being watched is scoffed at by conventional science, but it's not far from the quantum observer effect. Would any scientist dismiss the observer effect? Rupert just extends the effect beyond the minute scale.
But the net attraction can be simply explained by the minimization of the energy contained in the stray field. So, in effect, the minimization of energy is a requirement for organizational structures.
Within the interplay of cymatics, the Torsion Field, and particles, the Platonic solids emerge as fundamental geometric archetypes, embodying the symphonic harmony of creation.
If God is the great I AM, then consciousness is fundamental, & our experience of it is our resonating with the light of His consciousness, which light St. John the Beloved says "lights the eyes of men."
I am fascinated and intrigued by watching your different talks about consciousness and fields. I have come to the conclusion from reading about different religions that God is the Universe and everything in it! Anything and everything is the body of God! Dark energy is the Consciousness of God expanding as all the Quadrillion's of life forms created by his morphic resonance live and create memories that form our eternal souls. Question for Dr. Sheldrake? Do you think that fractals could be morphic resonance in action? Thanks again for your insight and deep thinking on this topic!
The video of the magnets really explains why a field underlies Rupert's morphic reasonance theory. The claim is that structure in biology cannot be explained by conventional science. But the experiment demonstrates that structure emerges from a field.
If ‘good’ is seen as a force of attraction (i.e. love) and ‘evil’ as a force of repulsion (i.e. hate), then we might wish to note an echo with the well-known scientific phenomenon - called magnetic self-assembly - that Rupert refers to in relation to bar-magnets ... in which the magnetic forces of attraction tend to naturally ‘overcome’ the forces of repulsion.
At 13:50, Sheldrake says, "A flowing electric current generates no magnetic field around it." This is a false statement! It doesn't even belong in the discussion--out of the blue! Faraday is spinning in his grave! An electric current moving along a wire has been demonstrated to create a magnetic field for well over a hundred years, now. If he's postulating an electric current moving in free space, a plasma physics laboratory can dispute his bald assertion. The "particle" is primary, the "field" is secondary, a resultant of particle behavior. The suggestion that a "base field" precipitates everything in not intuitive: how can a field produce a particle?! Is the photon a particle or a wave? "We're still working on that one."
The claim of a conflict on Faraday's lines of magnetic force can be amplified: formal presentations of electromagnetics bow out at the microscopic level within the preface of their text, bowing of course to quantum mechanics. Yet the means by which those fundamental particles are discovered within the particle colliders is via electromagnetic principles. As if this attack were not enough, Maxwell's raw charge has an inherent magnetic moment and this is an opening which somewhat cancels out more than a hundred years of accumulation. To place an opening back here; to formalize the falsification; this will not happen within academia. Generalize sign and you will find a form of emergent spacetime that promises electromagnetic structure as well. Passing through to a new form of complex number, which is the three-signed form, old conflicts are erased without the ambiguities of the modern presentation. Even the Cartesian product comes under attack. As if a sum of two values took place in RxR, and what a sum of three needs RxRxR? And where within this is that ninety degree angle? And what of independence? Then too, as if thermodynamics were settled long ago while the vibrating atoms is a rod of steel can barely conduct from one end to the other yet a slight tap at one end goes right through. Kinetic? I think not. Science is a human pursuit, and our ability to find the truth is suspect. Yes, of course we need science and yet a clause of openness has to be dealt unconditionally at the beginning whereas the system in its entirety rests as a pile whose foundation is partly to blame for its impending collapse. That the political scene lands here as well is telling. Social animals we are, yet as those values dictate our science something runs amuck. Perhaps we do not even have a fully evolved language yet. Indeed mathematically we seem stuck in a bipolar mode as our basis. Tales of time reversal physics hold up to this day, right? Time under polysign numbers takes its unidirectional form while admitting its zero dimensional status, but of course the term 'dimension' is tied to the real line; that bipolar assumption.
I like this stuff for some reason I wonder if some pre established harmoney was what thee ancient had Super natural beings through instinks in thebheart rather than the head 🦍🍀⌚
Mathematics must limit INDEPENDENT VARIABLES to only those on which any lay person can act to prevent EVIL (defined exhaustively as DISASTERS, PREDATION, DISEASES ~ which include all birth defects, all weapons manufacture, all violence ~ and DEATH). In fact the concept INDEPENDENT VARIABLES is a misnomer. So long as 100% of all life in the entire known universe exist only on this earth no life is "independent" of it. Even to leave this earth one can only do so using materials taken from the earth itself. Whereever the word INDEPENDENCE is used what is meant is: not having to depend on OTHER PEOPLE ~ a negative concept, indicating only what SHOULD NOT be. Its positive counterpart is EARTHDEPENDENCE indicating exactly what we SHOULD DO to achieve it. That way blaming others for subjugation or fighting others for occupation of territory becomes superfluous. All wars, all violence involve superior KNOWLEDGE of how to use material found on and/in the earth. The victims are always those who failed to analyze what is available on (and in) the earth sufficiently. Therefore, mathematics MUST change this term to EARTHDEPENDENT VARIABLES and restrict any earthdependent variable used in any equation to "only entities (specifically PLANTS and its parts) traceable by any lay person on this earth to satisfy own needs (and of other beings, provided it can be linked to satisfaction of any specific current and/or future need of the person involved)". The sole purpose cum criterion of proof of ALL KNOWLEDGE is: PRACTICAL PREVENTION OF EVIL (as exhaustively defined above). As evil is finite, so too is knowledge and its search. Once we achieve it LIFE would only mean eternal application of it to terraform and populate all celestial bodies with newly desighned PLANTS AND ANIMALS that steer all functions in the universe we design ourselves.
Unless the use of the term FIELD finally shows how stems, leaves, flowers and fruits appear in real wheat, paddy, cotton and apple fields, the entire system is a blatant misuse of the word, and a sheer waste of time, efforts and funds. Talking about a Theory of Everything without any relevance to the only entity in the entire known universe that delivers and sustains 100% of all life in it, THE PLANTS, is an invitation for a wedding without the bride.
The fact of the matter is that there is no reason to buy into Newton's orbital nonsense. Pages 512 and 513 from Newton's Principia contradicts the projectile physics he claims to embrace. You have to believe that down is not towards Earth's center but is towards the bottom of the printed page to buy into this idea. You have to believe an object can endlessly fall around Earth's curvature from an altitude it never reached to think that Newton's Jovial idea has any basis in demonstrable reality. Look into demonstrable projectile physics and compare that to the aforementioned pages from Newton's 'Great' Work. Pay close attention to that illustration on page 513. Do you notice it lacks something? Can you measure what is missing? Does scale matter?
If degree of freedom large (dof>1) then gravity looses. If temperature is low (lte=1)then gravity wins. likewise experiment in video demonstrates that If degree of freedom large (dof>1) then attraction wins. But If temperature is low (lte=1)then repulsion wins. I think dof-lte & space-time lines works separately, but intersects in zero-point (dof=0<e=0&space=0&time=0).
I love his curiosity and playful delight in science. He has discipline but that doesn't mean he has boundaries, which is why he's an outsider. We can't have a free spirit in science it seems.
Yet there is hardly an arena in science that would have advanced without them.
Neurodiversity is the driver behind novel thinking, however, history tells us that novelty is predominantly shown to be erroneous.
@@yp77738yp77739 Neurodiversity has been hijacked as a term.
😇 May God Bless You Always, Dr. Sheldrake! And thank you for responding to my email yesterday.
Over twenty years ago, I worked in the Federal Public Service in Western Australia,. A colleague approached me on one occasion and asked me if I would like to join a Chi Gong group, run by a Chi Gong practitioner, who was also a
physiotherapist. I had no idea what the term entailed, so I said, 'Why not.'
Right from the beginning, Irena. the leader was at pains to demonstrate the action of the 'Chi,' in a palpable manner. All twelve of us formed a circle; one half of the circle would breathe-in, raising their arms vertically and then as their arms came down to their lowest level, the other half of the circle would raise their arms similarly, to the vertical level. As this process continued, the leader asked each of us, individually, to stand in the center of the circle, while the rest of us in the group continued the reciprocal arm movements.
To my surprise, the person standing in the middle of the group, swayed back and forth,in accordance with the arm movements of those in the circle. When it became my turn, I could feel myself irresistibly being pulled from one side of the group to the other, in an inexorable swaying motion. Also, it fitted within the parameters of empiricism and was repeatable, albeit, invisible fields.
This is a very compelling discussion. The influences of the unseen, that part of the universe that is invisible to all of our senses, but can be measured by the "extra-sensory" instruments our minds have devised.
Thank you so much for this (and all the other) dialogues.
I’d like to thank both of you, Mark Vernon and Rupert Sheldrake, for this delightful podcast. It is a pleasure beyond words; though, I am confident that both of you are well equipped to eloquently deliver my feelings through the medium of verbal expression.
Great discussion. The article on A N Whitehead in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy contains the following relevant passage:
In Whitehead’s eyes...the development of Maxwell’s theory of electromagnetism constituted an antidote to Newton’s scientific materialism, for it led him to conceive the whole universe as “a field of force-or, in other words, a field of incessant activity” (1934 [2011: 27]). The theory of electromagnetism served Whitehead to overcome Newton’s “fallacy of simple location” (1925 [1967: 49]), that is, the conception of nature as a universe of self-sufficient isolated bits of matter. Indeed, we cannot say of an electromagnetic event that it is "here in space, and here in time, or here in space-time, in a perfectly definite sense which does not require for its explanation any reference to other regions of space-time." (1925 [1967: 49])
The theory of electromagnetism “involves the entire abandonment of the notion that simple location is the primary way in which things are involved in space-time” because it reveals that, “in a certain sense, everything is everywhere at all times” (1925 [1967: 91]). “Long ago”, Whitehead wrote, Faraday already remarked “that in a sense an electric charge is everywhere”, and: "the modification of the electromagnetic field at every point of space at each instant owing to the past history of each electron is another way of stating the same fact." (1920 [1986: 148])
The lesson that Whitehead learned from the theory of electromagnetism is unambiguous:
"The fundamental concepts are activity and process. … The notion of self-sufficient isolation is not exemplified in modern physics. There are no essentially self-contained activities within limited regions. … Nature is a theatre for the interrelations of activities. All things change, the activities and their interrelations. … In the place of the procession of [spatial] forms (of externally related bits of matter, modern physics) has substituted the notion of the forms of process. It has thus swept away space and matter, and has substituted the study of the internal relations within a complex state of activity." (1934 [2011: 35-36])
Would highly recommend Nicholas Rescher’s book Process Philosophy which advocates a similar view of the world. He quotes from Whitehead throughout.
A true master... Thank you Rupert.
The great philosopher-biologist Dr. Rupert Sheldrake indeed speaks the #truth. May he continue his great and enlightening works! Ahhmeeen.
RAMEN 😂😢😂
These are all high quality contributions what your giving to us. Thank you Dr. Sheldrake!
One of your best podcasts guys for a variety of reasons including the comments, thank you.
It's strange how physical science is taught with the focus almost exclusively on calculating quantities and solving equations, rather than on understanding the nature of the physical phenomena and processes the equations describe. Children could learn a lot more about the physical world early on if teachers had an intuitive understanding of the physical phenomena behind the equations. All of us could have a much richer general, qualitative understanding of the physical world. Right now, for the most part, you either learn to solve the equations or you don't learn the phenomena.
My experience of studying meteorology 40 + years ago and the constant overdose of calculus to explain atmospheric science (e.g. Coriolis Effect, etc.), largely ignored intuitive abilities. Observation and dimensional experiences should have more emphasis in conceptual understanding of fields and dovetails into the study of quantum physics. Just sayin'
Thank you for a most engaging and enlightening discussion. More please.
Brilliant dialogue - thank you!
Do appreciate that guys, especially the genuine scientific spirit of enquiry- as so lacking in establishment academia.
A perfect example of how confused humanity has been since trying to understand action at a distance, no levers or anything!!
Huygen's is an extraordinarily important precursor of morphic fields. Temporally self-preserving form: the cycloid arc. Through his study of pendulums, Huygen's proved that cycloid is it's own involute (the term involute was given by Huygens).
The most mind-boggling, hard to grasp aspect of cycloid is its incredible simplicity as the unification of time and gravity.
Always interesting and refreshing! Thank you for these talks 😊
The speed of light is not a constant as once thought, and this has now been proved by Electrodynamic theory and by Experiments done by many independent researchers. The results clearly show that light propagates instantaneously when it is created by a source, and reduces to approximately the speed of light in the farfield, about one wavelength from the source, and never becomes equal to exactly c. This corresponds the phase speed, group speed, and information speed. Any theory assuming the speed of light is a constant, such as Special Relativity and General Relativity are wrong, and it has implications to Quantum theories as well. So this fact about the speed of light affects all of Modern Physics. Often it is stated that Relativity has been verified by so many experiments, how can it be wrong. Well no experiment can prove a theory, and can only provide evidence that a theory is correct. But one experiment can absolutely disprove a theory, and the new speed of light experiments proving the speed of light is not a constant is such a proof. So what does it mean? Well a derivation of Relativity using instantaneous nearfield light yields Galilean Relativity. This can easily seen by inserting c=infinity into the Lorentz Transform, yielding the GalileanTransform, where time is the same in all inertial frames. So a moving object observed with instantaneous nearfield light will yield no Relativistic effects, whereas by changing the frequency of the light such that farfield light is used will observe Relativistic effects. But since time and space are real and independent of the frequency of light used to measure its effects, then one must conclude the effects of Relativity are just an optical illusion.
Since General Relativity is based on Special Relativity, then it has the same problem. A better theory of Gravity is Gravitoelectromagnetism which assumes gravity can be mathematically described by 4 Maxwell equations, similar to to those of electromagnetic theory. It is well known that General Relativity reduces to Gravitoelectromagnetism for weak fields, which is all that we observe. Using this theory, analysis of an oscillating mass yields a wave equation set equal to a source term. Analysis of this equation shows that the phase speed, group speed, and information speed are instantaneous in the nearfield and reduce to the speed of light in the farfield. This theory then accounts for all the observed gravitational effects including instantaneous nearfield and the speed of light farfield. The main difference is that this theory is a field theory, and not a geometrical theory like General Relativity. Because it is a field theory, Gravity can be then be quantized as the Graviton.
Lastly it should be mentioned that this research shows that the Pilot Wave interpretation of Quantum Mechanics can no longer be criticized for requiring instantaneous interaction of the pilot wave, thereby violating Relativity. It should also be noted that nearfield electromagnetic fields can be explained by quantum mechanics using the Pilot Wave interpretation of quantum mechanics and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle (HUP), where Δx and Δp are interpreted as averages, and not the uncertainty in the values as in other interpretations of quantum mechanics. So in HUP: Δx Δp = h, where Δp=mΔv, and m is an effective mass due to momentum, thus HUP becomes: Δx Δv = h/m. In the nearfield where the field is created, Δx=0, therefore Δv=infinity. In the farfield, HUP: Δx Δp = h, where p = h/λ. HUP then becomes: Δx h/λ = h, or Δx=λ. Also in the farfield HUP becomes: λmΔv=h, thus Δv=h/(mλ). Since p=h/λ, then Δv=p/m. Also since p=mc, then Δv=c. So in summary, in the nearfield Δv=infinity, and in the farfield Δv=c, where Δv is the average velocity of the photon according to Pilot Wave theory. Consequently the Pilot wave interpretation should become the preferred interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. It should also be noted that this argument can be applied to all fields, including the graviton. Hence all fields should exhibit instantaneous nearfield and speed c farfield behavior, and this can explain the non-local effects observed in quantum entangled particles.
*RUclips presentation of above arguments: ruclips.net/video/sePdJ7vSQvQ/видео.html
*More extensive paper for the above arguments: William D. Walker and Dag Stranneby, A New Interpretation of Relativity, 2023: vixra.org/abs/2309.0145
*Electromagnetic pulse experiment paper: www.techrxiv.org/doi/full/10.36227/techrxiv.170862178.82175798/v1
Dr. William Walker - PhD in physics from ETH Zurich, 1997
Thank you, I will read your paper and watch the videos.
Many thanks for your post, I will spend many hours looking at it and on a personal level which I admit is not scientific would love Bohm's theory to be largely correct.
🧲
No to the idea of instantaneous local action. No to Bohmian action at a distance. Causality rules.
@@christophergame7977 Unfortunately it is not want we wish is true that matters. It is what we can prove rigorously using theory and experiment. I have presented both, which has now been verified independently by many researchers. See my RUclips presentation and the papers that support it.
The discussion of the use of the English word "field" (making the analogy from a cleared agricultural field to a field of force) intrigues me, because of the influence a particular form of agriculture has on one of the most fundamental concepts of science. You clear a woodland and get a "field," into which (usually) a single crop is planted under intensive human management. This appears to lead toward the predominant idea of scientific reductionism, the goal of breaking everything down ("clearing the field") until you are left with something that is ultimately simple, a "unified field" as a kind of blank slate.
However, what if we had been practicing Permaculture, or horticulture or land management in a Native American style? In those practices, a complex interactive dynamism of multiple crops and animals on the same "field" is the aim, operating according to ecological principles with humans as participants rather than godlike controllers. If our fundamental principles of physics started with diverse ecological interactivity (and in spirituality: polytheism/animism) rather than ultimate reduction to utter simplicity (and in spirituality: monotheism), how would that affect the physics that emerges?
Yep thanks R. Great initial summary !
Einstein is reported to have said "I understood relativity until the mathematicians became involved."
Hello there,
Your fieldapproach attracts me.
If i visualize the tiniest particle, and want to make a drawing, it will allways have a shell, no matter how many billions of times you cut- never ending story..
In fact, leadbeater and annie bennet meditated and found the first elements, including quarks, the right amount, so they had part of the periodic system before bohr, or whom ever it was constructing it.
At the shell, they zoomed it in, and found bubbles. Still, if there is a bubble, it contains a shell- consisting of what?
Another version: our mind; a tiny part of our mind- nonphysical, created our ego, and this ego created our 5 senses, and those senses creates what we percieves.
The solid world- a trick we cant track down.
James Mahu, in principle.
Another version, similar:
Each of us, our mind, creates our universe, many..
Sometimes they interfere.
Well, Rupert Sheldrake, you are one of the few. And you are created in my mind..- yes, scary heavy shit!
So, the suggestion from Mahu, stop thinking- accept- and know you are one eternal spirit, non physical, and all what we percieve, is a creation of our ego- field or not.
Do have a shot Rupert- you are nice to listen to. And please ad remoteviewing to your physics- farsight.org- they are hard to wave away
Amazing, Thankyou both of you.
Great conversation!
May the Field be with you... 🖖
well done, thank you
Rupert, you were on the way to discover that repelling does not act like vested science suggests. It is the first time I encounter someone who also discovered this figuration of bar magnets that result in just attraction (I used ten of them in the 70-ties). Your next try could use the small round magnets you seemed to use. Take one or two of the string and try to have them repelled. In the literal sense you won't be able to. This small magnet will NOT be repelled but turn viciously till it gets attracted. Only when one fixates this magnet between one's fingers, it will counteract = repel. Nature (the electron) only wants to direct it's orientation to optimise their common field. (And so electrons attract each other!!!)
Concerning The electric fields we have conflated Coulomb's law with the (righteous) definition of the electric field WHICH EXCLUDES REPELLING, BECAUSE THERE IS NO VOLTAGE DIFFERENCE. Coulomb forgot or wasn't able to analyse that surroundings and equipment caused huge fields that ATTRACTED the blades. Remember the red hot electron tubes in old TV's. No other way to get them electrons escape their kathode because they are really stuck. We suffer a huge shortage of electrons (and why they are shared in molecules). If you would analyse the 100 million volt lightning, one should consider first how these tiny droplets stay together in the first place (until the lightning evolves) as in exploding silo's with granulated materials. Off course these particles tend to have a similar tendency to acquire charge like any molecule or element (and off course all elements are all electro negative, meaning they attract electrons). It's obvious like hell, but all science is poisened with an indoctrinated education in which our "second" zero and it's wished for companions + and - are prominently confusing physics.
I have proven that electrical repelling does not exist (only electro-magnetic) by dividing a sphere into like 20 halfround alu blades individually mounted and fed by a vandeGraaff generator. The discharge happens on one place where (influenced) particles exchange charge and visible fields emerge. Some of the blades there are evading (looking to maximise the exchange) ALL THE OTHER BLADES DON'T MOVE while being charged as well.
Lately I started to doubt repelling between protons as well (I used to believe the schoolbooks) since I read the original Rutherford experiments last year
In stead of considering a similar reaction from the gold atoms as the radon or other radio active substances they took the old adagium of "positive charge"= repelling as an axiom. They should have thought that if an alpha particle escapes an atom, it is ALWAYS with considerable force\speed\momentum and so that could as well happen when being bounced back from the gold atom. Now science is showing a spallation example in where one proton with 800 GEV manages to peel off up to 25 neutrons and no protons (except for the one used to shoot at this target proton). On top of that there is diproton that enholds more binding energy as a deuteron. These are unacceptable contrarian situations and ask for a re-examanation.
There is more to it, but let me finish for the moment and remind you that J.J. Thomson was degraded in a terrible way by N. Bohr on page 19 of his letter to philosophical magazine (Poincaré seminar 2013; On the constitution of atoms and molecules by N. Bohr. On that page he adopts the charge e proposed by Rutherford and he turns J.J. Thomson's findings up side down by claiming it supportive (Down the page in an annotation.
However J.J. Thomson says: HYDROGEN IS THE ONLY ELEMENT WHICH NEVER OCCURS WITH A POSITIVE CHARGE CORRESPONDING TO THE LOSS OFMORE THAN ONE ELECTRON (annotated on page 19). Furthermore is J.J. Thomson the only person to deny repelling forces (for protons). For this visit Eric. P. Dollard's website. His free video "history of energy synthesis" shows this on the 47th minute.
Conclusion is also that not Rutherford discovered the proton but J.J. Thomson (Wikipedia mistake) by experiment. vosforr@gmail.com
It's facinating how while there has been a shift away from the aether field more generally the theories of field throughout many fields remains wildly popular and important.
Thank you both again
I love listening to this channel.
It is so fascinating about how our universe works.
🙏❤️🌍🌿🕊🎵🎶🎵🎶
His theory about people being aware that they are being watched is scoffed at by conventional science, but it's not far from the quantum observer effect. Would any scientist dismiss the observer effect? Rupert just extends the effect beyond the minute scale.
But the net attraction can be simply explained by the minimization of the energy contained in the stray field. So, in effect, the minimization of energy is a requirement for organizational structures.
A field forming a Form. Wow!!
Thank you, very informative
You guys are magicians
Within the interplay of cymatics, the Torsion Field, and particles, the Platonic solids emerge as fundamental geometric archetypes, embodying the symphonic harmony of creation.
Is there a connection between Morphic fields and the phase space if an attractor? Are they essentially the same?
If God is the great I AM, then consciousness is fundamental, & our experience of it is our resonating with the light of His consciousness, which light St. John the Beloved says "lights the eyes of men."
I am fascinated and intrigued by watching your different talks about consciousness and fields. I have come to the conclusion from reading about different religions that God is the Universe and everything in it! Anything and everything is the body of God! Dark energy is the Consciousness of God expanding as all the Quadrillion's of life forms created by his morphic resonance live and create memories that form our eternal souls. Question for Dr. Sheldrake? Do you think that fractals could be morphic resonance in action? Thanks again for your insight and deep thinking on this topic!
I'm not aware that Alfred North Whitehead ever proposed a theory of gravity. If he did, then what is that theory?
The video of the magnets really explains why a field underlies Rupert's morphic reasonance theory. The claim is that structure in biology cannot be explained by conventional science. But the experiment demonstrates that structure emerges from a field.
This experiment demonstrates that if degree of freedom is large (dof>1) then attraction wins.
But if temperature is low (lte=1) then repulsion wins.
If ‘good’ is seen as a force of attraction (i.e. love) and ‘evil’ as a force of repulsion (i.e. hate), then we might wish to note an echo with the well-known scientific phenomenon - called magnetic self-assembly - that Rupert refers to in relation to bar-magnets ... in which the magnetic forces of attraction tend to naturally ‘overcome’ the forces of repulsion.
Could the ‘strong force’…be considered a force field?
It's electrical charge all the way down and up!
At 13:50, Sheldrake says, "A flowing electric current generates no magnetic field around it." This is a false statement! It doesn't even belong in the discussion--out of the blue! Faraday is spinning in his grave! An electric current moving along a wire has been demonstrated to create a magnetic field for well over a hundred years, now. If he's postulating an electric current moving in free space, a plasma physics laboratory can dispute his bald assertion. The "particle" is primary, the "field" is secondary, a resultant of particle behavior. The suggestion that a "base field" precipitates everything in not intuitive: how can a field produce a particle?! Is the photon a particle or a wave? "We're still working on that one."
A wave trace can be produced by plotting the path of a point on a rotating circle against time. Wave = spin?
What is a field? Dewey Larson knows ... _time squared_ over _space._
Ruperts, investigate intotrends in naure, thats the self-reinforcing force between it all...
Garfield is a region of lasagna influence.
Matter is Spirit.
Is there fields in the vacuum of space? As light travels through a vacuum
Greetings. You may want to take a look at the Concave Earth model on my channel where "gravity" is an etheric push force instead of a pull force.
What Is a field?
Sound?
The claim of a conflict on Faraday's lines of magnetic force can be amplified: formal presentations of electromagnetics bow out at the microscopic level within the preface of their text, bowing of course to quantum mechanics. Yet the means by which those fundamental particles are discovered within the particle colliders is via electromagnetic principles. As if this attack were not enough, Maxwell's raw charge has an inherent magnetic moment and this is an opening which somewhat cancels out more than a hundred years of accumulation. To place an opening back here; to formalize the falsification; this will not happen within academia. Generalize sign and you will find a form of emergent spacetime that promises electromagnetic structure as well. Passing through to a new form of complex number, which is the three-signed form, old conflicts are erased without the ambiguities of the modern presentation. Even the Cartesian product comes under attack. As if a sum of two values took place in RxR, and what a sum of three needs RxRxR? And where within this is that ninety degree angle? And what of independence? Then too, as if thermodynamics were settled long ago while the vibrating atoms is a rod of steel can barely conduct from one end to the other yet a slight tap at one end goes right through. Kinetic? I think not. Science is a human pursuit, and our ability to find the truth is suspect. Yes, of course we need science and yet a clause of openness has to be dealt unconditionally at the beginning whereas the system in its entirety rests as a pile whose foundation is partly to blame for its impending collapse. That the political scene lands here as well is telling. Social animals we are, yet as those values dictate our science something runs amuck. Perhaps we do not even have a fully evolved language yet. Indeed mathematically we seem stuck in a bipolar mode as our basis. Tales of time reversal physics hold up to this day, right? Time under polysign numbers takes its unidirectional form while admitting its zero dimensional status, but of course the term 'dimension' is tied to the real line; that bipolar assumption.
Adding the Sir Lawrence Bragg reference: ruclips.net/video/Vwjcn4Vl2iw/видео.html
Can you and Dan Winter do a video please ?
❤️
I like this stuff for some reason
I wonder if some pre established harmoney was what thee ancient had Super natural beings through instinks in thebheart rather than the head
🦍🍀⌚
Is he speaking of Jordan Maxwell 1940-2022? Or a different Maxwell.
James Clerk Maxwell, 1831-1879, famous physicist who 'discovered' /described electro-magnetic radiation.
How many maths are there?
Question? Is CMB the signature sign of GOD's thoughts holding his creation together?
💫🌀💙🌀💫
Mathematics must limit INDEPENDENT VARIABLES to only those on which any lay person can act to prevent EVIL (defined exhaustively as DISASTERS, PREDATION, DISEASES ~ which include all birth defects, all weapons manufacture, all violence ~ and DEATH).
In fact the concept INDEPENDENT VARIABLES is a misnomer.
So long as 100% of all life in the entire known universe exist only on this earth no life is "independent" of it. Even to leave this earth one can only do so using materials taken from the earth itself.
Whereever the word INDEPENDENCE is used what is meant is: not having to depend on OTHER PEOPLE ~ a negative concept, indicating only what SHOULD NOT be. Its positive counterpart is EARTHDEPENDENCE indicating exactly what we SHOULD DO to achieve it.
That way blaming others for subjugation or fighting others for occupation of territory becomes superfluous.
All wars, all violence involve superior KNOWLEDGE of how to use material found on and/in the earth. The victims are always those who failed to analyze what is available on (and in) the earth sufficiently.
Therefore, mathematics MUST change this term to EARTHDEPENDENT VARIABLES and restrict any earthdependent variable used in any equation to "only entities (specifically PLANTS and its parts) traceable by any lay person on this earth to satisfy own needs (and of other beings, provided it can be linked to satisfaction of any specific current and/or future need of the person involved)".
The sole purpose cum criterion of proof of ALL KNOWLEDGE is:
PRACTICAL PREVENTION OF EVIL (as exhaustively defined above).
As evil is finite, so too is knowledge and its search.
Once we achieve it LIFE would only mean eternal application of it to terraform and populate all celestial bodies with newly desighned PLANTS AND ANIMALS that steer all functions in the universe we design ourselves.
Consciousness is not the mind nor the body, and it radiates like an electric charge. How does radiation relate to fields.
Gravity propagates at the speed of light.
If light can't escape the gravity of a black hole wouldn't that somehow make you're comment invalid?
Unless the use of the term FIELD finally shows how stems, leaves, flowers and fruits appear in real wheat, paddy, cotton and apple fields, the entire system is a blatant misuse of the word, and a sheer waste of time, efforts and funds.
Talking about a Theory of Everything without any relevance to the only entity in the entire known universe that delivers and sustains 100% of all life in it, THE PLANTS, is an invitation for a wedding without the bride.
There seems to be zero evidence for your position Rup.
The fact of the matter is that there is no reason to buy into Newton's orbital nonsense. Pages 512 and 513 from Newton's Principia contradicts the projectile physics he claims to embrace. You have to believe that down is not towards Earth's center but is towards the bottom of the printed page to buy into this idea. You have to believe an object can endlessly fall around Earth's curvature from an altitude it never reached to think that Newton's Jovial idea has any basis in demonstrable reality. Look into demonstrable projectile physics and compare that to the aforementioned pages from Newton's 'Great' Work. Pay close attention to that illustration on page 513. Do you notice it lacks something? Can you measure what is missing? Does scale matter?
If degree of freedom large (dof>1) then gravity looses.
If temperature is low (lte=1)then gravity wins.
likewise experiment in video demonstrates that
If degree of freedom large (dof>1) then attraction wins.
But If temperature is low (lte=1)then repulsion wins.
I think dof-lte & space-time lines works separately,
but intersects in zero-point (dof=0<e=0&space=0&time=0).
AMAZING!!! 💪 THANK YOU, BOTH OF YOU!!! 💪
Beautiful
I’ve been thinking about this a lot recently… “what even IS a field?”