From: Chris Taylor (email@example.com)
Date: Sat 29 Oct 2005 - 12:04:56 GMT
All 'physics fields' work in the current time frame; yours would
work across time (deep time in some cases). That's a big
difference. Planets / radios / whatever are not affected by
fields generated in the past (beyond travel time, for example,
in the case of em)..?
>>Wednesday, October 26, 2005, 8:06:27 AM, Dace wrote:
>>>From a material standpoint nothing mediates the mutual attraction or
>>>repulsion of objects as a result of either gravity or magnetism. This
>>>why the field is postulated, in order to account for the undeniable
>>>of such long-range effects. No field of physics has ever been detected.
>>>Rather, it is *deduced.* The strength of a field must be calculated on
>>>basis of abstract equations, not read off from a meter that directly
>>I recently used something called a "field strength meter" to measure
>>microwave radiation around my house. (I live within 120m of a mast
>>with several arrays.) Regarding magnetism, I have a very handy device
>>called a compass.
> Compasses existed long before field theory. That a compass reacts to the
> presence of a field must be deduced. Assuming our deduction is correct,
> both the "field strength meter" and the compass are measuring the effects of
> electromagnetic fields. That your meter is actually called a "field
> strength meter" only goes to show the universality of the field theory
> inference. The formulae for computing field strength are evidently built
> into the device.
>>Let me know when you have such things for your fields.
> Like the inference of electromagnetic fields, holistic effects in biology
> can also be deduced from observations. Regarding the production of termite
> mounds, which are essentially free-standing lungs that provide oxygen to
> termites and remove carbon dioxide, E. O. Wilson has this to say:
> "It is all but impossible to conceive how one colony member can oversee more
> than a minute fraction of the work or envision in its entirety the plan of
> such a finished product. Some of these nests require many worker lifetimes
> to complete, and each new addition must somehow be brought into a proper
> relationship with the previous parts. The existence of such nests leads
> inevitably to the conclusion that the workers interact in a very orderly and
> predictable manner. But how can the workers communicate so effectively over
> such long periods of time? Also, who has the blueprint of the nest?"
> (Quoted by Sheldrake, The Presence of the Past, Times Books, 1988, p. 229)
> By all appearanches, the coordinated activity of termites cannot be
> attributed to their ability to communicate. Rather, a field effect seems to
> be at work. To test this hypothesis, the naturalist Eugene Marais inserted
> a steel plate through the middle of a termite mound, preventing any
> communication between the separated termites. Nonetheless, termites were
> able to build arches that met perfectly on opposite sides of the plate as if
> it wasn't even there. Termites act more like particles in a field of
> influence than separate actors. The same could be said of the cells
> comprising our bodies.
> More recently, Miroslav Hill demonstrated field effects among bacteria being
> tested for resistance to a carcinogenic substance. He found that alongside
> the exposed bacteria, related bacteria in physically isolated containers
> also developed resistance. After repeating the experiment numerous times,
> ensuring absolute separation of the bacterial colonies, he got the same
> results. He concluded that the exposed bacteria shared information at a
> distance with the unexposed bacteria. Interestingly, Hill chose to
> interpret the results in terms of quantum entanglement or nonlocality rather
> than the more traditional field theory.
> There'll never be a simple device for measuring such effects in biology, as
> the only way to measure them is via organisms. For instance, Sheldrake used
> a dog to demonstrate the existence of a field of influence embracing both
> the dog and his owner. When a skeptic named Richard Wiseman tried to refute
> Sheldrake's findings with his own experiment, instead he replicated
> Sheldrake's results.
> You noted in a different post that scientists have no difficulty accepting
> invisible phenomenon. This is true of physicists but not biologists. Where
> physicists readily accept the evidence for action at a distance, biologists
> remain wedded to contact mechanics. This just goes to show that while a
> meme dies off in one environment, it may continue flourishing in another.
> This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
> Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
> For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
> see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ firstname.lastname@example.org http://psidev.sf.net/ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ =============================================================== This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing) see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat 29 Oct 2005 - 12:25:32 GMT