The Field - Important Findings Valuable to All!

In a rush of fevered inspiration while at an ashram in India, Sheldrake worked out his hypothesis of formative causation, which states that the forms of self-organizing living things — everything from molecules and organisms to societies and even entire galaxies — are shaped by morphic fields. These fields have a morphic resonance — a cumulative memory — of similar systems through cultures and time, so that species of animals and plants `remember' not only how to look but also how to act. Rupert Sheldrake uses the term `morphic fields' and an entire vocabulary of his own making to describe the self-organizing properties of biological systems, from molecules to bodies to societies. 'Morphic resonance', is, in his view, 'the influence of like upon like through space and time'. He believes these fields (and he thinks there are many of them) are different from electromagnetic fields because they reverberate across generations with an inherent memory of the correct shape and form.- The more we learn, the easier it is for others to follow in our footsteps.
Click to expand...
John G. Bennett postulated something similar in his magnum opus: The Dramatic Universe. He postulated three dimensions of time: the time we are aware of, eternity, and hyparxis. It is in the eternal field that potential energy/pattern lies.

Kris
 
3D time appears in Ouspensky. Bennett took it from Ouspensky. Sooner than Ouspensky 3D time appears in Greek's three gods of time: Chronos, Kairos and Ion. They roughly correspond to the three kinds of time in Ouspensky.
 
Dant wrote:

So, what we see from the LED/Strobe source and ELP/ELF source are two separate sources that act in unison.
So acting together - we will probably see a "construct" of something, like a hologram hiding the real object
for what it really is? It's is almost as if they are jamming us with "pictures" in our minds... and as for
auditory signals - hmm... I wonder how that works. I am "deaf" so would I hear a thing or would that
be bypassed?

I wonder, also, if this message is a 'marker' to let us know where in "time" we are? Just how "close" are
we? Is there a "marker" to follow, if so, what is next? UFO sightings and Holmes comet?
Click to expand...
Something that's been bothering me for some time is seeing airplanes at low altitude that appear to be hovering. It always happens when I'm driving. Once it happened when my husband was driving with me in the car. We were on a motorway and were able to watch it for a couple of minutes. We were both dumbfounded, but then began trying to come up with some kind of logical explanation as to why it 'appeared' to be hovering. Our conversation then deteriorated into silence, and neither one of us has brought it up since then. I saw something very similar just a few days ago. It's really mind boggling.
 
Yes, IM:

What if the comet is not a comet but an interstellar "space ship". Since the
Cs have said that the comet contains a Nickel core, and that cobalt is
available in the vacuum of space - when you add neutrons from the sun,
I see this as a weapon against the Earth? This is just a thought...

[Edit]
I was rushed for breakfast and committed the above in a rash. First,
sorry about the IM - should have been MI. Second, I wanted to add
that I had seen what you had seen many times- I tried very hard
to force my mind to see the object for what it really is, but failed.

But I also wanted to add that the strobe effects may not be limited
to what we see on Earth but possibly what is in space as well, and
how often is it that we can avoid the strobes in the skies at any point
in time on the BBM when observing space objects?

So I was trying to extend this concept - and apply this to Comet Holmes
and/or UFOs. We may be duped to see what "they" want us to see no matter
how hard we try to avoid these "strobes" - being visual, auditory, and even
EM radiations such as ELP, microwaves, and so on?

Maybe this thread (Index -> Earth Changes -> Speculations about the
Comet 17P/Holmes)
http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=7582&p=1
are interconnected/related?
 
Last night I searched out this comet even in the brightness of this town, and did see it. Very strange with the 'halo' around it. To me, it seemed 'alive' as strange as that might seem.


dant said:
Yes, IM:

What if the comet is not a comet but an interstellar "space ship". Since the
Cs have said that the comet contains a Nickel core, and that cobalt is
available in the vacuum of space - when you add neutrons from the sun,
I see this as a weapon against the Earth? This is just a thought...
Click to expand...
 
nawd said:
Last night I searched out this comet even in the brightness of this town, and did
see it. Very strange with the 'halo' around it. To me, it seemed 'alive' as strange
as that might seem.
Click to expand...
For some strange reason, this also reminds me of the UFO "huggers" on top
of the tower in Washington DC, looking with 'oooh, ahhhs' at the 'blue halo'
being formed in the underbelly of the attacking ship as seen in the movie:
"Independence Day, July 4th" with Will Smith? Creepy.

Seems I might be getting a bit off-topic from original thread here?
If so, I do apologize folks...
 
I am in middle of reading Ben Bova's The Story of Light and I just came across one section that reminded me of what Data have said about LED and flicker earlier in this thread. It's interesting section, in my opinion.

This is just another data to put out here:

ARTIFICIAL LIGHTING

Artificial lighting does not come even close to the broad spectrum of sunlight. Nor its brightness.

Old-fashioned incandescent lamps, the kind that create light by heating a filament until it glows, give the broadest spectral range. Incandescent lamps typically glow in wavelengths from roughly 250 to beyond nine hundred nanometers, but most of their brightness falls in the yellow-red end of the spectrum, from 650 nanometers up.

Fluorescent lamps emit light in much narrower wavelengths, since they glow from the light given off by specific atomic elements, usually either mercury or sodium. Some of the fluorescents used in homes and offices are mercury lamps, which give off a bluish light that can make skin look ghastly and all colors seem eerily strange.

When I was a magazine editor, my Manhattan office was illuminated with mercury-vapor fluorescents. Artists who worked as illustrators for the magazine constantly complained that the office lighting distorted the colors of their paintings. Sure enough, if we went into an area lit by old-fashioned incandescents or, better yet, went out into the sunlight, the colors looked much better.

Today, broad-spectrum fluorescent lamps produce a light that is much closer to natural sunlight, making artists (and editors) much happier.

(...)

Fluorescent lights flicker. Electrical current stimulates the gas atoms inside them glow; the current switches back and forth sixty times per second. This is too fast to bother most people. But when your field of vision places a fluorescent lamp "in the corner of the eye," where the very sensitive rods are looking at it, you probably notice the flicker. Stare straight at the lamp, so that the cone-rich foveae are pointed at it, and the flicker disappears. Look slightly away again, and that annoying flicker can again be seen.

The glass envelopes around each kind of lamp cut off virtually all the ultraviolet, but you can feel the infrared pouring out of an incandescent lamp. After all, the gadget only emits light because the filament inside it is heated by electricity until it glows. Fluorescents are much cooler; the electrical current flowing in a fluorescent lamp is exciting individual atoms of mercury or sodium vapor to emit light without heat.

Compared with the sixty thousand to 114,000 lux brightness of sunlight, artificial lighting is quite dim. Fifty lux is considered bright enough for areas in business offices in which computer display terminals are being used. To read penciled handwriting, lighting engineers say two thousand lux is sufficient. Most business offices are lit at a brightness of somewhere between two hundred to one thousand lux - the brightness typical of twilight outdoors!

This may explain a phenomenon discovered by researchers at the City College of the City University of New York. In 1987, a research team led by Josh Wallman came to the conclusion that reading can lead to myopia - nearsightness. Studies done on Eskimos who recently were subjected to compulsory education, and experiments performed with chicks, led Wallman's team to conclude that the task of reading stimulates the foveal region of the retina but not the broader area surrounding the fovea, and thus results in myopia.

Considering the light levels under which we do most of our reading, however, an alternative explanation might be that people become myopic because they are attempting to read in conditions that are too dim.

LIGHT FROM "THE TUBE"

More and more people are watching television and computer screens every day. The cathode-ray tubes that form these screens emit not only visible light, but also a good deal of ultraviolet and even "soft" (i.e., relatively low energy) X-rays. Distance lends some safety. The X-rays and most of the UV are absorbed by a couple of feet of air. Any kind of eyeglasses, even those with nothing but windowpane glass in them, will also block out most of the UV. Although low-emission screens are now generally available, opticians still recommend lightly tinted eyeglasses for persons who work all day at computer terminals.

Indoor lighting is very different from the natural sunlight that was humankind's only illumination, except for fire, until little more than a century ago. Yet even though we may spend most of our time indoors under artificial lighting, the natural rhythms of day and night, season following season, have profound effects upon all life on Earth - including humans. These effects come about through a sort of "third eye" in the human visual system, an optical tract that "sees" without vision.
Click to expand...
There are couple of interesting points made in above quote as relating to the discussion. One, we can "see" the flickers in the corner of our eyes. I'm not sure if we are all up to driving with our heads sideway, just to detect the flickering of LED in other cars. Secondly, we wear sunglasses during the day to block out UV, but we don't wear glasses at night, which explains why PTB used the LED strongly at night and reach to every drivers.

Just thought I'd throw this here.

for what is it worth.
 
HAHA! I know exactly to which you are speaking! It reminds me much of the same. People just admiring not fearing or even contemplating anything but 'all is well!' (Which is the way the general news and coverage of the entire event has been!)

Sorry too, for the possible off course comments to this thread....



dant said:
nawd said:
Last night I searched out this comet even in the brightness of this town, and did
see it. Very strange with the 'halo' around it. To me, it seemed 'alive' as strange
as that might seem.
Click to expand...
For some strange reason, this also reminds me of the UFO "huggers" on top
of the tower in Washington DC, looking with 'oooh, ahhhs' at the 'blue halo'
being formed in the underbelly of the attacking ship as seen in the movie:
"Independence Day, July 4th" with Will Smith? Creepy.

Seems I might be getting a bit off-topic from original thread here?
If so, I do apologize folks...
Click to expand...
 
Speaking of fluorescent lamps regarding the human body: Tanning beds come to my mind:

The Field said:
[...]
He also discovered something else curious. When light was shone on living cells, the cells would take this light and after a certain delay, shine intensely — a process called `delayed luminescence'. It occurred to Popp that this could be a corrective device. The living system had to maintain a delicate equilibrium of light. In this instance, when it was being bombarded with too much light, it would reject the excess.
[...]
Click to expand...
Wikipedia "Tanning Bed" said:
For example, one study found that the amount of UVA radiation, which penetrates deeper into the skin, was anywhere from about 3-8 times greater in the tanning beds than in the light from the sun. (Woollons, A., Clingen, P.H., Price, M.L., Arlett, C.F., Green, M.H.L. (1997). Induction of mutagenic DNA damage in human fibroblasts after exposure to artificial tanning lamps. British Journal of Dermatology 1997; 137: 687-692)
Click to expand...
3-8 times the intensity of the sun... Seems to me like a major stress induction.

Aside from that, it would be interesting to know if there is a difference between light from sunbeds and light from the sun - except light intensity or spectrum. In other words: Is there a different effect in DNA/cells/body induced by natural light (from the sun) as opposed to artificial light? Can it be that the sun casts out some sort of 'information' - maybe like supernovas?
 
ark said:
3D time appears in Ouspensky. Bennett took it from Ouspensky. Sooner than Ouspensky 3D time appears in Greek's three gods of time: Chronos, Kairos and Ion. They roughly correspond to the three kinds of time in Ouspensky.
Click to expand...
This is correct. Thank you for pointing it out. I misused the word "postulated". I haven't read "A New Model of the Universe" in a while, and just finished "The Dramatic Universe". Bennett develops this idea according to his systematics, and a formal mathematical language "skew-pencils" is used to describe space, time, eternity, and hyparxis (In volume I - foundations of natural philosophy).

Ark, being a mathemetician, does his treatment of these ideas add up, so to speak?

Kris
 
Data said:
Aside from that, it would be interesting to know if there is a difference between light from sunbeds and light from the sun - except light intensity or spectrum. In other words: Is there a different effect in DNA/cells/body induced by natural light (from the sun) as opposed to artificial light? Can it be that the sun casts out some sort of 'information' - maybe like supernovas?
Click to expand...
Well, the only thing that I know so far is that the artificial lighting do not affect the body's circadian rhythms. However, only the sunlight plays an important role in our body's internal clocks.

I'm still reading through any books that I can get my hand on to read up on anything as relating to "light." So, I'm posting another relevant quote from the same book that I mentioned in my previous post:

CIRCADIAN RHYTHMS

The pineal gland recognizes not only seasonal variations in light and darkness. Daily variations are important also and produce rhythms in the body's chemistry that are called circadian (about a day). Circadian rhythms affect our growth, body temperature, the way we sleep, eat, work, and live our daily lives.

The daily pace of life is so much a part of us that we take it for granted, except to complain when things get too hectic - or when we are forced to change our circadian rhythm, as when we move from day work to night shift or stay up all night partying or on an uncomfortable overnight flight. Jet leg is a common form of circadian disruption that hits travelers when they fly across many time zones: your wristwatch tells you it's time for lunch, but the clock inside your body is hollering that it's the middle of the night!

There is a clock inside your brain. Maybe two of them. Maybe even more. Neurobiologists call them endogenous pacemakers. Deep inside the brain the pacemakers are counting time, possibly regulated by the pineal's ability to sense the coming and going of light and darkness in the world outside.

Ahah! you say. Maybe the internal clock would work nicely for primitive people (or campers) who live outdoors with the natural rhythm of daylight and darkness. But we civilized types live indoors with electrical lighting. How can the endogenous pacemaker regulate our circadian rhythms when we are exposed to light at virtually all hours, when we can control the hours of light and banish darkness at the touch of a switch?

If you ask that question I must first congratulate you on your command of the neurobiologist's specialized language. But then I must remind you that most artificial lighting is so low in intensity that it fails miserably to impress the pineal and its associated pacemaker. As far as our internal clocks are concerned, artificial lighting is out of sight and out of mind; sunlight, or its absence, is what counts.

We have been trained by eons of exposure to a roughly twenty-four-hour cycle. Infants are apparently entrained to the twenty-four-hour cycle of their mothers while still in the womb. However, when humans are placed in environments where sunlight does not penetrate, such as deep caves or tightly closed experimental facilities, their circadian rhythms tend to drift somewhat. Experimental studies with such subjects have shown that their body rhythms do not go totally wild but rather quickly settle down to same value relatively close to twenty-four hours and typically fall within the range of twenty-two to twenty-eight hours per cycle.

Deprived of its external cues of daylight and darkness, the endogenous pacemaker may drift away from a twenty-four-hour cycle, but it does not drift very far.

This may explain a phenomenon we have all experienced: the Monday morning blahs. If the endogenous pacemaker's "natural" rhythm is not exactly twenty-four hours, it must be reset every day by the light-sensitive pineal, so that we fall into a twenty-four-hour routine each day. On weekends, many times we tend to sleep later than usual. We keep our bedrooms darkened so that we can get that extra hour or so of shut-eye. Fine. But on Monday morning we must readjust to the workday world and its early rising schedule. Hence, blue Monday. Much the same feeling results if you spend the weekend partying or otherwise staying up later than normal, thereby depriving yourself of your usual amount of sleep. Monday can be painful, either way.

When humans begin to live on other planets, it may evolve that their circadian rhythms will alter to suit the local "day." This will not be a problem for some time to come, though. Not because people will not be living on the Moon or Mars within another generation, but because living quarters on the airless Moon will undoubtedly be underground, where the artificial lighting will be keyed to a twenty-four-hour cycle, while Mars has a roughly twenty-four-hour day, much as our own. Other space habitats, on more distant and exotic worlds, are another question.

The proof that our internal clock with its circadian rhythm is governed by light comes from the fact that when the nerve tract from the retina to the pineal is severed, cutting off the signals from the eyes to the pacemaker, circadian rhythms go haywire - even though the optic tract is left intact and the visual system still functions normally. In experiments with animals where the pacemaker has been put out of action, the internal clock no longer runs on a day-night cycle. The animal can still see; its visual system is intact. Its body rhythms will run on a cycle that is close to twenty-four hours, but its activities will be independent of the day-night cycle. A nocturnal rat, for example, will be active in either daylight or night; the amount of light present no longer makes any difference to it.

Our internal pacemaker depends on "seeing" the daily cycle of daylight and darkness; the differences in length of daylight as opposed to darkness trigger the seasonal changes in our body chemistry.
Click to expand...
I think the sun or supernova do sent out some sort of information to our body/DNA, but the artificial lighting do not seems to do the same.

fwiw
 
one thing i have noticed on myself, is my strong aversion to blue fluorescent lamps - when i walk in the city after dark and come by a shop window that uses them, i try to look as far away as possible - when i look directly at the blue light, it feels like it's burning right into my brain and can cause mild headaches.
(all other blue light sources are ok)

during the winter i usually wear (non-optical) yellow tinted glasses when i'm outside to raise the color temperature and escape the depressing gray of winter.
i've been wanting to buy glasses in various tints for different light conditions/moods but haven't been able to find a shop that has a nice & cheap selection.
 
Nice Experiment Data! I for one definitely have trouble with 'bright lights' at night time. I've found polarized lenses help. I wear native's, they were $140 at EMS (Easten Mountain Sports), but were well worth it. They have interchangable lenses that you can throw on for night time driving. Recently I started wearing them whenever I drive and it definitely helps with the glare from head/brake lights. I've always had sensitive eyes, so I've always looked away/shielded my eyes from head/brake lamps.

The polarized lenses have vertical lines that are indinguishable to the eyes, but effective at blocking horizontally polarized light. In short they reduce glare from reflective surfaces.

Speaking of odd lighting, the street lamps in my town are all HPS (high pressure sodium) bulbs. They tend to throw off an orangish light, making everything look like a picture colored with sepia, makes reality feel very dream-esque.
 
From pg 33 of "The Field" taken from research done by Hal Puthoff and Bernie Haisch:

"The Einstein equation was simply a recipe for the amount of energy necessary to create the appearance of mass. It means that there aren't two fundamental physical entities - something material and another immaterial - but only one: energy. Everything in your world, anything you hold in your hand, no matter how dense, how heavy, how large, on its most fundamental level boils down to a collection of electric charges interacting with a background sea of electromagnetic and other energetic fields - a kind of electromagnetic drag force. As they would write later, mass was not equivalent to energy: mass was energy. Or, even more fundamentally, there is no mass. There is only charge."

I'd like to hear direct comments on the above and how you do or don't relate this to your own perception of reality.
 
zadius wrote:
I think the sun or supernova do sent out some sort of information t our body/DNA,but the artificial lighting do not seem to do the same
I remember an article in Nexus magazine about the benefits of full spectrum sun light or even full spectrum artificial - light and also found this article -http://www.naturopathyworks.com/news/newsltr0605.php on what light can do to your body/DNA
RRR
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom