Library of Atlantis (Research Channel)

Stuart Hameroff "The brain is a quantum orchestra with 12 orders of frequency in microtubules inside neurons acting collectively." So the bio-field acts through the myelin sheath at the macro scale and through microtubules at the sub-cellular scale. Meyl mentions a German professor who says that microtubules are constructed when needed and then dismantled when not needed. Geesink and Meijer found that an input of any of the 12 frequencies was beneficial to health. Conjecture: The bio-field consists of standing scalar waves of the specified frequencies which act as carrier waves for information in the form of magnetic vortices. Input of the 12 frequencies is not information of itself but instea strengthens the carrier wave infra-structure. Hameroff says consciousness is quantum collapse. Meyl says "Information is the structure of a scalar wave" https://x.com/StuartHameroff/status/1811641001594737145

What is heat? (Meyl) Atoms are complicated vortex structures within electromagnetic fields and the 'vortex radius' is what is taken to be the size of the atom. The vortex structure theoretically extends to infinity and so the 'space' between atoms is not empty but consists of an extended field structure which serves to keep atoms at a distance from each other and is the basis of 'pressure'. A photon of light or infra-red is a sort of linear vortex that can roll up into a spherical vortex at any time or become absorbed into an existing atomic vortex. In this way, gases, liquids and solids can absorb arbitrary amounts of energy, there is no 'quantum' of energy needed. As vortices increase their energy they can expand meaning the liquid or solid may also expand owing to increased repulsive forces. This stored energy is latent heat. Heat transfer is by vortex gains and losses as field energy moves from one vortex to the next. Vortices can 'oscillate', they can expand and contract rhythmically. Whole domains of the substance can vibrate in synchrony and form large areas of coherent oscillations. In gases and liquids this can give rise to Brownian motion. This is not the same as the kinetic theory if gases where long distance movement of molecules is assumed. Vortex may account for Brownian motors if they exist but not suitable as an explanation for ion channel function or the DNA replication cartoons. Measured temperature is 'rate' of heat loss and is via vortex losses. Stirring water reputedly makes it cooler which means that although there is greater energy stored, it is losing energy more slowly as the vortices somehow retain the energy on a semi-permanent basis. Again, energy is stored as a field structure and not as the kinetic energy described by mainstream physics. Shining light into a liquid may have a similar effect if a single wavelength causes coherent oscillations on a macro scale and retains the extra energy instead of dissipating it. High energy vortices can lose energy in the form of quanta which can unroll into photons and be measured as infra-red radiation. The point here is that matter, energy, light, vortices are all the same substance; there is no need to wonder how kinetic energy can be converted to a photon for example. Meyl uses the term 'heat' to describe the amplitude of vortex oscillation and the term 'temperature' to refer to the frequency of oscillation. The two are quite different. A spinning vortex can absorb a photon of a particular frequency but emit one of a different frequency (and energy), thereby acting as a transducer. This is used in biological systems according to quantum physicists.

Interesting chat with some sort of scientist: https://t.me/DrTomCowan/131347/138983

The kinetic theory of gases Mainstream science posits that the molecules in a gas are whizzing around all over the place and bouncing off each other and that this is responsible for the phenomena of Heat and Pressure. The vibration of specks of dust in sunlight (Brownian motion) is said to be caused by this. Molecules are conceived as having finite size, hard boundaries and bounciness. They move around in an otherwise empty vacuum and can somehow transmute energy from infra-red radiation to kinetic energy and back again. None of this is true as usual but physicists prefer to not think about it too much. Heat (temperature) and pressure are described as almost synonymous with speed of motion of molecules and equations from Einstein give some credence to this. Ok, but how do molecules fly around in a liquid such as water and what about solids? Steel or quartz for example will certainly get hot but the molecules are not flying around but maintain a regular lattice structure. How is temperature then independent of pressure? If I hold a cup of hot coffee, the molecules bounce around the liquid, make the cup molecules vibrate and then somehow convert the vibrations to infra red radiation so that the heat can be felt at a distance. The heat makes the molecules in my hand whizz around but not so much that it disrupts cellular activity. I think this is nonsense and Konstantin Meyl and Gerald Pollack at least are in agreement with this. This is important as descriptions of DNA construction rely upon the random movement of molecules to drive the replication process and if none of this is true then they need to rethink. Similar concerns apply to the functioning of ion channels; diagrams and animations show molecules randomly hurling themselves at the channels and being selected on a statistical basis to achieve the required balance. The equations seem to work but that does not mean that the mechanism is correct.

"There is only the Field" - Konstantin Meyl The equations of Konstantin Meyl are the best description of existing physical reality that we have. They do not and cannot extend outside of their remit and so do not describe spirituality, God, the Origins, Creation, multiple universes, 'conscious 'experience' or any possible holographic projection. All of these may or may not be true totally independently of the equations themselves. You can have them or reject them, it is up to you. Meyl himself believes in God as a primal cause. When Meyl says "There is only the Field" he means that there is no need to think of the Field embedded within a larger framework such as space or the aether. Moreover, there is no need to think of 'time' as being a fundamental property ticking away somewhere at the foundations of the universe. Both time and distance are emergent properties of the Field itself. Clocks will run faster or slower and yard-sticks will shrink or expand depending upon ambient field strength. The universe is not expanding as such since there is nothing to expand into and no absolute reference of size. In a sense, our galaxy is shrinking which makes it seem that the rest of the universe is expanding relative to us. There are such things as 'local frames of reference' but these are not the same as those in relativity. There is no quantum indeterminism, entanglement or action at a distance and no randomness as such. The boundaries between physical reality and 'something else' are therefore very well defined. This should put a stop to much philosophical musings but no doubt give rise to more but of a different sort.

Good Twitter thread with more evidence that ancient masonry pyramids etc, was cast cement rather than carved stone https://x.com/FoMaHun/status/1808851359925465174

Causal relationships Another attempt to define 'causality' fails: To establish a causal relationship between two variables, you must establish that four conditions exist: 1) time order: the cause must exist before the effect; 2) co-variation: a change in the cause produces a change in the effect; 3) rationale: there must be a reasonable explanation of why they are related; 4) non-spuriousness: no other (rival) cause for the effect can be found. Source: https://home.csulb.edu/~msaintg/ppa696/696vars.htm "co-variation: a change in the cause produces a change in the effect;" How much time do we have to wait for an effect to take place and how do we know that the effect did not arise from some other event? In the case where a system has some sort of 'memory' the effect could arise from previous 'causes'. Some systems are changing all the time so that any change in effect could be the result of no cause at all. Measurement inaccuracy. All measurements are inaccurate to some degree so that strictly speaking, a change is always measured in both cause and effect. What magnitude of change is regarded as a bona fide 'cause'? Chaotic (non-linear) systems. It is perfectly possible for an infinitesimally small (unmeasurable) change in input to result in an arbitrarily large change in output. In this case, changes in input are certainly 'causal' but may not be be detected as such because the input change cannot be measured. Teleology. Goal directed behaviour in biological systems means that several different initial states can all result in the same end state and so there is no such thing as causality as normally thought of. Biological processes are distributed by nature and so there can not be said to be a single 'cause' that leads to an effect but instead connected dynamic processes will result in cell-division or whatever. Randomness. Consider using the output of one random number generator as the input to another. The input and output of the second generator are always changing but there is no causality here as the output is .. random! "rationale: there must be a reasonable explanation of why they are related;" Here we need a good definition of 'reasonable' or else the statement is meaningless. In general, what is considered 'reasonable' is dependent upon the model and upon the subjective feelings of the experimenter. Not good enough. "non-spuriousness: no other (rival) cause for the effect can be found." Awful! This is precisely why science is in such a mess. This statement assumes the 'completeness' of science. People get sick and no other explanation can be found - so it must be caused by a virus! What does it mean to say that "no other cause can be found"? How hard do you have to look and for how long? What constitutes a 'cause'? To determine of something is a 'cause' then, it must be shown that no other events are .. a 'cause'! This is a circularity of definition as with Koch's postulates and renders useless the whole procedure.

Structured water Physicist Martin Chaplin gives a clear description of the nature and behaviour of water within biological systems. The difference in density between intra- and extra-cellular water is explained along with the problem of the maintenance of ion gradients across cellular boundaries. Alternative explanations are now deprecated: Gerald Pollack 4th phase water was never a good description. The structure he describes in not physically stable and cannot have the required biological properties. Tom Cowan - stirred water. No. The water structures itself according to the local cellular environment. Stefan Lanka - Pi water. Too vague a description is given and Stefan rejects the notion that water is made of molecules. Without a solid theoretical foundation, no quantitative predictions can be made. Stefan does however claim that the return blood flow is fuelled in part by a phase change in the water which increases its volume. Something like this sounds very feasible given Chaplin's description. https://library-of-atlantis.com/2024/06/30/intracellular-water/

Biological computations: limitations of attractor-based formalisms and the need for transients - Daniel Koch et al https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/7/3/938 "We’re going to expound our views and pertinent data in the literature in the following order: To bring attention to periodicity as a common feature of numerous biological processes and to discuss the nature of corresponding regulatory influences; To show theoretical possibility of bio-regulatory effects of magnetic fields; To outline some signaling pathways capable of implementing bio-regulatory (including genome-regulatory) functions of electromagnetic fields; To summarize our knowledge about Geomagnetic field, its principle parameters and sources of variation; To review possible evidences of regulatory influence of Solar cycles and corresponding Geomagnetic field perturbations on flu epidemic process; To describe probable mechanisms of Solar cycles and Geomagnetic field regulatory influences on virus-host interactions and other biological processes.

The epidemiology of lightning Three children get struck by lightning at the same time on a beach. Shaken but not stirred. No contagion took place. The discharge affected the small group as it took a 'least energy' pathway to the ground. The epidemiology is the same as influenza. Weather related. A small isolated group was affected (cf cruise liner) The group was selected because they were isolated If there had been more people on the beach there is a chance that they would have been spared as some other group would have got the bolt Flu is similar in that your probability of getting ill is slightly higher for rural areas and lower for a high density population. There is only so much 'miasma' to go around. People are affected in clusters which makes it look like contagion but even 'viruses from space' is more in tune with the data. https://youtu.be/o7HMVIOmnVA?t=42