|
Without attempting to address the broader issue of the GCP
just now, I
will comment that the "field REG" concept does not in any
way require a
specific distance dependence law. Recall that a field (in
physics) is
simply defined as any quantity that takes on values at every
point in
space (or at every point-instant in space-time if we're
being properly
relativistic). I would contend that the hypothesis most
consistent with
the results of small-scale field REG experiments is that
(1) Conscious participants act as sources of a spatial field
effect which
(2) extends with uniform strength throughout the volume that
said
participants are presently perceiving via conventional
sensory means
and drops to negligible strength at a currently unknown
distance outside
that zone.
Since vision has potentially infinite range part (2) raises
problematic
issues with line-of-sight in open-air venues, but since
neither
field-REG kits nor GCP sources have yet been deployed on
airplanes or
satellites there are no relevant data addressing that
element of the
hypothesis. Other hypotheses are equally consistent with the
limited
data on physical positioning, but my point is that we can
think
intelligently about space-filling field effects without
positing any
specific mathematical distance-decay law.
--
York Dobyns
|