Morphic fields

Author: janesix ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 19
  • janesix
    janesix avatar
    Debates: 8
    Forum posts: 1,529
    2
    3
    3
    janesix avatar
    janesix
    magnetic fields are proof that morphic fields exist. Prove me wrong.
  • Ramshutu
    Ramshutu avatar
    Debates: 42
    Forum posts: 1,725
    6
    8
    10
    Ramshutu avatar
    Ramshutu
    --> @janesix
    What is a morphic field
  • janesix
    janesix avatar
    Debates: 8
    Forum posts: 1,529
    2
    3
    3
    janesix avatar
    janesix
    --> @Ramshutu
    It is a field that organizes structure and activity
  • Ramshutu
    Ramshutu avatar
    Debates: 42
    Forum posts: 1,725
    6
    8
    10
    Ramshutu avatar
    Ramshutu
    --> @janesix
    What do you mean by “organizes structure and activity”

    A magnetic field mostly just imparts force based on a specific measurable criteria.

  • janesix
    janesix avatar
    Debates: 8
    Forum posts: 1,529
    2
    3
    3
    janesix avatar
    janesix
    --> @Ramshutu
    that's what i said.
  • Ramshutu
    Ramshutu avatar
    Debates: 42
    Forum posts: 1,725
    6
    8
    10
    Ramshutu avatar
    Ramshutu
    --> @janesix
    So Morphic field is a meaningless term that basically means “magnetic field”.
  • Ramshutu
    Ramshutu avatar
    Debates: 42
    Forum posts: 1,725
    6
    8
    10
    Ramshutu avatar
    Ramshutu
    --> @janesix
    IE: this thread is basically claiming Magnetic fields exist is evidence that magnetic fields exist.

    Hardly groundbreaking science.
  • janesix
    janesix avatar
    Debates: 8
    Forum posts: 1,529
    2
    3
    3
    janesix avatar
    janesix
    --> @Ramshutu
    These fields control everything. A magnetic field is only an example, to illustrate the concept.
  • Ramshutu
    Ramshutu avatar
    Debates: 42
    Forum posts: 1,725
    6
    8
    10
    Ramshutu avatar
    Ramshutu
    --> @janesix
    So, morphic fields do more than magnetic fields? If that’s the case then magnetic fields are not evidence of morphic fields.
  • janesix
    janesix avatar
    Debates: 8
    Forum posts: 1,529
    2
    3
    3
    janesix avatar
    janesix
    --> @Ramshutu
    Magnetic fields control form and activity. It is the same thing.
  • Ramshutu
    Ramshutu avatar
    Debates: 42
    Forum posts: 1,725
    6
    8
    10
    Ramshutu avatar
    Ramshutu
    --> @janesix
    Magnetic fields impart force based on a variety of electro-magnetic and charge properties of an object.

    It does not “control form and activity”, nor does it “control everything”.



  • janesix
    janesix avatar
    Debates: 8
    Forum posts: 1,529
    2
    3
    3
    janesix avatar
    janesix
    --> @Ramshutu
    What do you think "impating force" does? 
  • Ramshutu
    Ramshutu avatar
    Debates: 42
    Forum posts: 1,725
    6
    8
    10
    Ramshutu avatar
    Ramshutu
    --> @janesix
    Impart force.

    What you’re doing is just plane old pseudoscientific equivocation.

    You have a very bland and generic sounding thing, that you deliberately seem to not want to describe, explain, or go into any details around: you use generic terminology like “control”, to ambiguously define what it does or how it works in a way that doesn’t important any information: then attempt to argue the ambiguous properties apply to something else ambiguously - and claim that one proves the other.

    Given that you’re not going into any detail, defining properties, behaviour, defining limitations, etc concerning your “morphic field”, you can’t claim magnetic fields are evidence of it - as can’t even really define what they are


  • janesix
    janesix avatar
    Debates: 8
    Forum posts: 1,529
    2
    3
    3
    janesix avatar
    janesix
    --> @Ramshutu
    You are pretending that we are talking about different things. I'm obviously saying that a magnetic field IS a morphic field. 
  • Ramshutu
    Ramshutu avatar
    Debates: 42
    Forum posts: 1,725
    6
    8
    10
    Ramshutu avatar
    Ramshutu
    --> @janesix
    If a morphic field is a magnetic field then the term is meaningless.

    if a morphic field is more than a magnetic field, then the existence of a magnetic field doesn’t prove morphic fields exist.

    Its just pseudoscientific equivocation. You’re trying to argue your magic field is identical to a magnetic field for the purposes of proof, then you want to propose that morphic fields do all sorts of interesting woo on top of it.



  • janesix
    janesix avatar
    Debates: 8
    Forum posts: 1,529
    2
    3
    3
    janesix avatar
    janesix
    --> @Ramshutu
    What did I propose they do?
  • Ramshutu
    Ramshutu avatar
    Debates: 42
    Forum posts: 1,725
    6
    8
    10
    Ramshutu avatar
    Ramshutu
    --> @janesix
    I don’t know what you’re proposing.

    However, as you appeared to reject the notion that “morphic field” is exactly the same thing as a magnetic field, presumably there is some difference, that for some odd reason you’re refusing to elaborate on.

    As I said, you’re just using equivocation and pseudoscientific woo to try and sound valid. 




     
  • janesix
    janesix avatar
    Debates: 8
    Forum posts: 1,529
    2
    3
    3
    janesix avatar
    janesix
    --> @Ramshutu
    I'm saying morphic fields control everything, and magnetic fields are just an example of a type we can observe in action. I don't know why you aren't getting this. You study the behaviour of a system, you are indirectly studying it's morphic field. Morphic fields are hierarchical. Wheels within wheels. There is a field for each system at all levels, nested within each other. 

    Each proton has one, and it's field is nested withing the fied of a molecule, if it is a part of one. All the way up to systems like galaxies and the human society, and the Earth's entire ecosystem.




  • Ramshutu
    Ramshutu avatar
    Debates: 42
    Forum posts: 1,725
    6
    8
    10
    Ramshutu avatar
    Ramshutu
    --> @janesix
    I get what you’re doing, I’m just pointing out it’s ridiculous pseudoscience, and your relying on equivocation to justify it.

    Let me break it down.

    Magnetic fields exist. We know that, it’s not contentious. We understand how they work, it is measurable, testable, and quantifiable through mathematics and field equations.

    Magnetic fields are evidence of a magnetic force. 

    What your doing, is pseudoscientific equivocation. Let me explain what you’re doing, and where your logic falls flat on its face:

    You have this magic morphic field you don’t seem to want to describe, elaborate and quantify. 

    You randomly assert that a magnetic field is a type of morphic field as you assert it has the same properties. You then assert that because you have arbitrarily asserted that your magnetic field is a morphic field - that your magic fields exist.

    No. That’s bad logic.

    For example - there is a transcendental physical force that binds all matter and can be used to manipulate physical objects - lets call this “The Force”

    A magnetic field is a transcendental physical force that binds all matter and can be used to manipulate physical objects - so this is evidence that The Force exists - as magnetic fields are a form of this Force.

    No. Basic logical reasoning doesn’t work this way.