Dobyns Remarks, GCP Critique Thread

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

GCP Home