Reflections on the scalar-wave debate: The Rossaint Frequency Resonator (RFR) — all nonsense, or what?

Reflections on the dispute over scalar waves.

Or: The Rossaint Frequency Resonator (RFR) — all nonsense, or what?

Anyone who has read my articles on understanding the phenomena associated with the RFR, a device for non-contact resonance testing, or medication testing, in bioenergetic testing methods — for example kinesiology, electroacupuncture, the Nogier reflex and so forth — in EHK 5/02, 7/02 and 9/02, see also www.rossaint.de, may find the following additional reflections helpful, especially since Part 2 in EHK 7/02 has already been classified, from the standpoint of natural science, as “entertaining fables”:

So-called natural science has spoken (!): electromagnetic scalar waves do not exist and cannot possibly exist!

It is all deception, errors of reasoning, transcription errors and so on; mathematically wrong, and not reproducible experimentally either.

Thus the death blow has been sealed, not only for an idea but also for its proponents — or has it? They are already being called “Meylists”.

But what about the father of longitudinal waves, Tesla? He is no longer even mentioned in this connection; and if he is, it is as though the one had nothing to do with the other. People are happy to have found a scapegoat and successfully defended their own worldview.

Yet until Tesla has been refuted, I think one should be more cautious about condemning the idea itself. Here, however, scientists behave just as prejudicially — that is, unscientifically — as they accuse the others of doing.

Has he already been refuted?

Did he miscalculate, or can his experiments also be explained in terms of conventional natural science? I know of no attempts to do so, at least not using faithful reconstructions of his apparatus.

To put it cautiously: the mere fact that Tesla experimentally “conjured up” phenomena that cannot be explained by conventional scientific means and methods should be sufficient reason for scientists, whose task should be to create knowledge, to examine those phenomena without prejudice. To avoid having to do so, however, they try to relegate Tesla's investigations and experiments to the realm of speculation — above all to divert attention from their own prejudice, their failure to be impartial. Otherwise science might find itself in trouble. After all, we already know from quantum physics that even an experimenter's unconscious attitude of rejection induces quanta and photons to direct the outcome of their investigations and experiments accordingly.

One would therefore think it permissible to continue arguing in the spirit of his work in terms of longitudinal waves — not the already familiar sound waves, but those travelling faster than light — would one not?

Or are his waves something quite different from scalar waves?

Quantum physicists also speak of scalar fields.

Does everyone mean the same thing?

Whatever names are used, the issue is the phenomena that have been observed worldwide in this field for some time.

And they document astonishing things: a new worldview? A new physics? That which holds the world together at its innermost core?

At least a transformation in thinking and in the understanding of relationships, triggered by insights from quantum physics or quantum philosophy, enriched by biological experiments with morphogenetic fields and challenged by observations made in everyday medical and naturopathic practice using bioenergetic testing methods.

Everywhere, attempts are being made to establish explanatory models. This is happening in vacuum and scalar-wave physics, as well as in empirical medicine.

If this moves beyond the ground of conventional “exact natural science”, one encounters the concerted protest of established scientists who see their worldview threatened.

One of the foundations of classical physics has been shaken: the speed of light. Who was mistaken?

Have the experiments on faster-than-light speed at the University of Cologne by Nimtz with microwaves, at the Vienna University of Technology by Krausz with laser beams, and at the University of Berkeley by Chiao with photons already been refuted?

Are electromagnetic scalar waves the basis of the faster-than-light speed just mentioned? Or what is?

People speak only of Meyl and the Meylists. Why?

One can already hear the gloating of some representatives of the alternative camp, who always knew there was something fishy about it, although they too were initially completely enthusiastic about the rediscovery and pleased finally to have “scientific” proof.

But what is science, and natural science in particular?

A structure of thought, a community of belief — no more and no less — that creates external, that is, functional knowledge, on which ever more people become or are dependent and which can be, and is, used for manipulation.

Entirely in the spirit of the medieval Church.

But who creates inner, experiential knowledge?

The living human being, who perceives and internalises the phenomena of the world.

Now that “high science” has spoken, the idea of scalar waves and its modern proponents are being dropped like a hot potato on all sides, for fear of being burned or “burnt”.

A modern Inquisition, albeit with the advantage that one is “merely” silenced and no longer has to fear literally for one's life.

And now what?

Question: what does the above-mentioned weight of evidence from the so-called scientific worldview really call into question in the so-called alternative worldview, or in the overall worldview?

Initially, only the global faith in and dependence on science that exists there too, leading everyone in medicine or naturopathy — and not only there — who has a theory or idea to think they must substantiate or prove it scientifically simply in order to gain recognition.

For most people, including the so-called alternatives, will do almost anything to gain scientific recognition, even though they know how one-sided it is. If no scientific proof is provided, however, one is not taken seriously and is quickly counted among the charlatans. If the scientific argument cannot be sustained, this happens all the more readily. People fear this, since it usually means the end of an established and lucrative career. The human being is generally left behind in the process. Never mind, so long as it is statistically substantiated and experimentally proven.

We have already been so one-sidedly “miseducated” scientifically that thinking takes place, or is permitted to take place, only within these categories; otherwise one is exposed and excluded.

Here science, particularly natural science, behaves, so to speak, as the successor to the medieval Church. Whoever holds power decides between death and life, war and peace, right and wrong, rise and fall, and so on.

Where is human freedom of mind left when everything is forced into the straitjacket of natural science in order to be valid?

Where is creativity? Where are visions left?

Where is the boundary between the worlds of mind and matter?

Anyone wishing to learn more about the interface between mind and matter is recommended the books of U. Warnke.

Even quantum physics — or rather quantum philosophy, according to Warnke — has long known that the outcome of an experiment depends decisively on the experimenter's unconscious attitude: the experimenter thus stamps the experiment with their own conception of the world.

Indeed, Prof. Pietschmann of Vienna, author of the well-known work Das Ende des naturwissenschaftlichen Zeitalters, once even said at a lecture I was privileged to attend: “Whatever is predicted theoretically will also be found experimentally, whether it exists or not.”

This means that the scientific worldview is also only a belief, and moreover only one side of the coin, whose claim to exclusive possession of truth is nevertheless an act of hubris.

Power, manipulation and polarisation are thereby encouraged, and the question arises: whom does this serve, and for what purpose? Perhaps you will find an answer in A. Risi's Der multidimensionale Kosmos.

The other side is that of the humanities and the life of the mind, which additionally distinguish human beings and life.

Here the purely scientific approach fails.

Human beings and life are simply more than natural science alone.

Yet it is primarily human beings and life with which we deal in medicine. As H. Fritsche says: The human being is ill; the human being is therefore — similia similibus — the remedy for the human being. A person can attain healing only when something akin to them redeems them.

Anyone who, like me, has worked for a long time — around 30 years — with alternative or complementary medicine and thus bioenergetic methods after a university, that is, scientific education has encountered many explanatory models for the phenomena occurring there. Of these, scalar-wave theory in conjunction with quantum philosophy is, or was, so far the most plausible to those engaged in this work, although none has yet withstood critical scientific examination. Why have Tesla's works not yet been examined? Money, as one often hears, surely cannot be the problem today?

Oh yes, it was all just rumours and speculation.

“In this respect, science has no compelling reason to concern itself further with Tesla.” (Bruhn) “Tesla is dead.” (Bruhn)

With whom, or with what, does the problem then lie?

One thing is certain: the personal, individual experiences of those phenomena, for both patient and therapist, cannot be argued or experimented away. They are simply part of reality; and reality is what has an effect, particularly on the patient.

So let us leave it at the phenomena that can be experienced, for as Goethe already said — poor man, he has to be invoked for everything: Everything visible is only a parable.

In this sense, scalar-wave theory, for example, is still, or at least,

useful as an analogy for forming a picture of the observed bioenergetic processes, while fully recognising that what is essential lies in consciousness and thus in the metaphysical realm.

Physical laws would have to apply there too, but which ones? Those of classical physics or of a more comprehensive, new, higher-dimensional physics? Is quantum physics already sufficient for this?

In any case, quantum physics already also argues in terms of scalar fields, which likewise possess the properties of the phenomena observed in practice with the RFR. Perhaps all that is needed is a different mathematical or quantum-physical derivation from the one presented so far, or perhaps merely a different name.

If one day there is a better theory or a better model, I, as a practitioner, will gladly adopt or integrate it.

It would have been nice, however, if we could also have drawn on “simple and simple-minded” natural science for mental processes. Or are its premises and findings simply too limited?

In relation to the RFR, what has been said so far means the following:

The apparatus does nothing on its own.

It needs a living being, for example the therapist with their consciousness and the patient with theirs. Only the two fields of consciousness — scalar fields? — together produce a result, which can, however, also be imprinted informationally on matter, here non-medicinal carrier substances.

In this respect, the RFR continues to serve as an intermediary between the worlds of mind and matter, as an amplifier and facilitator of resonance testing, that is, medication testing, as a primarily mental act.

Tested medications or substances, however — substances that have entered into resonance with the person tested through the tester — can also be transferred informationally and energetically to the patient without the tester being present.

In a negative case, for example with toxic substances or geophysical stress fields, the information will likewise affect the “connected” patient if the corresponding resonance exists. Both already occur because the RFR constitutes a cavity resonator performing an antenna function. On the Lecher antenna — actually a Marconi antenna, according to Kunnen — the setting is 7.4, wavelength 12.65, frequency ±2.373 GHz.

The RFR does not primarily work because scalar waves do or do not exist; they serve merely as an explanatory model. Rather, it works because it gives the consciousness fields of those involved in a test the opportunity to form resonance more easily, communicate with one another and transmit both the information and the energy of, for example, a medication more precisely.

In this sense, it operates according to the transmitter–receiver principle.

Despite its “scientific incorrectness”, scalar-wave theory was, and is, the theory that has so far come closest to the observed processes. One example is the phenomenon that, after a prolonged psychotherapeutic session in which resonance existed between practitioner and patient, both feel a gain in energy rather than being drained afterwards.

One should repeatedly remind oneself that every proposed theory or thesis remains valid only until a better one is found, and that it is merely a model to illustrate what reality might be. In that sense, such an illustration is not, and cannot be, absolute.

There is the delightful story of a planetary system in which all the inhabitants can live only in the complete absence of oxygen.

One day, the learned scientists there quarrel because one of them has proposed that life is also possible with oxygen. A “holy war” breaks out, and eventually the scientist concerned, who refuses to abandon his view, is ostracised and persecuted, and ultimately even sentenced to death for blasphemy. He has dared to spread heresies and violate laws that are, after all, universally valid, proven and scientifically recognised, since it is scientifically clear and proven that life is possible only without oxygen.

And the moral of the story?

It is a miracle that we are alive.

The RFR continues to work regardless of the scientific findings and regardless of whether scalar waves, or whatever one chooses to call them, exist or not. It may merely be one possible explanatory model poorer, although that model, astonishingly, agrees with most practical experience.

Even in its formulation, it sounds plausible in relation to bioenergetic phenomena, or precisely because of the phenomena observed there, were it not for the scientific — classical physical and mathematical — derivations of the formulae.

But how absurd that life is supposed to follow formulae, yet cannot be forced into them!

Regardless of this, the observable phenomena and practical experiences with the RFR remain as before:

therapy.

booster effect: for example, in an EAV test the measured value settles more quickly and precisely

kinesiological testing the same happens — abrupt muscle strength or weakness — and

much less force, depending on the sensitivity of the person tested, is needed

natural scientists can give me a hint as to why this happens. How do patient

and therapist often already know, as a medication is being placed in the honeycomb, that it is the

resonance?

a stronger effect from the non-medicinal carrier substances placed in front of the “coaxial cable” — tube plus internal electrode —

patient.

4. Harmonisation of the aura and cerebral structures — control centres — with

the help of particular music, for example in cases of electromagnetic pollution.

Personally, I — and by now hundreds of users along with me — would no longer want to be without the RFR and its possibilities. I am repeatedly amazed by the applications therapists devise.

Its amplification factor makes communication between patient and therapist enormously easier.

But one day the RFR too will become unnecessary, when I or we dare to make direct contact with our fellow human beings' consciousness or subconscious without aids, once we have developed further personally and spiritually.

Natural science cannot thwart us there.

Let us get on with it; there is much to do.

In relation to the article series in EHK 5, 7 and 9/2002, see also www.rossaint.de, this means:

Even if the physical and theoretical attempts at explanation are removed, the essential point remains:

The RFR works and is a wonderful aid!

All the findings described and experienced in practice concerning its effects in diagnosis and therapy continue to apply and enrich the individual relationship between therapist and patient for the benefit of both.