A Cosmic Womb
"In modern physics, the phenomenon of gravitation is most accurately described by the "general theory of relativity" by Einstein, in which the phenomenon itself is a consequence of the curvature of spacetime governing the motion of inertial objects." Here is a source from an article l that I found online to support this unknowingly force to attempt to write this discussion that I have absolutely no educational background in, unless you want to say a dream at the age of 3 years old in a gravity tank with her immediate family counts as an astrophysics prerequisite; highly doubtable. The phys.org news blog was the closest thing found to remotely give this idea here any worth looking more into this possibly misinformed theory of the "big bang" and perhaps they are very similar but there is a big difference. The billion dollar question now is what makes the difference? Could it be… gravity+dark matter+ elementary particles+neutrons+aether+hydrogen=cosmogony? Does gravity need another case study to see if it adds up to what it is defined as today? There is this intuition force that holds up a flashing neon sign with an arrow signifying to look more into ether and gravity or maybe they are the same thing?
Why do I object the big bang theory? Maybe it is because there are too many gapping grey areas that could use some filling.
In the middle of no where through the pitch black, the obscure faceless One stood objectively. An undisclosed phenomena objected out from the nonexistence into a complexation of secularization of singularity. Deeply-seated in an abundance of forty winks, a cockayne condition occurs and absorbs into a materialized opaque reflecting in its own environment the punctuality of "black body density distribution" ( Planks Law). This is the great inhalation; holding inspiration; fire∴
Laborious chemicals of radiation from various chemical compounds (if that makes sense)increases in temperature, in physics this is known as the "law of total radiation" (R=CT⁴) which is particularly true to the "black body theory".i.e. this may be in relation to Einsteins theory of "special relativity E=MC2". Unfortunately, the calorimetry is unknown because it's not acknowledged to the precise variables that are in dense. On that account, the expansion of gases with heat are greater then liquid or solid expansions (maybe that can sheds some light of truth in a dark and untouchable place). For all one knows, this concoction of heat produces a pulsation of wave motion with a vibratory affect; reflecting a heart beat. Could this be the first motion known in the cosmos? Maybe not if the cosmos are not yet created! Perhaps physics can explain the possibility that sensitive flames are being generated here under the conditions of gases. In some cases, gases are sensitive to the vibrations from the vibratory frictions which develop flames; however, not created from sound waves. Here is a possibility of a fiery void of nothing slowly evolving into a materialized matter of sorts.
Now there is a chaotic mixture of variables (unknown) inside a non-materialized matter per se that binds the variables together. Thus creating a pressure that is constant without any release valves. As variables come into contact with one another they are creating a friction that maybe erodes the substance that holds the void as a whole. Think of this void like a helium balloon. If we constantly add more helium pressure to the balloon (yes, it is sounding like the "big bang") it is eventually going to diffuse all the variables inside will thus expand creating an action/motion in the same matter as an explosion, but not an explosion at all scientist say. This is the great exhalation of breath; life force. Now we have space! Maybe an isotropic radiator can explain why there is no explosion as if there was one here on Earth. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotropic_radiator
Objects have appeared in an organic form derived from the exact environment they came from. Now glittering lampyridae are scattered throughout the dark mother-universe. Everything that was once contained as one has been blown out into a separation of a whole. A duration that will only be an estimation of perception from a semantic imaginary evaluation from a sense-experience. No one sees a spermatozoon enter the egg at conception the same applies to this prodigious mundane world.
From the invisible to visible; nonmaterial to material; non-physical to physical; non-living to living organisms or maybe there was always something there that was alive, but what is it?
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Capt. Anand Kumar on
-
Gravity, really is a consequence of matter and its motion and not spacetime. For example, spacetime will not curve if there was no matter. But I could be wrong here.
That universe sprang from nothing is not a new concept. Nasadiya Sukta of the Rg Veda (a foundational Hindu text dealing with creation, believed to be between 5,000 - 30,000 years old) describes just that. IK Taimni, a former President of the TS compared it to the phenomena of interference of light waves.
Unfortunately the launch of James Webb space telescope is delayed and is now scheduled for 2018. Positioned at a gravitationally neutral point beyond our moon, it will have the ability to see up to the Big Bang and beyond. The Hubble space telescope can see up to 800 million years after the Big Bang and the data more or less conforms to the theory of Big Bang. There are many gaps to be filled but in general, the theory holds.
What will survive inside a black hole that becomes so dense as to lose its dimension and become point like? Kama (desire) as per Rg Veda. Information, as per Stephen Hawking, John Preskill and other scientists.
-
Permalink Reply by Jessica R. Huffmeyer on
-
Hope this post did not come off to seem like these thoughts put into words solely came from myself, because they are not solely my thoughts alone. However, I am aware what many scientist say and tell the general public. The thing is that the general public has no means to put their (scientist) theories to test and objectify their conclusions. The majority of civilization will follow the leader because they have faith that they are being truthful. On the other hand, there are a few who will lead themselves and challenge the leader to prove they are being a good leader. This is the case of the few!
Here we have scientists explaining very complicated formulas and theories to a very ignorant society who will believe that their own grass in their backyard belongs to their neighbor next door if the thought is made believable by pounding the misleading notion into thought.
The "big bang theory" IMO was only the beginning to the long quest of guessing the unknown.There has to be a point in the circumference for a start to begin, but that does not mean it is a definite conclusion for a highly complex question to the mysteries of the solar system which is the life giver of all living things.
The other dillema with science and their experiments is that they are using some kind of material that is recreating what they think resembles something similar to the universe, but if we only know very little of the universe, how could one recreate it? The universe seems to be a place that was made from non-material, therefore, it would be impossible to recreate, right? Perhaps the most wanted answers of the creation and existence to life are ones that can not come from an experiemnt solely but may be able only to give a small fraction of an insight to a larger than life mystery to those who are more materialistic than to those who are non-materialistic.
People in science are very peculiar about their work and become attached to their theories and will defend them to the death, but is that always the right approach for them to have?
-
-
BTW, Captain I never heard of Nasadiya Sukta before. This is very interesting to know!
-
ModeratorPermalink Reply by John on -
There was a movie in ~2008:
David Tennant (Doctor Who #10) played Eddington.
The theory in the paper (Physical Review Letters in 2010) struck me, initially, as likely similar to Quantum Loop Gravity. You have a big bang (not from a singularity) followed by a collapse - with the Big Bounce.
Singularities never occur.
Also - I certainly grant a lot of scientists proselytize their belief (usually atheism for that bunch).
Most scientists change their mind all of time. They have to. If they don't they end up being just a quack who is wrong.
(sorry for intruding <G>)
The paper is interesting.
John
-
-
Hello John,
How can you be intruding? I am speculating here, but if I know better than this is right up your alley and your thoughts and expertise is very much wanted here and appreciated more than anything!!
This content is far beyond my knowledge, however, have deeply thought about this topic since knee high or even elbow height if I may even presume such a thought. Therefore this topic is one of passion and searching for inspiration of understanding. Perhaps some new shades of color can be created here to fill in some of the gray areas to create a clearer painting that is more serene on the eye of the mind to simply see the signature stokes created by the brush of the painter.
Seemingly there is a battle between the religious VS spiritualist VS atheist VS agonist scientific dilemma; and those who hold their cats eye of gold the highest and brightest writes the rules, and if that the case and real truth is veiled under the cloaks of the double-bladed axe than may his hands be of no use and permit the Violet ones to reign truth in all centers force; One who is the all.
When it comes to man in science proselytize-ing their beliefs than I can't help but ask do men easily "proselytize" their beliefs when it comes to manners of life that can create a Whole new world in a Whole new belief without the addiction of greed for a selfish intent and agenda?
Let just imagine for the moment, that men in science could theoretically deduce life's ultimate question without reasonable doubt and the high towers ring of truth, would they actually set men free?
-
-
Thanks Jessica. A collection of 14 different translations of it is available in our stanzas document section.
-
-
Great document, Captain Right on! Would love to see an original copy.
-
-
The Original is in Sanskrit. You can search fro Rg Veda on the net and get a copy should you so wish.
-
ModeratorPermalink Reply by John on -
Hi -
people sometimes forget that Nature trumps any individual's belief. It is what it is, regardless whether you like it or not.
You can try arguments like "All of the universe was created day before yesterday". We all just think we had real experiences (memories), and the buildings we think we remember being built were just "poof" created a couple days ago. One cannot argue that they are wrong. (the way out for the Free Will Theorem).
The division between scientists is basically 2 major camps; also any time one discusses these things it is inherently only an attempt to pigeon-hole what different minds think. best to keep it simple. One needs more pigeon-holes than people, ultimately.
1) do not believe in Free Will
2) believe in Free Will
usually this also overlays with the other two "hot issue"
(i.e. discussing if Math is real or not -- Platonist, or not)
1) Quantum Mechanics works with ontological ideas
2) Quantum Mechanics works with epistemological ideas
A person usually belongs in camps 1), or in camps 2) above.
Over the last 40 years, or so, many experiments have been created to figure out if the 2)'s are wrong or the 2)'s are correct. The experiments that examine these separations have been incredibly clever. The 1)'s are losing.
However, as Conway pointed out (the FWT), you may be obstinate to the point that the 1)'s may be able to claim victory despite the fact they have no basis in which to stand, but their own belief. Nature favors the 2)'s. Experiments to disprove 2)'s lose.
In actuality, almost ALL of Physics is over. The theories are solid, and no mysteries exist. There are things that need to be "discovered", like dark matter, but it doesn't matter since it will be part of the existing physical theories where we will have a name to use for it. The LHC was a great disappointment because it found nothing that required anything new in terms of theory. boring. The same old 30+ year old theory of QED and the standard particle model of physics appears intact and solid. The Higgs Field is .. ~ mid '60's, I believe. Just like it always has been for all those years.
there are a few questions, but nothing big enough to really worry about.
Unified Field Theories are nice, but they all will have to replicate exactly the same answers/equations we already know work. Otherwise, it has already been proven wrong via the few hundreds of years of existing experiments that have already been explained. One needs to ponder that.
if the speed of light approaches infinity, Newtons equations appear out of General Relativity.
if Planck's constant approaches 0, then we are left with General Relativity, and Maxwell's Equations (Electricty/Magneticism.)
If the speed of light approaches infinity, and Planck's constant approaches 0 then Quantum Electrodynamics becomes Newtonian Physics and Maxwell's Equations. i.e. pure classical physics of the 1800's.
What is missing is how consciousness is created, formed, works etc. That is the only current "problem."
What we currently have is an increased ability to engineer the basic building blocks of matter one piece/atom at a time. That is what is yielding new discoveries w.r.t. technology.
oh well.
(gads, I am wordy today)
-
-
Hello-
You have fascinated me at "What is missing is how consciousness is created, formed, works etc. That is the only current "problem."" all of the rest said previously I want to throw out and spam it.
Perhaps it is a cosmic-conscious that is the mother-giver of the entire universe and cause for everything within it. Unless the universe is simulated by some alien like computer that has a transparent drone that allows their existence to live out of human sight.
Conscious is of course nonmaterialistic and that is a place where science has no means to create any hypothesis it is all most impossible for science to work investigational experiments from any one of the planes of the non-materialistic of spirituality, which perhaps could change science as we know it from many yesterdays ago and today.
However, this is where science of psychology may step in and take over the sciences of the physical. Here again we have another grey area.
How is it that there is much known of the science of psychology but little is known of the consciousness?
-
ModeratorPermalink Reply by John on -
"How is it that there is much known of the science of psychology but little is known of the consciousness?"
Because they believe brain=mind.
-
-
it's not heart?
© 2024 Created by Theosophy Network.
Powered by
