Comment

Comment by Jacques Mahnich on December 5, 2011 at 12:36pm

Gravity and Electromagnetic forces are both combined during the accretion process to form let say a planet like our earth  :

Under the gravity influence, the solar nebulae collapses, and the Sun starts his life 4.55 billion years ago. During its collapse, the rotation of the nebulae increases, creating a flat disk-shaped form made of stellar gaz.

Inside this disk, numerous very tiny dust particles (10^-7 meter) born from the red giant stars are packing together, due to gravity effect, AND the electromagnetic force acts as a glue to hold them together.

After some tens of years, dust particles become dust grains called "planetesimals" which continue to pack together to reach the size of an egg after one hundred year. These planetesimals are not round yet because they are not yet massive enough for the gravity to shape them. They need to get above 1,000 km length for the gravity to take the leadership role, and hundred million years more to achieve the building of a complete planet like our own.

So, both forces are needed in this process and each of them play its own role in a sequence of events.

(my source :  Trinh Xuan Thuan - Origine - 2003).

Comment by Capt. Anand Kumar on December 4, 2011 at 9:04pm

Thanks Morry.

There is another very curious aspect of FOHAT described in the stanza V.4:

FOHAT TRACES SPIRAL LINES TO UNITE THE SIXTH TO THE SEVENTH

This would perhaps be due to either Gravity or Dark Matter.

The discussion on Gravity as well as Electromagnetism could proceed together.

Comment by morry secrest on December 4, 2011 at 3:06pm

Comment on “fohat”:

HPB in her commentary in the SD gives the following quotation:

“The Central Sun causes Fohat to collect primordial dust in the form of balls, to impel them to move in converging lines and finally to approach each other and aggregate.” (Book of Dzyan)

I had always thought that this referred to the force of gravity, gave a passing thought to the wisdom of those ancient scientists, and then continued on with my reading.

But there is a mystery here.

Not being an astronomer myself, I did not realize until very recently that astronomers and physicists have been puzzled by the question of how the suns and planets formed.  Clouds of dust make sense; the laws of physics clearly show that dust particles will be attracted toward the center of gravity of a cloud of dust, thus slowly and steadily increasing the density of that cloud.

But the laws of physics also say that the greatest attractive force will be on the grains of matter at the furthest edge of the cloud; as one approaches the center, the force of gravity will be lessened in that direction, and will be counteracted by an opposite force originating from all the matter behind it.  The closer a particle comes to the center of the cloud, the smaller becomes the resultant force of gravity.  Thus, a compacted ball could never form.  It would remain forever a cloud of dust, no denser than a fog bank.

Once a solid center forms, it could then rely on gravity to pull yet more matter in upon itself, thus forming a star or planet.  But gravity alone will not form that solid center.

The question remains, what pushed the particles even closer together, so as to form the solid center?

This question was recently answered by a researcher who, with a simple experimental setup, proved that the force which accomplished that task was not gravity but the force of electromagnetism.  In the form of static electricity, dust particles become highly energized and quickly move together into a solid clump.  (Solid is here used in a specific sense; think dust bunny solid.  Definitely in contact, but fluffy.)  This clump provides sufficient concentration of mass to allow gravity to again come into play, and it is this which forms the nucleus of a star or planet.

Given the above, I propose that “fohat” is the term given by the ancient scientists to the electromagnetic force, known to be one of the four fundamental forces throughout the universe. 

This suggestion is supported by another quotation by HPB:

“Fohat hardens the atoms.”  Modern physics knows that the size of an atom is clearly defined, even though it is nearly all space, devoid of matter.  The round shape and size of any given atom is defined by the electrons which surround the nucleus.  Though we do not yet know exactly how the electrons accomplish this, we do know that the electrons are governed by the electromagnetic force.  Hence it is this force which “hardens” the atoms.

Discussion?

 

 

 

Comment by morry secrest on October 14, 2011 at 10:44pm

During the last dozen or so decades, discoveries in the realm of science have resulted in several leaps in humanity's understanding of how the universe is constructed.  The quantum theory has forced many physicists to embrace the idea that this universe has a nonmaterial component.  (Matter that cannot be seen, energy that cannot be detected.)

Jacques, to follow up on your analogy earlier, it would appear that science has placed several footings and erected several pilings, from their side.  Work is ongoing as we speak.

From the other side, we have the footings provided by HPB and her senior students; but not much has been done since.

You have suggested taking up a subject for study, and have offered GRAVITATION as suitable.

I suggest that we take up a methodology of study, with which we can examine that subject. 

Looking back to our (spiritual) forbears, those who originally made the discoveries enumerated in The Secret Doctrine, what were the methods they used?

Perhaps a method of communicating with higher powers, and asking questions?  This is the method used by George Washington Carver, who was able to develop many new varieties of plants, and many new uses for the lowly peanut.  And,

Perhaps a method of examining physical matter, and determining its structure at finer and finer levels?  This was the method used by Emmanual Swedenborg, in his study of minerals.

There are other examples, as well. 

Main point:  We have examples of individuals who have made astounding discoveries through effort and perseverance.  If they could do it, I'm sure we could do it also.

 

Comment by Jacques Mahnich on October 14, 2011 at 1:19pm

What is needed to build a bridge over a large river separating 2 lands where inhabitants culture are fairly differents :

1) Mutual Respect : recognize they are differences in the way people live and understand reality

2) Curiosity and willingness to learn from the others

3) Commun interest in sharing each other knowledge

We will assume this is existing, otherwise we can't go on.

Then , one need to build the foundations before the pillars, and then the bridge itself can be built.
What are our foundations ? What is the common ground between the two countries on which we can start putting tons of concrete ?

We may need to restart with very simple subject (if it ever existed).

Let me propose a universe-wide well-known subject which everyone can feel and which has been worked-out for centuries by the scientific community : GRAVITATION.

As mentioned earlier on this forum, we have described the Newtonian gravitation (together with inertia and the law of action-reaction), up to the time where Einstein reformulated it, introducing the space-time scale and wiping out the universal attraction together with the inertia as forces, replaced by an action at a distance from matter who curves space who, then, force the matter to follow this curvatures. All this interaction is to be carried-out by a particle, the graviton, not yet identified, and it is suppose to generate gravitational waves, not yet identified either. Other theories have emerged recently (20-30 years) like the quantum gravitation and many others ones still under investigation.

Meanwhile, it is ruling our daily life and the fate of the universe.

Let see if we can develop on this matter.

Moderator Comment by John on October 9, 2011 at 2:52pm

Someone brought up the question of space travel using only special relativity (which does handle a constant acceleration). The following is a good link. The acceleration used is the same as earth (makes a comfy ride). The horizon effect (similar to a black hole) that forms from just a special relativistic approach is rather interesting. However -- practical issues can cause problems.

I expect the math should be skipped.. the summary (in words) is easy to follow (the reason I posted it - the words are what people need to focus on)

 

http://johanw.home.xs4all.nl/PhysFAQ/Relativity/SR/rocket.html

 

 

Moderator Comment by John on October 9, 2011 at 12:44pm

Occasionally, I find that people treat science as if it is always required to "catch up" or agree with traditions and Wisdom Literature. It must pass this "test" before it is on the correct path. Many seem to forget that Science has equal rights to tell the ancient knowledge it is wrong as well. The point is that neither can claim to "Trump" the other. Currently, we now are seeing a strong overlap in many areas. Those areas are not the sole property of the Wisdom Literature to dictate. Science can push back with equal, if not greater, validity that may force the ancient knowledge to be modified and brought up to date. In these cases - both must be weighed equally.

I sometimes believe people forget this. It is a duty to recall this on occasion.

I believe the quote below by the Dalai Lama is quite valid and appropriate to keep in mind. (I hope my reference is correct)

from "The Universe in a single Atom"

“…as in science so in Buddhism, understanding the nature of reality is pursued by means of critical investigation: if scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims.” p.3.

Moderator Comment by John on October 7, 2011 at 9:13am

I really appreciated the point you made on pratityasamutpada. That seems pretty accurate

Actually, I would argue Mermin is not a reductionist since any emergent phenomena is acceptable. He has eliminated causality as most people think of it. The EPR effects are perfectly fine, and only the reality of the observation/correlations matter. How they happen is left as unknown and outside the QM realm. QM systems are full of non-causal/non-local phenomena, and the relationships are real and highly non-reductionist. (there is a good experiment that came out recently and it is very counter-intuitive if you believe in any particle-like behavior). There is just the observations.

I would actually argue that the determinist interpretations, especially Bohm-De Broglie (whether looked at as a dynamics or interpretation) actually was structured to force causality and allow reductionist thinking back into the "game". I realize Bohm is a very popular in theosophy, due to his Krishnamurti friendship, however his approach to QM actually removes a lot of the "spirituality" in the science and it becomes totally deterministic. Most people, which I have read, that argue for determinism do so to force the "clockwork"/causality back into the picture and are strongly atheistic. Exceptions abound, I am sure. However the first step to put Mind back safely into Brain is to force material causality as a fact.

Mermin very much believes that consciousness needs to be examined, but without getting past the QM interpretation issues, it is hopeless to examine. It is far harder than QM. People usually joke that Mermin does not believe the Moon exists until you look at it.  Not really true, but a wide-open thinker is there and very friendly to the broader picture of how get Mind into Physics without the Brain.

In any case, Pratityasamutpada is a good "catch".

 

Comment by morry secrest on October 4, 2011 at 12:21am

I concur:  Thank you, Jacques, John and Mark.

Comment by Capt. Anand Kumar on October 3, 2011 at 8:47pm

Thank You, Jacques, John and Mark for taking the discussion beyond amateurish speculation.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• …
• 13
• Next ›
• Page