Theos-Talk Archives (January 2008 Message tt00256)

The SD says in one of the stanzas: 'Fohat digs holes in space'. This 
sounds like it could be the description of a black hole. You see, 
scientists like your friend here are still punching around in the 
dark hoping that they will hit upon something whereas the ancient 
wisdom that is embodyed in the SD and elsewhere (Cosmo) is a finished 
work. 

I am as much a fan of physics as I am of the SD because it will be 
interesting to see how these guys describe reality when they finally 
run into it.

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Leon Maurer <leonmaurer@...> wrote:
>
> For those of you of more technical as well as intuitive mind set  
> wishing to know more about the true nature of reality from both a  
> theosophical and modern scientific POV, you might be interested in  
> this recent dialogue with a skeptical physicist -- who, 
incidentally,  
> later admitted that my ABC theory is consistent with the latest  
> discoveries of string and quantum gravity theories. LM
> 
> > On Sep 28, 2007, at 9/28/0710:34 AM, Richard Ruiquist  
> > <yanniru@...> wrote:
> >
> >> That's completely unscientific. Dark matter only has positive  
> >> gravitation.
> >> And stop calling your ABC a theory. It's just a bunch of words
> >> And it does not include biology
> >
> > Richard,
> > You may call the ABC hypothetical model "unscientific" according 
to  
> > the accepted paradigm of falsifiability... But, nevertheless, it  
> > makes valid predictions that are scientific. Therefore I will 
still  
> > call it a scientifically philosophical or philosophically  
> > scientific *theory*.
> >
> > Where's the scientific proof that Dark matter has "only" 
positive  
> > gravitation?  If that were so, then how do you account for the  
> > observed *added* acceleration of the Universe's expansion 
observed  
> > by cosmologists and attributed, speculatively, to the "repulsive  
> > gravity" of dark matter -- which, so far, is only indirectly  
> > inferred to exist?
> >
> > As I see it, "positive (attractive) gravity" is just one aspect 
of  
> > the balanced positive and negative G-force or infinite CW & CCW  
> > spin-momentum (Spinergy) that is a fundamental objective aspect 
of  
> > absolute SPACE at the cosmic singularity prior to the Big 
Bang...  
> > And which is still expressed at the dimensionless zero-point 
origin  
> > of ZPE within each mass (from a fundamental particle to a  
> > superstar) everywhere in the universe.  It is the negative or  
> > repulsive aspect of that G-force that would have initiated the  
> > metaphysical radiation, inflation and continued physical 
expansion  
> > of the universe right from the start of cosmogenesis ... And 
which  
> > is still expressed in the singularity of every black hole or 
center  
> > of mass in the universe -- consisting of the "light" matter 
along  
> > with the two forms of "dark" matter -- that the ABC model  
> > predicts.  See: <http://users.aol.com/leonmaurer/Chakrafield- 
> > spherical-colo_F.jpg>
> >
> > However, although each accumulation of mass increases the local  
> > positive (attractive) gravity -- the negative gravity empowering  
> > the continually accelerating expansion of the entire cosmos 
still  
> > remains potent in the ZPE of each zero-point in the much greater  
> > volume of absolute or primal SPACE, between the quantum 
particles,  
> > as well as in the near °K relatively empty space between the 
larger  
> > concentrations of mass (whether galaxies, stars, planets, or 
black  
> > holes).  Thus, the global universal volume of SPACE, having many  
> > more zero-point centers of ZPE negative gravity, greatly 
overpowers  
> > the higher positive gravity of local compressions of mass -- by  
> > expanding the space between them.
> >
> > As I see it -- its this universally distributed negative G-force 
of  
> > both light and dark matter in their noumenal or ZPE state that  
> > causes the continued acceleration of universal expansion.   
> > According to the ABC prediction, this expansion will continue 
until  
> > all quantum and sub quantum particles decay back to absolute zero 
° 
> > K, and the Absolute SPACE returns to its singular ZPE condition  
> > (like a BEC) that it had prior to the big bang... Which, from 
our  
> > metric POV would appear *as if* it were a "singularity" -- with 
all  
> > its potential mass apparently concentrated in a single point of  
> > almost infinite spinergy -- and with each potential source of 
ZPE  
> > in subsequent configuration spacetime being a lesser finite  
> > (Cantor) subset of that initial infinite spinergy.  Thus, from 
an  
> > informational point of view, this universe would always remain  
> > completely interconnected and unitarily intact whether  
> > metaphysically and physically expanding or not.
> >
> > Therefore, theoretically, according to ABC -- after symmetry  
> > breaking, all of the ZPE centers of the lower order asymmetrical  
> > physical spacetime fields are of lesser (but still near 
infinite)  
> > force, relative to the ZPE centers of the initial higher order  
> > symmetrical metaphysical fields.  This is why quantum physicists  
> > have to renormalize their GR equations "as a means of making 
sense  
> > of the infinite results of various calculations and extracting  
> > finite answers to properly posed physical questions"... Thus,  
> > avoiding an infinite "singularity"... That, nevertheless must  
> > exist, according to ABC theory's proposition that there has to be 
a  
> > non metric, eternal Absolute Primal SPACE underlying metric space-
 
> > time.  If not, then we'd have to assume that the physical 
universe  
> > originated out of nothing -- which is impossible.
> >
> > Therefore, we have the right to conclude that the physical 
universe  
> > has a metaphysical base that directly links consciousness to  
> > matter, both before and after the big bang.
> >
> > As for your assertion that ABC is not a biological science...
> > (And, to continue my reasoning based on the ABC proposition that  
> > consciousness is the subjective aspect of absolute SPACE -- with  
> > the word, "Biology," defined as "the science that studies living  
> > organisms".)
> >
> > If the Universe is an inherently conscious being in itself, and  
> > therefore -- as the ABC theory deduces from fundamental 
principles,  
> > as well as its fundamental triple axes spin-momentum and 
subsequent  
> > holographic spherical fractal geometry -- a "living being" having 
a  
> > *mind* and *body* of its own... Then its cosmogenesis and its  
> > coenergetic field's involution's and evolution's are the  
> > fundamental roots of its universal "biology" -- which is 
analogous  
> > to the biology of all similarly 'living organisms' evolved 
within  
> > it...
> >
> > As ABC also considers the electrodynamic interrelationship of  
> > consciousness, mind, memory, brain, body, senses, etc, in human  
> > beings -- which includes their physiological, biochemical and  
> > biological interfaces... The ABC model is a theory of physics as  
> > well as biology in all their aspects... Which includes the  
> > metaphysics and metabiology of primal SPACE and its initial  
> > fractally involved coenergetic fields prior to the breaking of  
> > symmetry on the physical plane -- where conventional 
observational  
> > physics and biology can take over and try to unsuccessfully 
explain  
> > the hard problems. ;-)
> >
> > I don't know why I continue to waste my time explaining ABC to  
> > you... (although much of it is useful, since many of my 
dialogues  
> > are scheduled for publication in a forthcoming book soon to be  
> > correlated and edited by one or more trained physicists.)
> >
> > Since you, apparently, can only see this theory as a "bunch of  
> > words" (which many others of unquestionable intelligence seem to  
> > understand completely, whether or not they agree with it) -- you  
> > are just confirming my previous observation that you are sadly  
> > lacking in imagination and the ability to follow logical 
reasoning,  
> > or engage in reasonable counter argument without resorting to  
> > authoritative assertions of denial based on questionable 
scientific  
> > speculations made by others ... That, so far, you have never  
> > indicated that you really understand, either intuitively or  
> > figuratively.
> >
> > Perhaps, that tendency to accept the jargon of quantum physics 
with  
> > their fixed definitions related to symbolic mathematical 
equations,  
> > that have no relationship to actual reality, is why Feynman 
implied  
> > that no *trained* physicist can really say they understand 
quantum  
> > physics (without either "being crazy or lying.";-)
> >
> > So. maybe you should start looking at and thinking about groups 
of  
> > many words put together in sentences and paragraphs, and 
consider  
> > the logical and reasonable descriptive meaning behind them,  
> > figuratively, as a whole -- rather than literally pick each word  
> > apart separately and labeling them with the single definition  
> > you've accepted as their only meaning.  It would help also if 
you  
> > referred to the diagrams that picture my attempt to explain the 
ABC  
> > field's origin as well, as their fractal involution and 
subsequent  
> > evolution, both physically and biologically, based on 
fundamental  
> > principles or propositions.
> >
> > Best wishes,
> > Leon Maurer
> >
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Leon Maurer <leonmaurer@...>
> >> To: MindBrain@yahoogroups.com
> >> Sent: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 4:00 pm
> >> Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] Quantum Aspects of Consciousness
> >>
> >> Again you insist on nit picking.  Or, are you just emotionally
> >> attempting to deny my ABC field theory by inference and innuendo?
> >>
> >> Where in that statement did I claim that "Dark matter" (per se) 
was
> >> "responsible for the acceleration of the expansion of the 
universe"?
> >> And where did I use the "jargon of physics" without understanding
> >> "what it means"?
> >>
> >> Accounting for the observed expansion, speculatively by the
> >> cosmologists, could also refer to the negative gravitation or 
initial
> >> repulsive G-force added by that dark matter.  From a theoretical
> >> physics POV, what's so unscientific about that?
> >>
> >
> >  =
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>