[Mind and Brain] Re: Did our cosmos exist before the big bang? - PART 1
Dec 31, 2008 09:25 PM
by Leon Maurer
This might be interesting to students of the Secret Doctrine...
> From: Leon Maurer <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Date: December 30, 2008 10:50:52 PM EST
> To: MindBrain <MindBrain@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] Re: Did our cosmos exist before the
> big bang?
> Reply-To: MindBrain@yahoogroups.com
> No matter that we are on different thought tracks now.
> Soon enough (if we live so long:-) the truth will be known, and we
> will find that we were both right. (Although, we may have seen
> only a small part of the big picture.)
> Before this universe conditionally exploded into what it is now,
> all its mass-energy would have had to be condensed in the
> unconditioned space substance it came out of. That is, the
> absolute (empty) space that eternally existed before the big bang.
> (Keep in mind, that such infinite absolute space is also infinitely
> transformable -- so there can be no limit to the number of
> potential universes it can hold.)
> I see that absolute zero (°K) space vacuum as being empty of form,
> but not empty of G-force (which, being infinite, must contain at
> least as much potential as the total mass-energy in this
> universe). It also must have contained, at the primal beginning of
> this cosmos, all the structural information of all its particles,
> galaxies, stars, planets, sentient beings, etc., now seen in our
> physical spacetime continuum.
> That "information" would have to be the holographically encoded
> frequency interference patterns on the initial lines of spin
> momentum of the cosmic "singularity" itself. If we had a
> microscope of infinite magnification and resolution, it might look
> like this:
> http://leonmaurer.info/ABCimages/BuddhaBabyGordianKnot.gif ... And
> a cross section of a photon coming at us head on, at a much lower
> magnification, might look like this:
> And, that primal beginning (of everything) seems to be the
> "emptiness with a lot in it."
> This could give us reason to believe that our cosmos did exist
> before the big bang, and that it had many big bangs before this
> one.... And, that there could be many other parallel universes in
> infinite absolute space. So, what appears to be nothing, can
> become infinite somethings. Unfortunately, we can only see as far
> out as our limited physical sense mechanisms (and the limiting
> speed of light) fool us into thinking -- is the end of the universe.
> Since the universe appears to be expanding at an accelerating rate
> -- not accountable for by all the mass energy forms we can measure
> or see -- there must be some sort of invisible matter or energy to
> account for it. So all the scientists (who measure such things)
> can do, is call it "dark matter" or "dark energy." (This is just a
> sign that they they have very little understanding of the true
> nature of overall reality -- since all they can observe and measure
> is its ponderable "light" matter.;-)
> That, of course (not the ignorance;-) goes along with my ABC theory
> of cosmogenesis... Which starts at the zero-point center of that
> massive "singularity" (that could only be the near infinite spin
> momentum of the primal absolute space-substance) -- where Einstein
> also saw the beginning of the entire cosmos, and now cosmologists
> like Hawkings, see at the center of every black hole, galaxy and star.
> Therefore, the "Dark matter-energy" is nothing more than all the
> higher order fractal involved fields of gravitational force that
> came before our visible universe appeared, plus all the additional
> mass-energy spinning on the two axes of our spherical universe that
> are perpendicular to the axis that all our "light" matter spins
> on. Thus, since the "dark" photons also spin on those two
> perpendicular axes, they are invisible to us (whose biology is only
> sensitive to the "light" photons). This total invisible "dark" and
> "light" matter-energy, accounts for 90-93+ percent of the total
> matter needed to account for the cosmological observations... With
> our observable and measurable "light" mass-energy universe
> accounting for the rest.
> As a mind experiment, picture in the mind, the spherical diagram of
> the fractal involved fields of the total cosmos (as I've
> illustrated them in cross section**)... And imagine (at the third
> Logos level of physical spacetime) how the spin momentum around
> each zero-point of (absolutely static) potential consciousness,
> becomes located everywhere in the Planck space between and
> underlying all the fundamental quantum and sub quantum particles,
> and at the center/origin of all harmonic energy fields on the
> physical plane.
> If you can follow this continuos fractal involution, from the outer
> spiritual level down to the quark level, and can see how this
> process is analogous around every zero-point of origin of all
> fields and forms -- all that can become perfectly clear. And, much
> more can be inferred, out to the limits of ones mental capacity --
> to explain not only the nature of all objective existence and
> subjective consciousness, but, also, the basis of all psychic and
> paranormal phenomena, dreams, imaginings, intuitions, etc.
> With this overall picture of fundamental reality, we can throw out
> all the speculations of conventional reductive science that are
> based only on what we can measure and see.... And begin with a new
> holographic paradigm that can answer all the "hard problems" and
> resolve all the paradoxes and anomalies in our present scientific
> thinking... Without throwing out the baby with the bath-water.
> Quantum physics still serves a great purpose in allowing us to know
> exactly how the material universe works -- down to even the
> synthesization of music, not to mention all the other high tech
> goodies, like cell phones, the internet, digital CDs, DVDs, HDTVs,
> HD movies, nano technologies, etc.
> As for our diverging ways... If we both start out (with empty minds
> and no knowledge) traveling in opposite directions and searching
> the Earth (and the sky) for clues to its existence, -- we will
> eventually meet on the other side -- in almost perfect agreement.
> (To be absolutely perfect, we would each have to continue around
> until we meet again where we started. ;-).
> Much easier to do it all as a mind experiment -- starting from zero
> (with no preconceptions) and following all the winding (spinning
> and spiral vortical) paths to infinity and back down again ...
> Without losing sight of all the scientific discoveries already
> proven or determined mathematically that we can predict along the way.
> Best wishes for a Happy New Year for all of us.
> Leon Maurer
> On Dec 23, 2008, at 12/23/084:16 PM, JohnM wrote:
>> we are on diverging thought-tracks.
>> If you say "empty" with a lot in it - I am lost.i
>> the "dark" things signify only that within the accepted 'theroies'
>> (figments?) the calculations did not fit and to make them fit some
>> were invented - and added, so the math can work. Theory saved.
>> I say: the original figment was faulty. I wish I had a better one:
>> hence I
>> call 'mine' a "Narrative".
>> So I wish you a Happy New Year and let us continue in our
>> diverging, but
>> unmatched ways.
>> John Mikes
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Leon Maurer" <email@example.com>
>> To: <MindBrain@yahoogroups.com>
>> Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 1:06 AM
>> Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] Re: Did our cosmos exist before the
>> big bang?
(Continued in PART 2)
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application