[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

[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 <>
> Date: December 30, 2008 10:50:52 PM EST
> To: MindBrain <>
> Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] Re: Did our cosmos exist before the  
> big bang?
> Reply-To:
> John,
> 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:
> ... 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:
>> Leon,
>> 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  
>> "darkies"
>> 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" <>
>> To: <>
>> 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]

Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application