Theos-Talk Archives (February 2002 Message tt00788)

All I can say to your assertions, including those about Einstein, the ether 
and science, misapplied to fortify your opinion, based on a twisted 
interpretation of history, that anything HPB says about cosmic reality is 
plagiarized baloney -- is, Baloney. (And you can quote me on that :-)

(However, I'll add some more clariying comments to straighten you out.:-}

1. The black hole at the center of the galaxy consisting of infinite 
mass-energy IS its "central Sun" that is composed of something more than just 
plain physical "matter." If not, where did its zero-point occult energy go?

2. The "ether" and "astral light" idea came from theosophical Master teachers 
as far back as Hermes and Thoth, as Blavatsky claimed when she included those 
aspects of occult zero (laya) point energy in her restatement of "theosophy" 
for this modern age. If somebody before her also wrote those things down, 
does that make her teachings any less valid, or she a plagiarist?

3. Einstein never disproved the "ether". In fact he never disproved 
anything, since he was a theorist who used mathematics to justify, not 
"prove" his theories. The proof is always in the application, not the theory 
or its mathematical basis. Relativity and quantum physics have never been 
proven, even though they seem to work in describing some aspects of physical 
reality -- but not anywhere near ALL its aspects. Now M-brane theory with 
its 11 dimensions (7 of them occult) shows that Einstein only limited his 
theories to 4 physical dimensions (three geometric + time). Therefore, all 
his theories, from a cosmic point of view, are grossly incomplete. That was 
why he never could devise a consistent Unified Field Theory which included 
relativity AND quantum physics, since he could never fill the ZPE gap between 
them... And, before he died, he reversed his earlier opinions, and admitted 
that there has to be an "Etheric" medium for light -- but he couldn't 
mathematically "justify" its possible existence. See my previous post about 
the Ether (and whatever else you seem to know very little about).

LHM 



In a message dated 02/23/02 1:42:03 PM, bri_mue@yahoo.com writes:

>The article "central Galaxial agent,NASA Science News for February 
>21, 2002" has notting to do with the occult notion of a central sun 
>in the SD, a notion that came straight from P.B.Randolph's books.
>
>Also the concepts of "ether" and "astral light" came from earlier 
>occult literature (from befor Blavatsky was born) and is a totally 
>different concept as the term "ether" in early 20th century science.
>
>Einstein, in 1905, disproved the notion that light needs a medium to 
>travel through, unlike other waves such as sound. Consequently the 
>notion of the "ether" or "aether" has been disregarded. Though this 
>is not to be confused with the ether that theosophy talks of. This 
>ether is something entirely different. 
>
>See: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/5482
>
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/5531