Theos-Talk Archives (February 2002 Message tt00895)

In a message dated 02/26/02 4:33:03 PM, stevestubbs@yahoo.com writes:

>Leon:
>
>Please correct my ignorance.

How can I? Your guess about all this scientific theoretical speculation 
about "black holes" (which no one has yet directly observed) based on obscure 
mathematics which neither of us (I assume) can really understand -- is as 
good as mine. So, I won't try. :-) All I know is that nothing in this 
universe is as it appears to be to our limited senses -- or even mind (unless 
we are able to visualize in 7 or more dimensions). 

The only comments I have is that science sees these things from a purely 
materialistic point of view, and consequently only considers the effects, 
reductively and inductively, as they are to be "imagined" from the 
mathematics, in terms of measurable 3-dimensional physical objects, plus Time 
(as if time actually was equivalent to a physical dimension rather than a 
measure of change). Go figure...

In my case, I prefer to theorize about it deductively -- starting from zero, 
with the "singularity" at the center of all energy fields, including so 
called "black holes", "worm holes" and similar speculations of science -- 
under the assumption that all that follows is governed by the fundamental 
laws of cycles effecting the subsequent involution and evolution of the 
primal, abstract motion or "spinergy" emanating out of the zero-point -- 
that, once it breaks its symmetry and all the whirlpools and vortexes begin 
to form, gets pretty darn complicated. 

Therefore on the lowest physical plane, the "Black Hole" representing the 
final collapse of local mass-energy condensing into the zero-point, is the 
reverse process of the "Quasar" representing the initial local expansion of 
potential mass-energy emanating from the zero-point. Since the galaxy seems 
to be expanding from as well as rotating around its center, this point may be 
the source of both the quasar that created it as well as the black hole sewer 
that sucks up its dead trash. 

Other than that, what follows is okay by me.

LHM

>My understanding of the black hole is that supposedly
>a star collapses until it becomes so dense that time
>and space cease to exist in its vicinity. Some
>speculations are that an entire galaxy may so
>collapse. It is called a "black hole" because light
>is sucked into it and cannot escape. Sort of like a
>cosmic vacuum cleaner, sucking crap in and never
>letting it out.
>
>So dense is this collapsed star or galaxy that in
>theory there exists a phenomenon external to it in
>which time and space disappear. This region (I use
>the word advisedly) is called the "Schwarzchild
>radius." Here we start to get into some interesting
>paradoxes.
>
>It is matter "inside" which supports the phenomenon of
>the Schwarzchild radius. In theory time slows down
>and space contracts in the vicinity of matter. In the
>case of the SR there is so much matter that time stops
>and space disappears. Moreover, the ST is believed to
>be outside the mass which produces it. Yet if time
>and space disappear at the Schwarzchild radius, then
>it would appear that the concept of "inside" has no
>meaning.
>
>SO WHERE IS IT?
>
>Incidentally, I am aware Blavatsky is dead, so anyone
>who cannot answer that question please don't cop out
>by reminding everyone Blavatsky is dead. Einstein is
>dead, too, and so are a lot of other people. Judy
>Garland is dead. W.C. Fields is dead. That fact that
>some people are dead should not put an end to thought
>henceforth and forever.
>
>My understanding is that if one were to get in a space
>ship and head for a black hole, because of the
>distortions in the space time continuum, you would
>never actually get there. As you approached it, time
>would slow down so that you spent eternity approaching
>it asymptotically (if "eternity" has any meaning here)
>but never actually arrive. So the SR could in one
>sense be said to be the end of the universe.
>
>I also understand that any amount of matter produce
>such a phenomenon (a point at which gravity causes
>time and space to disappear), so that there is an SR
>in our own planet. The difference is that it is
>within the planet (whereas it is exterior to the black
>hole) and is extremely minute, given that the amount
>of matter in a planet is so small compared to the
>matter in a black hole, which may be an entire galaxy.
>
>That said, if there is no time and space at the
>Schwarzchild radius, then one could interpret that to
>mean that the SR is not only the end of time and the
>end of space but that it is also the beginning of time
>and the beginning of space, not billions of years ago,
>but presently, if that has any meaning in this
>context.
>
>Perhaps the solution to the paradox is to turn the
>causal relationship around. Instead of there being
>matter in the black hole and that is why the SR
>exists, perhaps we should say that there is the SR
>(origins unknown) and that is why the universe exists.
> That seems to follow from the statement that there is
>an SR buried in every lump of matter. If everything
>disappears into the black hole but also originates
>from one, then the cyclic speculations by Manu and
>Kapila may not be so far fetched after all.
>
>The question is therefore: is this understanding
>correct or completely off or what? It has been some
>time since I read about all of this, and may be
>subject to the vagaries of memory. Corrections,
>please, from our science buffs.
>
>Regarding P.B. Randolph, there is a statement in
>Waite's BROTHERHOOD OF THE ROSY CROSS to the effect
>that at least one of Randolph's students had his
>health damaged due to some of the substances Randolph
>was encouraging his disciples to experiment with.
>
>That said, it occurs to me that Blavatsky was in good
>health until she went to New York and that it was
>subsequent to that time that she had so many health
>problems. It was also subsequent to that time that
>she became secretive about what her practice consisted
>of. It is not impossible that her health problems
>might have resulted from some of Randolph's potions,
>and that, as a role model to Theosophists, she did not
>wish to be seen as encouraging others to engage in
>something she discovered the hard way to be dangerous.
>
>Steve
>