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

Re: Re[2]: Theos-World is ether needed as a medium to propagate light?

Mar 01, 2002 00:51 AM
by leonmaurer

In a message dated 02/27/02 6:49:16 PM, writes:

>Hello leonmaurer,
>Wednesday, February 27, 2002, you wrote:
>> Today, however, the leading edge of physical science (11 dimensional
>> Superstring/M-brane, quantum gravity theories, etc.) recognizes that such 
>> vacuum space contains "perturbations" or vibrating fields of sub-quantum
>> energy calculated to be in the form of vibrating "strings" (or "rays"
>> as we say in theosophy) that fills it completely. 
>I must say Leon, that while I am very interested in all the newest thought
>on these things, you describe it in a way that seems to maintain the
>mystique of science. Can you not translate it into a language others can
>relate to?
>Well, I suppose, the very inventors of these theories first failed in that
>and one should not expect you to do any better. But if you can, using
>analogy, metaphor and the other staples of explanation, please try simplify,
>or explain simply, what superstring theory, and M-brane theory, are trying
>to describe.
>> It follows that, if so, and those vibrations or transcendental fields are 
>> vibrating at frequencies much higher than that of the electromagnetic
>> spectrum -- they must act as "carriers" of the physical light and other
>> electromagnetic waves that move through them -- much like the way high
>> frequency radio waves "carry" or modulate the lower frequency waves of the 
>> sound and picture images they transmit to our receivers (which are 
>> to our eyes and ears, by the way). 
>Actually, I would say our eyes an ears are capable of discerning the
>frequencies higher than that of the electromagnetic spectrum. It's just
>that science, up till now, has refused to acknowledge it.
>> Thus, this property of the vacuum would appear to make such zero-point 
>> energy (or "fifth force") the supposed "ether" or etheric force that is 
>> necessary to support or "carry" the entire physical universe, including 
>> its electromagnetic forces (including "light") as well as the electro-weak,
>> strong, and gravitation forces that hold everything together. 
>I'm not sure that you have accurately identified ZPF with the laya point,
>although it seems that the two could be so equated. However, it is my belief
>that ZPF is a condition of every point in the physical world (everywhere
>and nowhere), but a laya point is of a completely different order. We must
>always bear in mind that our physical world is but an phenomenon of a
>higher noumenon.
>> As an added observation... This etheric force supposedly filling the 
>> of space, if incorporated across the board in scientific thinking, would
>> account for "action-at-a-distance" or the entanglement of fundamental 
>> particle-pairs noted in recent CERN experiments -- (as well as its static
>> "zero-point" root accounting for "Inertia")... While, also accounting for 
>Inertia is not possible, it is merely a description of a (transitional)
>state, the dynamics of which are well understood in physical physics. But
>in a higher state much is happening. Inertia is a process, despite the
>perception that it is somehow a tendency to stasis. Stasis is impossible,
>except only as a brief perception in centuries of scientific observation.
>But centuries are too short to proclaim certainty on things acting over
>> many observations or experiences of psi phenomenon, explaining the roots
>> and "mechanics" (or coenergetic "field effects") of consciousness, 
>> mind, memory and will, and possibly negating or modifying the current
>> theories of non causal quantum "indeterminacy"... All of which have been
>> and still are baffling established physical science... (More or less 
> Baffling because those who perceive these phenomenon are as yet unable
> to reduce their perceptions (because they do not understand fully what they
> perceive) to terms which the rest of us can grasp.
>> Einstein's observation that "God doesn't play dice"-- while confirming
>> all the Cosmogenesis theories and fundamental principles of theosophy.) 
>All Cosmogenesis theories? I would venture that SDs is the only one, so far,
>that subsumes, or otherwise explains, all others - and accommodates Einstein
>and Quantum physics. If there is another "theosophical" work which does
>as much or better, I would very much like to know of it.
>Leon, I admire your quest to validate in science the scientific implications
>of IU and SD. But you must be aware, having read them both, that science
>as commonly practiced is an intellectual trap for the unwary. It is so easy
>to surf on the physical wave. You will even extract some limited benefit
>therefrom. But you also might find yourself confined to a spinning vortex
>promising everything, but yielding only further promises.
>Best regards,

[Back to Top]

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