Theos-Talk Archives (January 2004 Message tt00217)

Hi Peter (and all us other science minded theosophists), 

Actually, the ABC theory is still in its "pre" state, since none of it is cut 
in stone, and is constantly being modified and polished. Each letter written 
in answer to a direct query or implied question, helps make the changes that 
eventually will develop into a complete scientific theory of everything... 
That has many twists and turns yet to be seen -- as evolution proceeds, from the 
initial ideal simplicity of supersymmetry of superspinergy, to its present 
M-brane physical complexity. 

So far this theory has jumped across the divide between initial conditions 
(looking at it from the inside out) -- and the end conditions of evolution that 
developed human mind and perception on the physical level that can examine it 
from the outside in -- which the ABC theory also addresses, since it is also a 
contemporary theory of consciousness describing both the origin and the 
mechanisms of both perceptive awareness and will from both a physiological and psyc
hological standpoint. 

As I go along and study and develop this ABC theory -- which is just a 
paraphrasing or modern scientific interpretation of the fundamental teachings in the 
SD, coupled with the teachings in all of its referential material -- I try 
putting myself in the position of the zero-point observer that can see both from 
the inside out and the outside in, simultaneously. Thus, when I write, and 
join (since all zero-points are coadunate) my center of inner vision with those 
of the "Masters" (as well as with the other metaphysicists and scientists who 
taught me the ancient and modern ways of looking at reality) -- we** try to 
merge ideas presented by HPB (them) in the SD, with the ongoing work (that is 
continuously changing and being modified) of modern scientists as they slowly 
approach the cut-in-stone occult metaphysics that is only outlined roughly in 
the SD and hidden in its "blinds." In this sense, my letters are written with 
all these Masters and Adept's help, as we try to re-explain, using the science 
of today, what they originally tried to convey to a scientifically 
unsophisticated 19th Century audience. Since there are many ways of explaining the same 
thing, we try to respond directly to the questions and change the approach 
accordingly in each of the letters. 

[**Note: "We" is used here because, before I write the answer to a question 
I have (or someone else asks) I try to look at it from the Master's point of 
view while referring to the Secret Doctrine commentaries on the same subject... 
And, ask them how they would rephrase it in modern scientific terms (which 
Doc Perch stuck in my mind:-) -- but, as much as possible, using ordinary 
English? Then, without thinking about it, I write the answer using my words and 
writing style, and juggle them around -- until (on rereading out loud, as if I 
didn't write them) I hear, as well as picture in my mind, that they make the same 
logical sense from a physical-objective point of view that the original 
commentaries in the SD made from a spiritual-subjective point of view.] (Sometimes 
I miss -- which brings on additional questions, that I use the same methods 
to answer. Eventually, this Socratic process adds more clarity to the overall 
picture.) 

Ultimately, hopefully, with the help of our readers and critics, it will all 
come together into a final Grand Unified Field Theory of Everything that will 
satisfy both the idealists and the materialists, and be simple enough for 
average people to understand and accept... (As, today, so many accept the 
counterintuitive ideas of both relativity and quantum physics). In this sense, we are 
all together, writing the Secret Doctrine "in the language if [this] age" -- 
as HPB recommended. 

When we finish our work, and the worlds scientific gurus accept a Theory of 
Everything (no matter how constructed) that leads to these same understandings 
-- science, religion and philosophy will hopefully begin to become truly 
synthesized in the minds of the entire human race, and we can get on with it (i.e., 
intelligently self guided evolution, both individually and collectively) -- 
without all the side tracks of both "organized" science and religion to hold us 
back. . . Hallelujah, that'll be the day. . . 
(When we can all go lie down on the beach and contemplate the sun and sky 
along with the soothing sound of the surf and the rustle of palm trees.) </:-)> 

As for the heat of the earth and the Sun's contribution to it... My view 
considers all the heat of the Earth (or any other planet) and not solely the heat 
of its superficial crustal surface and the small layer of warmed water and 
air (if any) above it. 

Shawn's view only considers the daily transient heat of this top layer... 
While my view considers -- (as did the scientific "electric universe" theory that 
Shawn attempted to refute [which, incidentally, is right in line with the ABC 
theory]) -- the vastly greater internal heat of the Earths electromagnetic 
core (starting billions of years ago)... That does not now and never did depend 
on the Sun's heat... That also comes from an electrodynamic plasma process. 
But, cannot come from a fusion one (that is much hotter and occurs at greater 
pressure than at the Sun's core)... And, which can only lead, if solidly 
contained intentionally or inadvertently, to a massive explosion. 

Incidentally, that's why all fusion energy experiments using magnetic fields 
for containment, have failed to work at the actual temperature or 
gravitational pressure at the Sun's center. And, why an H-bomb requires an instantaneous 
increase of pressure beyond the critical point, on a critical mass of solidly 
encased, radioactive hydrogen ions (hard water), to initiate. BTW, this 
pressure can only come from a controlled Plutonium A-bomb implosion (that can only 
be triggered by a similarly controlled TNT-HE implosion). That chain of 
cascading events is not very likely to happen inside the Sun. Also, incidentally, 
that's why all so called "cold fusion" experiments have failed -- by turning 
out to be explained by electrodynamic (electrochemical) processes at the 
molecular level.

However, here is a caveat to the above. Since the Sun is in very violent 
gaseous turbulence, there may be limited regions where the heat and pressure both 
physically and magnetically, and the concentration of plasma ions becomes so 
high as to trigger local, short-lived fusion reactions that generates 
neutrons... The sum of which could equal those detected. This could very well confuse 
the scientists into justifying (to prove what they want to believe:-) that 
Fusion is the primary source of the Suns Energy... 

Of course we all know that Fohat has all the necessary energy in its spinergy 
(at the black-hole or quasar zero-point "singularity" at the Solar center) to 
empower all the stars in the Universe -- without needing a controlled or 
contained physical-mechanical process of continuous fusion to empower our little 
Sun (even if such were possible). As far as I know, none of the controlled 
fusion Tokamak machines that the Russian and American governments have spent 
countless millions on researching have ever worked unless the temperature was at 
least six times hotter than the center of the Sun. See:
http://www.pppl.gov/fusion_basics/pages/fusion_conditions.html
</:-)>

Best wishes,

Lenny

In a message dated 01/12/04 3:02:55 PM, snowlion@btopenworld.com writes:

>Leon wrote:
>
>That's why the desert gets cold at night -- because the surface heat 
>contributed by the Sun during the day dissipates back into the atmosphere.
>. . <snips a lot> ... Therefore, the Sun contributes very little of the
>Earth's heat...
>==========================
>
>Leon,
>
>I think I am one of those people for whom you should have developed a *pre*
>abc theory, so I am maybe missing something here. Wasn't Shawn's point
>that the sun is the major factor in the earth's heat, which is why when you
>remove that factor (eg nightime) things cool down quite dramatically...
>and the further away planets are from the sun then the colder they are.