Theos-Talk Archives (April 2006 Message tt00747)

In a message dated 4/21/06 8:33:13 AM, yanniru@netscape.net writes:

> Leon,
>   
>  I have nothing personal in my criticsim of your theory. It's just that as 
> far as I can see it is an empty theory that is inconsistent with known 
> physics.
>   
>  For example, below you say that "no one has found a logical flaw in my 
> theory which seems to connect, in a perfect chain of cause and effect, the empty 
> zero-point of absolute space with consciousness and all the infinite aspects 
> of matter " . Well I fail to see any logic at all. Just giving something a 
> name does not say anything at all about it.
> 
If you don't accept the original propositions, how could you follow the 
logic?   Besides, what does that statement have to do with logic?   (Which is 
actually in the explanation of how those "coenergetic" fields radiate, involve and 
ultimately evolve into our space time continuum, one logical step after the 
other, out of the primal singularity.)   I can't help it if you cant imagine an 
"empty point of absolute space" or "the infinite aspects of matter" let alone 
"consciousness" (awareness, perception, will) as the a priori function of such 
an unknowable point of primal space that has no attributes nor ontology or 
epistemology to speak of.    

So, if you want to understand the logic of ABC you'll just have to take that 
as starting point, surround the zero-point "singularity" with its spinergy or 
infinite angular momentum, and follow the logical causative chain of its 
radiation and inflation, subsequent fractal involution, and contraction, after 
breaking symmetry, into our material space time continuum (with all its particles. 
atoms and myriad's of molecular forms) -- along with the evolution of mankind 
on Earth (with its fully developed perceptual mind, memory and self 
consciousness)... While, throughout it all, never violating any natural laws or proven 
theories of physics such as conservation, QED, relativity, electrodynamics, 
thermodynamics, hydrodynamics, etc., etc., and fully explaining the basis of psi 
phenomena, karma, reincarnation, time dilation in ASC, OBE, NDE, dreams, and 
all other paradoxes and anomalies of modern science, including explaining the 
root cause of the DNA code, etc. ... All of which science hasn't got even the 
faintest idea of a handle on.

If you have any questions about any of this from here on out, please ask a 
specific question and I'll attempt to answer it as best I can.   Or, if you have 
any suggestions as to how I might better describe these physically linked 
metaphysical processes, please state them.   Other than that, outright denials, 
or vague assertions based on irrelevant materialistic physics -- without 
logical counter arguments explaining the same hard problems as ABC -- will get us 
nowhere.
>   
>  Then when you do describe some aspect of your so named fields, usually it 
> conflicts with physics. For example down below you go on to say " a unified 
> positive and negative force that is nothing but pure gravity itself (the 
> fundamental root of all the other strong and electroweak forces, including 
> different levels of electromagnetism [with a common electrodynamics] on each level or 
> frequency". Well, in physics gravity split off from the GUT force and then 
> the GUT force split into the Strong force and the Electroweak force which in 
> turn split into the EM force and the Weak force. So gravity is separate from 
> all other forces, not the fundamental root.
> 
Sorry, but in my view, in spite of what may be assumed (which according to 
Jud doesn't exist) by "physics" ( which also doesn't exist :-) -- Gravity can 
only be the initial G-force that radiates from the zero-point spinergy in 
opposite angular directions ( acounting for its attraction and repulsion) and by 
fractally involving through all the coenergetic fields' frequency-energy phase 
orders (i.e., different degrees of substantiality) down to the quantum-metric 
space time continuum, where the electroweak and strong forces take over -- is 
the force that not only holds them all together, but also accounts for their 
attraction to each other and to their central zero-points due to its opposite 
polarity.   
>   
>  So you have your physics all mixed up. Actually it's just your semantics. 
> To make things worse you introduce unknown semantics like "energy phase order 
> of the coadunate but not consubstantial coenergetic fields. "
> 
Admittedly.   But, how else would you describe a dynamic   property of a 
phenomenal field that physics doesn't even recognize as existing, and which has a 
frequency-energy spectrum at least one order higher or lower than its adjacent 
polar fields?   Wouldn't you call each such field a different phase of 
fundamental space?   Wouldn't those fractally involved fields, being inside each 
other in the same overall space be considered "coadunate"?   And, wouldn't their 
differences in frequency energy phase order make them "not consubstantial"?   
Besides those quotes (n context) being attributed to Blavatsky, how specific 
do I have to get.
  
>  So I do not argue with your inspiration. I argue with what you do with it. 
> You make unjustified claims and incorrect identifications with known 
> physics. For example, a spherical field cannot be empty. So work on that particular 
> inspiration to determine if its truly spherical or empty.
> 
I never said the field was empty (especially, since all such fields have 
fields within fields within fields, etc. -- within them).   What I did say was 
that the zero-point centers of those fields are empty (of energy or form)...   
Since, such energy is entirely separate from it in its surrounding spinergy or 
G-force -- which is pure nonlinear abstract motion that doesn't become 
actualized into the linear motion of coenergetic fields until it initially radiates 
into analogous, fractally involved coenergetic fields.   I hope that clears up 
my weird semantics a bit. :-)
>   
>  You can no longer say that no one has ever found a flaw in your logic. I 
> think your logic is quite flawed. And it is certainly not based on Blavatsky.
> 
That's just hand waving.   

Well, I challenge you to find a missing link of cause and effect or a false 
syllogism, and point it or them out.   Maybe you will be the first one to find 
such a flaw, which might help me revise the theory if I have to.   

As for Blavatsky... She outlined the entire metaphysics underlying Einstein's 
theories that inspired me to find a scientific correlation that would be 
consistent with all proven aspects of modern relativity, QED, QFT, string, 
holographic paradigm, multiverse, and other currently isolated theories of modern and 
post modern science -- and that would link them all with the zero-point of 
pure consciousness.    So far, none of them, separately, have come even close.   


So, unless you have read   the Secret Doctrine from cover to cover and 
studied it for as many years as I have, and compared it with the Book of Dzyan, the 
Vedas, the I-Ching, and the world of Hermes, and many other ancient occult 
philosophers, not to mention the modern scientists such as Einstein, Millikan, 
Bohm, Pauli, Iskakov, and others who appear to have used such metaphysics as the 
basis of their visionary ideas, you could never know whether or not the ABC 
theory is based on Blavatsky -- whose writings accurately reflect those ancient 
masters who were close enough to the beginning to know how the triple headed 
Universe of consciousness, mind and matter really works.   

But until an experiment can be derive that will scientifically prove the ABC 
model is the overall basis of a final GUTOE, I suppose we'll just have to 
consider it another philosophical speculation, and I'll have to contend with 
continued disbelief and arbitrary denials based on irrelevant scientific theories 
that, themselves, in any combination, can't answer the questions with respect 
to the synthesis of consciousness, mind and matter that ABC seems to answer 
simply, logically and consistently.   </;-)>

Best wishes,

Leon
>   
>  Yours truly,
>   
>  Richard
> 
> 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]