Theos-Talk Archives (November 2006 Message tt01004)

I watched a doco on John Dobson and felt what he had to say was worth passing on to others.  He attemps to marry science and vedanta philosophy.




http://www.sidewalkastronomers.us/articles/?id=1005


http://www.sidewalkastronomers.us/articles/?id=1561

http://www.sidewalkastronomers.us/articles/?id=1003



A BRIEF HISTORY OF COSMOLOGY

By John Dobson

Published 2004-10-22 12:51:45 

>From 2002




Newton had a cosmological
problem introduced by combining his universal gravitation with his inverse
square law. In order to avoid infinite gravitational problems, Newtonâ??s
Universe had to be finite in an infinite ocean of space. That is, it had to
have a center. But that contradicts the cosmological principle that the
Universe should look the same from any position. 


Then the astronomer Seeliger pointed out that the Universe could still be
infinite if we allow that over very large distances the gravitational
attraction between bodies falls off more rapidly with distance than with
Newtonâ??s inverse square law. (This suggestion of Seeligerâ??s is the famous
cosmological term Einstein used and later regretted.) 


In order to preserve the notion that "there exists an average density
of matter in the whole of space which is everywhere the same and different from
zero," and to preserve the notion "that the magnitude of space is
independent of time," Einstein introduced Seeligerâ??s cosmological term,
"...a term which was not required by the theory as such nor did it seem natural
from a theoretical point of view." 


Then, in the 1920s, the Russian mathematician Alexander Friedman pointed out
that we could still have an infinite Universe, with an average density
different from zero, and yet get rid of Seeligerâ??s cosmological term if we
allow that the magnitude of space might not be independent of time, that is, if
we allow that space might expand. 


This predicted expansion, which was confirmed observationally by Hubble and
others, implied both an "origin" and a "creation" for the
Universe, and gave rise to the Big Bang models. But how could the Universe come
out of nothing. What drives the expansion? And why should the Universe expand
at the escape velocity? And there was even some doubt that the Universe could
be older than the stars. 


In the 1940â??s Bondi, Gold and Hoyle, in England, pointed out that we could
get rid of the "origin" problem if we allow that creation is
continuous, that is, that hydrogen is created throughout the Universe at a rate
to match the expansion. 


That gave rise to the Steady State models, which hold to the perfect
cosmological principle, that the Universe should look the same not only from
any place but also at any time. But where does the "new hydrogen"
come from? And from where do we get the 3K microwave background radiation
discovered by Penzias and Wilson which the proponents of the Big Bang took as
the clinching evidence for their model? 


Although the Steady State models got rid of the "origin" problem,
they did not get rid of the "creation" problem. But we can get rid of
the "creation" problem as well as the "origin" problem by
allowing that the particles might recycle from the border of the observable
Universe imposed by the observed expansion. (Actually, it is the redshift
itself that imposes the border, rather than our interpretation that the
redshift is due to an expansion.) 


Since the spectral lines of the radiation coming from very near that border
appear gravely redshifted, it follows that, as seen by us, the particles giving
rise to that radiation are of very low energy and very low mass. And that low
mass has two very interesting consequences. 


First: Since radiation going through a field of low mass particles will be
thermalized to 3K by being so often picked up and reradiated, we have a possible
alternative explanation for the observed microwave background radiation
discovered by Penzias and Wilson, and interpreted by some as the
"echo" of the Big Bang. 


Second: If the mass of the particles is low, their momentum, and therefore
our necessary uncertainty in that momentum, will also be low. But, by
Heisenbergâ??s uncertainty principle, if our uncertainty in the momentum
approaches zero at that border, our uncertainty in the position of the
particles there must approach totality. And that allows the particles to
recycle from the border. (Also, as the mass of the particles goes down, their
electrical size must increase, rendering the formation of atoms and molecules
less likely.) 


Now if the particles can recycle, by tunneling, from the border of the
observable Universe, we can get rid of the "creation" problem as well
as the "origin" problem. 


Is there any observational evidence that material is thus recycling from the
border? There is. The Hubble Space Telescope supplied evidence that there are
some nine or more clouds of hydrogen between the quasar 3C273 and ourselves.
And it is difficult to believe that such clouds could have survived for some
fifteen thousand million years without condensing into something we could see.
Measurements with the Hubble Space, Telescope also indicate that there is more
than enough hydrogen in the great inter galactic voids to make all the known
galaxies. And finally, the slowing down of the expansion rate predicted by the
Big Bang has not been confirmed. 


John L. Dobson


January, 2000


Is there anything which this recycling model predicts? There is. It predicts
that the Universe must be built on frustration or it couldnâ??t go on like
this. (This is a steady state model.) 


The streams and rivers are trying to get to the center of the Earth, but the
rocks are in the way, and the streams get frustrated. The rocks are trying to
get to the center of the Earth, but the iron of the Earthâ??s core is in the
way, and the rocks get frustrated. The iron is trying to fall into the Sun, but
its inertia gets in the way, and it coasts around the Sun. The Sun is trying to
fall into the center of the Galaxy, but its inertia gets in the way. The Galaxy
is trying to merge with all the rest of the matter in the observable Universe,
but the cosmological expansion gets in the way. And the cosmological expansion
is trying to reduce the density of the observational Universe, but the
recycling is in the way. 


If it could be shown that the Universe is not built thus on frustration so
that it could go on like this, all steady state models would be dead. 


John L. Dobson 


October 10, 2002


Of course, there is still the question as to why we see hydrogen falling
together by gravity to galaxies and stars. Why hydrogen? Where does the gravity
come from, and the inertia, and the electrical charge? 


That problem was handled by some ancient physicists whose word for the
Universe was Jagat, The changing. But they were smart enough to see that since
change is seen against the changeless, there must be something underlying the
changing Universe that is not in space and time, and therefore undivided,
infinite, and changeless. There question then was: "How do we see
change?" And they said, "It can only be by mistake." So they
studied mistakes, and they said that if one mistakes a rope for a snake, the
length and diameter of the rope must show in the snake. That is, the undivided,
the infinite and the changeless must show in our physics. That might explain
gravity, electricity, and inertia. But why, if we see a duality or a plurality,
doesnâ??t the undividedness show through and shut it down? Perhaps it is
because we see an electrical duality within a gravitational plurality, and they
keep each other up. This wouldnâ??t be interesting, of course, if it didnâ??t show
up this way in our physics, but it does. 


The undividedness can close down the duality of the electron and the
positron, because neither of them is wound up on the gravitational plurality.
But it cannot close down the duality of the electron and the proton in the
hydrogen atom, in spite of the enormous electrical attraction between them.
Thatâ??s because the proton is tied into the gravitational plurality whereas
the electron is not. (Thatâ??s Heisenbergâ??s uncertainty principle.) And
particles with a half unit of spin (Fermi particles) cannot occupy the same
energy state and collapse the neutron starts. (Thatâ??s Pauliâ??s Verbot.) 


Those ancient physicists saw that this Universe is made out of energy which
they saw as the underlying existence showing through. Although they failed to
mention nuclear energy, they listed five forms of energy perceivable by our
five senses, gravity with the ear (the saccule), kinetic energy with the skin
(as temperature), radiation with the eye, and electricity and magnetism with
the tongue and the nose (salty and sour are electrical sensations, and the nose
reads molecular structures tied together by magnetic bonds). They even saw the
identity of mass and energy, which we didnâ??t get from Einstein till 1905.
Mileva Einstein was a close friend of Nikola Tesla who got that idea from Swami
Vivekananda, and he got it from the Sanskrit language. All this is built into
that language, and anyone could have seen it. Why me? I am not a Sanskrit
scholar by any stretch of the imagination; however, I have been exposed to
Sanskrit over most of the last century. 


If the changeless didnâ??t show through in our physics, we wouldnâ??t have
inertia. If the infinite didnâ??t show through, we wouldnâ??t have electricity.
And if the undivided didnâ??t show through, we wouldnâ??t have gravity and the
attraction between opposites. Also, if the duality didnâ??t keep up the
plurality, we wouldnâ??t have the atomic table. And if the plurality didnâ??t
keep up the duality, we wouldnâ??t have atoms at all. Thatâ??s how I see it. 


John L. Dobson 


October 11, 2002


 


 


 


 


 


http://www.sidewalkastronomers.us/articles/?id=1019


 


First we need to understand that if we have mistaken the underlying
existence for what we see in time and space, we must have seen the
underlying existence, because you can't mistake your friend for a ghost without
seeing your friend. And if you friend is tall and thin, the ghost will be tall
and thin, and if your friend is rolly polly, you'll see a rolly polly ghost. So
the Little One has said that the changeless, which must show through,
shows through as inertia, and the infinite and the undivided show through as electricity
and gravity.


Einstein's famous equation, E = mc2, says that there's no such
thing as matter. There's only energy, which those ancient physicists in India
said, long ago, was the underlying existence showing through. This famous
equation has been misinterpreted over the whole planet as meaning that mass
could converted to energy. But that would be different equation, E + m
= K, where K stands for a constant. And since in Einstein's day we were
measuring mass in grams and energy in ergs, we had to now how many ergs make a
gram. That's the c2, in that equation. It simply says that the number of ergs
that make a gram is the square of thirty billion.


Einstein took that equation the way he wrote it, that there's no
such thing as matter, and referred to that equation as "the equation in
which energy is set equal to mass." And toward the end of his
life he wrote, "Matter had fallen out of the physics as a fundamental
concept." He never made that usual mistake. Most probably he never even
saw how it is taught in school.


So much for where our modern scientists have slipped up. How about our
modern Vedantins, where have they slipped up?


First we need to go back to those early Vedantins, the early
physicists, a few thousand years ago. They saw that the Universe is made our of
energy, and they even had Einstein's E=m built into their Sanskrit language.
Now their word for the Universe was Jagat, the changing. But
they were smart enough to see that change is seen with respect to something
else. If you're going down the highway at sixty milers per hour, it's with
respect to the highway. So those early physicists saw that there must be,
underlying the Universe which we see, an existence not in time and space and
therefore neither changing, finite, or divided.


Their question then was, "If what exists is changeless, how do we see
change?" And they saw that it must be due to a mistake. So they
studied mistakes. Now the notion that we have mistaken that underlying
existence, Braham, for the world which we see, and that the underlying
existence shows through in what we see, is the root of Advaita Vedanta. That's
why those early Vedantins studied mistakes.


And they pointed out that in order to mistake a rope for a snake, there are
three things that one must do. First, one must fail to see the rope rightly.
That they called the veiling power of Tamas. Then, one must jump to
the conclusion that it's a snake. That they called the projecting ower of Rajas.
And finally, one must have seen the length and diameter of the rope, in the
first place, or one never would have mistaken it for the length and diameter of
a snake. That they called the revealing power of Sattva. You can't
mistake your friend for a ghost without seeing your friend. The underlying
existence must show through.


This where the Sankhyans slipped up. They failed to notice that the first
cause of our physics is a mistake and that the underlying existence must show
through. Then, of course, they also failed to notice that the three Gunas,
i.e., Tamas, Rajas, and Sattva are related to three aspects
of that mistake. That was their big slip. Nature, Prakriti, the first
cause, was said to be made of the three Gunas, but it wasn't thought
to be a mistake. Prakriti was said to be active but insentient. And
that's another slip. Nature is sentient. Protons discriminate protons,
electrons, neutrons, spin up, spin down, gravity, electricity and inertia. None
of our physics would work if matter were insentient. Prakriti was said
to dance for the Purushas, which are sentient. And the name of the
game was isolation from the Prakriti. This is very different from Vedanta.


Many of the modern Vedantins have slipped up here, by going along with the
Sankhyans in their use of the Gunas, and thus, overlooking the
importance of the revealing ower, they tend to see Maya, nature, as a
"thing" like the Prakriti of the Sankhyans. They fail to see
that there is only the underlying existence showing through in the revealing power.
They don't even mention the revealing power, and they attribute the veiling and
projecting powers to ignorance.


This is Sankhya, not Advaita Vedanta, not even Vedanta. Advaita Vedanta says
there is only the underlying existence. There is nothing else to see. This
whole Universe is nothing but that underlying existence, Brahman, as seen in
space and time. And the name of the game is to see through the mistake.


Again I quote the Little One in The Moon is New. She often referred
to Sri Ramakrisna as the Old Man in J.D.'s shrine, and she said, "The
life of the Old Man in J.D.'s shrine is the observational evidence that the
underlying existence may be addressed as Mother, and that it's possible to
reach Her through many different paths." 


John L. Dobson Hollywood March 20, 2004 For Swami Swahananda


 




Cass




 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Sponsored Link

Mortgage rates near 39yr lows. 
$510k for $1,698/mo. Calculate new payment! 
www.LowerMyBills.com/lre

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