the location has no center

[Michael Sternbach]

Thanks for the explanation.   I see the triangular model as ; 2 polarities with a third that either; originated, mediates or is a result of the other two.

 

You summarized that nicely.

 

When I mention 'a factor infinite or unknown' I am referring to a force / reason ....   we can say  +n  and  -n come together to form zero ... but what caused them to 'separate' from 0 in the first place into two polarities (unless one is just saying they are not and are just different ways of looking at things). the big bang might be explainable as emerging from singularity, but what caused it that to happen in the first place? If it was 'inherent' in the formula ... why was it ever singularity. It might be just a different way of looking at things ... but here we are   In multiple forms of the one , not in singularity  .

 

Good question. There is in fact a model of the Universe called "Steady State" that doesn't assume a Big Bang. It is reminiscent of the Buddhist view... No beginning, no end, no hurry. Feels sort of comforting. However, it is regarded as obsolete by most cosmologists.

 

Conformal Cyclic Cosmology talks about the Universe being destroyed and recreated periodically. This is in tune with the Hindu perspective.

 

The principle that you are looking for might in fact be cyclicality.

 

Looking into matter itself on a sub-atomic level ... as opposed from looking at matter and postulating how it came about (like in Kabbalah ... sorta ) 

 

 

The Kabbalistic model has 3 levels or sephiroth above the abyss of (any ) perceptions (supposedly)  and then has 7 levels of manifestation down to 'matter'.  The 'string theory / M-theory ' model  has 3 dimensions above the level of (normal) perception and below this another 7 'dimensions'  both postulate a 10 /  11  level model and both have a level of duality expression ( in Qlippoth and in Supersymmetry theory.

 

I see, 10 or 11 dimensions both in String Theory and in the Kabbalah... Yes, that is interesting. (Not sure how Supersymmetry would tie in, but who is to say it doesn't.)

 

Yes ... to postulate a whole different universe where everything is the same except that I didnt answer this part of the post (when I actually did ) seems a complex issue, instead of just looking at 'what did happen' makes the 'present' 'one' reality unfold.

 

Yeah, having to create a whole Universe for allowing you to write part of a post sounds like an awful waste (no offence meant).

 

It creates all sorts of weird ideas in people that just accept it ... like how a tarot reading was right at the time of reading but the future changed and got it wrong ... not the tarot reader  

 

In this context, I liked your John Dee example. Oh crap, I'm on the wrong forum board... I will comment on the topic over-there - probably.

[Marblehead]

Good question. There is in fact a model of the Universe called "Steady State" that doesn't assume a Big Bang. It is reminiscent of the Buddhist view... No beginning, no end, no hurry. Feels sort of comforting. However, it is regarded as obsolete by most cosmologists.

 

I think we would find that (Steady State) more Christian than Buddhist.

[Michael Sternbach]

In the Christian scheme, God created the Universe saying: "Let there be light!" That sounds quite like the Big Bang.

[Marblehead]

In the Christian scheme, God created the Universe saying: "Let there be light!" That sounds quite like the Big Bang.

Hehehe.  Okay, I will give you that one.

 

But let's not forget that the Church burned people at the stake for suggesting the possibility that the Earth was not the center of the universe.

 

The Church also defined that the entire universe rotated around Earth in a non-changing (steady state) process.

[Michael Sternbach]

Hehehe. Okay, I will give you that one.

Thanks!

 

But let's not forget that the Church burned people at the stake for suggesting the possibility that the Earth was not the center of the universe.

But what has that got to do with the Steady State model? Rather, in the Big Bang model the Earth could in fact be considered the center of the Universe (in particular, 3bob's living room), as well as any other location in space.

 

The Church also defined that the entire universe rotated around Earth in a non-changing (steady state) process.

Okay, there was no end in sight, at least. That was the model Aristotle had established which was generally accepted ever since (until the Copernican revolution).

 

But then, what about the Apocalypse? The end of the old and the creation of a new Earth... Again, closer to the spirit of one of the cyclical Big Bang theories than to Steady State.

Edited February 21, 2015 by Michael Sternbach

[Nungali]

Yeah. Perpetually trapping oneself in duality.

 

The TTC says it can't be named for a reason. Once you name something it enters duality. It is, and has to be, non-psychological. Anything psychological is part of duality and is pissing in the wind of the Dao if you're incessant on reducing the Dao to such concepts.

 

All this talk of space in the universe is completely missing the point. Try again (or better not to).

 

 

Try again ? ... what for ... I will only 'piss in the wind' like that again ... if you are down wind   

[Nungali]

Yeah, after that post you did good to run off and hide.  Hehehe.

 

 

Can you show me where that might be?

 

Yep !  head out thatway and just keep going ...

 

I don't have a problem with the word "space".  I would have a problem with "empty space" and an even bigger problem with "void".

 

true ....  as soon as one thinks of it, one 'puts something in it' and it stops being void.

 

I doubt Religious Taoists feel that way.  Not sure about Alchemic Taoists.

 

But I don't have a problem with this.  I don't have a problem with being one of the Ten Thousand Things - a manifestation that is separated from other manifestations by space.

 

Hehehe.  Don't get lost.

 

I never get lost ...  I just look around ... and here I am .   Well, not true really, I can get lost .... in a philosophical discussion 

Edited February 21, 2015 by Nungali

[Marblehead]

But what has that got to do with the Steady State model? Rather, in the Big Bang model the Earth could in fact be considered the center of the Universe (in particular, 3bob's living room), as well as any other location in space.

I don't know what anything has to do with anything.  I don't even know how we got out of 3bob's living room.

 

Okay, there was no end in sight, at least. That was the model Aristotle had established which was generally accepted ever since (until the Copernican revolution).

And sadly, totally wrong.

 

But then, what about the Apocalypse? The end of the old and the creation of a new Earth... Again, closer to the spirit of one of the cyclical Big Bang theories than to Steady State.

I don't know about any Apocalypse.  Sure, there will be an end to Earth.  Don't know about a new one.  But yes, that would be more in line with the concept of cycles of destruction and creation.

 

I seem to have lost the center.

[Nungali]

You summarized that nicely.

 

 

 

Good question. There is in fact a model of the Universe called "Steady State" that doesn't assume a Big Bang. It is reminiscent of the Buddhist view... No beginning, no end, no hurry. Feels sort of comforting. However, it is regarded as obsolete by most cosmologists.

 

Conformal Cyclic Cosmology talks about the Universe being destroyed and recreated periodically. This is in tune with the Hindu perspective.

 

The principle that you are looking for might in fact be cyclicality.

 

I like to call it ; 'Hot trix in Nova mix'. 

 

I see, 10 or 11 dimensions both in String Theory and in the Kabbalah... Yes, that is interesting. (Not sure how Supersymmetry would tie in, but who is to say it doesn't.)

 

Just more duality ; each particle has a sort of opposite particle  .... or a 'partner' particle ; Z boson : Zino, W boson :  Wino , Top quark : Stop quark, etc .  Now, what are their 3rd mediating principles ? ? ? 

 

 

Yeah, having to create a whole Universe for allowing you to write part of a post sounds like an awful waste (no offence meant).

 

Ha!  I got my first morning's LOL over that - thanks 

 

In this context, I liked your John Dee example. Oh crap, I'm on the wrong forum board... I will comment on the topic over-there - probably.

 

 

 

(     -  private joke folks - I have been suspended 'over there'   for  rocking the boat about  'infallibility'  and shooting down some attempted excuses;     " Its the 'quantum energy'  that got it wrong ... not my tarot reading ! "       )

 

 

 

 

 

mwa ha ha haaar!

[Marblehead]

Yep !  head out thatway and just keep going ...

How would you ever know when you arrived?

 

true ....  as soon as one thinks of it, one 'puts something in ti' and it stops being void.

Yep.

 

I never get lost ...  I just look around ... and here I am .   Well, not true really, I can get lost .... in a philosophical discussion 

All one has to do is find a highway, find the next rest stop, go look at the map and there will be an arrow pointing to :  You are here.  Not lost any more.

 

Yeah, rather than admitting that I got lost I just say that I temporarily got displaced.

[Nungali]

How would you ever know when you arrived?

 

Just keep going. Thats my philosophy. I woke up this morning - still alive ! That's pretty good.  

 

 

Yep.

 

All one has to do is find a highway, find the next rest stop, go look at the map and there will be an arrow pointing to :  You are here.  Not lost any more.

 

Yeah, rather than admitting that I got lost I just say that I temporarily got displaced.

 

Its better than loosing the self. 

 

Jack was a rather slow  young fellow, he could even forget where he was, what his name was or even who he was. His mother sent him to town to market to sell some eggs and other produce and return with the money. It was a long way so he would have to sleep overnight. His mother told him "Jack, you idiot, dont get lost again, take this bright thread and tie some around each tree you pass so you can find your way back home.

 

So he did. When he got to the market place it was late,and the day before the market. Other people had settled down to sleep the night in the market place.  Jack was confused by all the people.  He settled down next to another man and he said to him " I get confused by all these people here. What if I fall asleep and then when I wake up, with all these people here, I cant tell which one is me?"

 

The man looked at him wryly, and then realised he was serious. " Why dont you take some of that bright thread in your pocket and tie some around your big toe. Then when you wake up in the morning, you will know who is you as you will be the one with the thread around your toe."

 

" What a great idea !" said Jack   and he did so.

 

Now, the other man , being a bit of a wag, waited till Jack was asleep, he carefully untied the tread from around jacks toe and then tied it to his own and went to sleep beside him.

 

The next morning Jack woke up ...

 

 

(Oh sorry ... gotta go, a visitor just turned up ...)

[Michael Sternbach]

I like to call it ; 'Hot trix in Nova mix'.

 

Ah, Latin. Nothing to do with the Matrix? (Just asking.)

 

Just more duality ; each particle has a sort of opposite particle .... or a 'partner' particle ; Z boson : Zino, W boson : Wino , Top quark : Stop quark, etc . Now, what are their 3rd mediating principles ? ? ?

 

The mirror (no kidding).

 

 

Ha! I got my first morning's LOL over that - thanks

 

Any time.

 

 

( - private joke folks - I have been suspended 'over there' for rocking the boat about 'infallibility' and shooting down some attempted excuses; " Its the 'quantum energy' that got it wrong ... not my tarot reading ! " )

 

Seriously.

 

Well, no worries, let's talk about Tarot again here on The Tarot Bums. Um, Tao Bums. Um, Whatever Bums.

Edited February 22, 2015 by Michael Sternbach

[Michael Sternbach]

I don't know what anything has to do with anything.  I don't even know how we got out of 3bob's living room.

 

I don't know how we got in-there.

 

And sadly, totally wrong.

 

Um... not totally wrong... But let's not go there right now.

 

I don't know about any Apocalypse.  Sure, there will be an end to Earth.  Don't know about a new one.  But yes, that would be more in line with the concept of cycles of destruction and creation.

 

The Revelation of John has that story.

 

I seem to have lost the center.

 

That can happen to the best of us.

[Marblehead]

The Revelation of John has that story.

 

I have suggested that whoever actually wrote that book had been using some very nasty stuff.

 

I don't believe a word of it.

[Nungali]

or worried about the nasty stuff that can 'happen' to one when one doesnt cover their tracks with obscure symbolism

 

Oh yeah ... Jack woke up, looked at the man with the sting around his toe and said;

 

"if you are me ... then who am I ? " 

[Marblehead]

Well, that story left nothing but questions.

 

"Hold to the center."  How many times has that been said?

 

Doesn't that really mean to live moderately?  To avoid extremes and excesses.  Seems to me that not many hold to that teaching.

 

Most have lost the center before even knowing what the center represents.

[Michael Sternbach]

Let's talk about the Aristotelian/Ptolemaic model of the Universe just a little more. MH said it was totally wrong. I didn't quite agree. So, what is actually right about the Aristotelian model, in my view? Let's look at it step by step.

 

It describes the Universe as a series of shells that carry the celestial bodies, not unlike the shells of an atom carry electrons. On the innermost shell, there is the Moon, orbiting the Earth in the center of it all. We know for sure nowadays that the Moon is in fact the celestial body that is closest to the Earth and orbits her.

 

The further shells are occupied by: Mercury, Venus, the Sun, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn. This is indeed the order of the solar system, except that the Sun ought to switch his place with the Earth.

 

So the ancients almost got it right, except that they believed in a Geocentric system. Was that totally wrong?

 

(To be continued.)

Edited February 22, 2015 by Michael Sternbach

[Michael Sternbach]

Thank you, Apeiron, for your interesting contribution. I meant to extend my previous post along similar lines, but decided to continue the thread now.

 

In the light of the Einsteinian theory, it is equally valid to regard Earth as the center of the Cosmos. Even the tensor equations of Special Relativity remain solvable under this assumption.

 

This doesn't invalidate the modern Heliocentric view. However, we got so used to it that we tend to forget that it is not representing our (the observer's) true frame of reference.

 

What this boils down to is what I already stated in my first post on this thread: There are systems contained within systems.

 

The Geocentric model remains valid from the perspective of the Earth-Moon system. Whereas the Heliocentric model describes the super-system that Earth/Moon are part of.

 

This perspective can be extended to the level of the Galaxy and beyond.

[Marblehead]

Let's talk about the Aristotelian/Ptolemaic model of the Universe just a little more. MH said it was totally wrong. I didn't quite agree.

Hehehe.  Okay, they did pretty darned good considering the tools they had to work with.  But remember, one of my complaints is that they made the universe static and we know that's not true.

[Marblehead]

Well, this depends on what particularly you mean by the "universe". I may sound like a broken record but the CTMU's conspansive spacetime manifold would allow for a "static universe" in some sense even though the contents of the universe would be constantly being adjusted.

I am ignorant of that "CTMU conspansive spacetime" thought so I cannot speak to it.

 

The modern hypothetical model of conspansive spacetime is consistent with current science but was born out of a similar line of a-priori reasoning that was used by Aristotle. So, I wouldn't say that many of the theories from antiquity were outright wrong--rather, they were applied in a way that was not appropriately scaled/mapped to physical reality (which is a problem that many a-priori theories have).

But not only is the universe expanding but the galaxies, in general, are drifting away from each other, faster than the speed of light.  And while Hubble's math was underestimated his theory proved to be correct.

 

And yes, before Hubble's work a static universe was a given, although incorrect.

 

I'm still waiting for Dark Energy to stop pushing things apart other wise we will never have our Big Crunch.

[Michael Sternbach]

This, in many ways, is why I still like the Leibnizean model of the universe. But, to explain that, this discussion would swing back to 'monads' and how each is a 'windowless' thing that ties back to the original unmanifest 'center'. But, to get a detailed account of this, we might need to ressurrect a post or two from the 'Domain of the Rational Mind' thread...

I regard each of those systems within systems that I have mentioned as a Monad of its own. Each expressing a universal pattern in their own way. Likely, what you are referring to as the original unmanifest 'center'.

Edited February 23, 2015 by Michael Sternbach

[Nungali]

 

This doesn't invalidate the modern Heliocentric view. However, we got so used to it that we tend to forget that it is not representing our (the observer's) true frame of reference.

 

What this boils down to is what I already stated in my first post on this thread: There are systems contained within systems.

 

The Geocentric model remains valid from the perspective of the Earth-Moon system. Whereas the Heliocentric model describes the super-system that Earth/Moon are part of.

 

 

 

Yep ... very important point IMO ( the highlight) 

 

I like having different models for different perspectives.   My above in and out model (the Kabbalistic tree of Life and M-theory describe different levels by rearrangement of the model * ) , my astro psychological model is different from the Tree of Life model (and the placement of it on the'energetic body' , as the Golden Dawn did)   because they are all different levels ( In my model Mars was just not going to 'fit '  'up  there'  when I pasted it 'on my psyche'  but when I paste it on my body ... Mars 'feels' okay as my right shoulder arm hand  { eg. when I draw and intricate drawing I use my right hand to guide the pencil, but when I do an intricate carving - that requires force behind the chisel - I hold it with my left hand and my right provides the force}. )

 

I dont think we are going to find a 'unified field' model that covers all the aspects.

 

The same way we are not going to find a  unified ...

 

* mythological model.   (there are various components in them; the get reversed, re-enacted, inverted chopped up shuffled and rearranged in any possible combination and theme ... IMO an expression of the 'human soul' and the distinctive 'human evolutionary function'. 

 

Then there are 'intersected models'  like the 'Sun Sphere' concept.   , a geocentric 'astrological model' with elements of a heliocentric model.  The Earth and Moon are always in the Sun Sphere,  but Mars and Venus can be both in, both out , or one in and  one out   ... a 'crazy' idea ... but I tracked them against a volatile relationship I was having once ... it seemed a great indicator and predictor of the dynamics   ( just what every man needs         ) 

 

[  This focus on the frame of reference , or 'perspective' , of course goes beyond the heliocentric model as well. 

 

Earth (movement ) as the geocentric  model

 

.

 

... the Heliocentric model.

 

 

 

 

.........  and  

 

 

Edited February 23, 2015 by Nungali

[Nungali]

I am ignorant of that "CTMU conspansive spacetime" thought so I cannot speak to it.

 

But not only is the universe expanding but the galaxies, in general, are drifting away from each other, faster than the speed of light.  And while Hubble's math was underestimated his theory proved to be correct.

 

And yes, before Hubble's work a static universe was a given, although incorrect.

 

I'm still waiting for Dark Energy to stop pushing things apart other wise we will never have our Big Crunch.

 

 

Why does Dark Energy have to 'push things apart' ?  Why cannot 'everything'   be expanding as a result of the momentum of the big bang  ? 

 

[Marblehead]

That second one would make me dizzy.

[Marblehead]

Why does Dark Energy have to 'push things apart' ?  Why cannot 'everything'   be expanding as a result of the momentum of the big bang  ? 

Because in theory gravity was supposed to slow and then stop the expansion.  So they had to develop an energy that was opposing gravity.  Thusly:  Dark Energy.  The biggest problem is that the speed of the expansion is increasing.  Increasing beyond the speed applied by the force of the Big Bang itself.