Monday, 16 February 2015

No Big Bang


One of many articles positing Big Bang may not be demanded by alternate model of Universe:

Big Bang Didn't Happen? New Theory Suggests Universe Has No Beginning, No End




The model is 'all in the mind' - albeit in broad mutual agreement. I am in no doubt that Reality is Mind and that any holographic microcosm of Mind can yield or release its personal identification investment in mutual definitions and know - and I say know - Existence with no shadow of doubt or interference of any kind. But One - any one cannot share or give or communicate any facet OF Existence but through some degree of self definition in relation to the aspect of Existence that is moving as the focus of current desire. However, self-definition is not necessarily exclusive and indeed is free to shift perspective - infinitely. A Universe of Living Information or Communication that extends the Time-less Infinite as Idea is not 'inside anyone's skull'. But materialism diminishes Consciousness almost to want to render it obsolete - excepting as a leverage of technologism that in fact turns out to be directed by a private personal agenda after all. This is evident in cultural, social and political thought and consequent behaviour.

It really is a matter of perspective. But the mind of 'command and control' has science derailed from its desire to uncover truth into a presumed neutral and verifiable determination of truth. But all of it is model which may serve some purposes and hinder others.

The alarm bell for a scientist or seeker of truth in any kind of approach is the symptoms that reveal a biased agenda. When science identifies institutionally it has an ego and can be seen to operate a self protectionism of the establishment. Believing neednt be a weak attempt to hold something true to ward off self doubts. For by belief is experience of had. The key - I feel to offer, is to stand in one's belief as one's presence extending as willingness to relate or communicate as part of an ever new appreciation. The belief is a decision in consciousness that operates more as a navigational pathway or channel of communication than as a shield or sword.

But the core Idea of violence as Creation is deeply embedded into the traumatised collective human consciousness and colours everything until it is observed instead of running a program unnoticed. The Idea of no time or timelessness - from which and in which EVERYTHING that is, is and is known to be in the Mind that it is OF, offers a release from the limiting, splitting, warring, mentality that has characterised the human condition for millennia and yet is a conditionING that can be observed and released for a more joy-aligned choice. This is not anti-science for joy is also our genius or more aptly, a channel through which Life Shares Meaning. Of course one can turn one's back on joy and make sacrifice of consciousness, the 'creation' of a self-sense in its own power, but never free of grievance and vengeance no matter how one used magic and rationality to present otherwise.

So busy looking out because of fear that within is an invalidation of self. Its a kind of scam. But one has to extend a true worth to regain one's own and that cant come from a wishful or fearful foundation.


To this line in a comment to the article:

“Science has become polluted with emotion and politics.
We will pay a price for it.”

That elicited my reply:

I had an emotional response to this site deleting my longer reply to yours.  But a coercive hidden agenda operates through notions of purity just as through notions of rationality or indeed the wishful and gullible self-seeking for protection. The price of being out of true is lack of peace, grievance, limitation, struggle and suffering one's projections as if they are actually 'out there'. I do feel the 'church' of scientism is in bed with corporate and financial technologism and that it is a racket.


THIS COMMENT was from Rick to the article - not to me

Albert Einstein was a self centered, egotistic man who received credit for a lot of work he never did. In fact, his entire thesis or theory of General Relativity isn't necessary to describe how this universe works, because most of his work is entirely based on the Laws of Thermodynamics, force, and motion, and he never gave credit to Sir Isaac Newton.

My reply is to Rick's comment:

But he has been iconized and is now embedded in a directed 'history' that most everyone presumes to be genuine currency - and once people think they know and like what they think they know - they don't want to know. But not everyone, so thanks for your comment. We are all containing an ego-centric aspect that can often disguise itself in terms of respectability or acceptability. I don't feel to invalidate a human being as if to validate myself - NOT that I see you doing that - but it so often happens that we like to be right about the wrong we see exclusively or predominately in another. As I do not originate myself I cannot have an original thought - but I can extend a willingness for communication that does not mask a hidden agenda - to the best of my current ability. Passing off as something one is not is an expression of ego substitution for a genuine life. But in making mistakes we CAN become aware of poor choices and so come to better ones.


Rick came back to me:

I don't feel a person needs to invalidate another to advance an agenda either. The fact is he was ego-centric and self centered as his relationship with his wife and children clearly shows. In so far as the rest. The fact is Newton's Laws of Thermodynamics are all that is necessary to create and demonstrate exactly how our universal model functions, and also disproves Einstein's theory of General Relativity.


In conversation with Rick:

Societal norms brought out the egotist in many males in many ways. There is a dance between the individual and their conditioning that often fails to transcend it.
I don't know about your assertion on Newton. What's your take on WHY or HOW the establishment embraced and reformed around Einstein's passing off? (If it is clearly not true, what function is it serving?)

Does the subatomic 'Universe' fit the Newtonian model? I think not. If there is a clear benefit, then a perspective has that much validity for the beneficiary at least. However reputation without substance may seem a benefit but actually operates a disintegrity. So true is a matter of self-honesty. Without such foundation - there IS no foundation!


No comments:

Post a Comment