05. THE SPACE IS CREATOR. THE DISPUTE BETWEEN NEWTON AND EINSTEIN
If you will deeply thought about the significance of the word “Space” you
will have to admit that practically impossible to say about it something
definite and really explain what it is.
Such words as “emptiness”, “vacuum”, “infinity”, “Universe” or something
of the sort will come to mind.
Agree it’s not easy for the human to talk about what is empty for him
(her) – invisibly, unheard, impalpable, without taste and smell, while all around us we can touch,
see, hear, scent and taste.
As a result, in the minds of most people, the space has always been no
more than an endless volume of emptiness where there is our world and we - in
other words, something non-existent.
The thinkers of philosophy and science have spent a good deal of time and
effort trying to discover the relations between the space and all the objects
in it.
Sure, originally the scientists are mainly interested in the space from a
practical point of view. Even in ancient times people had experienced a need to
know the distance between the bodies as accurately as possible.
A distance measurement is a measurement in the space. For this purpose
there is geometry, the basis of which was laid in III century before Christ by
Euclid. He considered the space as “emptiness”. From his point of view it is
isotropy, homogeneous and limitless.
For realization of distance measurements it was needed to Euclid only
three coordinates as opposite to the multitudes following of the Einstein
physics, for whom it’s not enough three and they brought down on us yet the
fourth coordinate (dimension), fifth, sixth and so on. What are they for?
Hereinafter the scientific views on this question became all more to
approach to the philosophical.
In this
scientific-philosophical synthesis we view the space everywhere together with
other category – “time”. For them there was contra posed the “Matter” or
otherwise “material objects”.
In the history
of philosophy there are two concepts describing the relation to each other of
the space (and the time) and objects in it.
We name one of them as substantial, and other – as
relational.
Disagreement
with each other of these concepts is directly connected with the scientific
dispute of the classic mechanics and relativistic. This scientific debate we can
call as the “dispute of Newton and Einstein extended through the time”.
The basis of classical
mechanic is the substantial concept according to this the space (and the time)
exists by itself, regardless of the objects located inside this space.
I. Newton
supposed that the space where we live is like the forever existing,
unrestrictedly large, fixed “box” without sides – the container of the Matter.
The properties of this "box" do not change over time and do not
depend on how the substance distributes and redistributes in it.
Isaac Newton
The Space of Newton and Euclid is not able to shrink and stretch – i.e. to curve. Therefore, in this space the shortest distance between two points - is always a straight line and not a curve.
The relational concept (hence the similar name) lies in the framework of relativistic mechanics. Proponents of this view consider that the "space" is
produced by the objects existing in it.
The space of A. Einstein can bent (contract and
expand) and
it is a non-Euclidean (or in other words a
non-Newtonian).
Albert Einstein
In such
non-Euclidean space the shortest distances between points, the segments must constantly bend, and the distances between points must increase than decrease.
Einstein connected gravity with the compression of space, and the acceleration or deceleration of time with a degree of curvature of space. The more it is compressing and the more weight at this point, the slower time passes there. The more extended and less weight at this point - the faster it flows the time.
We share the conviction of the first concept - the substantial and, so are increasingly proponents of classical mechanics, not relativistic.
We consider that
the space does
not disappear, if vanish all existing objects in it.
In addition, we believe that space is not compressed and expanded. These properties are inherent only in the substance.
But at the same time, we must acknowledge
that the
relational concept
of relativistic mechanics has lifted on a surface a very important layer of knowledge about the structure of the universe.
The only problem is that the proponents of each view describe the universe from their own points of vision.
At the same time, classical
mechanics and the substantial concept are really talking about the relationship between the space and the objects in it.
While the concept of relational and relativistic mechanics tells not about the space, but about what actually exists in it, and is one of its manifestations, namely, about the Spirit (Energy, Ether).
The fallacy of relational concept and relativistic mechanics is that they attribute to the space the property of mobility while it is actually stationary.
We can say that relativists have based on all things of the Movable, Fluid Space, while moving and flowing is the Spirit, the second aspect of the Absolute, but not the Space (Matter, Substance), First, Primal Aspect.
The merit of the same Einstein is that he came close to understanding that "something" in the space
can move in any desired direction.
Yes, that's right, "something" is "flowing" in space
and from the flowing of this "something" all processes and phenomena in the universe are depended. This "something", as has just been said, it is the Spirit.
Besides the views on space of science and philosophy, a special place among all the existing opinions occupies the Theosophical course led by Madame Blavatsky and AA Bailey.
Helena Petrovna Blavatsky
Master KH,
the Master Morya, Master Rakosi,
HP Blavatsky
Alice Ann Bailey
Alice Bailey
Theosophical views on this matter are such that we can attribute
them in
some extent to the substantial philosophical concept.
The difference is that the theosophists not only consider the Space as secondary to the objects of the Universe, but also give it the main role, seeing it as the first principle. While for all the objects, "moving and existing" within the
borders of
this space, the Theosophists gave the position of the second plan. For them, the objects are secondary, and the Space is primary.
We offer to your
attention a
series of quotes taken from the theosophical literature, particularly from books Blavatsky E. and A. Bailey.
“There
is one Boundless Immutable Principle; one
Absolute Reality which, antecedes all manifested conditioned Being. It is
beyond the range and reach of any human thought or expression.
The manifested Universe is contained
within this Absolute Reality
and is a conditioned symbol of
it. In the totality of this manifested
Universe, three aspects
are to be conceived.
1. The First
Cosmic Logos, impersonal
and unmanifested, the precursor of the Manifested.
2. The Second
Cosmic Logos, Spirit-Matter, Life, the Spirit
of the Universe.
3. The Third Cosmic Logos, Cosmic Ideation, the
Universal World-Soul.
From these basic creative principles, in successive gradations there
issue in in ordered sequence the numberless Universes comprising countless Manifesting Stars and Solar Systems” (Alice Bailey's "A Treatise on Cosmic Fire", pp. 32-33).
“Space is an entity and the entire "vault of heaven" (as it has been poetically called) is the
phenomenal appearance of that entity” (A. Bailey "Esoteric Astrology", page 18).
“The Ancient
Wisdom teaches that “Space is an entity” (A. Bailey" Esoteric Astrology ", page 19).
“What is that which was, is,
and will be, whether there is a Universe or not; whether there be gods or none?' asks the esoteric Senzar Catechism.
And the answer made is —SPACE” ("The Occult Catechism", taken from the Secret Doctrine by HP Blavatsky).
Theosophists gave to the space a reality. In their interpretation, it is something concrete, real, and not "empty". In their understanding the space is not "nothing", it is - "something".
Finally, we should mention
one more look at the space - the religious. The uniqueness of this view lies in its imaginary abstraction from what it really dedicated.
The theosophical literature leads us to this point of view on the space.
Actually, the Theosophical course is just intended to unify and reconcile of all existing religions in the world.
Therefore, we can assume that the theosophical literature paves the way for the reader, on the one hand, in the world of religion, and on the other - in the realm of science.
Theosophy seeks to give a scientific explanation of religious beliefs, as well as to resolve the problems and dispute the questions of
science with the help of esoteric concepts and information.
If you start to
study religious treatises, it turns out that mystically minded researchers of mysteries of Being and seekers of meaning in life always spoke about the Space. Of
course, they were well aware of what they spoke, but preferred not to call directly that about they wrote by the Space, and gave for it all sorts of names. The Space - this is the Matter, the first aspect of God. And we have already spent a lot of time trying to tell the tale of this Unknown Something.
However, we repeat and give the most famous of these names - Creator, God, Absolute, the Almighty, the World Mind, Allah, the One, "One of Whom About Naught May Be Said", One Reality, Infinite Principle, the Lord of the World, the Universe, Space, Brahman, Nothing, Eternity, Divine Unity, the Absolute Consciousness, the United Self-existing reality, the One Being, Alpha and Omega, Svabhâvat, Global Essence, the Divine Being, the Absolute Principle, Parabrahman, Reality not having a second, Comprehensive Space, Infinite One Being, Absolutely Everything, the Absolute Container of all things, the One Life, "In him we live and move and have our being", Rootless Root, Infinite and Eternal Cause, the Unconscious and the Unknowable, Mulaprakriti (Mula – the root, Prakriti – the Matter) "All in All", Pradhana, the One Eternal Element, All-ness, Causeless Cause, "Eternal Breath are unaware of itself," Apeiron, Arche.
This list we could go on and on. Minding of the need to unite the scientific outlook with the religious, we also will attribute to this list such scientific concept as a vacuum.
The striving of
Initiates poets and writers ahead of time do not disclose to immature people
all Secrets of Being and Not-Being - that's the reason for the presence in their literature the mystical cover, with which they hid from the uninitiated the very foundation of our existence.
Let us try to combine as much as possible the views of scientists and poets. This should benefit both, and others - bonding, thus, the
foundation of
the human world
view.
The Space described
by Euclid and Newton – it’s the Matter, the Primal Essence, the Infinite Constant Principle, the Absolute Reality.
We can really
compare this Unmanifested Cosmic Mind with an empty box without walls. Although in reality this "emptiness" is not empty.
This is the
foundation of the universe, its origin, the matrix. This void we can see as a
fundamental principle, "fabric", on which the manifested Universe is
painted like a pattern.
About this
Space Blavatsky and Bailey told, calling it the "entity".
This Space is really
absolute – i.e. constant, fixed and eternal. And it is "empty" in the
state of unmanifestation.
Are there
anywhere borders of the Space? Whether it comes in contact with something
similar or different from it? If are applicable to it all our human notions of
borders? To these questions we have no answers.
In relation to
Space it’s pointless to use pronouns that characterize sexual identity, as the
division into two sexes - a phenomenon unique to the plant, animal and human
organisms.
Therefore, the
space - it's not "he" or "she." The closest thing to it the
pronoun "it", but this is a convention.
To the space
in general we should not use the concepts related to sex differences. This can
be done only to the Spirit and Matter, and then symbolically.
In the state
of manifestation the Spirit flowing in the “Souls” fills the Cosmic Substance
(Matter).
Modern scientists
have largely rejected the idealistic approach to the questions of the structure
of the Universe. They reject the Creator, God as the main leading and the creative
principle of the Universe. However, in science everywhere you can find the
concept "Nature" Incomprehensible, inexplicable, omnipotent, and
semantically it is very reminiscent the religious terms "God" and
"Creator". And when the scientist says: "Laws of Nature",
it sounds like the "Word of God" in the mouth of a true believer.
Everywhere you
can find manifestations of creative activity of God (Creative Space). Each
chemical element, each elementary particle - is the result of Its incessant
"work." By observing the physical, chemical, biological and
astronomical phenomena of the world, we touch the Divine.
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий