Dear Ray, I've just been at the library and I read some of a book called "The Big Bang Never Happened" by Eric Lerner. It is very interesting. He puts a case for the "plasma" universe. But I found his refutation of the big bang theory more interesting. It seems it is not a good theory at all... I was interested to find about the "great wall" and other big structures in the universe as the Vedas describe there are big mountain ranges which would have something like the proportions he was talking about for the great wall. But they would go all the way around the earth. So it remains to be seen. He postulated an eternal universe, but the universe is not eternal.. The cycles are eternal though. >And there was me telling you about dingos! When you mentioned >that you had been a systems analyst I suddenly had to change my >preconception of you as an Indian man with long hair and a beard! >I don't know why I had this picture, as most Hare Krishna have >shaved heads, but perhaps that is only novices, I don't know. >I thought I should confess this; you might find it amusing. > I find myself doing the same thing. Last week I was talking to someone who I thought was a student but he turned out to be a 40 year-old man... >I think think that words like spiritual can mean very different things >to different people, and that to have the type of discussion you are >attempting in the scientific usenet groups is unlikely to be meaningful >without first exploring what everyone means by such words. Yes it's difficult. I should get a more traditional scientific presentation together. I don't think they will be able to relate to the standard Hare Krishna presentation... But it doesn't matter. Somebody will read my postings and think about them. That's enough. Even if someone just thinks about Krishna he has made some progress. And you never know, somebody might just take it seriously, do some research and prove it scientifically and change the face of science for good... We are having this discussion now, so for me that means it is already successful. But I have to try and present it in a way the general scientific community can relate to it. I would appreciate any suggestions. I am sure it can be worked in with the fractal ideas... > >Some concepts associated with spiritual are OK with me, but when you >refer to a spirit that is indestructible and survives death and may >be reincarnated (but without memories) then I am very skeptical. >If the memories are not present still, then in what sense is it the >same person? The memories are still there, in the sub-conscious, but we forget them. There are so many documented cases of past-life recollections that it would be difficult to argue this. Of course some may be cheaters but there are so many good examples of people who have recalled places exactly that they have never been to and so on. We forget the past because we come here to the material world to be happy independently from God. But this is not ultimately a happy place. We have to get old, we have to get sick and ultimately we have to die... And we have done these things many, many times before in previous lives. If we could remember all the details it would be difficult to become enthusiastic to do it all again... > >An associated point relates to Karma. It is perhaps comforting to >think that those that do good or bad (this is too simple I know) >will get their just deserts, but when you refer to AIDS as just, >I find that very harsh. There have been many little children get >AIDS either from blood transfusions or by birth. I find the idea >that this is God's will or justice as very cruel. This does not >make it false of course, but I see no evidence that it is true. We are continuing our previous life when we take birth. It's not a fresh start. Even though we can't remember the details we are naturally attracted to the things we were working at in our previous life. So a scientist dies with his work unfinished and comes back again. Although he can't remember it he is naturally attracted to the same field of research and he very quickly makes progress up to the point he left off in his previous life. There many "gifted" children. Five year old expert piano players and the like... So there is no chance. It wouldn't be fair if someone had to suffer if he didn't deserve it. But we [devotees] don't want people to suffer so we try to encourage them to stop performing the activities that cause the suffering. There are the gross physical laws that the scientists and the physicists deal with but there are more subtle spiritual laws as well. Even the Bible says "what you sow so shall you reap" >I do think that those that do wicked things suffer by worrying >about being caught or having someone out to get them, but the idea >that this carries over to other lives has no meaning to me. If they do wicked things [or good things for that matter] but they die before the reactions come back on them they have outstanding karma... They have to come back again to enjoy and suffer what's due to them... > >These values are all a hundred years times various numbers... >17280, 12960, 8640 and 4320. All these numbers are ones which I >have found to be powerful harmonics in my theory. You will see >3 of these 4 in a diagram in my paper RT103. It is clear that >there is a relationship between my discoveries and ancient indian >knowledge. (Is "Vedic" the right term to use here?) Yes. Vedic is the right term. > >I do not find that exactly 100 years is an important time interval >however. The important ones are also shown in that paper, such as >5.92, 17.75, 35.5 years. There is a 106.5 year period, but in my >experience this is not as important as the other ones. It's actually a 360 base thing [see below]... That's close to 35.5? Actually these numbers have been converted to earth years. In other parts of the universe time is different. They are actually originally stated in demigod years. The years of the demigods are equal to 360 of our years [Their day and night is caused by the movement of the sun that takes it through all the constellations in 12 months -- our year is one day to them]. So the original figures asatya-yuga 4,800, treta-yuga 3,600, dvapara-yuga 2,400 and kali-yuga 1,200. I don't know if this helps or not... > >It is very exciting that there should be such good agreements, >but not quite satisfying that the base seems to be different. >Is there any possibility that the 100 years (which is a base I think) >could be not intended to be an exact figure in the scriptures? The base is 360... And it is exact. I'm not sure how it matches up. >> Brahma lives one hundred of such ``years'' and then dies. These >> ``hundred years'' by earth calculations total to 311 trillion and >> 40 billion earth years. > >The 40 billion years cycle is the correct order of magnitude >for the "big bang cycle" if the universe does indeed oscillate. >Current theory cannot answer this question for sure, nor know the >correct period, but it would be of about this size. That must >count as a tremendous "prediction" in comparison to the Christian >idea that the world is 6000 years old. The difference of 7 extra >zeroes is just the right number, whereas picked randomly any >number from say 0 to 15 could have been chosen. > >There is no known scientific evidence for any times of the order of >311 trillion years. Still, science is still young! Brahma's one day is 4,300,000,000 earth years and there is a partial devistation of the universe at the end of each of his days. I haven't got the exact figure handy but I think it's around lunch time for Lord Brahma at the moment. [I will check this and get back to you] So that would mean we have passed something in the order of 2 billion years since the beginning of this day of Brahma. I think he's around 50 [I'll check this as well] so that would put the age of the universe in the magnitude of 4,300,000,000 * 2 * 360 * 50... Quite a big number! [about 160 trillion years!]. The 311 trillion is 100 years of Brahma [the total duration of the universe] but he's only about 50 now... > >The second of your emails... > >> I have just started reading your papers and I am very excited about >> it. You have predicted that the universe may originate from one >> vibration and have a scientific theory to support it. The Vedic >> scriptures state exactly the same thing... That the source of >> everything is sound... It's very exciting. > >Yes, it is interesting that many religions speak about sound or >light. "In the beginning was the word..." or "The Lord said >let there be light.." and so on. Of course in an ether theory >of the universe, the speed of sound in the ether is the same >thing as the speed of light. Put another way, light is sound >waves in the ether. The Vedas says sound CREATES the air, electricity [fire, light] comes from the friction of the air which CREATES the water which CREATES the land... It's very nice. It's described in much greater detail than this but sound [thunder] in the sky produces fire [lightning or plasma] and the plasma or lightning react with the air to produce water [by burning the hydrogen and oxygen in the air together?]. Then the water somehow produces the land... > >> For me the idea of everything coming from sound is somewhat >> difficult to come to grips with but the Vedas says it does and it >> appears you have confirmed it with your work. >> As from the material sound this material creation has begun >> beginning with the sky or either. >> >From either air is created, wind. From air fire is created, electri >> can see from the sound [thunder] there is immediately electricity >> in the sky. Electricity means fire. So from the sky the sound is >> created, from the sound air is created, by the friction of air the >> electricity or fire is created, then within the fire there is >> water, and after water there is land. These are the five gross >> material elements. It is coming from the subtle elements. From the >> subtle elements the gross elements gradually develop. >> >> And we know the method of creation. There was water and in that >> water Maha Vishnu is lying there. From Maha Vishnu in His sleeping >> condition there are so many universes created in His exhaling >> breathing process and when He inhales all the universes are >> annihilated. In this way this material creation is coming and >> going. Bhutva bhutva paralyite. >> the air. Where did so much chemicals come from? Who supplied them? >> If the hydrogen and oxygen is the cause of water then how did so >> much chemicals come into existence? Of course they came into >> existence by the same process as it is stated here. It is coming >> from the sky. And the sky is generated by bhagavat bija in the >> tamo-guna. > >According to standard scientific theory, Hydrogen and Helium were >made in the big bang, while the other elements were made inside >supernova stars. Therefore there had to be some stars go supernova >before life could form. The sun is a second generation star. > >According to my ideas however the atomic particles did not occur >first and stars and galaxies later, but in the opposite order. >First the universe with just one wave, then on to galctic clusters and >galaxies, then stars and planets and atoms actually form inside stars. >Only then do chemicals become possible. This is an unorthodox view >but I think the present ideas are just based on the assumption >that protons and electrons are stable now and therefore must have >been there very early in the piece. > >The order that I describe is much more consistent with your >religion. The universe cycle (and wave) would be Brahma and >so on. My present estimate for one cycle of this wave is >14 to 16 billion years. Not too far from 40 billion years. > >> from Me. Therefore he is acarya. Acarya means one who knows the >> sastra and practally applies it in his life and he teaches the same >> thing to his disciples. That is called acarya. > >But how is one to pick from the many who claim to be speaking >for God. The Pope claims this. Is he really? There are many >others. Yes. It is very difficult.. >In the end it seems to me that "I" must make the choice. >Who do I listen to? The answer must be "Who talks sense". But >I have never found any one source to be always right. I can never >just give away my own reasoning, judgement and ideas. Inside me >are some things that I know to be right, or ways to go about things. You have to find something that satisfies your mind, answers all your questions, otherwise how can you accept it? I would suggest you read the Srimad Bhagavatam. You will find it full of scientific knowledge... >These may have come from my parents by way of teaching, or genetically >from them, or they may be part of every humans genetics. They may >even be a part of my soul or spirit if I have such a thing. We are all individuals and we are all somewhere on the spiritual path... The real purpose of human life is to make spiritual progress. >Whatever, that is what I do listen to, and though I make mistakes >they are my mistakes and I accept responsibility for them, and learn >from them. I do know that within me I can find the means to get >the answers to all questions and problems if I am prepared to put >in the necessary effort. Maybe that is my religion. I don't know >how compatible that is with yours. This is called "Jnana Yoga" it means using your intelligence to understand the world around you. It may take a long, long, thim [many births] but ultimately you will come to the same conclusion. > >I may have missed some points in your letter due to lack of time, >so if I don't answer something that you want an answer to, please >feel free to remind me. I will try to read it again more carefully. > >Best wishes (this is my equivalent for Hare Krishna I guess) > Thank you for reading my letters and replying. There are so many things in Krishna consciousness that are scientific but I think we need to present them in a way that is more "approachable" to the scientists. I will think about that. The main thing is the creation comes from sound. There is only one fundamental particle vibrating at different frequencies... That is the main thing.. If you can think about and understand the following I would be very greatful. As from the material sound this material creation has begun beginning with the sky or either. From either air is created, wind. From air fire is created, electricity. You can see from the sound [thunder] there is immediately electricity in the sky.Electricity means fire. So from the sky the sound is created, from the sound air is created, by the friction of air the electricity or fire is created, then within the fire there is water, and after water there is land. These are the five gross material elements. It is coming from the subtle elements. From the subtle elements the gross elements gradually develop.