Relatively Absolute?

[yajvan]

Hari Om
~~~~~~~
Namaste ,

I thought I would start a new thread on this if I may. On a recent post there has been a conversation offered up by Willie, Kaos and Sarabhanga. Starting with Kaos' post: http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=14422&postcount=43

What is Absolute and is there something in this relative field that we could suggest is Absolute here?
Sarabhanga offers the following position: http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=14448&postcount=45 i.e. we can consider light an absolute.

I am not the final authority on this matter but offer a different point of view. See what you think and your comments and Insights are warmly accepted. I hope you continue your conversation - very interesting!

If something is absolute, it does not change. It is the same today as it will be tomorrow as it will be a zillion years from now, that is, constant.

If we look to light, it has some of these characterizes, but not all. How so?Light ( or the symbol used in science c ) travels at 2.9979 x 10^8th meters/second [~ 186,000 miles/sec ]. Yet if we put this light though water; c then becomes = 2.25 x10^8 meters/sec., it slows down, has changed. and did not keep its max speed i.e. it gets refracted. Just as going through a prism light gets refracted and we can see its components.

Science sometimes sees light as a wave 'cause it acts like one, then some times it acts like a particle. So they solved the problem , lets identify light as a wave particle.

Based upon these characteristics IMHO light does not meet the Absolute test in our relative field of existence.

So what may cut the muster as they say? Let me offer akasha - space, some call vacuum. One of the 5 tattva. Space is the same in any medium or density or condition -that is, has no refractive index. Its the same in rain, show, heat, fire, light, darkness. Nothing makes it speed up or slow down, get bigger or smaller, extinguish, etc.

One can fill space with pure dense lead, and the quality of space does not change at all. Without space, there is no place to put anything, including light. Akasha is the best friend to light as it allows light to run as fast as it can, c.


pranams,


speed of light source: CRC Handbook of Physics 27th edition

[sarabhanga]

Namaste Yajvan,

Pure Light (untainted by any association with matter) will always have the same velocity ~ and this is taken as a universal constant. From the point of view of a photon (which seems from our perspective to be moving at 299,790,000 meters per second) there is no noticeable motion, no particular distance traversed, and no passage of time. Defined characteristics are almost an artifact of observation, and quantum physics would suggest that until a measurement is actually made, all possibilities are open for these apparently discrete but simultaneously all-pervading photons.

Space is distorted by gravity (i.e. by the influence of matter), and indeed, space seems to have been expanding ever since the universe was created from its mysterious first singularity. The unfolding of space is intimately connected with the existence of its manifest contents (including all matter and all energy, which basically boils down to photons, i.e. Light).

I would not say that Akasha is exactly equivalent with Space-Time, nor with Light. These are both approximations (like the particle-wave analogy for the nature of photons). The ultimate nature of Akasha lies somewhere behind what we innocently distinguish as measured dimensions and the spectrum of light.

Akasha is the best friend to light as it allows light to run as fast as it can.

Nicely put!

[yajvan]

Hari Om
~~~~~~~


Namaste sarabhanga,

I leave this to your good nature and sharp intelligence to discern.


"This is what we mean by saying that curved space-time does not involve a curvature of space. The only effects in the relation between coordinate time and �space-time� are the clock-slowing effects of velocity and gravitational potential." ... Meta Research


http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/gravity/spacetime.asp


pranams,

[sarabhanga]

Namaste Yajvan,

�Space-time� is distorted by gravity, while normal space (as we perceive its three dimensions) is not changed.

�The bending is most easily explained as a refraction effect in the space-time or light-carrying medium.�

Space-time is theoretical from our point of view, but from a photon�s perspective it is perhaps closer to the truth.

All observations depend on the perspective. And when 3-D space is taken as the absolute frame of reference, then all else is adjusted to fit. But when the photon is taken as the fixed perspective, the various dimensions of space-time become non-fixed.

But what about the idea of space expanding over time? Was all space pre-existing in the nescient universe, stretching out as the universe expands? Or is new space of fixed dimension created all the time to accommodate the light as it expands from the source? Or has 3-D space always been laid out in fixed measure as an eternal infinite expanse from even before the �big bang�, and within which the drama of creation unfolds?

The maximum age for the universe is about 15 billion years old, so the first created photons would have radiated 15 billion light-years in all directions. The full diameter of this expansion would thus be about 30 billion light-years.

But how far does space extend? Only up to this limit? What conditions exist beyond the reach of the all-pervading photons?

Due to the combined effects of the expansion of the universe and the speed of light, however, it has been suggested that the universe is actually at least 156 billion light-years across.

See: http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...ay_040524.html

"All the distance covered by the light in the early universe gets increased by the expansion of the universe," explains Neil Cornish, an astrophysicist at Montana State University. "Think of it like compound interest."

Need a visual? Imagine the universe just a million years after it was born, Cornish suggests. A batch of light travels for a year, covering one light-year. "At that time, the universe was about 1,000 times smaller than it is today," he said. "Thus, that one light-year has now stretched to become 1,000 light-years."

All the pieces add up to 78 billion-light-years. The light has not traveled that far, but "the starting point of a photon reaching us today after travelling for 13.7 billion years is now 78 billion light-years away," Cornish said. That would be the radius of the universe, and twice that -- 156 billion light-years -- is the diameter. That's based on a view going 90 percent of the way back in time, so it might be slightly larger.

The galaxies themselves are not moving through space (at least not very much), but the space itself is growing so they appear to be moving apart.

[yajvan]

Hari Om
~~~~~

Namaste Yajvan,

“Space-time” is distorted by gravity, while normal space (as we perceive its three dimensions) is not changed.

But what about the idea of space expanding over time? Was all space pre-existing in the nescient universe, stretching out as the universe expands? Or is new space of fixed dimension created all the time to accommodate the light as it expands from the source? Or has 3-D space always been laid out in fixed measure as an eternal infinite expanse from even before the “big bang”, and within which the drama of creation unfolds?

The maximum age for the universe is about 15 billion years old, so the first created photons would have radiated 15 billion light-years in all directions. The full diameter of this expansion would thus be about 30 billion light-years.

But how far does space extend? Only up to this limit? What conditions exist beyond the reach of the all-pervading photons?

Namaste sarabhanga,
thank you for responding... yes, this is my understanding too - space-time is influenced by gravity, yet not the akasha itself.

What about space expanding over time? I have given this some thought and am not sure brain can generate enough BTU's to fully comprehend the reality of this , but let me offer my POV in a few steps.

• If there is not space, akasha, already there ,to provide the universe to expand into, then what was there?
• If I say well nothing was there. And If I say nothing, then I have just said it was space, no-thing = akasha that was there before hand.
• Then one argues with one self, ' no no, not space, its not space, its nothing! its Void' - yep, Void=nothing=space

As I understand it, when science says the universe is expanding, it is the physical universe of matter and dark matter , light and photons, that continues its march into the infinite.

Even if we go back to the point in time where this big bang happened (If in fact what we, by peering deep into space, believe takes us to this singularity of this universe) - it is my contention that the big bang lived in akasha and did not produce akasha. That is, I am not of the opinion that the big bang brought space with it to the party.

This notion is stimulated by the Taittiriya Upanishad, Brahamanda Valli.
The other book that has stimulated these thoughts is the Yoga Vasistha starting with 6.2.161. " When infinite consciousness alone exists, what is there to come to and end". I do Yoga Vasistha an injustice by picking only one line, yet this is the core of what Vasistya-ji brings to Rama in this section. In essence, what is out there? Chitt-akasha, that is so flexible as to be chitt or to be akasha, without end.

This is my perspective on this... I could be wrong, yet intuitively it feels right for me.

AS for science, absolutely look for them to assist with this notion over time. When I was young and took a rash of cosmology classes, then the universe was 9 billion years old; as I grew older, so did the universe! Now we are at 15 billion years [it seems to expand at the same rate of McDonalds selling burgers - maybe a strong correlation there? ].

It is my humble opinion as scientists/astrophysists expand their thinking this number will also be superseded by a new one. Time will tell.

Last, am I adamant about this position I describe ? Absolutely not... I am a student of life, and when better knowledge comes along, its time to leave the ego at the door and learn.

Even as heat is to fire, firmness to mountain, sweetness to sugercane, butter to milk, coolness to ice, brightness to illumination, sweetness to honey - so is the universe to consciousness. - Yoga Vasistha 3.14



pranams

[sarabhanga]

Namaste,

If there is not space, akasha, already there, to provide the universe to expand into, then what was there?

Quantum physics suggests that the unfolding of space is intimately connected with the existence of its manifest contents.

And I would not say that akasha is exactly equivalent with space, nor with light. These are both approximations.

The ultimate nature of akasha lies somewhere behind the manifestation of both space and light.

If space and akasha are not assumed to be identical, then your question almost answers itself. The whole manifest universe of space and light has expanded within the eternal infinite (without any dimensions and thus truly immeasurable) akasha.

Three dimensional space requires the existence of different directions, and then (even without any observer) we must assume the existence of dualities such as up-down and left-right.

Without space there is not absolute void ~ rather, there is only pure akasha (or advaita consciousness).

The expansion of space is now generally accepted, and not merely as a theoretical implication, since it has actually been detected by observation ~ see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space for a general review.

If space is assumed to be fixed and eternal, then much of modern physics would have to be scrapped. Relativity and quantum mechanics assume that dimensions are dynamic. If space is fixed and eternal, then the ultimate truth is closer to Newton�s understanding.

The age of the universe has now been ascertained by many different methods, and all are coming to the same conclusion (give or take a few billion years). The important thing is that all methods agree that the physical universe has existed only for a certain period of time, and that at some point it was actually born.

[atanu]

Namaste,
-----
If space and akasha are not assumed to be identical, then your question almost answers itself. The whole manifest universe of space and light has expanded within the eternal infinite (without any dimensions and thus truly immeasurable) akasha.

Three dimensional space requires the existence of different directions, and then (even without any observer) we must assume the existence of dualities such as up-down and left-right.

Without space there is not absolute void ~ rather, there is only pure akasha (or advaita consciousness).

The expansion of space is now generally accepted, and not merely as a theoretical implication, since it has actually been detected by observation ~ see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space for a general review.

-----

Namaste,

Very well said. The eternal unborn is said to be Cidakasha (pure consciouness), in which Cit grows alongwith space and not Akasha (if we consider it to be space). This is very clearly stated in Yoga Vasista.


From the Quantum Physics POV also, the force that holds all 4 kinds of forces in union as ONE FORCE, acts either in infintely small distances (Plack distances) or at tempeartures which are 100 times more than the tempearture of the sun.

Om Namah Shivaya

[yajvan]

Hari Om
~~~~~

Namaste,

Very well said. The eternal unborn is said to be Cidakasha (pure consciouness), in which Cit grows along with space and not Akasha (if we consider it to be space). This is very clearly stated in Yoga Vasista.
Om Namah Shivaya

Namsate anatu and sarabhanga,
this has been my point all along... perhaps I am remiss in communicating it properly? From my post above I think it captures this notion : In essence, what is out there? Chitt-akasa, that is so flexible as to be chitt or to be akasha, without end.

The only place I am not in sync is the notion of light. I have not considered it part of the equation in my posts, as I have been following the manifestation from unmanifest or akshara--> akasa-->vayu-->agni-->apa-->prthvi

We mention akasa = space... yes Absolutely. I concur. Also there is this space akasha or Bhutakasha or elemental space as we're discussing; as there is Chittakasha - mental space and Chidakasha - knowledge space.

What's my point you may ask? My orientation is the following: vyomam is ~ as close to acyakrita the undifferentiated as anything can be and it is boundless, with no constraints; It is tightly coupled [Bhutakasha+Chidakasha+Chidakasha] and there is no place it is not; infinite; It provides and is the space for all things to unfold and expand into.

I cannot see where we differ on this matter... my only reservation as mentioned prior , I have not considered light to be instrumental in this conclusion or a prime driver of akasa, as I see it as subtler then light.

This does not suggest I view light negatively. For me, and my knowledge YTD yields akasa is acting independenting of light, yet light cannot act independently of akasa. Yet they are best friends.

thanks for listening... perhaps I need a helmet adjustment on this.
No matter - The sun will still rise Friday 5:10 AM PST and we're blessed to have the light to discuss this.

pranams,

[willie]

The thing about the whole discussion is that quantum physics works at the subatomic scale not at the human scale. Relative physics works at the human scale and not at the subatomic level and I don't know of any physics people who will say it does.

The present hubble telescope can see back into space almost to the time of the big bang. Just think what the next one will be able to do.

String theory hold the the present matter in our dimension may have got here when 2 dimension membranes touched and that there is no real that another big bang could not occur or the they may occur all the time , it is just that we cannot detect them because of distance.

[Jigar]

The thing about the whole discussion is that quantum physics works at the subatomic scale not at the human scale. Relative physics works at the human scale and not at the subatomic level and I don't know of any physics people who will say it does.

namaste willie,
When you mention the subatomic scale vs. human scale, should the human scale be noted as our galactic scale? because their could be humans in another dimension. my definition of a sub atomic scale would include the use of elements that are not present in our colectable galaxy and creating elements like antimatter. it just seems to be the wrong term. i wouldnt think of subatomic as just smaller than atomic, because than it would be a principle of minute quantities. I would also go ahead and say that Relative and Quantum physics are 1..... OR an extension part of a new world, now thats some atomic energy that could be waved like a flag unless other elements just appear from nowhere.

maste nam,
jigar