Big Bang-Myth and Science

If we look at myth at first. Myth is one of these funny words. Myth used to mean something traditionally subscribed to - It can't really be proved(Oral traditions).

A says science we have very good evidence to back up what we say happened. But, maybe that evidence has been misintepreted. Theosophical teaching suggests a very different picture to the one that is taught to our children in schools. Well, see what you think. Perhaps atthis point I ought to offer a disclaimer in that if I am to talk about "Big Bang" scientific stuff. I have to say first, that in no way I am going to say Theosophy says this. Especially when it appears to be contradictory to Professor A or Doctor B says. And also another part of the disclaimer is that we would have no official line on such things as Big Bang's. From that you will gather you willl get a certain amoun of personal opinion about the Big Bang. Now then, imageine tghat you are sittingh on a hill and it is dark an ther is a beautiful clear sky and lovely stars mililions of them all around you as no doubt you have as you wondered what is up there and how it all came about. You appear to see them more or less equally spaced all away around you. And if tghe Earth wasn't in your way underneath where you are stadnig no doubt round there as well. Now then imagine you have fixed your attention on one fo those stars maybe a very small one at the limits of your observation. Your observable limits. And also imagine that you could be instatnly trasported to there. Imagine in your mind's eye being instatnly transoperted form your Earth station viewpoint to this tiny little galaxy as far away as you can see. you would expect as logic,reason or common sense might tell you that when you got there. In frontof you would be an aching void becuase you have come to the end of the stars. All stars would be behind you. Not so, we are told. we've got there. Your view would still be in thecentre of things. How can that be. It seems to defy common sense. WWhy should it be. Why do space, Universe stars behave in tghat seemingly irrational way. It is strange.

There is a reference to backup that-Dr Paul Davies "runaway Universe". Galaxies to us which seem to us to be receding almost at the speed ofl ight someof them owuld you believe and lie near to our horizon ( the one oyou just travellled to) are really located in a nbit. All other galaxies would appear to be receding from that place also. And that our galaxy would appear at thelimit of thier horizon and that cosmic motion is therefore entirely realtive and depends on the postition of the observer. Another astronomer said, "We have no explaination of why this should be so. Oh yes we do squirks the Theosophical. You cannot get out of the centre. The universe is centred upon any pont from which it can be observed. Space of the Universe rearranges itself as you go. You are in a boat on a planet whre surface is entirely conver The only bounds are you own bounds as the horizon doesn't exist. The horizon is a hard and fast ilne but doesn't exist. Try and translate that idea of 2-d space into 3-d dimensions of sapce. So the same principle will hold. Sapceis finite and unbounded. You are in the boat and its centred on you. Your hotrizon will always hold you firmly in the middle and infinte squashed upness.

Limits of space only your horizon. At your horizon space will be infintely squashed up but it will not be a fasct. Light attempting to escape from a high density area liike a planet will be dragged because the light cannot get away,.

Galileo said the earth was the centre of the Universe but all other points were the centre of the Universe ads well.

Cosmogony-study of the origin/evolution of cosmic objects Cosmological principle-That any observer anywhere in the universe has the same view that we have, that is the Universe is not expanding from any centre, but all galaxies are moving away from each other. <> As we are talking about Creation-popular religious views. Science says this religion says that. But theosphy says this. The bible says,"in the beginning God created the heaven's and the EArth" and your son says to you "Who made God?" Go and ask your mum. because that seemed yo suggest s primordial being.

The scientifc view of a fundamemtal particle dare I say is no less ridiculours. Fundamental particle or fundamental being. But bnoth deserve ot have the questioned asked,"Where do they come from" And the Bishop of Woolwich many years ago wrote a book which became a best seller at the time. he was worried that children were asking these questoins and not getting satisafactory answers from the church. So he wrote this book"One ot God".. This description of God was that god was not a being but the grounbd of ourbeing(or both). He got into trouble by his fellow bishops for saying such a thing. For saying something which is far more theosophical that God is the ground of your being. In the Koran, Allah is called various things,"The self-exisitng","The sub-sisitng".Allah subsists in the Universe. Subsists seems to be a good word. Eastern religions tend to generalize that the Universe was not made by God but made of God. The Universe is God made manifest. In the Mexiacan tradition and Zorastrianism we get the idea of 2 Gods. You get the idea of 2 gods(Zorastrainism) interacting to bring the Universe about which sometimes Theosphy terms Father and Mother what in themsleves are ofcourse one. But in manifestation appear to be 2 because we have 2 roots in nature. the root of consciousness and the root of form. Thes interact in the Universe.

it doesn't sound correct to a narrow-minded priest. But that would be there problem rather than ours. Now what doews Theosphy say "The masters were not very happy about creation for a start. In the famous correspondance the cynic had with the Mahatama's. If you insist on using the word creation. You are going to be butting you head against the backs forever. Formation yes, creation no. Not creation or the sense of creation out of nothing. There is that which is foreveris. Which forms, reforms and dissolves becuase the Universe is a cyclic thing. We have to say in Theosophy that things happen fromwithin outwarsd. So they do. Where there are no forms that cannot happen. And when the Univerese comes into being there are any pre-exsiting forms for the expanding to use or issue into. So the form has to be created. The vehicle for the expression of Universe hasd to be created. H.P.B the Universe acts without inwardly. The one element whic is everywhere.

The one element which iseveywhere.

Beginnig of a new Universe. The 2cnd thing I have actually written this down. Because I have heard The hostory of science is really the history of changing opinions is about. When some scientific thesis is brought up. It can change so much in 5 years and be unrecogizable in 20 years. It is talking about the Mother swelling. Well that is an illusion the Big bnang. It doesb not allude to her objectovely. Not an increase in size but a change in condition. What does Theosophy say about cration. One or 2 things it says.

1) Things go from subjective to objective. They go from inner to outer. Think how babies are born. Thibngs have to obey laws. You obey the law. I read you cannot break the law. You only break yourself againt it. Things happen i accordance with law. If you understand how a baby is born then you will. You cannot seewhat is going on inside the cosmic womb. union, gestation and into objectivity comes the baby universe. One of the stanza, "When the Universe comes into objectivity it is called the son. Behold the son. The Universe is referred ot as like a baby. So all evolution is physical. Mexiacan rtradtiont says there are 2 roots for this interaction. oneis the root of conscoiusness, one is the root of matter. the Father which is the root of consciousness interacts with Mother to produce. It is an interaction. Another thing is that it is periodic. Eventually it will come to the bug crunch then it will octract and go out again. The fist movement towards form has to be seen as a contractoin.

Blavatsky talks about in one of her sanza'se to developo your latent dormant intuitive faculty. It is the only arbiter in the end to work out whether it is true or not. If somebody says something is true or false it means nothing. top you until you have vereified it for yourslef. If our intuition.

Periododic formation and sdissolution of the onle element . This is the Universal field in its primary homogenous and metaphysical state The process going from unity to complexity back to unity. It never really loses it's unity. I like to have evidence. Hwre is your evidence? We have got evidence says science./ We don't say "universe started with the big bang". There is vrty strong evidence that what science says is true.

Professor Robert, The fundamentals of the new study of the genesis of Big Bang is that we live in an expanding Unieverse in that the galzxies are moving away from each other at afantastic speen like the aftermatch of some sxplosion. We find tht they all came together 20 billion years agho when all the matter was apcked into a dense mass which exploded and the birth of the Univefrse. becasue gravity acts inwards and everything welse outwards working against gravity.

Doppler shift. The sound srops in pitch as it passes away as waves as stretch out and higher in pithch as they are squashed up.

Light is exactly the saem blue shifted moving towards and red shifted as it is moving awasy.

Using supertelescpes light from all the galaxies without exception were red shifted. Originated from a superdense cosmic egg-very powerful evidence. Eisten and Reman says,"Space is not rigid but fluid".A great step accomplished in human thought . Space is our mother. Mother came from the latin mater(matter). Space is the eternal parent in this matrix. Not so much in space but of the space. Matrix-virgin mother.-raw xclay. Unformed clay from which all is made. Attempting to fofer evidnce for big bang for 50 years. Reality and appearance-nouphenomenon. Tis space foprm which all is mad.e. Finite and unbounded. Theosophicst and Scienistsits shke