THE SPACE IS CREATOR. DISPUTE BETWEEN NEWTON AND EINSTEIN

If you deeply thought about the meaning 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 come to mind.

Agree it’s not easy for a man to talk about what is empty for him – invisibly, unheard, impalpably, haven’t taste and smell, while all around us can touch, see, hear, scent and taste.

As a result, in the minds of most people, space has always been a no more than an endless volume of emptiness in which there is our world and we ourselves - in other words, something non-existent.

The thinkers of philosophy and science have spent a lot of time and effort trying to find out what are the one relative to the other the space and all the objects in it.

Sure, originally space was interested by the scientists mainly from a practical point of view. Even in ancient times people had experienced a need to assess the distance between the bodies as accurately as possible.

A distance measurement – it’s a measurement in the space. For this is devoted the geometry, the basis of which was laid in III century before Christ by Euclid. He considered the space as an “emptiness”. From his point of view it’s characterized by isotropy, homogeneity and limitless.

For the realization of distance measurements Euclid need only three coordinates as opposite to the multitudinous 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. For what purpose?

Hereinafter the scientific views on this question became all more to approach to the philosophical ones.

In this scientific-philosophical synthesis the “space” was viewed everywhere together with the other category – the “time”. For them was contra posed the “Matter” or otherwise “material objects”.

In the history of philosophy there are two concepts describing relation to each other the space (and the time) and objects in it.

One of them is named as substantial, and other – relational.

Disagreement with each other of these concepts is directly connected with the scientific dispute of the classic mechanics and relativistic. These scientific debate can be called as the “dispute of Newton and Einstein extended through the time”.

The classical mechanics is based on the substantial concept according to this the space (and the time) exists by itself, regardless of the objects occupied this space.

I. Newton supposed that “the space where we live can be liken to the forever existing, unrestrictedly large, fixed “box” without sides – to the container of the Matter. The properties of this "box" does not change over time and do not depend on how the substance is distributed and redistributed in it "(Dictionary of the young physicist,"Space").

Isaac Newton

The Newton and Euclid space is not able to shrink and stretch – i.e. curve. Therefore, in this space the shortest distance between two points - is always a straight line rather than a curve.

In the framework of relativistic mechanics lay a relational concept (hence the similar name). Proponents of this view consider the "space" as something that is produced by the objects that exist in it.

The space by A. Einstein, can be bent (contract and expand) and is therefore a non-Euclidean (or another 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 then decreased.

Einstein connected gravity with the compression of space, and the acceleration or deceleration time with a degree of curvature of space. The more it is compressed 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, accordingly, are increasingly proponents of classical mechanics, not relativistic.

We are convinced 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 for the substance.

But at the same time, we must recognize 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 describes the universe from its own point 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 of all things 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 closely 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" are depend all processes and phenomena in the universe. This "something", as has just been said, it is the Spirit.

Besides the views on space by 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 they in some extent can be attributed to the substantial philosophical concept.

The difference is that the Theosophists not only consider the Space secondary to the objects of the Universe, but also give it the main role, seeing it as a first principle. While for all of the objects, "and moving the existing" within the borders of this space, the Theosophists withdrawn the position of the second plan. For them, the objects are secondary and primary Space itself.

We present a series of quotations 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 give 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.

To this point of the space view leads us the theosophical literature.
Actually, the Theosophical course just intended to unify and reconcile all the existing religions of 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 the other - in the realm of science.

Theosophy seeks to give a scientific explanation of religious beliefs, as well as to resolve problems and dispute questions of science with the help of esoteric concepts and information.

If you start to study religious tracts, it would appear that it was of Space at all times spoke mystically minded researchers of mysteries of Being and seekers of meaning in life. And, of course, they were well aware of what they spoke, but preferred not to call right that, what to write about, by the Space, and gave for it all sorts of names. 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, Braman, 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, Parabrahm, 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 - root, Prakriti - Matter) "All in All", Pradhana, the One Eternal Element, All-ness, Causeless Cause, "Eternal Breath are unaware of itself," Apeiron, Arche.

This list could go on and on. Mindful of the need to unite the scientific outlook with the religious, also attributed to this list such scientific concept, as a vacuum.

Striving of Initiates poets and writers ahead of time not to disclose to immature mankind all Secrets of Being and Not-Being - that's the only reason for their presence in the 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.

This Unmanifested Cosmic Mind really can be approximately compared 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 can be seen as a fundamental principle, "fabric", on which like a pattern is applied the manifested Universe.

About this Space talk Blavatsky and Bailey, calling it the "entity".

It really is an absolute space – i.e. constant, fixed and eternal. And "empty" it’s in the state of unmanifestation.

Is there borders of Space? Whether it comes in contact with something similar or different from it? And if applicable to it all our human notions of borders? On these questions we have no answers.

In relation to Space it’s pointlessly 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 should not be used concepts related to sex differences. This can be done only for the Spirit and Matter, and then symbolically.

In the state of manifestation Cosmic Substance (Matter) is filled with the Spirit flowing in the "Souls".

Modern scholars 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 creative principle of the Universe. However, in science everywhere you can find the concept "Nature" Incomprehensible, inexplicable, omnipotent, semantically very reminiscent of 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 his incessant "work." By observing the physical, chemical, biological and astronomical phenomena of the world, we touch the Divine.

Date: 2015-01-11; view: 1250