RE: Theosophical Astronomy/Cosmology
Oct 26, 1993 05:30 PM
by John Mead
in reference to Andrew Rooke comments on Theosophical Astronomy...
>>2. DARK MATTER :
a. WIMPS (Weakly Interacting Massive Particles)
I find these items really speculative. As I understand it, these would
have to be some form of matter which interacts only via the
Weak-Nuclear interaction. The only reason to believe any of this may
be feasible is because of the lack of experimental confirmation
regarding solar neutrinos. i.e. since we can't find the expected flux
of solar neutrinos, then we have problems with Neutrino theory (i.e the
Weak force since neutrinos only interact via that force). Somehow it
seems strange to assume that if the ones you KNOW should be present,
are actually NOT found, then why should you expect even more and bigger
ones to be laying around somewhere? seems that if anything it would be
that weak matter decays rather rapidly and should NOT be around. oh
b. MACHOS (Massive Atmospheric Halo Objects)
I would not be surprised if there is alot of this stuff around. I
think of Machos as unconnected stray planets laying around.. The
problem is that we do not seem to be in any particularly unusual place
in the universe. So why would the background density of these be so
variable??? There are not many of these around us in this part of
space. Why would it be different elsewhere??
>theosophical magazines seem to indicate that people believe that we
>are beginning to detect the lower levels of the astral light acting
>as model bodies holding the galaxies and galactic clusters together.
>What do you think?
I tend to agree from a couple directions...
1) the higher planes clearly can interact with matter (or we wouldn't
be here), and must also have an energy content. Hence why not assign
them a term in the Stress-Energy Tensor?? One could do this by adding
an average background energy density due to some "cosmological
constant" (as Einstein did).
2) The QED theory implies that virtual particles are very real and that
space has alot of activity in it. Hence why not measure this
background activity as an average presence of energy (any energy has a
"positive" gravity effect. even antimatter) which could be directly
measured as the "missing" mass (or Cosmological Constant)??
Jay Amundson -- I'd Like your comments (if any) on this.
>LIGHT : A friend who does not have access to Theos-l, has developed
>an interesting theory on the Unitary Nature of Light.
>> ..we can sense only to the degree of the evolution of our
>sense apparatus (he calls them "electronic orbitals
>.. could ask him to type an outline of his ideas on...
Yes!! please send an outline.
Also.. The "Physics Essays" journal (published in Toronto) is a
peer-reviewed journal which actually does publish off-the-wall theories
(assuming they have merit) which contradict much of the conventional
thinking (you just have to show that they may be theoretically
plausible. i.e. basic physics must still be explainable by some sane
(though weird) reasoning process). he might try them. They would
certainly respond with a valid criticism, which he (maybe) would be
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application