[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Theos-L digest 1208

Sep 01, 1997 11:35 AM
by DSArthur

   I read with interest Gary S.'s comments concerning some of Vincent's.
 Herewith is my "take" on some of their's.  What is a "black hole?"  In my
limited understanding it is an accumulation of matter of sufficient density
to create a gravitational field of such magnitude that nothing, not even
light, can escape from it.  Since light radiation is essential in order for
any object to be detected visually, it follows that such stellar objects
cannot be seen through optical telescopes.  Hence the description "black
[i.e. invisible] holes."  Their presence has to be detected by other than
visual means (most commonly by their gravitational influence on other objects
in their vicinity).  What do "black holes" ... "DO?"  Essentially they
compress.  That is, the immense gravitational field of a "black hole" not
only tends to capture any matter that comes within its reach but also to
continually draw closer together all of the atoms that comprise the "black
hole."  This process, in turn, must continually raise both its temperature
and pressure and, most importantly, increase the intensity of its
gravitational field ... which, in turn, increases its temperature and
pressure etc. etc.  I do not know what the current scientfic views may be
concerning the probability of a "black hole" eventually reaching a state of
relative equilibrium.  Astrophysicists have determined the life-cycle of
stars but, to the best of my admittedly meager knowledge, have not determined
the life-cycle of "black holes."  My conjecture (and it  is purely that) is
that they do eventually tend to reach relative equilibrium wherein the
internal "resistance" to further compression is equal to the fantastic
gravitational force that seeks to continue the compression process.  Perhaps
this is why no explosion ("death") of a "black hole" has ever been detected.
 I use the term "relative equilibrium" because "black holes" never become
truly static or inert due to their more or less continuous increase in mass
(and pressure and temperature and ...) due to acquisition of additional
matter that is captured by their gravitational influence.  But Gary S.
wonders if our present physical universe might have originated from a "black
hole."  My speculation is that it did.  But how could this occur if  "black
holes" do in fact ultimately "stabilize?"  The answer may lie in the size of
the "black hole."  What I suggest is that if a "black hole" reaches
sufficient mass (i.e. "critical mass") it will explode rather than compress
further ... and a new universe will be born.  This does not seem to happen
with any of the "black holes" detected thus far and I suspect that is
because, as immense as they are, they are still too small to ever attain the
critical mass necessary to trigger a nuclear explosion.  But what about "the
mother of all black holes" --- a "black hole" that existed in the far reaches
of time --- so vast that it contained ALL of the matter that now comprises
our physical universe?  Could such an object, over eons of time, ultimately
compress sufficiently to reach critical mass and explode ("the mother of  all
nuclear explosions") into a new physical universe?  I suggest to Gary S. and
others that it could ... AND THAT IT DID!  Looking still further into the
past I can conceive of this having happened not once but many times ... and
that it will continue to happen in the future.  This, I believe, answers
Gary's question: what is the opposite of a "black hole?"  Answer: an
expanding physical universe.  He also asks: are physical and spiritual light
the same or opposites?  My view is --- "none of the above."  Physical light
is photons that, by reflection, enable things to be seen.  Spiritual light is
what enables us to perceive truth and reality rather than physical things.
 Thus they are not readily comparable. Are we made "in the image and likeness
of God?"  I  believe the answer is "Yes" ... but in the Spiritual, not
physical, image and likeness.  It has always surprised me that Christians,
especially Fundamentalist Christians, depict an unlimited God ... and then
promptly limit this Deity by ascribing to it one head, two arms, two legs
etc..  Does God exist in the flesh as well as in spirit?  I believe the
answer is "Yes."  H.P. Blavatsky has stated that there are "no dead atoms" in
the universe.  And she probably also stated or at least implied (and, if she
didn't, I think she should have) that there is nothing existent in which God
is not.  Thus the answer to Gary must be "Yes" because "God" is everywhere.
 Gary further asks: how do physical and spiritual realities compare?  I
maintain that the answer is primarily one of density.  That is, what we call
"physical" is merely a denser version of that which we call "spiritual."
 Remember the Hermetic axiom: As Above So Below.  Finally, he asks: where did
our universe come from?  This question has already been answered above.
 Briefly stated again, I maintain that our present universe is the result of
a "Big Bang" which, in turn, resulted from a prior "Big Crunch" which
resulted from a prior "Big Bang" which, in turn ...    Namaste --- Dennis

[Back to Top]

Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application