Apr 30, 1998 01:22 AM
by K. Zaitzev
Emptyness, energy & ether
Hello Thoa & Julien!
j>Please clarify how energy and emptiness are related.
C.W. Leadbeater, the great & terrible, illustrated it good in "Occult
Chemistry" (p. 21 in 1919 edition)
"The atom can scarcely be said to be a "thing", though it is tha
material out of which all things physical are composed. It is formed
by the flow of the life-force and vanishes with its ebb. When this
force arises in "space"* - the apparent void which must be filled with
substance of some kind, of inconceivable tenuity - atoms appear; if
this be artificially stopped for a single atom, the atom disappars;
there is nothing left. Presumably, were that flow checked but for an
instant, the whole physical world would vanish, as a cloud melts away
in the empyrean. It is only the persistence of that flow which maintains
the physical basis of the universe.
* When Fohat "digs holes in space"."
Many people like to say that nature of things is emptyness, but they
normally don't try to underatans what it really means. Though nature
of things is emptyness, nature of akasha isn't emptiness, but the
energy creates emptiness in akasha and thus creates the things.
Some scientists defined the physical vacuum as "superdense degenerated
Th> called "ether." Ether, as science has defined it, does not exist.
It is not exactly so. It would be more correct to say that "science
has defined that ether does not exist" ;) For Einstein it was simply
unnecessary hypothesis, like god for Laplace. And moreover, Einstein
kept that opinion not more than 10-15 years. Yet in 1920's he wrote:
"Corresponding the general relativity theory, the space is inconceivable
without ether" (Ether & relativity theory, 1920)
"We cannot in theoretical physics to handle without ether, i.e. continuum
provided with physical characteristics" (On ether, 1924)
(of course it's in reverse translation form russian.)
Here in Russia several scientists are continuing to develop theories of
ether. Some of them derived equations known as "quantum" & "relativistic"
assuming an ether to be a gaseous meduim and remaining on the classical
"Newtonian" basis. Leadbeater wrote that an ether has its pressure and
it is inconceivably high, Aciukovsky in 1980's has calculated it to be
10^29 atmospheres. He makes relativity obsolete, deriving everything on
mechanical basis. I can post a short sketch of his main work, "Ether-
dynamics", if someone's interesting in it. So, we still cannot say that
science has acknowldged an ether yet, but we already can say that there's
no unified opinion.
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application