|
...or, the remnants of the better-part of an afternoon spent looking for
the Dark Side of Oz in cosmological synchronicity, instead of saving mankind
with "fire-ice" <G> ...
Auntie Em:
Why don't you find a place where there isn't any trouble.
Dorothy: A place where there isn't any trouble... Do you suppose there is such a
place, Toto? ... Behind the moon, beyond the rain ?
Many Eastern, and most synthesis religions (Hinduism, Buddhism, and
the New Age movement in general) state that everything, including the universe
as a whole but especially its functional parts, all undergo successive stages of
cyclical reappearance. It can be reincarnation: birth, death, and rebirth, and
it can proceed all the way down to a singularity, or just look more like be
a sustained pulsation - but there are cycles and cycles-within-cycles at every
level. Quite a beautiful accounting, really.
The Hindu scriptures state that the universe is successively born in
cyclical "kalpas" every 4.32 billion years. Was this precise bit of data a
"gift" from an advanced informant, or was Swami Muad'Dib abusing the spice
again? Given the (assumed in the West) age of the universe being 12-15
billion years, this value is not off by a great factor, but plugging in other
assumptions, like variable lightspeed or MOND and considering
the "universe" to be only our Virgo super-cluster, this
kalpa span "could" be rather accurate... or not. It certainly was more
accurate than anything the West had to offer for over 2000 years.
The ability of the universe to oscillate is dependent upon a certain
critical mass but more importantly on how mass and energy interchange with each
other around that critical mass. An accumulating critical mass, based on
absorbing (previously released) photons, is required to slow down the
expansion of the universe and force a contraction, and a universe shedding more
photons than it absorbs will expand, supposedly. If this total critical mass is
never present, then the universe will continue to expand into eternity...
which is the unsettling, and certainly incorrect, conclusion of mainstream
astronomy in the USA.
Below is a bit of evidence that favors the notion that "dark matter" plays
a critical role <pi> in providing the mass necessary for oscillation,
keeping the universe from expanding forever, and supporting part of the TOE
theory mentioned recently, in re: Randy Mills and his version of
an oscillating universe. Mills' details, including the very long period of
oscillation, seems to be extremely unlikely, however.
The best thing about Mills' view (which is not original) is that
the universe never really shrinks that far, never gets close to a "big crunch"
and never has a "big bang" either. In any oscillation there will be a maximum
and a minimum size, but this does not necessarily have to be constant across
successive cycles. Nor does it need even be a "universal" feature. Local
oscillation is sufficient and probably more accurate (if one can use the
term "local" rather loosely to mean 100 hundred million light-years). For our
"real" universe may only extend that far:
To paraphrase a more prescient observer of cosmology than Mills, all we can
really know for sure from present day astronomy is that there IS both a red
shift and a blue shift among celestial objects, and most of them - in terms of
actual "items" are "blue shifted." Everything else is supposition. There is
slightly firmer evidence that everything blue shifted to us, which is in our
"supercluster" is comparatively smaller, younger, and closer than everything
red-shifted, but from there on - all conclusions are based on assumed premises,
some very shaky.
If a galaxy is red-shifted now, that only means it was once
moving away from us. What is happening to galaxies with large red-shifts, at
this exact moment in our 3-space, those which appear to be ten billion
light years away from us, cannot be even imagined with any certainty. We have no
idea what is happening to them, now. They could easily be gone by now.
We really know very little about what is happening in the universe outside
of our own supercluster at the present moment. If the light is 10 billion
years old, then that tells us nothing about what is going on presently unless we
ASSUME a linear continuation of the long past situation, and the continuation of
physics and inertia of the universe which was present at that ancient
period. That is way too much to assume logically.
As Anais Nin so eloquently expressed, "We don't see things as they are, we
see them as we are". Humans have been accurately measuring the heavens for a few
hundreds of years, and yet we want to assume a continuity of cause-and-effect
which spans many billions of years. Bizarre, but very human.
Even more locally, the blue-shifted light we see from neighboring Andromeda
left there over two million years ago, maybe. All we know is that our mirror
galaxy was apparently moving toward us two million years ago - if
lightspeed has not changed significantly during that span. BUT we do not know
what Andromeda is doing in 2005, earth- time... or is that ..."star date"? For
trekkies, I suppose a "star date" was supposed to equate with a more universal
standard, which would be nice - something like GMT... but was more
likely to have been thrown-in to a script by underpaid screen-writers
whose objective was sound-byte plausibility, a cosmo-poetic ring, and getting
Shattner off the set before happy hour.
At any rate, make no mistake, Hubble deals mostly with what was happening
in the past, not with what is happening now. The further that we go into the
past, the more shaky any conclusions become, even light speed... or for that
matter, "dark speed." Occam’s razor, which is the silly expedient which we love
to cite... only when it fits our prejudices, say’s that
the simplest explanation which fits all of the known facts is probably the
correct one. The simplest explanation for the Hubble data is that the expansion
of the universe has stopped. Period. Beyond that it is supposition.
A better model for a TOE might be based on a succession of "little bangs"
based on **independent supercluster universes,** which pulse back and forth
through dualities - a paired-linkage of some kind. IOW our Virgo supercluster
could somehow be linked through a "wormhole" to another similar supercluster in
another region of space, or dimension of time, and we would share a see-saw
oscillation with that universe.
At some point, one or the other supercluster could even go "dark". This
model could be bolstered if there was a smaller scale model of it within our own
supercluster.
Here is a news story form the sci-wire on a galaxy-size dark object, not a
supercluster by any means, but the model may be similar. This object is not
that far away from us really... using certain assumptions. But using
others, could it even be connected to the "black hole" in the center of our
Milky Way galaxy?.. or to the black-hole in our "mirror image galaxy" which is
Andromeda. And BTW are we really that sure that Andromeda is not "us" being
reflected back by first-level curvature (fodder for another posting).
Anyway here is the surprising story:
"Astronomers find star-less galaxy "... ahem... The invisible galaxy could
only be 'seen' using radio waves, it is added. Astronomers say they believe they
have discovered an object that appears to be an invisible galaxy made almost
entirely of dark matter."
The galaxy is about 50 million light-years away from earth that
appears to be composed entirely of dark matter. Shouldn't that be 50
million darkyears? quips a Slash-dotter. "No, the 'speed of dark' is still
unknown, but it is expected to be a lot faster than speed of light. Because
where ever the light goes, the dark is already there waiting for it." Hope you
got a big a laugh out of that one as I did.
Seems to squash MOND, doesn't it? The basic issue which spawned MOND
before this dark galaxy had been discovered: The evidence for mass discrepancies
in extragalactic systems is clear. But what is the explanation? Either...
Most of the Mass in the Universe is Invisible (Dark Matter), or
Dynamical Laws must be Modified (MOND). Jones
Somewhere over the rainbow... way up high,
there's a land that I heard of...once in a lullaby. Somewhere over the rainbow skies are blue,
and the dreams that you dare to dream...really do come true. Ha! A chance whimsical discovery to share with the more adventuresome
reader of vortex.This is getting off-topic and into the art/music world but
vulgarity and political overtones have been largely removed.
Do you believe that *Synchronicity* is a feature of the universe, or at
least of the human mind? Psychologist Carl Jung coined the term "synchronicity"
to describe unrelated events that somehow seem linked... which is not exactly
the same as when Yogi says, "it's like deja vu all over again" but
close.
takes on this topic of synchronicity in a very light-hearted and
anecdotal way - restricted mostly to the pop music scene.
Especially in art, synchronicity seems to be a regular feature of the
creative group-mind. To paraphrase a bit of this site: Early in the history of
film, it was discovered that the music which a film or piece of visual imagery
is displayed with has a powerful influence on how it is perceived... And that
there was remarkable commonality in the correlation among observers, as if the
two "were meant for each other." even though often separated by many generations
and countries of origin in time and space. Such is the remarkable synchronicity
between the "Wizard of Oz" and Dark Side of the Moon"... not to mention "Thus
Spake Zarathustra" and 2001/2010... but that was pre-planned, whereas
the "Dark Side of Oz" weirdness seems almost
coincidental.
William S. Burroughs, the prototypical 'experimenter' first with
intoxicants and then with the art of montage, was one of the first pioneers to
put random clips of film to different supposedly unrelated music, creating the
art of the synchronicity (not ot mention many life-long substance abusers). The
concept became an integral part of the psychedelic scene of the 1960s... or so I
have been told ;-)
Ok, onto the "Dark Side of Oz" weirdness --if you play
Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon and Judy's film, starting at the 3rd lion
roar at the beginning of the Wizard of Oz, that there are some really ... well
strange coincidences, as the movie and album sync up in eerie ways.
It's intriguing to consider that two different forms of media might "match
up" to create a single coherent experience, but who would ever think this pair -
the moody classic "Dark Side of the Moon" would sync with Dorothy and
Toto? Is it random chance, or intended art, or something subliminal?
Judging by the theories which have been expressed, it's doubtful that Pink
Floyd actually "intended" a match or that they were even more than
vaguely aware of the content of the movie (being somewhat off on their own
mélange-abuse-program. But "suggestion" even if it is
subliminal, seems to play a big role in the creative experience. But since
Pink (which one is Floyd ?) denies doing anything intentional, we are left to
speculate if the album "syncs" are just the work of the little man behind the
curtain...
"homunculi" of the Sheldrake version at least are "real," in case
you didn't know....or is that sentiment coming from a recurrent 'Sense Of
Being Stared At' lately...? One hope it is not the MIB.
|
