The Electric Universe

[Aquila King 22,629]

This is the first time I've seen or heard of this concept. It's a rather far out idea, but regardless, I'm curious to know what you guys think.

Quote

 

Introduction

In the wake of recent discoveries, a new way of seeing the physical universe is emerging. The new vantage point emphasizes the role of electricity in space and shows the negligible contribution of gravity in cosmic events.

Images returned by high-powered telescopes and recent space probes have challenged astronomers’ long-standing assumptions about galaxies and their constituent stars, about the evolution of our solar system, and about the nature and history of Earth.

The new discoveries also suggest that our early ancestors may have witnessed awe inspiring electrical events in the heavens—the source of myths and symbols around the world.

https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/about/syn/

 

There's also this video I found on YouTube on the subject, though it's a full movie-length documentary, so I'll just put it in link format as well:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7EAlTcZFwY

[Aquila King 22,629]

Just watched this full one as well:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0vu-jQWCZo

 

As someone not accustomed to the math regarding cosmology and physics, I have to say I find it rather convincing. Though again, this may be total crap and I'm just ignorant of the sciences. So sue me.

[Illyrius 4,657]

4 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

So sue me.

not guilty.

Edited December 4, 2017 by Mr. Argon

[Rlyeh 17,473]

This is the same nonsense that says the Earth was once a moon of Saturn.

[ChrLzs 21,839]

3 hours ago, Aquila King said:

As someone not accustomed to the math regarding cosmology and physics, I have to say I find it rather convincing. Though again, this may be total crap and I'm just ignorant of the sciences. So sue me.

At some serious astronomy forums as well as others less serious, the 'Electric Universe' 'debate got so toxic that the topic has been banned.  Some say it's the MIB who arranged that, to cover 'Da Troof'.  Others say it's er.. "only those not accustomed to the math regarding comsology and physics who find it convincing"*, and they are sick of re-explaining why it is a waste of time..

* Hmm, where have I heard that recently....

Electricity and electric charges are certainly part of the whole picture, but they are not the *only* part, which seems to be the thrust of the idea.  We (as in mainstream science) observe our Cosmos quite carefully, and theories are built up to explain those observations as exactly as possible.  Cosmologists get on just fine without these often complex and contradictory theories, and indeed the theories are mostly not supported at all by the actual behavior of the Cosmos.

It also seems that for every Electric Universe promoter, there's a different set of ideas/claims.  Some dismiss gravity and replace it with electro-magnetic forces - bzzzt .... that's observably & easily provably wrong and stupid.

Others try to tie gravity and E-M forces into one, and yet - electric charges/fields have no effect on gravity, nor does magnetism/ magnetic fields... and vice versa.

Most of the EU proponents require there to be an aether, ie a single 'reference frame' that pervades the universe, but we have never found a shred of evidence for that..

There are many more huge holes in EU theory, in fact 'theory' is not the right word for this stuff...

 

Aquila King, what is it that you find fault with, in the 'mainstream' theories?  Thing is, there's a huge 'industry' out there that preys on those who have little knowledge but an intense desire for their to be 'more' to what science uncovers and explains, methodically..  Why does there need to be more?  Is this wonderful, complex, beautiful, majestic universe not enough in its own right?    (I'm happily stealing that sentiment from my hero, Tim Minchin, with slightly changed wording - see my signature lines below..)

This all seems a bit familiar - is this like your brief 'interest' in Rupert Sheldrake, where you seem to have vanished when I offered to go through some of his 'work' in detail, to explain why mainstream science rejects/ignores it?

If you don't really understand enough of Cosmology, and strongly desire some magic, then trying to cover this topic in the required detail is probably beyond the scope of what we can do here.  So feel free to believe, but you are believing in stuff that isn't right..

[Tatetopa 17,240]

I think Einstein chases a unified field theory for 20 years and didn't find it.  

[Aquila King 22,629]

9 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

Aquila King, what is it that you find fault with, in the 'mainstream' theories?  Thing is, there's a huge 'industry' out there that preys on those who have little knowledge but an intense desire for their to be 'more' to what science uncovers and explains, methodically..  Why does there need to be more?  Is this wonderful, complex, beautiful, majestic universe not enough in its own right?    (I'm happily stealing that sentiment from my hero, Tim Minchin, with slightly changed wording - see my signature lines below..)

I find no fault in mainstream theories, and I never said that I positively believe in the electric universe. I was simply saying that it seemed to be a genuine possibility, but that I ultimately don't know. That's called being open minded to new ideas, whilst remaining skeptical of them. That's a genuine scientific mindset. The opposite of this is called dogma.

So what is it I 'find fault with' you ask? It's the arrogant dogmatic materialism that has become pervasive in the 'mainstream' scientific community.

There is no 'intense desire for something more' as you describe. It's simply the free and open inquiry of ideas that materialists hate. What upsets the mainstream materialist scientists is that people like myself dare to be skeptical and question their interpretations, rather than just accept them as truth because they said so. They preach dogma no different then any other religious institution, and if anyone deviates from their personal interpretations, then they're quick to shut it down and label it 'pseudoscience' without even considering it as a possibility. Any opposition to current mainstream paradigms is portrayed as an opposition of 'established scientific fact', which in many cases it isn't. They spread misinformation concerning any alternative positions, and fail to grasp (or even care) what the alternative theories even suggest. They assume that they know all the major points of science, and merely need to fill in the minor details. And that anyone who disagrees with them or posits an alternative explanation is an 'enemy of reason', and is merely a poorly educated dimwit unaware of the sciences that they in their lofty intellect are so fortunate to know.

If materialists merely posited their theories and interpretations, I and many others would have absolutely no problem with it. However they don't. They spread a dogmatic materialism which shuts down alternative viewpoints and spread misinformation (and in some cases outright lies) about the opposition.

It isn't materialism that I oppose, it's dogmatic materialism. Which based on everything I've read from you, you seem to be deeply entrenched in.

10 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

This all seems a bit familiar - is this like your brief 'interest' in Rupert Sheldrake, where you seem to have vanished when I offered to go through some of his 'work' in detail, to explain why mainstream science rejects/ignores it?

I didn't vanish due to you suggesting to do that, so don't paint this like I ignore opposing viewpoints. I don't remember when or where we were discussing this, but regardless, you may by all means discuss Sheldrake and your interpretations of his work. Though most likely you'll misrepresent it entirely.

Again, it isn't your interpretations that put me off, it's your close-minded dogmatism.

10 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

If you don't really understand enough of Cosmology, and strongly desire some magic, then trying to cover this topic in the required detail is probably beyond the scope of what we can do here.  So feel free to believe, but you are believing in stuff that isn't right..

This ^ is exactly the kind of pious condescension and misrepresentation that I'm talking about.

[ChrLzs 21,839]

5 hours ago, Aquila King said:

I find no fault in mainstream theories

Well, why then are you posting this, when you happily admit you know little of the topic?

As I mentioned, you did EXACTLY the same thing with Rupert Sheldrake and then ran for it when I offered to help you LEARN.  Don't you want to learn?  Or, if I'm wrong and can't show the faults, wouldn't you greatly enjoy making a fool of me?

Quote

I never said that I positively believe in the electric universe.

And I never said you did.  Me, I don't positively believe in pink unicorns, thus I refrain from posting videos that claim otherwise, UNLESS I am prepared to learn from those who DO know about the possibility of unicorns.  Do you not get the point yet?

Quote

I was simply saying that it seemed to be a genuine possibility, but that I ultimately don't know. That's called being open minded to new ideas, whilst remaining skeptical of them. That's a genuine scientific mindset. The opposite of this is called dogma.

Given that you posted the video, there must, SURELY have been something in it that you found worthy of discussion.  Yet you refuse (same as with Sheldrake) to nominate anything, and instead, very RUDELY, expect others to waste their time poring over this video.?.  And you have the hide to criticise me, who is trying to help you?

I can't dam well help if you won't commit, and if you just keep peppering this forum with stuff like this and then running away from DISCUSSING it, then it won't just be me who gets mighty sick of it.

Quote

So what is it I 'find fault with' you ask? It's the arrogant dogmatic materialism that has become pervasive in the 'mainstream' scientific community.

Ok, ENOUGH.  You need to give an example, NOW.  You have handwaved this too may times - put up or shut up.  Let's look at an example of this 'dogma'.

 

Quote

It's simply the free and open inquiry of ideas that materialists hate. What upsets the mainstream materialist scientists is that people like myself dare to be skeptical and question their interpretations

BULLDUNG.  Again, give an example.  Science LOVES investigating new ideas and better theories, but it HATES wasting it's dam time on half-assed proposals from people who really don't understand the basics of the topic, and (worse) aren't interested in learning the stuff they need to know, in order to spot the holes in their claims..

Quote

They preach dogma no different then any other religious institution, and if anyone deviates from their personal interpretations, then they're quick to shut it down and label it 'pseudoscience' without even considering it as a possibility.

This is utter rubbish, spoken by someone who hasn't a clue how science works.  I'm not a degreed scientist, but I used to be the manager for a large research centre (it's a long story).  It was fascinating to facilitate and watch the interactions of my employer (a large University) with commercial interests, with government, and with the community, and part of my job was to help get the mixture of commercial interests and pure research right.  The OPENness of the process was remarkable.  You would have been shocked, and pleasantly surprised.

Anyway - GIVE AN EXAMPLE to support your claim.  I'll keep asking until you do.

Quote

They spread a dogmatic materialism which shuts down alternative viewpoints and spread misinformation (and in some cases outright lies) about the opposition.

GIVE AN EXAMPLE.

Quote

I don't remember when or where we were discussing this, but regardless, you may by all means discuss Sheldrake and your interpretations of his work.

That's very convenient..........  Here let me help - start here:

And then here's where I specifically asked you to commit:

 

Quote

I didn't vanish due to you suggesting to do that, so don't paint this like I ignore opposing viewpoints...

...Though most likely you'll misrepresent it entirely.

Don't you think it would be better to criticise me after I've posted something wrong?  You know, rather like GIVING AN EXAMPLE?

Quote

This ^ is exactly the kind of pious condescension and misrepresentation that I'm talking about.

Oh, the delicious irony.

 

GIVE AN EXAMPLE.  (or just keep the ad hominems coming...)

Edited December 4, 2017 by ChrLzs

[Aquila King 22,629]

19 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

Well, why then are you posting this, when you happily admit you know little of the topic?

As I mentioned, you did EXACTLY the same thing with Rupert Sheldrake and then ran for it when I offered to help you LEARN.  Don't you want to learn?  Or, if I'm wrong and can't show the faults, wouldn't you greatly enjoy making a fool of me?

The above statement is incredibly unsettling. I find the idea of having 'great enjoyment' out of making a fool of anyone to be rather detestable. I don't ever want to 'make a fool' of anyone, and I at least hope that you feel the same way.

Again, I didn't 'run from' discussing Rupert Sheldrake. I just happen to have little interest in conversations that essentially go no where. The fact that you feel you need to 'educate' me or anyone else on here is exactly the kind of condescension that I'm talking about. This isn't a personal attack or an ad hominem as you later suggest, it's merely a description of what you're doing. It's one thing to have an open discussion with someone over differing ideas, it's another to 'educate' those with opposing views. By all means you may think the opposition is completely wrong, but to approach the conversation from the perspective of educator and student is to place oneself on a pedestal above the so-called ignorant masses.

This is the very reason why I put Mr. Walker on ignore, and if you continue down this road I'll just do the same with you. There's no sense in debating with someone who comes from a position of piety. Again, not a personal attack, merely a descriptor.

Last thing I'll point out here: I posted this because I considered this to be an interesting topic for discussion, nothing more. As I've already stated, I haven't come out in support of this idea. There are many topics I make on here in which I have no definitive answer myself, and so therefore I consider it a good idea to listen to various perspectives. If nothing else I consider it a fun topic for people to discuss regardless. That's kinda the whole point of this forum, isn't it? If you're so confident your position is correct, then you shouldn't feel threatened by threads that disagree with you.

19 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

And I never said you did.  Me, I don't positively believe in pink unicorns, thus I refrain from posting videos that claim otherwise, UNLESS I am prepared to learn from those who DO know about the possibility of unicorns.  Do you not get the point yet?

And you criticize me of speaking of piety? If you don't see the pious condescending nature of this then there is no help for you.

19 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

Given that you posted the video, there must, SURELY have been something in it that you found worthy of discussion.  Yet you refuse (same as with Sheldrake) to nominate anything, and instead, very RUDELY, expect others to waste their time poring over this video.?.  And you have the hide to criticise me, who is trying to help you?

I can't dam well help if you won't commit, and if you just keep peppering this forum with stuff like this and then running away from DISCUSSING it, then it won't just be me who gets mighty sick of it.

Yes, there was a ton of stuff worthy of discussion, that's why I posted it in the first place. I threw it out there for people to discuss, since I myself don't have any answers to it and wanted to hear multiple opinions. If nothing else just to hear people's overall take in it. There's no harm in doing that, again, that's the entire point of this forum.

What's truly 'rude' is in acting like the you have any say in what topics other members can post or not. Quite frankly I'll post what I want, when I want, how I want, and for whatever reason I want, so long as it adheres to forum rules; and you nor anyone else has any say in the matter. If you don't like that then feel free to ignore it.

Lastly, it's a rather arrogant notion to suggest that you're trying to 'help' anyone here. I don't go around trying to 'help' other members I simply disagree with here. Again, this asserts oneself upon a pedestal higher then the opposing viewpoints. You may think yourself right and others wrong all you want (we all do), but that's different from the approach you seem to be taking.

19 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

Ok, ENOUGH.  You need to give an example, NOW.  You have handwaved this too may times - put up or shut up.  Let's look at an example of this 'dogma'.

You will not silence those you disagree with, so no, I won't 'shut up.' If you want an example, the prime one here seems to be you. Though very well, I'll give you said examples:

• http://www.skepticalaboutskeptics.org/investigating-skeptics/wikipedia-captured-by-skeptics/rampant-harassment-on-wikipedia/
• http://www.skepticalaboutskeptics.org/examining-skeptics/brian-josephson-pathological-disbelief/
• http://www.skepticalaboutskeptics.org/examining-skeptics/dean-radin-the-limitations-and-failings-of-dogmatic-criticism/
• https://sites.google.com/site/skepticalconcepts/psi-research-views/on-martin-gardner-1
• https://sites.google.com/site/skepticalconcepts/psi-research-views/the-levy-case
• http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/hijackingterms.php
• http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/evidence.php
• http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Page2.htm

I could go on and on, but you get my point.

You'll most likely seek to discredit them all or find something else to complain about, but regardless I've done what you've asked. I've given you multiple examples. I'll at least take the self-satisfaction in knowing that I did so despite your most likely attempt to say otherwise.

20 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

BULLDUNG.  Again, give an example.  Science LOVES investigating new ideas and better theories, but it HATES wasting it's dam time on half-assed proposals from people who really don't understand the basics of the topic, and (worse) aren't interested in learning the stuff they need to know, in order to spot the holes in their claims..

This is utter rubbish, spoken by someone who hasn't a clue how science works.  I'm not a degreed scientist, but I used to be the manager for a large research centre (it's a long story).  It was fascinating to facilitate and watch the interactions of my employer (a large University) with commercial interests, with government, and with the community, and part of my job was to help get the mixture of commercial interests and pure research right.  The OPENness of the process was remarkable.  You would have been shocked, and pleasantly surprised.

Science is a process, it doesn't 'love' anything. It only operates as well as the people that use it.

Again, you want to criticize me for ad hominem attacks whilst asserting that I 'haven't a clue how science works'. Oh, the delicious irony.

20 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

Don't you think it would be better to criticise me after I've posted something wrong?

I was referring to past comments of yours on separate threads (which thank you btw for posting), though regardless you've given a great example worthy of criticism in your post above.

 

*sigh*

Regardless, I'm so absolutely sick to death of all the pointless arguing on here. Whether with you or someone else, it's always the same. If we could only have open-minded discussion of different issues it would be one thing, but apparently we can't. Anyone who doesn't take the materialist perspective is shut down and shut up as 'pseudoscientific', without even the slightest consideration of alternative perspectives. I won't continue this stupid game. If you come back with more of the same attitude then just know that I won't waste my time with anything more from you. If you were more open to opposing views I'd be inclined to listen, but since you're just spewing blind dogma then what's the point?

[ChrLzs 21,839]

Aquila, I'll just make two comments:

- I'll be very interested to watch your level of participation in the Sheldrake thread (which hasn't really got going yet, as well as any others on similar topics.  Then the audience can decide whether you are actually interested in learning, and also whether you truly understand science - from what I see in that post, you don't....

- please do not shift goalposts in the future - you WILL be called on it.  After you said this:

Quote

What upsets the mainstream materialist scientists is that people like myself dare to be skeptical..  They preach dogma no different then any other religious institution, and if anyone deviates from their personal interpretations, then they're quick to shut it down and label it 'pseudoscience' without even considering it as a possibility.

It's very clear who you are referring to, and I quote "mainstream materialist scientists"

And I asked you to give an example OF THAT.  Now obviously, one would expect your first example to be ontopic and a good one.  But, your very first link goes to a page about persons fighting over Wikipedia content.  Good grief.  As far as anyone could tell, they could be trolls, or anyone really, yet you are characterising them as 'scientists' to try to make your silly point.  Talk about desperation..

That is NOT an example of that which you keep claiming.  Changing the goalposts is yet another trick of those who....  well, you fill in the gaps.  

Edited December 5, 2017 by ChrLzs

[Mr Supertypo 220]

I love reading that stuff one of my favorite is the 'ciclical quantum multiverse' and love is what binds us. But to be fair for me its just entertainment kinda like reading Harry Potter. Since I know nada of cosmology and such I would be close to insane to consider that true fact. Come on. I dont go and tell my gran pa how to sail his boat just because i saw a episode of Donald Duck sailing. Its exactly the same, reading a fancy theory made for earning two bucks and then go all rant against science just because...I dont know, its boring? Lol.

[Aquila King 22,629]

@ChrLzs

I will reiterate:

22 hours ago, Aquila King said:

I won't continue this stupid game. If you come back with more of the same attitude then just know that I won't waste my time with anything more from you. If you were more open to opposing views I'd be inclined to listen, but since you're just spewing blind dogma then what's the point?

I've nothing to prove to you. I've made my point, and made my position very clear.

I won't waste my time responding to anything from you in the future.

Welcome to my ignore list.

[ChrLzs 21,839]

May I suggest that if you don't want debate or to listen to opposing views.. a blog or Youtube channel might be better.  You certainly don't seem very interested in discussing the issues I (and others) raise.  But being ignored is fine with me - I'll still refute garbage as required, and others may benefit from my bold repartee...

[kartikg 1,524]

I don't know how once a video of EU was on my you tube recommended, 2 minutes in I figured out that it was crap. their videos don't talk about EU but instead bash physics and astronomy without even bothering to tell what is wrong with them. It's like landing on a cooking channel where the host instead of teaching you a recipe wastes an hour telling how awful somebody's cooking is. 

[Emma_Acid 7,050]

On 12/5/2017 at 6:14 PM, Aquila King said:

• http://www.skepticalaboutskeptics.org/investigating-skeptics/wikipedia-captured-by-skeptics/rampant-harassment-on-wikipedia/
• http://www.skepticalaboutskeptics.org/examining-skeptics/brian-josephson-pathological-disbelief/
• http://www.skepticalaboutskeptics.org/examining-skeptics/dean-radin-the-limitations-and-failings-of-dogmatic-criticism/
• https://sites.google.com/site/skepticalconcepts/psi-research-views/on-martin-gardner-1
• https://sites.google.com/site/skepticalconcepts/psi-research-views/the-levy-case
• http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/hijackingterms.php
• http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/evidence.php
• http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Page2.htm

Every single one of those is heavily biased. One even calls skepticism "mind control". Fancy posting some objective sources? If these are the kind of sources you have to rely on, you've kind of lost the argument already, by default.

Edited December 15, 2017 by Emma_Acid

[Aquila King 22,629]

3 hours ago, Emma_Acid said:

Every single one of those is heavily biased. One even calls skepticism "mind control". Fancy posting some objective sources? If these are the kind of sources you have to rely on, you've kind of lost the argument already, by default.

They were what I could find real fast atm in a kinda ad hoc sorta way. I don't consider them 'heavily biased' as you claim, and do find them fully sufficient. But yeah, I'll admit they aren't the best.

That's why I posted the blog entry linked in my signature. That's where the best sources are. Got tired of having to quickly post sources over and over again.

Check those out, then b**** and moan so I know for sure where you stand.

[XenoFish 106,761]

5 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

Check those out, then b**** and moan so I know for sure where you stand.

[Coil 669]

On 04.12.2017 at 1:02 AM, Aquila King said:

The new vantage point emphasizes the role of electricity in space and shows the negligible contribution of gravity in cosmic events.

Scientists see only the external manifestations of strength and energy but do not know who is behind these forces and directs all energy to matter and cosmic objects. And if we wanted to understand what laws work the energy, we would have to turn to cosmic or natural spirits.

 

[kartikg 1,524]

21 hours ago, Coil said:

Scientists see only the external manifestations of strength and energy but do not know who is behind these forces and directs all energy to matter and cosmic objects. And if we wanted to understand what laws work the energy, we would have to turn to cosmic or natural spirits.

 

What are cosmic or natural spirits? how do you know that they exist and how would they let us know about gravity and other stuff? 

[Coil 669]

Just now, kartikg said:

What are cosmic or natural spirits? how do you know that they exist and how would they let us know about gravity and other stuff? 

I will answer you on Monday and MauriOra too in another topic.

[Coil 669]

Who controls the seas and storms?

Spoiler

"While we were at sea," related Mother, "a violent storm broke out. The sea became very rough. High waves lashed the ship continually, tossing it up and down. There was apprehension of a catastrophe. The Captain himself was full of anxiety and said,

    "'The passengers may be in danger.'

    "The passengers on board got very nervous, many were rather pale, and some of them even began to cry.

    "Theon looked at me and said, 'Go and stop it.'

    "The Captain was most astonished. He didn't at all understand what Theon meant! But naturally, I did. So I went to my cabin and lay down on the bunk.

    "Then, leaving my body there, I went up out of it and moved freely to the open sea. There I found in­numerable entities, but formless, madly jumping about. They were the ones that were creating all this havoc! I went near and, approaching them gently, said very sweetly,

    '"What can you gain by torturing these poor people?' I appealed to them, 'Please calm down and spare their lives.'

    "For half an hour I went on cajoling and remonstrating with them, until they gradually began to calm down. When they had completely ceased their activity, the troubled sea was calm once more.

    "I returned to my body and went out of the cabin. Arriving on the saloon-deck I found everybody thoroughly enjoying themselves. They were all gathered at the bar, making merry and boasting," said Mother with half a mocking smile.

    http://integral-yoga.narod.ru/devotees/Sujata/Sujata.Mothers_Chronicles.Book_3.Mirra_The_Occultist.htm

 

Who manages the weather?

Spoiler

 

    Everywhere over land and sea stretches Zungaf-the land of elementals of atmospheric moisture, which produce clouds, rain, dew, and mists. There is no clear boundary between Zunguf and Irudrana-the land of elementals whose activity in Enrof takes the form of thunderstorms and sometimes hurricanes. Both these planes blend with each other, just as their inhabitants do. That same transmyth is revealed that glimmered in the mythologies of ancient peoples, giving rise in their creative imagination to the titanic images of the thunder gods: Indra, Perun, Thor. If only the ancients, who ascribed, as with everything, human features to these images, had known how infinitely distant these beings are from even the slightest resemblance to humans! When rain showers down to the ground and the tempestuous and frolicsome children of Zunguf give themselves up to rejoicing, bouncing from the earth and the surface of water back up into the air, which seethes with drops of water, above, in Irudrana, armies of beings like Thor or Indra only in their playful competitiveness battle away. For them, thunder and lightning are creative work, and hurricanes are life at its fullest.
     If a light snow floats down on a cool night, or trees and buildings are whitened by frost, the robust, clear, almost ecstatic joy we feel testifies to the proximity of the wondrous elementals of Nivenna. White expanses immaculate with a special, inexpressible purity-that is Nivenna, the land of elementals of frost, snowflakes, and fresh snowfalls. Frolicking in unearthly fun like that of the elves, they cover their beloved Earth with their veil. Why are we filled with such joy for life when myriads of silent white stars softly descend all around us? And why, when we see a wood or city park white with frost, do we experience a feeling that unites solemnity and lightness of heart, a rush of energy and delight, veneration and childlike joy? The elementals of Nivenna have a particularly tender love for those of us who have kept the eternal child alive in our heart; they greet such people with gladness and try to play with them. Even the excitement, youthful vigor, and rush of blood in the veins of children during snowball fights or tobogganing gives them pleasure.

    Beside Nivenna is stern and somber Ahash, the plane of arctic and antarctic elementals, which are connected to the polar regions of our planet. Ahash extends into outer space, and from it is visible the Milky Way. The borders of both polar regions creep toward and away from the tropics as the seasons change.

    the whole chapter of the book:
    http://www.rodon.org/andreev/trotw.htm#a24

 

Regarding the cosmic forces, what is known is the god Brahma the creator and Shiva the destroyer.

They also have female hypostases( Kali, Sarasvati, Maheshvari ans so on)

Spoiler

 

    Mahakali is of another nature. Not wideness but height, not wisdom but force and strength are her peculiar power.  There is in her an overwhelming intensity, a mighty passion of force to achieve, a divine violence rushing to shatter every limit and obstacle.  All her divinity leaps out in a splendour of tempestuous action;  she is there for swiftness, for the immediately effective process, the rapid and direct stroke, the frontal assault that carries everything before it.  Terrible is her face to the Asura, dangerous and ruthless her mood against the haters of the Divine;  for she is the Warrior of the Worlds who never shrinks from the battle.  Intolerant of imperfection, she deals roughly with all in man that is unwilling and she is severe to all that is obstinately ignorant and obscure;  her wrath is immediate and dire against treachery and falsehood and malignity, ill-will is smitten at once by her scourge.  Indifference, negligence and sloth in the divine work she cannot bear and she smites awake at once with sharp pain, if need be, the untimely slumberer and the loiterer.  The impulses that are swift and straight and frank, the movements that are unreserved and absolute, the aspiration that mounts in flame are the motion of  Mahakali.

    Her spirit is tameless, her vision and will are high and far-reaching like the flight of an eagle, her feet are rapid on the upward way and her hands are outstretched to strike and to succour.  For she too is the Mother and her love is as intense as her wrath and she has a deep and passionate kindness.  When she is allowed to intervene in her strength, then in one moment are broken like things without consistence the obstacles that immobilise or the enemies that assail the seeker.  If her anger is dreadful to the hostile and the vehemence of her pressure painful to the weak and timid, she is loved and worshipped by the great, the strong and the noble;  for they feel that her blows beat what is rebellious in their material into strength and perfect truth, hammer straight what is wry and perverse and expel what is impure or defective. But for her what is done in a day might have taken centuries;  without her Ananda might be wide and grave or soft and sweet and beautiful but would lose the flaming joy of its most absolute intensities.  To knowledge she gives a conquering might, brings to beauty and harmony a high and mounting movement and imparts to the slow and difficult labour after perfection an impetus that multiplies the power and shortens the long way.  Nothing can satisfy her that falls short of the supreme ecstasies, the highest heights, the noblest aims, the largest vistas.  Therefore with her is the victorious force of the Divine and it is by grace of her fire and passion and speed if the great achievement can be done now rather than hereafter.

http://www.sriaurobindoyoga.org/2012/09/10/мать-глава-6-4-махакали/

Regarding gravity.

Spoiler

    It is only from our point of view that the universe of the planet and galaxies revolve because we live in the material world from the point of view of the spirit there is no movement but the exchange between the consciousness of the planets.Galaxies are living creatures, we see only the rough points of the centers of these creatures, therefore not without reason, in the astrology of the galaxy are represented by creatures of ram, fish, scorpion, and so on.

    Energy can not exist by itself and manifest itself in emptiness, but is, if considered closer, an expression of the hidden conscious and being.Spiritual knowledge and experience make it obvious that the constructive energy at the matter level is a manifestation of the power of the spirit.

    We use the energy of God and assign it to ourselves so that all kinds of energy are a kind of energy of the spirit. I can not tell you how gravity works more in detail because religious books only give a general understanding of the process. Spiritual teachers did not care about the explanation of the physical interactions of the planets, they generally spoke about where and by whom all being is supported.

 

 

Edited December 18, 2017 by Coil

[kartikg 1,524]

what are you babbling about coli? do you really believe in those things? 

[SeekTruth 206]

Too bad this topic wasn't given a chance. I'm noticing a pattern with a certain member here with a penchant for shutting down discussion.

Edited July 17, 2020 by SeekTruth

[XenoFish 106,761]

40 minutes ago, SeekTruth said:

Too bad this topic wasn't given a chance. I'm noticing a pattern with a certain member here with a penchant for shutting down discussion.

You necroposted a nearly 3 year old thread just to say this....

[SeekTruth 206]

1 minute ago, XenoFish said:

You necroposted a nearly 3 year old thread just to say this....

I got skillz