Seeking to explain the Universe

I have great difficulty with the Big Bang Theory. I question the following: something arising from nothing; the origin of the vast energy necessary for the claimed initial expansion; whether light maintains its intensity through infinite space; how far does the Hubble Telescope see in infinite space; what is the role of ‘dark matter’ in this claimed expansion; is it not premature to claim that the Big Bang cosmogony is proven?

In the meantime, fellow-bloggers may be interested in the following extracts from ‘On the Cosmos’ in my book ‘Musings at death’s door.’

“Following a genuinely educational curriculum set by the British for Malaya, I read about the prevailing ‘Stationary State’ theory relating to the structure of the Cosmos.  So, modern cosmologists were agreeing with an ancient Hindu perspective of durability in the heavens.  Then, however, came the ‘Big Bang’ theory.  This presumably was needed to explain what the Hubble Telescope had shown; that all sighted cosmic objects were seemingly moving away from one another.

Then came the ‘Big Crunch’ concept, seemingly in recognition that unending expansion did not make sense even in an infinity of space.  I, however, wonder if a glimpse of Hindu cosmic speculations might also have been influential.

Then came the ‘Mini-Bang’ extension, presumably to explain the lack of accumulating empty spaces. That is, if everyone is moving out of a sports stadium through gates open 360 degrees, wouldn’t the stadium become empty eventually?  The idea of a ‘Mini-Crunch’ had logically to follow.  All that was to fit the Hubble Telescope’s observations within a durable Cosmos; and a hint that invisible matter (or energy) might be filling the spaces resulting from the expansion of visible galaxies.

We were now back to an enduring Cosmos, but with significant changes in structures.  It is durability but without stability – an interesting concept.  Did not some unknown Hindus postulate that the universe renews itself periodically?  There are two strands in this belief.  The first strand says that at the end of a ‘day of Brahma,’ Earth (and other worlds) are temporarily dissolved (another view is of a temporary suspension).  A ‘day’ is equal to 4.32 billion human years.  At the end of another 4.32 billion years, representing a ‘night’ of Brahma, regeneration commences.  Dissolved, suspended, crunched?

Brahma is the Creator God.  The other strand of this belief says that at the end of Brahma’s life, equal to 311.04 trillion years, the whole Cosmos is dissolved.  After a great cosmic rest period equivalent to the duration of Brahma’s life, yet another creative cycle will commence, with another Brahma creating another Cosmos.  What a quaint vista this is.  What kind of mind conceived it?

It all sounds so simple.  When and how did these concepts originate?  Why?  What was the trigger?  These speculations promise long-term durability, but with vast changes in structures occurring in a sequenced path.  What I was taught as a boy – that the universe is without a beginning or an end – seems to be quite correct.  Continuity is assured, but with gaps in the creative and regenerative process.  For some reason, the firefly’s winks of light come to mind.”


Recent cosmic catastrophes

An Indian scholar apparently claims that the Vedic Age commenced in India about 9000 years ago; and that the Saraswati-Indus Valley civilisation collapsed in the period 2000 to 1500 BC through natural causes, with consequential chaos and migration. He also asserts that there is no mention of Aryans in the Indian records. At the time of its collapse, it seems (according to a Western scholar) that the Indus Valley civilisation “was already one thousand years old, thriving, and advanced in technology and trade”.

Whilst adherents of ancient civilisations tend to have a competitive perspective about the longevity of their cultural heritage, the contribution by the Indus Valley culture to the civilisation in India may have been substantial. According to another scholar, traces of the mysticism which lies at the core of Indian civilisation were evident in “an iconography of yogic practice” in the Indus Valley culture. Whilst it would take a little time for modern Indian scholars to sort out their pre-history, it is a fact that an Indus Valley civilisation existed, and then disappeared. Could the alleged references in the Mahabharatha  to aerial warfare and devastation of a nuclear type have come from that Indus Valley civilisation? Where else could they have come from? Could there have been an even earlier civilisation in that region?

What did happen to the Indus Valley civilisation? A Jewish scholar, who seems to have set out to verify the early writings of his people, claimed (in mid-twentieth century) that a major catastrophe, triggered by an extra-terrestrial agent, brought to a sudden end “the entire ancient East”, at the same time (about 1500 BC) that the Indus Valley civilisation disappeared. The scholar (I. Velikovsky) claimed that the cause of the destruction of the Indus Valley civilisation is not known. Yet, he says that “… the facts brought forth by (archaeologist) R.E. Mortimer Wheeler strongly suggest to various scholars” (including one H.K. Trevaskis) that it was a natural, and not a man-made, catastrophe.

Is this credible? Sir Arthur Evans, an expert on ancient Crete, is quoted by Velikovsky as reporting that a great catastrophe destroyed the culture of Middle Minoan Two; and that this was “… synchronical with the end of the Middle Kingdom in Egypt and the Exodus” (of the Jewish people from Egypt). This would have been about 1500 BC. It is now accepted that the volcanic eruption of Thera (Santorini), four times more powerful than Krakatoa’s explosion in the nineteenth century, occurred about 1500 BC; and that the Cretan civilisation was destroyed by it.

Velikovsky also quotes Claude F.A. Schaeffer as concluding that, at the end of the Middle Kingdom in Egypt, “an enormous cataclysm took place that ruined Egypt, and devastated by earthquake and holocaust, every populated place in Palestine, Syria, Cyprus, Mesopotamia, Asia Minor, the Caucasus and Persia”. Schaeffer’s findings were based upon excavations all over the ancient East, “where populations were decimated or annihilated, the earth shook, the sea irrupted, and the climate changed”.

Schaeffer is claimed to have discerned six separate major upheavals by nature. All of these catastrophes “simultaneously overwhelmed” the entire known East, including Egypt, on each occasion. Some of these catastrophes “closed great ages in the history of ancient civilisations”. This is a very significant claim. The major ancient catastrophe studied by Schaeffer took place about 2400 BC, bringing destruction from Troy (in Asia Minor — now Turkey) to the Nile. (Troy had been rebuilt and destroyed many times).

However, Velikovsky goes further and says that “there were global catastrophes in prehuman times, in prehistoric times, and in historical times”, implying (on the basis of the last two that he had examined) that they were all extra-terrestrial in origin.

(Could not the warriors of the West have waited for the next cosmic catastrophe to achieve boundary and regime changes in the Middle East?

The above paragraphs are extracts from “Which way to the Cosmos?” from my book “Hidden Footprints of Unity.”)


Prof. Sam Huntington’s quotes

The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.

The relations between countries in the coming decade are most likely to reflect their cultural commitments, their cultural ties and antagonism with other countries.

It is my hypothesis that the fundamental source of conflict in this new [post-Cold-War] world will not be primarily ideological or primarily economic. The great divisions among humankind and the dominating source of conflict will be cultural. Nation states will remain the most powerful actors in world affairs, but the principal conflicts of global politics will occur between nations and groups of different civilizations. The clash of civilizations will dominate global politics. The fault lines between civilizations will be the battle lines of the future.

The colonial experience all Muslim countries went through may be a factor in the fight against Western domination, British, French or whatever. They were until recently largely rural societies with land owning governing elites in most of them. I think they are certainly moving toward urbanization and much more pluralistic political systems. In almost every Muslim country, that is occurring. Obviously they are increasing their involvement with non-Muslim societies. One peak aspect of this, of course, is the migration of Muslims into Europe.

Countries will cooperate with each other, and are more likely to cooperate with each other when they share a common culture, as is most dramatically illustrated in the European Union. But other groupings of countries are emerging in East Asia and in South America. Basically, as I said, these politics will be oriented around, in large part, cultural similarities and cultural antagonism.

Islam’s borders are bloody and so are its innards. The fundamental problem for the West is not Islamic fundamentalism. It is Islam, a different civilisation whose people are convinced of the superiority of their culture and are obsessed with the inferiority of their power.

(From AZ Quotes). European colonialism was based on the assumed superiority of the ‘white race’ and its weaponry. It was bloody too.


Destiny-formation and power

My mind is challenged by the following: “If you hold others as fully responsible for their own destiny, you ennoble them by treating them as equals.”

How could we humans be held as fully responsible for our personal destinies? Yet, Hindu (and Buddhist) philosophy holds that, through the reincarnation process, we (who are equals in the eyes of God) shape our future lives. Thus, we may find ourselves in each life paddling along our personal river of destiny sitting on a flimsy branch of a tree, or a solid log, or a frail sampan, or an oar-less boat. But we surely cannot be fully responsible for what happens during each Earthly life.

For example, consistent with the parameters of my destiny, I was given appropriate genes, parents, and teachers to cope with whatever may happen in my life. None of this was predictable. How could I have been responsible for the major events of my life? Much of it was quite painful. Even if my past lives had influenced the trajectory of my present life, and the lessons I have to learn, both life experiences and logic imply that I cannot control external impacts in a complex inter-connected universe. Then there is chance.

How others view me matters only if they have power over my life. Examples of the truly powerless are slaves, the lower castes of India, minority tribes everywhere, women in patriarchal societies, feudal subjects, workers in under-developed countries, etc. etc. Those caught within these categories cannot, in fairness, be held to be fully responsible for their current destiny paths.

Therefore, does not reality overlay religious philosophy? Yet, in day-to-day life, should we not view the materially dispossessed as our spiritual equals? And do what we can to lift their Earthly hopes? And thus for them to seek a better future life, while accepting and adapting to the vicissitudes of their current lives.

The perennial question is – how does society (through its rulers) ameliorate the inordinate greed which exaggerates the inequalities of life? Those at the top of the politico-economic tree usually want more cake from everyone; while those near the base of the tree cannot but seek a slice of any bread earned by those some way up the tree.

For most of us, destiny is to be powerless, except in relation to matters of the spirit. Then we can soar.

Cope and adapt – or whinge?

After nearly 7 decades of a highly interactive and contributory life in Australia as an adult, I believe that I am qualified to conclude thus:

  • This is not the country I entered. Then, residents were self-sufficient and relatively poor, displaying respect where appropriate, and with pride in who they were. They adapted very successfully, progressively, to the tremendous changes to their society. ‘God’s Will’ did have a role.
  • Today, new rights have been coined by the greedy and the opportunistic; government is required to accept responsibilities which were traditionally those of individuals, families, and private enterprise. The ‘nanny state’ has arrived.
  • ‘Other peoples’ money’ is thereby demanded to compensate for the evil behaviour of priests; offset the low taxes paid by tax-minimising corporations, especially the multinationals; compensate for the calculated profligacy of individuals; and subsidise the so-called ‘wealth creation’ by the rich (including politicians) benefiting from questionable tax concessions. Taxpayers who have no way of protecting their earnings are increasingly fleeced.
  • Our politicians are not trusted. Governments are seen as pre-occupied with politics, rather than with policies. And the nation is more backward than it should be, while political careers move forward.
  • Early post-war immigrants integrated into the nation successfully, ignoring the prejudice (not always racism) displayed through spoken words and painful acts of discrimination. More recent immigrants, entering a nation considerably tolerant of difference, profess to have been hurt and humiliated by pejorative spoken words!
  • These new arrivals could have no idea of the insults and denial of equal opportunity suffered by those of us who acclimatised superior white Aussies to the presence of people not like them.
  • Welfare is not directed just to offset hardship. It is now a right. Spokesmen for the industry seek a ‘sustainable lifestyle’ for recipients, which includes going to the cinema, etc. etc. Why not? Someone else is paying.
  • Some new arrivals are quick to adapt to the current national ethos: whinge, and whinge yet again.
  • Castles built on clouds will collapse. Wait to hear the cacophony of complaints as the need for greater self-sufficiency zooms sky high (as the river begins to dry out).

“Woe is me! I am humiliated.”

Who are those claiming to be hurt and humiliated by words uttered by others? Should I have felt insulted by being asked repeatedly whether I would join ‘the faith’ for my ‘salvation?’ Instead, I saw the speakers as well-meaning but not educated. When, recently, a former Church worker claimed that the one and only God of the universe is a Christian god, all the other gods being ‘pantheistic,’ I challenged his arrogance. I suggested that Christianity is a late entrant in humanity’s search for the First Cause of all that is. Were these people racists?

At a political level, when Lee Kuan Yew, the former leader of Singapore, offered a more efficient definition of democracy, he was attacked by the West. Was he insulted? Instead, his Ambassador to the UN published ‘Can Asians really think?’ That closed down further challenges; were they racist?

Significantly, Singapore is ahead of Australia at so many levels of governance – from education to economic development, based on long-term plans; not, as in Australia, waiting for foreigners to invest (if they chose). A silly accusation recently was that, although students in Singapore are ahead of their Australian counterparts in maths, they could not possibly understand the underlying concepts. Racism or dented white superiority?

More ridiculously, the terms ‘race’ or ‘racial’ are applied, almost as a mantra, to a wide variety of allegedly hurtful utterances. Thus, Australia’s ‘racial’ legislation denying free speech is defended as offering protection against any criticism of Israel’s policies! The Catholic Church is also said to need similar protection (something I do not understand). The Australian Aborigines, the only First Nation Peoples not recognised in the Constitution, do need protection from insults; but how are they to access any protection which might be available?

Then, there are the seemingly newly-arrived immigrants who, unlike their predecessors over half a century, claim to be humiliated, hurt, or offended by foolish words by silly people. Offensive words? That depends on whether one is easily offended. Some people are. Why?

Were such people never spoken to disdainfully ‘back home’? Could there be any intangible benefit in claiming to be psychologically damaged by unfriendly or ugly words in Australia?

We early immigrants were genuine ‘adventurers’ who crossed land and sea to start a new life, and to better ourselves. We ignored (or retaliated occasionally against) denigrating words. We were not wimps to feel ‘humiliated’ by words from the ignorant.

Words may hurt only if one lets them. Why allow that?


This is a re-titled re-post triggered by those who seek legislation to punish: those who say nasty things to them; or who challenge any of Israel’s policies; or who had been misled by the multicultural policy prevailing in the 1970s and 1980s which was intended to enable some ethnic empowerment and thus to capture ‘ethnic votes.’

Underlined by the ‘fair-go’ philosophy, Australia does offer equal opportunity to those who wish to integrate into the nation, by accepting its institutions and societal mores (the latter do evolve through time). Barriers reflecting gender bias, sectarian religion, colour prejudice, or even personal preference can be expected to arise. All these barriers do not reflect something termed ‘race’!


Racial discrimination law presents confusing concepts

Australia’s racial discrimination legislation successfully confuses acts of discrimination and words indicating prejudice, a feeling. Discrimination involves treating an individual or group differently from others, generally less favourably. Examples would be: a denial of equal opportunity, or paying wages below a legal entitlement. There may be no antipathetic feeling associated with the act of discrimination.

Whereas prejudice can be displayed in looks of disdain, or in spoken words, such as those used by bullies (or idiots) in a playground or in a work situation.

Denial of a right or entitlement will hurt – emotionally and materially. The effects can be very long term. Do read my 2 posts titled ‘The myth of racial discrimination’ to fully appreciate what actual discrimination is all about.

The discrimination I had to endure in not only the White Australia era but also in the 1980s was substantial, not imagined or coined. Initially, the discrimination I experienced reflected responses to my skin colour and to my being foreign. Latterly, the trigger was tribo-religious (‘not one of us’); and I had to ‘go with the flow’ to be allowed to work in peace. I thought it wise to retire prematurely.

Words uttered by rude people – mainly through ignorance or stupidity – can hurt, but only if one allows that! Why would one want to do that? Would one feel hurt and humiliated were the heavens to open suddenly, and deposit cold water on one’s head? Of course, one would feel chastened and a little hurt were a parent or a teacher or one’s boss to be rude in correcting one’s attitude, behaviour, or quality of work.

The Australian Aborigine has had to put up with more than 2 centuries of oral abuse! Has racial legislation provided significant protection? Yet, some recent coloured immigrants have allegedly spoken about being hurt and humiliated by nasty people addressing rude words at them. Is it time to adopt this adage: “The dogs may bark but the caravan moves on”?

Legislation should legitimately focus – and be restricted to – acts of discrimination (ie. to a denial of rights), and be couched in semantically and legally clear terminology. However, the current legislation in Australia offers the opportunity for harmless words of disapproval to be posited as harmful and humiliating.

Immigrants are traditionally ‘adventurers,’ displaying resilience and fortitude in travelling to another nation, and integrating with those already in the country they chose to enter. Some of them can, of course, be opportunistic.