[ Show ]
[ Shrink ]
Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor
of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users'
privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your
privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket
to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we
also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.
Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
[ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message ]
Date Posted: 11:38
Author: Waqidi - 3 Jun 2001
Subject: Re: Response to Waqidi
In reply to:
Mike Drake - 2 Jun 2001
's message, "Re: Response to Waqidi" on 11:37
The current theories to explain the expanding and accelerating universe include both dark matter and dark energy. I have not seen whether either of these two unproven ideas assume a gravitational effect which is identical to the standard Newtonian mechanics equation where the gravitational force is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between two masses and proportional to the product of the masses of the objects and the universal gravitational constant. Therefore, your assumption that the effect of a dark matter companion star (that may also include the effect of dark energy) can be calculated using the standard Newtonian equation is conjecture at this time. Current measurements of an accerating universe are not predicted by standard equations and up until a few months no one even knew that such an effect was present in the known universe. I do not believe that astronomers during the time of Sri Yukteswar thought that the sun had a dual companion star. (This would be an interesting research project.) What I would agree is that current astronomers would likely agree that no such companion star to the sun can be seen or measured.
Assuming that you can find the actual Burbank quote from the article that this would provide more substantial evidence that Burbank at the time of the article did not believe in reincarnation. We could say that Burbank in 1926 on such and such a date did not believe in rencarnation. However, it does not say whether or not he continued to maintain this position consistently throughout his life. Further, it does not prove conclusively that Yogananda misquoted what Burbank said to him sometime during their friendship. Now I ask you is it not possible that Burbank changed his opinion on this subject? Burbank passed away in the same year as the article, 1926, it is also possible that he was not feeling well at the time of the interview and his mind was affected. We do not know what he died of or what were the circumstances surrounding the "press conference". At this point the only thing we have to go on is your memory of a microfiche which you may or might not have seen and the third hand report from a web site. Not the sort of evidence that you can convict people on.
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |