The Order of Time - Info : Methodical Preliminary Excercises

'With something being contradicted
is not proven that it is untrue,
just as the not being debated
proves that someting is true.'

If we want to figure out out the truth about the facts that make up our reality, we have to begin with determining the method to proceed. In ancient India it is called nyâya, which according the Sanskrit dictionary means as much as method, standard, rule, axiom, plan, the right manner, justice, logical argument or inference. In the logic of our planned approach emerges, so as to arrive at the proper inference, an image of reality, a standard way of operating in the right manner. This logic, itself thereto called nyâyika, consists of five limbs:

1 General thesis.
2 Doubt.
3 Counter argument.
4 Conclusion.
5 Summary.

It is of course possible to call for the philosopher R. Descartes (1596-1650) with his method so very much alike, and the philosophers I. Kant (1724-1804) for the duality and G. W. F. Hegel (1770-1831) for the idea of thesis opposing antithesis in order to arrive at a synthesis, we may consult S. Freud (1856-1939) for an analysis and F. Nietzsche (1844-1900) for realizing ourselves, but then are we building one house with many master builders. There is after all also the (elder) philosopher W. v. Ockham (1285-1349) who, with his well-known 'razor'-argument, poses the question why we would utilize different elements when a single one would suffice. To prevent a subsequent tumbling over one another of master builders for our filognostic mansion, we first of all, for the first half of part I, limit ourselves to the vedic vision in reation to Descartes, since he specifically has the method as his subject. And even him we will have to abandon ultimately, since also he, not conversant with it as he was in his time, was incapable of covering the nonwestern tradition about it prior to him nor the empirical science after him, however diligent he was. Rationality is something beautiful and good, reason is essential, the method of great importance, but it is also vital, as he states himself, to be comprehensive in the end. The general thesis is therefore, with having put India first as the oldest culture known to us, that that old culture, as the one master builder, suffices for a philosophical lead to tackle the problems of modern man and to arrive at the filognosy of a syncretic approach of science, spirituality and religion. For contrary to Descartes do we with them find evidence of a respect for scientific facts as the existence of a galaxy in the midst of other galaxies, as also a clear description of the problems we recognize as typically modern. It is of importance to work for a coherent paradigm with which the complete whole of our reality can be properly covered, matters of the spirit and the gross of matter can be done justice, and with which everything and everyone may fit in, so that the person in his full identity is respected.

Since, as the preface points out, we have to link this love for knowledge to a certain order of time if we want to have a life with it, will we also have to involve a physicist like Albert Einstein (1879-1955) because he, as the figurehead of our modern intelligence, promulgated the relativity of the time concept. Let's start with him for exercising the method. According him would, to his conception of E = M x C² for the universe, the speed of light be the constant in the dynamical universe of time and matter. Time according Einstein and many others who thought to have understood him, is always different and depends on the frame of observation. The correctness of his theory, implies that the absolute value of time computations is illusory and that we, politically, therefore (...) factually can regulate, settle and control the time any way we like. I Newton (1643-1727) would be wrong with his absolute idea of a natural time as the measure for determining our lawfulness of material existence. That would be a position all too deterministic. So be it, but the problem is that we end up with a couple of conflicting ideas if we give Einstein the advantage of doubt in determining what is absolute. Firstly is it so that we might not understand Einstein quite right. Time and space are to his theory not exactly the same, viz. do not entirely team up. According his theory there is a difference between the time indicated by an atomic clock that in an airplane flew around the world and the time of a similar atomic clock that was kept in its place. This was tried and one indeed found a very minute difference between the atomic clocks the way the theory predicted, even though this experiment from 1972 according some was thus unsatisfactorily conducted that factually no definitive conclusion should have been attached to it (see A.G. Kelly: Hafele & Keating Tests; Did They Prove Anything?). Thus is Einstein correct saying that the time of a certain place must be taken relative? If so, is it then really so that this minute difference, with which also astronauts e.g. would have to return home, would justify the difference in time and space we find with the standard time of our civil order as compared to the time indicated by sundials? In China does that difference, at the beginning of the 21th century, amount to some three hours which in the west of China leads to the civil disobedience of peasants ignoring the imposition of the state adamantly, as they with a to the local time settled clock, regulate their daily business. When Einstein thinks to have found an exception to the rule of the newtonian link of time and space, doesn't that factually imply that that connection is thereby confirmed? Isn't folk wisdom still defending that the exception confirms the rule? Then why reject Isaac Newton with his devout, religious and classical respect for the natural measures of time the way they are for normal people and planets?

"...the failure of the world's physicists to find such a (satisfactory) theory, after many years of intensive research," says Dirac, "leads me to think that the aetherless basis of physical theory may have reached the end of its capabilities and to see in the Aether a new hope for the future".
Paul Dirac, the Nobel Prize winner in physics in 1933
Scientific American, The Evolution of Physicists Picture of Nature, May 1963

It is even worse with the theory of Einstein so fundamental to our modern relativistic mind and aversion against especially personal absolutes. Recently (summer 2005) was the theory by the italian physicist Maurizio Consoli questioned to the occasion of experimental findings in an experiment by the german physicist Stephan Schiller in Düsseldorf, on the speed of light that, according Consoni, the theorist interpreting the data with greater scrutiny and detachment than he did, wouldn't be uniform in all directions, and that it thus would be directional and that therefore there would be a certain order of light, a framework, in the universe. Such a paradigm clash to experimental findings had happened before when a certain researcher named D. C. Miller in 1933 meant that Michaelson and Morly, the physicists that in 1887 initiated the idea of a constant light speed that Einstein took as a basis for his theory, had made mistakes in working from averaged values to the rotational speed of the earth. Before him had Ernst Mach (1838-1916) concluded that there was no definitive proof for the so-called ether as the fixed frame of reference for a variable light speed in a vacuum. To the measurements of the light speed that according Miller differed relative to the position of the earth, would the earth nevertheless move with a speed of eight kilometers per second through a medium that would be something like the ether, the fundamental element in which all scientists before Einstein believed as being the medium in which light would vibrate it's waves. After Miller there were, by Yuri M. Galaev e.g., many more tests conducted with this so-called M. & M.-experiment with varying results. The scientists in 2005, under the lead of Schiller discovering the same type of deviations, couldn't accept their own findings thus; they couldn't believe that Einstein's theory wouldn't be correct that states that such findings can't be right, and so they attributed the deviations found to systematic error. From a human point of view that is understandable, since the consequences for our presently dominating way of thinking about time and space are hard to oversee.

Concerning the speed of light itself that in its absolute value seems to have dethroned time as being an absolute measure, there is another remarkable issue to take notice of. There exists light that goes three hundred times faster. Scientists think nothing special of it since the end of the twentieth century. How can that be? According Einstein in 1905 nothing would go faster than the absolute speed of light namely. But light is, ever since it halfway the nineties of the twentieth century was discovered, capable of speeding 1,7 as fast through a special fiber optic cable, and even three hundred times as fast when driven through a gas cloud. The solution to this riddle is there from 1910: the limit of the speed of light is only true for coded light, not for the light itself. The physicist Daniel Gauthier confirmed this remedy for saving Eintein's theory of relativity in 2003, by again stating that according his findings the limit of the speed of light indeed, so it seems, is true for coded light carrying information, but not for uncoded light. Thus seen is the speed of light a conditional or apparent constant and not an absolute constant. Depending the medium and the type of light, may light possibly go infinitely fast and can thus Einstein's formula, which builds on a speed limit or an absolute constant of speed in the vacuum of outer space, actually not be correct at all. To normal circumstances on our planet earth may the speed of light seem constant, but it seems to be so that, in the special circumstances of other conduits and/or fields, we with Einstein are dealing with something that is more a theory of constants than with a theory able to declare time relative a justified manner (Einstein himself preferred the formulation 'a theory of invariants'). By and by it offers no surprise anymore that, safe for a couple of zealous scientific fanatics, virtually no one understands Einstein. For he, from the perspective of our modern options, doesn't quite compute.

    The proof is piling up further. A certain physicist Tom Van Flandern states in an article titled The Speed of Gravity &endash; What the Experiments Say: Physics Letters A 250:1-11 (1998): 'Recognition of a faster-than-lightspeed propagation of gravity, as indicated by all existing experimental evidence, may be the key to taking conventional physics to the next plateau.' The effect of gravity goes many times faster than light. And that also is incommensurate with Einstein.
   Another matter of dispute among physicists concerning the speed of light, is the in 2002 by the internationally acclaimed physicist, author and broadcaster Paul C. W. Davies in Australia found deviance in the fine-structural or nuclear constant akin to the speed of light, which would prove that the speed of light would gradually have decreased in our cosmic ontogenesis. Also João Magueijo (in Faster Than the Speed of Light reasoning in 2003 against the so-called Guth inflation-theory that would explain that effect away) states that if light in the beginning would have been faster, that that would offer a better explanation for the facts of the as yet maintained theory with the research data found. But the magazine Nature answered his scientific soliciting with the reply that though he, with what he offered, had found an explanation for some cosmological matters, he still had no comprehensive solution to offer and thus had to be turned down! Wasn't Einstein with all his followers also today not searching for the 'Theory of Everything'? Must we positively accept him then?
     It seems that landed here we're ready for the psychologist that studies the phenomenon of rationalization and repression in association with systems of thought. We're thinking here of the analogy of the analytical psychologist Carl Jung We denken hier aan de analogie van de analytische psycholoog Carl Jung (1875-1961) die, gelijk aan Consoli met Einstein's constanten, Sigmund Freud (1856-1939), who, equal to Consoli in relating to Einstein's constants, called Sigmund Freud, the original psychoanalyst and father of that science - and, notably, a friend of Einstein -, himself a complete neurotic. And let's be honest here; is relativism really effective in assuring the progress of mankind on it's way to peace and justice? The atomic bomb and the nuclear power plant that do effectively convert mass into energy, don't seem to succeed in it. Maybe we have to reconsider our dear Father of Time as a preliminary conclusion accepting that Einstein maybe wasn't right in every way. Science happens to consist of trial and error, that is the power of its progress.

Doubt the galore thus with the existing relativistic paradigm. One doesn't have to be a rocket-scientist for that either. On the internet could in 2005 in in the dutch science n forum wetenschapsforum.nl a lay-discussionbe followed between in physics interested enthusiasts arguing on the particle of light. From their guesswork it is evident how impossible it is to understand all the peculiar conclusions of Einstein's theory. Light would also be measurable in photons. A light particle with a base mass of zero would, moving around, be a package of energy, that does have mass. But how could such a package of energy having the speed of light, to which according the theory the particle, heavy of kinetic energy, would endlessly increase in weight, there not be a gravitational effect in the direction of a black hole like the center of the galaxy? (this by the way also belongs to the implications of Düsseldorf). In order to maintain Einstein can the particle of light not be permitted to have mass, although it has energy. We also learned from Einstein that energy and mass add up with the speed of light according the formula E = M x C², which then would implicate that we'd have energy that can't be mass and that thus the formula, again, would be wrong. So sang the dutch pop-group Doe Maar: 'e=mc²...before the bomb drops', at the end of the song with that name. And that is what the lay thinks, and in Holland even sings, about it.

And they allowed Apollonius to ask questions and he asked them of what they thought the cosmos was composed. But they replied:
"Of elements."
"Are there then four" he asked.

"Not four," said Iarchas, "but five."

"And how can there be a fifth," said Apollonius,"alongside of water and air and earth and fire ?"

"There is the ether", replied the other,"which we must regard as the stuff of which gods are made, for just as all mortal creatures inhale the air, so do immortal and divine natures inhale the ether."

Apollonius again asked which was the first of the elements, and Iarchas answered:

"All are simultaneous, for a living creature is not born bit by bit."
"Am I," said Apollonius, "to regard the universe as a living creature?"

"Yes," said the other, "if you have a sound knowledge of it, for it engenders all living things."

The Life of Apollonius of Tyana,
Philostratus, 220AD.

But it can also be stated philosophically. In the vedic literatures we know from the philosopher Sayana in the Rig-veda verse 1:50: 'Thus it is remebered: you [O Sun] who traverse 2202 yojanas in half a nimes'a'. With S.B. 3.11: 3-10 it then appears that with a yojana of 31 km the light speed of ± 300.000 km/s is very closely described (see Wikipedia). But, o blessed truth, on closer examination of the vedic reference in that same Bhâgavatam of Vyâsa turns the yojana in verse 5.25: 1 out to stand also for a measure of something like a light year at the scale of the galaxy, at the scale of the s'is'umâra, the dolphin, as the Purâna calls the Milky Way. In other words: the light speed according a coordinated vedic vision is variable, depending the frame of reference. As for this frame were, for the philosopher Aristotle (384-322 B.C.), the two forms of time enough to speak of the cosmos: the linear and the cyclic movement of the universe. For that sufficed in order to speak of a finite universe, divided in two realms: that of the unchangeable and unique celestial sphere of the ether leading to the cyclic of creation, which is perfect, and that of earthly matter which is characterized by the linear, which is imperfect, is finite. According René Descartes, picking up on such a division of space with the element of the ether, is there no such thing as empty space, a real vacuum, but only a universe full of interaction, and thus wouldn't there ever be a constant speed of light measurable but rather a speed limited by the medium through which it moves. Consequently we see the three hundred times faster light impulse sent through a gas cloud. After Descartes did, in his respect for his philosophical predecessor, in a blend of science and speculative philosophy, the physicist J. C. Maxwell in 1875 in the first edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica initially describe the problematic and mysterious medium of the ether as follows: 'Whatever difficulties we may have in forming a consistent idea of the constitution of the æther, there can be no doubt that the interplanetary and interstellar spaces are not empty, but are occupied by a material substance or body, which is certainly the largest, and probably the most uniform body of which we have any knowledge.' That substance in, or from, space is then that primal state of matter which formed the stars and planets and which is always there in the background as their basis, as one complete whole of potential space-time, as the potency of the ether, the effect of a coherent forcefield the way it in its operation was noticed by Aristotle already in western philosophy: the ether as the formative basis for all in existence. The notion of a relativistic four-dimensional space-time, the normal 'euclidian' space linked to the dimension of time, was defended by Einstein in the Brittanica edition of 1922. But Einstein couldn't ascribe an absolute value to the simultaneity of occurrences, such an ethereal and absolute, momentous drive, which by Carl Jung e.g. is called synchronicity, he could not acknowledge. We, thus seen do so, because of the relativity of the medium, not really know what we're exactly up to with the speed of light. The results of the measurements are diverging, that's a sure thing.
Even Einstein himself who, in facing the alleged constancy of light speed, was credited for having called off the existence of the ether, devised later on a new theory departing from a different concept of the ether (see also Ludwik Kostro: Einstein and the Ether). He stated in 1920 about the ether: 'There can be no space nor any part of space without gravitational potentials" and next he concluded with: "Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it.' (lecture, University of Leyden). Thus general relativity implies an ether, but Einstein disagreed with an absolute concept of time with the ether, the way we know it from the dutchman Hendrik A. Lorentz (1853 - 1928), who before him had said: 'One cannot deny to the bearer of these properties [the ether] a certain substantiality, and if so, then one may, in all modesty, call true time the time measured by clocks which are fixed in this medium, and consider simultaneity as a primary concept'. Actually is the ether just the empty space we normally know as a limited gravitational forcefield, like that of the sun ('curved space'), the Milky Way (ethereal space or the Force) or the special, not limited and the, according Hubble's so-called red-shift of the light spectrum, endlessly expanding, intergalactic space (the so-called space-time, or the original space or ether - without the time-differentiation of the linear v.s. the cyclic time - of undifferentiated matter just after the Big Bang, in Sanskrit to the oldest traditions called pradhâna). Thus seen there are different types of relativistic ether and space. The three main forms of the ether differing by locality as mentioned here are vedically known as the three forms of Vishnu: Kâranodakas'âyî Vishnu, Garbhodakas'âyî Vishnu and Kshirodakas'âyî Vishnu. With this has our primary thesis that deriving from the vedic concept of order would suffice then been confirmed. Already before Empedocles (490-430 v.Chr.) said: 'by the aether, the aether divine', was the truth of this element as being essential to the concept of the soul already acknowledged in the culture of Sanskrit. But enough about this.

Considering the community of physicists in denial of a relativistic ether the way Einstein stated it later, may be concluded that there is a lot of natural physicist's theory in neglect of Einstein, even using his name in the defense of its denial. Einstein was evolving as it should with being a good and self-critical scientist, and thus can we accept him, filognostically knowing the error as a challenge for self-improvement. He, not succeeding in formulating the 'theory of everything' had to contend with internal inconsistencies and so had we after him. So is it also possible that the inability to detect deviations in the speed of light can be caused by the moving along of the earth on the stream of energy of the ether. The element of the ether would lead to energy vortexes which, just as with something floating down a river, do not result in a relative motion between the ether and the earth, and even so wouldn't there be any effect on the measured speed of light. This is a position defended by people at the edge of science who are often portrayed as pseudoscientists: Nikola Tesla (1856-1943), Viktor Schauberger (1885-1958), Wilhelm Reich (1897-1959) and John E.W. Keely (1827-1898). The latter one wrote in 1893: 'There is no dividing of matter and force into two distinct terms, as they both are one. Force is liberated matter. Matter is force in bondage'. These scientists tried to demonstrate that ethereal energy, or orgone energy as Reich demonstrated to Einstein, even though invisible, is very real (see also J. Medeo). With before our eyes the modern of quantum physics also speaking in these terms of indeterminate energy, we so may ask ourselves what factually real science would be. There is a paradigmatical struggle, but to say what would be true, is for time to tell. Error can be terror (E=M x (T)error²), science and politics are, just like religion and the state, only separated by principle, not in reality. We are warned about error in science and matters of the ego, especially in mathematics deriving from possibly wrong suppositions as the non-existence of the ether or imaginary constants. So was there in the nineties a news item about astronomers who thought to have discovered planets around a star. They later on really did, but at that time was the deviation in the so-called parallax of their measurements wholly attributable to the erroneously not reckoning with the equation of time, which is the consequence of the oblique axis of the earth and the noncircular orbit of the earth around the sun. Thus they made a fool of themselves with a false alarm of significant results.
The idea basic to this doubt is that the mathematical is a reductionistic way of reasoning in which one is never certain of one's subject since information was lost in the reduction. The term A in an equation isn't necessarily the same as an A elsewhere in the equation or in another equation. That also is relativity and lawfulness. With A unequal to A, a good Apple is not equal to a rotten Apple, finds the illusion of order as suggested by mathematics its end, or, as psychologists like B. F. Skinner (1904-1990) state it: one will have to accept the complexity of the universe and admit that not everything can be known or reduced to a formula.

In what respect Einstein specifically is correct or not in the end, whether the doubt as mentioned and the experimenting is justified and correct or not, certain is that the time as the controlling factor - linked to the place in that what we call space-time - indeed, logically seen, must be relatively dependent, like also the speed of light depends on the medium through which it travels. And that constitutes a second argument against the politicized relativistic justification maintained for time zones for instance in which to the contrary the time is separated from the place. In other words: to use Einstein to reject the absolute of time, next declare that time depends on the frame of observation, or the place, and then again with the same relativistic argument arrange for time zones in which is broken with the dependency to the place, is of course more than anything else an exercise of fearful, neurotic and compulsory behavior in running from Father Time. Lorentz must have been right with his, by us at this site therefore respected, local, true time clocks directed at the ether and not Einstein with his exception that resulted from the denial of the ether. One may defend that time is absolutely relative and that there is a law of time stating that the time and all that links to it, must be different always because of the element of movement proper to it, but to simply endlessly manipulate time as a dependent variable must certainly be regarded as being a form of denial concerning the, with all one's matter, being subjected to the time as an independent variable, that, apart from being creative and maintaining is also evidently destructive.

If we do take the criticism serious, seems the einsteinian fallacy to consist of confusing speed with change. Speed is not an absolute value, not as absolute as the sacred three of the basic elements of physics are, viz space, time and matter. The with space-time manifesting matter, offers those three elements which as the physical trinity of God define each other and cannot be reduced to something else. With the philosopher D. Hume (1711-1776) in An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, they are called extention, motion and solidity, and with Vyâsadeva, akas'a, prakriti and kâla. They constitute each other's condition of existence in creation, one cannot think of one without the other. Time is the life, the movement of matter in space. Space is the distance of time, the phenomenon of gravity, in between material objects. Matter is the electromagnetic effect of the influence of time upon the potency of expanding space, the time which from being linear by the law of reaction became cyclic and thus in opposition transformed the gravity, the primal potency thus, into solid matter (be it not entirely as evidenced by the inability to find the so-called invisible 'dark matter', which according S.B. 5.20: 38 covers three quarters of our creation). The entire creation is a permutation of the concepts of time, space and matter. Energy e.g. is an electromagnetic phenomenon of spaced-out matter, the matter which of being purely hot energetic plasma in the beginning, concentrated or condensed into gas and vapor, next became fluid and after that solidified into matter, to which light is then the least dense, the fastest of matter in the beginning. Vedically is it called 'the glance' of the Lord (S.B. 2.1: 31), and in the Bible is it in Genesis said that there was light in the darkness. Space is the gravitational phenomenon which sets the limits either to matter in the form of stars and planets in curved space - the ether we cover with our radios, or to the Milky Way in the ethereal space we can see with our naked eye in the celestial sky, or the cosmic time-ball of expanding galaxies as we may see with a telescope as grouped together in the primal realm of time space where one doesn't really find actual matter yet but just the energetic potency for it. And also time we thus know in three, just like space and matter: the linear movement of the primal substance as we find it in the expansion of the cosmos, the movement of the matter wich opposed to that spins around mutually attracted in a galaxy and the movement through space-time of the 'timeless' but living soul, figuring as the 'no-time' of time consciousness, which constitutes the negation of matter, and which, false in identification, with the inauthentic forms an ego. The space, the relative phenomenon of gravitation, is the ether; the matter is the electromagnetic manifestation and time is the life of it all. That is the physical basis of a factually perceivable complete whole for all our arguments.

"Thus he then classified living creatures into genera and species, and divided them in every way until he came to their elements, which he called the five shapes and bodies, aether, fire, water, earth and air."

Xenocrates on the life of Plato

As for Einstein's erroneous supposition is it, as thus envisioned, the speed that changes, like everything subject to time. That is the law of time: the change is the absolute, not that what changes. The change stays the change, even though it changes, just like space or ether stays the space or ether, even though situated elsewhere, and in the end matter also turns out to be absolute, not in its temporary form, but as an electromagnetic phenomenon of energetic contraction without which the first two carry no meaning, even when it's as thin as light. Something apparently invariable and constant, like a quasar for instance, constitutes an illusion: it some time found its existence and will, by the law of time, some time cease to exist, and is thus not absolutely existing. Thus no, Einstein therefore, even though we accept his being committed to the relativistic ether, cannot be the lead for a responsible philosophical plea for a certain order of time. We must build on the absolute of time, the absolute of change existing as the eternal life of all matter in space.

Reasoning methodically consequent says the counter-argument here to the doubting of the absolute of time at this point, that declaring the time relative and dependent still not excludes the absolute reality thereof as an independent variable. Or, as dualistically Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) would say: time for itself, unknown as it is in its full glory - according also the french philosopher Henri Bergson (1859-1941) - is factually not in need of your existence to exist itself, while the time on itself the way you live it as an experience of being - discussed then again by the existentialist Martin Heidegger (1889-1976) - essentially has no real grip on it, despite of all politically and pragmatically inspired manipulations. That time lived and controlled implies only, as known from Hegel, the being estranged when one has to abide without the scientific of validity and reliability the way it manifests itself in the modern arbitrariness of standard time since the French Revolution with its failure of time-reform. As a conclusion is the time thus, axiomatic, as already defended by the oldest culture of India as an independent variable, an absolute of change and determinant of the ether, as a form of God, our general thesis, and the doubt concerns then the self-determined conditioning order with it which is naturally relative and possibly of a good or bad quality we can discuss.

Summarizing amounts the general thesis of filognosy then to the time as an independent godhead, force or order, that since the days of yore, the way we know it from India, is present as a for the creation, maintenance and destruction, all-determining factor in our lives. The antithesis of relativism concerns the pragmatical need for a knowable, existentially livable, controlled time we have to consider as being relative. Facing the two positions of the natural absolute of time and the cultural relative maintained thereto, do we thus arrive at the insight that we are dealing with a paradigmatic matter that compares to the difference between geocentric and heliocentric thought. First we thought that we according Ptolemaeus (87-150), with God and Jesus on earth, were the center of the universe, and then we thought, since the bravery of Galileo Galilei (1564 -1642) who to the ideas of Copernicus (1473 - 1543) contested geocentric Rome, that the sun was the center of the universe and thus found our new era of scientific enlightenment. With the progress of astronomy next we discovered our place in the galaxy, and now, being tired of the politically divided and quarreling - but still predominantly - heliocentric oriented sciences with their compensatory relativism, it seems that with us taking seriously the differences of the light speed that in inconclusive experimenting were found in the absence of a conclusive paradigm, we, together with the sun indeed do move through a medium called the ether. May the Force be with us; for we have now arrived at galactocentric thinking, the new paradigm for the 21th century, that defines us as being moved by an all-powerful force that controls as well the earth, the moon and the sun as the rest of the stars, a force moving us in the galactic whirl about the black hole in the center, the mountain Meru of Vishnu and Brahmâ, the eye of the universal storm created by the holy and absolute Force, the Force of the Absolute of Galactic Cakra (cyclic) Time that in its operation is known as the ether, the first effect in creation (Brahma Sûtra Adh2.P3: 1-7). The evolution of the ether is by sage Vyâsa described as follows: 'From the identification [of the ego] with the darkness of matter was of the transformation to that mode the [first element of the] ether developed with its subtle form and quality of sound which is indicative of as well the seen as the seer.' (S.B. 2.5: 25). In S.B. 11.15: 19 he then states that the Lord must be considered the personification of the ether and in S.B. 3.5: 32 that the ether may be considered the symbolic representation of the Supersoul, the local of God who impersonally is known as the Time. Relating to the concept of time he then states (S.B. 3.26: 34): 'The activities and characteristics of the element of the ether accommodate for the room external and internal, being of all living beings the field of activities of the vital air, the senses and the mind.' According him refers the ether thus to as well the 'timeless' self of the consciousness of time as to the time-bound of the outside world. So is there also considering the spiritual thus a relative ether.

'For a truly joyful and auspicious human work to flourish, must man have the capacity to climb from the depths of his attachment at home up to the ether. Ether here stands for the high flight of the high heavens, the open real of the spirit.'
Martin Heidegger, 'Treatise on human thought'

With this paradigmatic shift are we, so methodically proceeding, thus faced with the counterargument that leads to the conclusion that says that the order of time now can be discussed to its paradigmatic qualities and effects. Like geocentric thinking proved to be inferior to heliocentric thought, may now heliocentric thinking the same way be inferior to the paradigm of galactocentric thought in unfolding the knowledge in this and the next sections of our filognosy to the order of time with the ether. For it is that new paradigm that counts with a (circular) movement of the stars, the earth and the sun through the - and let's stress this again - from the vedic culture thus already known basic element of the ether (kha or akas'a) that represents as well the forcefield of the galaxy, the primal space-time, as the local order; the forcefield that possibly - but not necessarily - results in the variations in the light speed found in the different experiments and about which Einstein around 1920 said that he in 1905 had passed a somewhat too radical judgement. When with that discussion and supported by scientific experiment next the entire problem of modern man is summed up and comprehended, have we thus succeeded in our methodical purpose and arrived at a new paradigm for the twenty-first century, a paradigm that resets the world-culture to its classical values and cures (post-)modern, estranged man of his bewildered state.

'Therefore I thought in 1905 that in physics one should not speak of the ether at all. This judgement was too radical though as we shall see with the next considerations about the general theory of relativity. It moreover remains, as before, allowed to assume a space-filling medium if one can refer to electromagnetic fields (and thus also for sure matter) as the condition thereof.'
A. Einstein in 'Grundgedanken und Methoden
der Relativitätstheorie in ihrer Entwicklung dargestellt'

See also: references

2- The Order of Time: structure of the content

If we want to discuss the qualities and effects of the order of time methodically, must we, as it was stated in the preface, being syncretic out of loving the knowledge, from the filognosy, pay attention to science, as well as to spirituality and religion. Syncretic thinking is the essence of the concept of gnosis thus teaches us the classical spirituality of Christianity. The internet-encyclopedia (en.wikipedia.org) states that gnosis, to the authority of Gilles Quispel (1916) - an authoritative dutch researcher of classical and christian gnosticism - as a characteristic of religious movements, is counted as the 'the third component of western culture', next to reason and belief. Next to greek philosophy and Christianity would also the gnosis, which we in a christian sense know since the second century, have contributed considerably to the culture of Western-Europe. 'Reason rules the domain of truth and wisdom, theology, rules the domain of piety and obedience' says B. de Spinoza (1632 - 1677) in his Theological-political treatise, to which he rejects the mutual obligation of the two, but we do filognostically, from our love of knowledge, defend that reason and belief are mutually obliged, knowingly in the gnosis in which the dissection and the principle, or the analysis and the spirituality, constitute the bridge between science - which methodically uncovers the truth and in wisdom detemines which fact and paradigm would be of importance - and the art of the person (the theology) of the religion that strives for piety with the political of the populace which democratically enforces obedience. With us linking the concept of gnosis to the vedic culture will we thus, without losing ourselves in this or that gnostic tradition or finding ourselves compromised by it heretically, unfold here a world view in which all culture finds its reconciliation. The gnostic person is tyoically described as someone who seeks to know God on an intimate basis, by the pursuit of self-knowledge or nurturing of self-awareness; the filognostic then is the one of love for this from the point of view of the vedic truth. The filognosy as gnosis is contrary to the western classical view of it not secret, even though, on the vedic ground of the so-called paramparâ, a personal transfer of the love for knowledge is considered conducive and the advise, and is it surely also a matter of great importance to be in respect of a certain confidentiality and discretion concerning the science of the person. It is not polemic or anticlerical, it is based on all kinds of scientific facts and is of belief on the basis of the vedic tenet that human recollection and the ability to acquire and process knowledge always falls short and that therefore scriptural authority is needed. Contrary to classical gnosis there is thus no propensity for anarchy but positively a certain degree of docility there concerning a certain original person of spiritual authority, viz. the philosopher of philosophers Vyâsadeva (±3200 B.C.), the Indian who in the West sometimes is denounced as an anonymous because his name would stand for a collection of sages who each on their turn would have assembled the vedic verses. Even though he indeed incorporates the unification of the entire field of philosophy and religion, is the evidence for the denial of his name to our opinion inconclusive though, just like there is neither sufficient evidence of the so-called arian invasion of India that would position the source of vedic civilization more outside of India and closer to us - on the contrary. But concerning the vedic culture it is a critical docility we work with. That culture from the Far East not adopting at it's face value, but still simply and unequivocally with a certain lead being absorbed, does take place then without the neglect of us being Christians, Muslims or other minded believers and thinkers. So it can for the one person take it's effect very traditionally hindustan-like, while for an other it is more a nice and inspiring philosophical exercise as it for even another one entails an enrichment of his spiritual and political life. It is envisioned that none of our talents and forms of association of living scientifically, spiritually and multi-culturally believing is lost in recognizing the vedic science as a source of inspiration and root of human civilization. The doctrinary effort of the filognostic world view, as unfolded at this site, concerns partly the opposing of all possible kinds of falsification, or false unification of the ego, whether it concerns the falsification of class-consciousness, political consciousness, religious consciousness or the more scientific forms of arrogance, narrow-mindedness and estrangement. By the, with this postmodern restart, of gnosticism therein having envisioned a constructive spiritual reconciliation of science and religion, is there for each of the three holy subjects of science, spirituality and religion mentioned - which respectively deal with the facts, the principles and the respect for the person - a duality which thus at this site results in a division of six sections. These six sections correspond with the in India used darshanas of the six classical philosophical views there are to counter the human propensity for falsifying the I-awareness of the soul and thus also of a certain order of time with the ether. The nyâya of the logical approach in India, was translated in the methodical/structural philosophical considerations of this section; the vais'eshika of the more atheistic indian mind of unification was translated in the figures and terms of sober natural science; the sânkhya of analytical philosophy was translated into an analytic section focussing on art; the yoga of finding absorption was translated into the spirituality of developing a certain abstract ability; the mimâmsâ of the culture of rituals was translated into personal and religious considerations and the vedânta culture of the commentaries was translated into the spirit of political reform. These visions so have in common 1) a continuing self, 2) a workload, 3) liberation in service, and 4) a culture of reference. The identity and integrity of filognosy is thus described in six aspects about the way the empiricist D. Hume (1711-1776) divided knowledge his way (see further the definition).