The end of section on problems with modern cosmology is within the grasp. There are only two rather short chapters left and they largely summarize what has been explained in detail earlier. There’s one little bombshell dropped here, however, so, without further ado, let’s see this grande finale.
Dark Matter anomaly arises when we our observations do not comply with our theory of gravitation. We expect distant stars and galaxies to rotate with certain speeds but they do it faster as if they were in the presence of a large gravitational field. We attribute this field to dark matter.
In our solar system we also expect planets to rotate around the Sun with different speeds – those closer to the Sun must rotate faster and those farther away much, much slower. Saturn, for example, completes one rotation in twenty six Earthly years. Wait a minute, the Saturn also covers a lot more distance in this time so I’m not sure whether it moves faster or slower relative to Earth. Anyway, in Vedic cosmology, the book says, the problem of dark matter does not arise because all planets and all start rotate with the same speed.
What about our observations of [allegedly] slow moving Saturn, however? What if it moves slower than Mercury, which is the closest to the Sun in our solar model. This is where the book drops a mysterious sentence that despite same rotational speed the apparent speeds are different because planets are being dragged by the Sun and by the zodiac. Dragged by the Sun? I’ve read this before, I’ve heard of this from Srimad Bhagavatam, too, and I’ve read detailed explanations further in the book, but I still can’t explain what it actually means. Maybe it will come to me later.
Stars are parts of the zodiac and in Vedic cosmology they move at a constant speed, too. We think that those of them that are further away should move faster to keep up but here they are considered as parts of the same “disk” rather than independent celestial objects with no connections to each other. This is promised to be explained in later chapters.
More to the point, because in Vedic cosmology gravity is rejected as a driving force behind movements of stars and planets then what follows is that distances to them are explained differently as well. There’s a great agreement between Vedic observations and modern astronomy when it comes to rotational movement but distances to planets are all wrong – as Śrīla Prabhupāda insisted that the Sun is closer to the Earth than the Moon, for example.
Methods of measuring distances used by modern astronomers have been enumerated in this section and in semantic theory all of them were rejected one by one as they rely on unsubstantiated principles. Light does not travel in straight lines as assumed in the parallax method. Light is not equally distributed in all directions as assumed in inverse square law of luminosity. All parts of the universe are not made of the same type of matter as assumed by calculations based on Doppler shift. Once we drop these three assumptions and incorporate principles of semantic theory (Sāṅkhya) we can construct an entirely new model of the universe that will be in full agreement with śāstra, though scientists might not necessarily see the benefits of that agreement.
The last chapter starts with the point that it’s not only that we don’t know how to reconcile quantum theory with thermodynamics or general relativity but we have no idea what these reconciliations would look like. I think quantum field theory already claims to explain thermodynamics but don’t quote me on that. Physics needs postulates of dark energy and matter on the assumption that “dark” stuff we can’t see is physically just like the stuff we can. The author says that all these problems rise not from theories themselves but from the inability to incorporate meanings into science in general. I see what he did there – we can’t see meanings and they do not act like what we can see – objects.
Sāṅkhya provides the alternative to science where meanings are incorporated from the get go and difficulties experienced by science do not arise there. At this point I must add that I can neither concur nor disagree with this statement – no one knows if Sāṅkhya can be fully understood without accepting some contradictions here and there. It’s a bold claim to make.
Sāṅkhya based approach, however, will fundamentally alter our understanding of time, universe, and space we all live in. For now we see time and space as linear and flat, and all objects as physical. In Sāṅkhya we must first understand the nature of concepts and space-time in which concepts exist. This new space-time will become hierarchical and closed. As far as I understand, “flat” means that in our universe everything is made of the same kind of matter and in Sāṅkhya this flatness will be changed into hierarchy. Our space is “open”, meaning our universe has no boundaries and space between stars if filled with an infinite number of points which can make up continues straight or curved lines, for example. Closed space means that there’s the universal tree and that’s it. It’s not a tree in space and there are no straight paths between its branches. Our trees exist in space and squirrels can jump from one branch to another but this is not the correct model of the Vedic tree – outside space must be excluded.
Time is also arranged hierarchically, which will be explained later. For now I’ll just say, not being entirely sure, that our time folds in the time of greater beings like days fold into a week, weeks fold into months and so on. Vedic time is also cyclic – days, months, years and yugas go full circle and return where they started (never mind that space changes from Monday to Monday or from spring to spring).
Due to hierarchical nature of objects we won’t be puzzled by dark matter because all “dark” means in Sāṅkhya is it’s the kind of matter more abstract than our senses. Hierarchical organization of matter also means that all different kinds of space-time might appear in our physical view just as country, state, city, and street are all present in the physical sense but they are not the same types of location. We understand the difference between a concept of “state” and “street” but science somehow doesn’t recognize this distinction of type when it tries to reduce all matter to atomic interactions. Science suffer from physicalist dogma here and once that dogma is removed a new picture of the cosmos will emerge in which many of currently held views will become irrelevant, or wrong, or both.
And this, ladies and gentlemen, is the end of the section on problems with modern cosmology. The next section is dedicated to principles of Vedic cosmology but it starts with discussing another set of problems in modern science so it’s not going to be all about Lord Brahmā and the lokas he made right from the start.