-
Posts
-
Yeah, I’ve seen also that the estimates of number of stars has been in flux even for the Milky Way. We live in interesting times when all these technologic tools and research ideas keep expanding our understandings.
On the question of mass, that actually isn’t a substitute one-to-one reckoning for the number of “blazing suns” though, correct? I won’t have a chance to look through those links until next week at the earliest but will look forward to it once I can, thanks for including them.
With total mass that presumably includes black holes, significant amounts of “dark matter”, etc., only some of it would be “blazing suns”.
For instance just a quick glance at Wikipedia with the limited time I have lists the total mass of the Milky Way as 0.8 – 1.5 trillion solar masses in comparison to number of stars being 0.2 – 0.4 trillion.
Let’s roughly say 1 trillion solar masses whereas the star count is one third of that.
If it’s a similar ratio of mass to number of stars throughout the local group then again an “average of 4.1 trillion solar masses” as estimate for the Local Group means about 1.4 trillion “blazing suns”.
Hi tas,
All of your points raise legitimate questions about identifying Orvonton as the Local Group. In researching this question I found 8 previous studies (apart from my own at http://www.ubcosmology.com) which attempt to answer it. These studies are fascinating in the different ways they approach this question. I’ve listed them with their links at the end. Each is a thoughtful and sincere attempt to correlate revealed cosmology with the astronomic knowledge current at the time. They reach several different conclusions, even though they all generally refer to the very same descriptive statements about Orvonton. This is the clearest possible indication of the large degree of latitude for interpretation found in these statements. For their own reasons, the revelators chose not to be too explicit in their descriptions; perhaps they could not be more direct due to our general lack of astronomic knowledge in 1934. Regardless, the Book does not give a definitive answer to the question: What observable astronomic structure is Orvonton? Students of this revelation cannot agree upon a common answer to this question, because of the latitude for interpretation with which the authors expressed themselves, thereby legitimizing a number of possible answers. A way to move beyond these interpretative disputes is to empirically test different ideas about what Orvonton is.
A first empirical test of any idea about Orvonton is that it must be a structure whose parts have the potential of rotating about a center; that is, its parts must be held together by gravity with enough force to enable them to orbit about a center. This is certainly true of the Milky Way and its satellite galaxies. The Local Group is also held together by gravity, but the gravitational force binding its members together may or may not be strong enough to support their common rotation about a center. The Local Group may or may not pass this test. The thousands of galaxies in the Virgo Supercluster are not bound together by gravity, so this idea for Orvonton fails this test.
A second empirical test of any idea about Orvonton is that it must constitute one-seventh of a larger ring-like structure – the superuniverse space level. If “the whirl of the ten major sectors, the so-called star drifts, about the Uversa” (15:3.13) fills all of the pie-shaped space segment of Orvonton, then the distance from Uversa to Paradise will be 2.3 times the radius of Orvonton. If these ten whirling star drifts fill only half of this space segment, the distance to Paradise will be 4.5 times the radius of Orvonton.
Identification of Orvonton as the Local Group generates the prediction of an annular structure with a radius of 9 Mly. This structure can be observed, confirming this prediction. Other ideas I have encountered about what Orvonton is which meet the first empirical test do not generate predictions under the second test which can be observationally confirmed.
There is a third empirical test involving the 1st outer space level. The gravitational plane of the superuniverse space level is the same as that of the 1st OSL, since space levels are concentrically arranged in the same plane. At 1.4 billion light-years (Bly) in length, the Sloan Great Wall is the largest known structure within 2 billion light-years. It was discovered in 2003. It follows the general form of an arc with a radial distance of 1 Bly from us. It is a planar structure which lies in exactly the same plane as the Superuniverse Wall. It satisfies the prediction of the third empirical test. We begin to see evidence that the universe is organized in the way revealed cosmology describes.
I welcome any comments or thoughts others may have on these three empirical tests, which I believe are legitimate criteria soundly based upon revealed cosmology.
George
Norm Du Val (1966), How Large is Orvonton, Really?
(Orvonton is the Milky Way and its satellite galaxies)
http://urantia-book.org/archive/studyaid/orvonton.html
Dan Massey (1979), Is the Milky Way Orvonton?
(Orvonton contains 1,000 Milky Ways)
http://urantia-book.org/archive/science/milkyway.htm
Frederick L. Beckner (2002), Stars, Galaxies, Superuniverses, and the Urantia Book
(Orvonton has a radius between 1 and 16 million light-years)
http://www.squarecircles.com/articles/pdf/StarsGalaxiesSuperuniversesUB.pdf
Sergey V. Chupin (2009), Cosmology of Uversa, Urantia and the Big Bang Myth
(Orvonton is the Virgo Supercluster)
http://www.sciteclibrary.ru/texsts/eng/stat/st3303eng.pdf
Gary Tonge video (2010), Journey Through the Universe – Urantia Book
(Orvonton is depicted as a large spiral galaxy)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CkbbohKDoY
Richard Bain video (2011), Modern Astronomy and the Urantia Book
(Orvonton could be anything from the Milky Way to the Virgo Supercluster)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GegBhg-ztNQ
Nigel Nunn (2014), More Things in Heaven and Earth
(Orvonton exists in the extended plane of the Milky Way)
http://urantia-association.org/social/threads/more-things-in-heaven-earth-nigel-nunn.21294/
John Causland video (2014), Reconciling Urantia Book Cosmology with Modern Astronomy
(Orvonton is the Virgo Supercluster)
Hi tas,
You raise a good point about the ratio of “blazing suns” to total mass, which are not the same thing. Assuming your ratio of 1-to-3 is reasonable and the Local Group contains perhaps 1.4 trillion “blazing suns” (1/3 times 4.1), then Orvonton contains 7 times as many “blazing suns.” There would then be, very roughly, 7 times as many “average” galaxies in Orvonton as are found in the Local Group. Even if we allow for very large increases in future estimates of the total suns and total mass due to vastly improved astronomic techniques, it still seems highly unlikely that Orvonton could ever be smaller than the Local Group.
This conclusion rests upon the belief that this number is relatively accurate, that it is not a number which “will stand in need of revision in consequence of additional scientific developments and new discoveries.” (101:4.2) Some students believe that this number is no more accurate than the distance to Andromeda given in the Book, which is only about 40 percent of the currently measured distance of 2.6 Mly. It is very interesting to see which quantities given in the Book are accepted and which are rejected/ignored – and why – by different students in their efforts to answer the question: What is Orvonton? I’ve found 7 different studies on this question published between 1966 and 2014.
Assuming the authors know what they are talking about and do not give us egregiously incorrect quantities, these 10 trillion suns (only 8 trillion of which are potentially observable) in multiple galaxies are found in some continuous region of space, which is no smaller than the Local Group. These galaxies whirl about Uversa at the gravitational center of Orvonton, which is not that far from us at something more than 200,000 ly. This concept of Orvonton as a dynamic system of galaxies in gravitational rotation about Uversa is clear and unconfused.
The revolution of Uversa and the whole of Orvonton about Paradise is another clear concept. We are told that Orvonton occupies just one-seventh of the superuniverse space level. If its whirling galaxies completely fill up this space sector, spanning the distance from one side to the other, then the distance between Uversa and Paradise should be 2.3 times radius of Orvonton. Whatever Orvonton actually is, its radius is no larger than 43 percent of the distance to Paradise, although it could be smaller.
Based upon the revealed number of “blazing suns” in Orvonton and the revealed distance to Uversa, we can conclude that Orvonton is almost certainly no smaller than the Local Group. Based upon the revealed internal structure of the grand universe, we can predict that the distance to Paradise should then be no less than 2.3 times the radius of the Local Group. If we test this prediction based upon revelation by assuming Orvonton is the Local Group, we make the thrilling discovery that the authors are correct. We can actually observe the ring-like cosmic structure of the superuniverse space level containing the other six superuniverses. We can locate the Isle of Paradise at the geometric center of the superuniverse space level. It is in the region of the Leo Constellation.
George
A postscript to the previous post:
For those interested in the 7 previous studies on “What is Orvonton?” I mentioned, here are the links to them:
Norm Du Val (1966) How Large is Orvonton, Really?
Dan Massey (1979) Is the Milky Way Orvonton?
Frederick L. Beckner (2002) Stars, Galaxies, Superuniverses, and the Urantia Book
Sergey V. Chupin (2009) Cosmology of Uversa, Urantia and the Big Bang Myth
Gary Tonge video (2010) Journey Through the Universe – Urantia Book
Richard Bain video (2011) Modern Astronomy and the Urantia Book
John Causland video (2014) Reconciling Urantia Book Cosmology with Modern Astronomyaddendum to previous post
Here are links to the previous studies mentioned:
Norm Du Val (1966), How Large is Orvonton, Really?
(Orvonton is the Milky Way and its satellite galaxies)
http://urantia-book.org/archive/studyaid/orvonton.html
Dan Massey (1979), Is the Milky Way Orvonton?
(Orvonton contains 1,000 Milky Ways)
http://urantia-book.org/archive/science/milkyway.htm
Frederick L. Beckner (2002), Stars, Galaxies, Superuniverses, and the Urantia Book
(Orvonton has a radius between 1 and 16 million light-years)
http://www.squarecircles.com/articles/pdf/StarsGalaxiesSuperuniversesUB.pdf
Sergey V. Chupin (2009), Cosmology of Uversa, Urantia and the Big Bang Myth
(Orvonton is the Virgo Supercluster)
http://www.sciteclibrary.ru/texsts/eng/stat/st3303eng.pdf
John Causland video (2014), Reconciling Urantia Book Cosmology with Modern Astronomy
(Orvonton is the Virgo Supercluster)
addendum:
Here are links to previous studies mentioned:
Norm Du Val (1966) How Large is Orvonton, Really?
Dan Massey (1979) Is the Milky Way Orvonton?
Frederick L. Beckner (2002) Stars, Galaxies, Superuniverses, and the Urantia Book
Sergey V. Chupin (2009) Cosmology of Uversa, Urantia and the Big Bang Myth
Addendum: list of previous studies
Norm Du Val (1966) How Large is Orvonton, Really?
Dan Massey (1979) Is the Milky Way Orvonton?
Frederick L. Beckner (2002) Stars, Galaxies, Superuniverses, and the Urantia Book
Sergey V. Chupin (2009) Cosmology of Uversa, Urantia and the Big Bang Myth
ADDENDUM: Links to previous studies on “What is Orvonton?”
Norm Du Val (1966), How Large is Orvonton, Really?
http://www.urantia-book.org/archive/studyaid/orvonton.html
Dan Massey (1979), Is the Milky Way Orvonton?
http://www.urantia-book.org/archive/science/milkyway.htm
Frederick L. Beckner (2002), Stars, Galaxies, Superuniverses, and the Urantia Book
http://www.squarecircles.com/articles/pdf/StarsGalaxiesSuperuniversesUB.pdf
Sergey V. Chupin (2009), Cosmology of Uversa, Urantia and the Big Bang Myth
http://www.sciteclibrary.ru/texsts/eng/stat/st3303eng.pdf
Gary Tonge video (2010), Journey Through the Universe – Urantia Book
Richard Bain video (2011), Modern Astronomy and the Urantia Book
John Causland video (2014), Reconciling Urantia Book Cosmology with Modern Astronomy
ADDENDUM: links to previous studies
Norm Du Val (1966), How Large is Orvonton, Really?
http://www.urantia-book.org/archive/studyaid/orvonton.html
Dan Massey (1979), Is the Milky Way Orvonton?
http://www.urantia-book.org/archive/science/milkyway.htm
Frederick L. Beckner (2002), Stars, Galaxies, Superuniverses, and the Urantia Book
http://www.squarecircles.com/articles/pdf/StarsGalaxiesSuperuniversesUB.pdf
Sergey V. Chupin (2009), Cosmology of Uversa, Urantia and the Big Bang Myth
http://www.sciteclibrary.ru/texsts/eng/stat/st3303eng.pdf
Gary Tonge video (2010), Journey Through the Universe – Urantia Book
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CkbbohKDoY
Richard Bain video (2011), Modern Astronomy and the Urantia Book
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GegBhg-ztNQ
John Causland video (2014), Reconciling Urantia Book Cosmology with Modern Astronomy
ADDENDUM: links to previous studies on “What is Orvonton?”
Norm Du Val (1966) How Large is Orvonton, Really?
Dan Massey (1979) Is the Milky Way Orvonton?
Frederick L. Beckner (2002) Stars, Galaxies, Superuniverses, and the Urantia Book
Sergey V. Chupin (2009) Cosmology of Uversa, Urantia and the Big Bang Myth
John Causland video (2014) Reconciling Urantia Book Cosmology with Modern Astronomy
There are also two youtube videos:
Gary Tonge video (2010), Journey Through the Universe – Urantia Book
Richard Bain video (2011), Modern Astronomy and the Urantia BookADDENDUM: other studies on “What is Orvonton?”
Norm Du Val (1966) How Large is Orvonton, Really?
Dan Massey (1979) Is the Milky Way Orvonton?
Frederick L. Beckner (2002) Stars, Galaxies, Superuniverses, and the Urantia Book
Sergey V. Chupin (2009) Cosmology of Uversa, Urantia and the Big Bang Myth
Gary Tonge video (2010) Journey Through the Universe – Urantia Book
Richard Bain video (2011) Modern Astronomy and the Urantia Book
John Causland video (2014) Reconciling Urantia Book Cosmology with Modern Astronomy
ADDENDUM: list of previous studies
Norm Du Val (1966), How Large is Orvonton, Really?
Dan Massey (1979), Is the Milky Way Orvonton?
Frederick L. Beckner (2002), Stars, Galaxies, Superuniverses, and the Urantia Book
Sergey V. Chupin (2009), Cosmology of Uversa, Urantia and the Big Bang Myth
Gary Tonge video (2010), Journey Through the Universe – Urantia Book
Richard Bain video (2011), Modern Astronomy and the Urantia Book
John Causland video (2014), Reconciling Urantia Book Cosmology with Modern Astronomy
Hi George, tas and Will,
If (as I’ll be suggesting) nine of the ten major divisions of Orvonton will be “observable” only as an excess of neutrinos, then the following might be one of those “many statements that stand in need of revision”,
“Of the ten major divisions of Orvonton, eight have been roughly identified by Urantian astronomers.” (167.20, 15:3.4)
Was this just encouragement to make us look more closely?
[Back to the story] As you know, I’m proposing that the superuniverse space level begins as an annular beltway of emergent energies in motion about Paradise. (This apparent orbital motion is not driven by gravity; it’s simply a general motion through space along “a space path of lessened resistance to motion”.) And that the seven superuniverses evolved within this homogenous distribution of emergent energies, under the direction of Architects, via the influence of force organizers. In other words, literally what the authors wrote.
Ok, now for some astronomy.
Recall McCall’s “Council of Giants”. For reference, the first picture below shows what McCall discovered in the accumulating astronomical data ( Giants story here, original preprint here )
http://www.ubron.org/groupphotos/YouAreHere_1.jpg
The next diagram below zooms to a region of interest:
http://www.ubron.org/groupphotos/YouAreHere_2.jpg
This third diagram (below) indicates more clearly the raw data:
http://www.ubron.org/groupphotos/YouAreHere_3.jpg
And finally, below is an “artist’s impression” of how the grand universe falls into place:
http://www.ubron.org/groupphotos/YouAreHere_4.jpg
Notice how simple that was.
But (“Ground Control to Major Tom”) surely not. This is too “neat and tidy” to be real.
Maybe. A question any reasonable reader must ask:
“If things were really like this, why can’t astronomers see those “trillions of blazing suns” in neighbouring sectors and superuniverses?”
In this regard, a reader at UBRON wrote:
“You also mention laying Andromeda on edge. Would you care to revise your question? Have you missed the images showing a number of galaxies edge on? If you ask me, they are far from hidden.”
Recall that (angle subtended) = (size of object)/(distance to object), or theta = R/D. Next post will clarify.
Up next, some more astronomy (hard numbers!) to explain the difficulties astronomers face.
Nigel
PS: before moving on, another reader asked:
“In the last diagram, what is the ring that M31 belongs to called? The quiet zone or the first outer space level?”
How about we call that region “the present ragged edge of the grand universe”. (Sorry for not making it more ragged)
(129.11, 12:1.13) “The present ragged edge of the grand universe, its uneven and unfinished periphery, together with the tremendously unsettled condition of the whole astronomical plot, …”
For reference, here’s that updated diagram I’ve been referring to:
(170.1, 15:4.7) “though Andromeda, which is outside the inhabited superuniverse, …”
Nigel
Hi Nigel,
It seems like quite a stretch to suppose that the statement of historic fact, “eight [major sectors] have been roughly identified by Urantian astronomers,” is one which can be “revised” to mean “no major sectors have been observed and identified by Urantian astronomers.” The full sentence in which the word “revision” is used explicitly asserts that the historic facts in this revelation will not need to be revised at any time in the future.
“We full well know that, while the historic facts and religious truths of this series of revelatory presentations will stand on the records of the ages to come, within a few short years many of our statements regarding the physical sciences will stand in need of revision in consequence of additional scientific developments and new discoveries.” (101:4.2)
George
Login to reply to this topic.
Not registered? Sign up here.