-
Posts
-
George – before addressing your specific questions, here’s some background my answers will require:
* * *
As UB students, we have two ways to conceive and model Orvonton. The more familiar is to begin with the data and assumptions of what George called “consensus” theories, then try to make various UB statements fit. An alternative is to follow the UB story and see where it leads.
George appears to be taking the first approach. Now, as a student of astronomy and astrophysics, I’m the first to admit that his efforts to extract information from the data is first rate. But before settling for his proposed conclusions, I’d like to explore that alternative approach. This more radical route exposes some surprising possibilities.
Let’s first consider the so-called “central universe”. The UB defines this to be the billion (+21) Havona worlds eternally locked between (a) the belts of dark gravity bodies and (b) the Paradise singularity. From our finite and thus relative perspective, this central system “has always been”. Of course, what this looks like from an absonite perspective is beyond our imagination, so we should not lock down any belief too tightly.
Regarding the layout of this central system, the authors say this:
(153.1, 14:1.10) “The Havona planetary circuits are not superimposed; their worlds follow each other in an orderly linear procession. The central universe whirls around the stationary Isle of Paradise in one vast plane, … “
This is worth “pausing to consider”: behind that not-quite-finite wall of dark gravitators, the elliptical distribution of those one billion Havona worlds is only one world thick. (Imagine the rings of Saturn, with an invisible Saturn!)
Now, given that we want to allow for the time-like evolution of galaxies from segregata and absoluta, then we need to allow for a (relative) conceptual moment when Havona existed alone. This moment becomes a conceptual starting point for what the UB calls the present universe age; that eternity moment which was disturbed by seven teams of “Ancients of Days” stepping out beyond that insulating gravity wall, and causing history to begin.
But before history can begin, we need a stage. In the UB story this stage is built from gravita, which is assembled from ultimata, which evolves from segregata, which gets condensed from absoluta (or space potency). So our starting point for modeling Orvonton must be some initial distribution of segregata that made possible the grand universe age.
So what are we told about segregata?
(126.1, 11:8.5) “1. Pregravity Stages (Force). This is the first step in the individuation of space potency into the pre-energy forms of cosmic force. This state is analogous to the concept of the primordial force-charge of space, sometimes called pure energy or segregata.”
The pre-energy forms of cosmic force (the primordial force with which grand universe space is charged) is also called “pure energy” or “segregata”. In paper 42:2.7, they have something interesting to say about this segregata or “primordial force“:
(469.7, 42:2.7) “2. Primordial force. This represents the first basic change in space potency and may be one of the nether Paradise functions of the Unqualified Absolute. […] But regardless of any such possible relationships, the openly recognized transmutation of space potency into primordial force is the primary differentiating function of the tension-presence of the living Paradise force organizers.”
Here they imply two distinct things: first, that some interaction between nether Paradise and the Unqualified Absolute can trigger the basic change in space potency that causes primordial force (or segregata) to appear. And second, that this transformation can also be caused by “the tension-presence of the living Paradise force organizers“.
Given these two distinct sources for segregata, I’m wondering whether that initial distribution of segregata (required to start the present universe age) was caused by that implied interaction (42:2.7) between nether Paradise and the Unqualified Absolute. And that this well defined distribution of segregata began its age-long evolution in isolation, well before the (primary, eventuated) master force organizers began work in the outer space levels (activities pertaining to the next universe age).
If so, then we need to consider the geometry of that initial distribution of segregata within which the (ancient) superuniverses took shape.
Nigel
So our starting point for modeling Orvonton must be some initial distribution of segregata that made possible the grand universe age…. I’m wondering whether that initial distribution of segregata (required to start the present universe age) was caused by that implied interaction (42:2.7) between nether Paradise and the Unqualified Absolute…. If so, then we need to consider the geometry of that initial distribution of segregata within which the (ancient) superuniverses took shape.
I can see why your theory leads to the conclusion that the seven superuniverses are very flat structures, which all exist in the same plane as the Milky Way galaxy. They all emerge after the initial distribution of segregata has been flattened into an annular structure caused by trillions of years of revolution about nether Paradise. If we believe the Book, the plane of the (ancient) superuniverse space level is the same as the plane of the (younger) outer space levels. Together, all of these space levels form the single plane of creation. Your theory appears to require that all space levels are on the same plane as the Milky Way.
It is now possible to directly observe a planar structure extending from tens of millions out to tens of billions of light-years – essentially out to the limit of the most distant observable galaxies. [refer to the paper I gave last month at the Science Symposium at http://www.urantia.org/urantia-book/study ] This planar structure is tilted more than 60 degrees to the plane of the Milky Way.
If you don’t think this is empirical evidence of the plane of creation, how does your model account for the existence of a flattened concentration of galaxies which extends out to the limits of the observable universe?
George
George – thanks for explaining the issue so well.
To those following along, the point George raises is this: if we model the superuniverse space level as a thin, elliptical disk nestled at the center of McCall’s “Council of Giants“, and coplanar with the plane of the Milky Way, then such a disk appears to be tilted sideways with respect to the plane of that “Council of Giants” (i.e. the local sheet), and this local sheet appears to be tilted by 8 degrees to the general distribution of galaxies in the local supercluster.
So the sort of “grand universe ellipse” I’ve been suggesting would not lie in the same plane as the structures George appears to be discovering in the astronomical databases.
This arrangement — the various apparent planes in the distribution of visible matter — is the reason I’ve been limiting my speculations and models to a (relatively small) central grand universe. Regarding the relative motions of the outer space levels, the image I’ve always had is one of multiple gimbals of a cosmic gyroscope. From wikipedia’s Gyroscope:
As the spinning center spins in its eternally fixed (grand universe) plane, the outer gimbals are free to roll and precess relative to that (transcendentally fixed) center in ways required to impose transcendental stability on the entire master universe structure. Thus each of the outer space levels has its well-defined plane, and (like those gyroscope gimbals), they each have multiple degrees of freedom relative to the grand universe plane.As I understand it, the master universe endeavour involves “transcendental causation” (absonite technique) as well as the more evolutionary techniques employed in the grand universe age. Recall that the primary master force organizers (MFOs) are called “eventuated“, and that their associate MFOs are called “transcendental“. Do these labels imply something about the nature of their work?
Such complex space-like and time-like relativities lead me to believe that of all their statements that stand in need of revision (101:4.2), the most “in need” will be found to be those concerning transcendental causation, and how the absonite state of reality relates to that fraction of the finite we currently can measure.
Regarding such measurements (and the patterns we might detect), let’s take a closer look.
First, the redshift of quasars. A quasar (or quasi-stellar radio source) is defined to be something which looks like a star, but with broadened emission lines (hence “quasi-stellar“), and which has significant redshift. The [Current Consensus] assumes that high redshift implies great distance, so it follows that quasars must be a long way away… and thus extraordinarily bright electromagnetic sources. Note, the reason they are thought to be bright is because they have high redshift.
Here we should pause to consider two things: in the spirit of authoritative elimination of error, the authors explained (in 1934) that our (then) recent hypothesis — about increase in redshift implying increase in distance — would lead to erroneous conclusions, such as a simplistic expansion of an erroneous conception of spacetime (aka “big bang”). To be specific, they say that our (predictable) use of the redshift of spectral lines to indicate recessional velocity for distant sources is “wholly unreliable” (12:4.14):
(134.3, 12:4.14) “Although your spectroscopic estimations of astronomic velocities are fairly reliable when applied to the starry realms belonging to your superuniverse and its associate superuniverses, such reckonings with reference to the realms of outer space are wholly unreliable.”
Why should such use of redshift be “wholly unreliable”? Recall that in paper 41 section 5 they explain:
(461.2, 41:5.6) “Energy, whether as light or in other forms, in its flight through space moves straight forward. The actual particles of material existence traverse space like a fusillade. They go in a straight and unbroken line or procession except as they are acted on by superior forces, […].”
What are these “superior forces” that act upon the motion of [photons, etc.] to change their straight and unbroken line or procession? How about this (475.10, 42:5.14):
(475.10, 42:5.14) “[…]. That these processions of energy particles appear as wave phenomena when subjected to certain observations is due to the resistance of the undifferentiated force blanket of all space, […].”
If we allow that, here, the author is referring to all “grand universe” space, and that this “undifferentiated force blanket” is segregata, then what we have is the surprising revelation that photons are made to [appear to wave] due to some interaction with primordial force (segregata). Now, let’s keep in mind that every measurement of light ever made by native scientists has been taken from deep within an ancient pool of highly modified segregata (hence after that light has been made to appear to wave). Thus we should allow that our understanding of “photon wavelength” may be naïve.
Ok. Now recall those peculiar galaxies that made Halton Arp famous (and destroyed his career). He used some of those galaxies (and others) to argue that the redshift of quasars was not due to recessional velocity, but due to weird distortions caused by something coming sideways out of young galaxies.
Which must make UB students wonder: was Arp watching associate transcendental master force organizers exiting sideways from their disks? From paper 57 section 1:
(652.2, 57:1.6) “[…]. Subsequent to the initiation of such nebular revolutions, the living force organizers simply withdraw at right angles to the plane of the revolutionary disk, and from that time forward, the inherent qualities of energy insure the progressive and orderly evolution of such a new physical system.”
George, I have lots more to add, but that’s a start!
Nigel
Nigel,
If I understand your thinking, you appear to be suggesting that the planes of the various space levels are not necessarily aligned.
Regarding the relative motions of the outer space levels, the image I’ve always had is one of multiple gimbals of a cosmic gyroscope.
This idea seems to be at odds with everything we are told about the “plane of creation” (11:7.6). For example:
Proceeding outward from Paradise through the horizontal extension of pervaded space, the master universe is existent in six concentric ellipses, the space levels encircling the central Isle. (12:1.3)
Is it your opinion that the idea of six concentric space levels forming the “plane of creation” is one which “stands in need of revision”? If so, how did you arrive at this opinion?
Your point about the difference between the redshift-distance relation and its interpretation as recessional velocity is spot-on, I believe. The authors authoritatively tell us that the increase of cosmological redshift with distance is not caused by the recessional velocity of galaxies. There is a small minority of astrophysicists, like Arp, who reject the velocity interpretation of cosmological redshift and propose static universe models, which attempt to refute a Big Bang origin. Nevertheless, they all accept the general validity of the redshift-distance relation. Ironically, Hubble ultimately rejected the velocity interpretation of the redshift-distance relation, which he discovered in 1929. He argued that cosmological redshift was not a Doppler shift caused by recessional velocity but by some other systematic cause, such as Fritz Zwicky’s “tired light” hypothesis. Your hypothesis of gravitational redshift as the cause appears to fall into this category. While the determination of absolute distances remains problematic, the redshift-distance relation is accepted by everyone as a valid measure of relative distances; at least, I am not aware of anyone disputing the validity of this empirically determined relation.
George
Thanks George. Regarding the actual relative motions of the distinct and well-defined planes of creation in the outer space levels, I’ve relaxed from all my previously held assumptions and opinions. Having spent a few years reflecting on Lisa Randall’s paper Relaxing to Three Dimensions, I can no longer settle for a 3d version of absolutely ultimate (118:3.5) space.
For example, what would it mean if their “plane of creation” turns out to be an n-dimensional slice across an absonite state? Since I lack the brain power to envisage such relationships, I settle for speculating about our local back yard. In this context, it’s worth reflecting on the global picture (1170.1, 106:7.8):
(1170.1, 106:7.8) “At the inconceivably distant future eternity moment of the final completion of the entire master universe, no doubt we will all look back upon its entire history as only the beginning, simply the creation of certain finite and transcendental foundations for even greater and more enthralling metamorphoses in uncharted infinity. At such a future eternity moment […].”
“Future eternity moment“? As you can see, in this sort of cosmology, the entire history of the Master Universe Age may appear as merely an absonite moment across eternity. How to picture the geometry and topology of that?
* * *
Regarding redshift, sorry if I gave the wrong impression. I did not mean to suggest anything to do with “gravitational redshift”. What I am trying to suggest is something far more interesting (the main point of the second half of that PDF). This includes a new explanation for the measureable lensing of distant galaxies by foreground mass, plus a non-gravitational explanation for the red-shifting of spectral lines.
See page 10 and pages 44-45 for a first taste. The idea is that what we call a photon has a well-defined interaction with the ancestral stuff referred to in different places as “pure energy“, “primordial force-charge” and “segregata“.
Start by imagining a galaxy’s halo of segregata having a radius 15 or 20 times larger than the visible gravita (stars and gas). Then imagine a stream of photons passing through {1, 5 or 10} such halos before being measured at Cerro Paranal. If passage through each halo of segregata causes a photon to shift its state — from fusillade to oscillator — and if such “shifting of state” were to affect the intrinsic frequency of (whatever a photon is), then it’s not a big step to imagine such a (segregata-induced) mechanism explaining (at least part of) cosmological redshift. Can you hear the Alternative Cosmology Group cheering?
Next, add to this “redshifting-by-segregata” the counter-rotating and relativistic transverse velocities of the space levels, and you can see that over cosmological distances, the measured wavelength of electromagnetic emissions quickly loses its value as even a rough estimate of distance. Clearly, not much of this was conveyed in my poor video, but I’ll try to fix that in the full version. (Much was lost as I trimmed the presentation from its original 2 hours down to 45 mins.)
Regarding possible mainstream exploration of the idea of galaxies being embedded in halos of segregata and disks of ultimata, looks like Lisa Randall has been exploring this too: Debate-intensifies-over-dark-disk-theory
* * *
After all that, for some light relief here’s a video made by the NASA Spitzer team (infrared space telescope). For a glimpse of what their GLIMPSE survey reveals about our major sector, go to the 56 second mark. Now that’s one thin disk!
Nigel
Hi Nigel,
It seems you are suggesting that universe spacetime is non-Euclidean. When we observe a planar concentration of concentrically arranged galaxies extending from tens of millions out to tens of billion of light-years, this is not something existing in 3-dimensional space. It is something existing in Randall’s 7-dimensional spacetime, or perhaps the 10-dimensions of string theory or the 11-dimesnions of M-theory. While these highly speculative theories are intriguing, they are not currently considered scientifically credible. Particularly since the final report of the Planck mission in 2013 found that universe spacetime is flat, indistinguishable from Euclidean space. (citation on request)
How can this “apparent” planar concentration of galaxies be explained in terms of 7-dimensional space?
* * *
You appear to propose some version of Fritz Zwicky’s “tired light” hypothesis of the 1930s, with the addition of counter-rotation effects and relativistic traverse time dilation effects. If you are proposing that the redshift-distance is, in general, invalid, then I think you’ve lost me. If this relation is held to be invalid, in general, no one would be able to prove that the immense reaches of outer space even exist.
George
Regarding the geometry of space, George wrote:
[GP] “Particularly since the final report of the Planck mission in 2013 found that universe spacetime is flat, indistinguishable from Euclidean space. (citation on request)”
For those following along, regarding the flatness of space, here’s an easy-to-read summary of the work George is referring to: planck upholds standard cosmology and here’s a 6 minute video that talks us through the idea (see from time = 3 minutes to the end, especially around the 5 minute mark). Tony Darnell explains why the apparent size of the fluctuations measured by the WMAP and Planck missions is used as evidence that the space we can measure is “flat”, rather than positively curved (e.g. spherical) or negatively curved (e.g. hyperbolic). See also my comment at end of this post.
George, the idea I’d like to suggest is that the flat Minkowski (pseudo-Euclidean) manifold favoured in current cosmological models may turn out to be just a slice of something bigger. This was the idea explored in that 2005 paper by Randall and Karch, Relaxing to Three Dimensions:
“[…]. We apply this idea to the question of the number of dimensions of space. We show that under conventional (but higher-dimensional) FRW evolution, a universe filled with equal numbers of branes and antibranes will naturally come to be dominated by 3-branes and 7-branes. We show why this might explain the number of dimensions that are experienced in our visible universe.”
Note that they’re saying this “bigger universe” bestowed by Paradise should have 7-dimensional and 3-dimensional features. The novelty in their scheme is that 3-d spaces like ours can be in motion relative to those 7-d features.
Which brings us to Jesus that day in Carthage on the way to Rome, his [Discourse on Time and Space] ( 130:7.3 ):
(1439.1, 130:7.3) At Carthage Jesus had a long and memorable talk with a Mithraic priest about immortality, about time and eternity. This Persian had been educated at Alexandria, and he really desired to learn from Jesus. Put into the words of today, in substance Jesus said in answer to his many questions:
[…]
(1439.5, 130:7.7) “It must be apparent that universal reality has an expanding and always relative meaning on the ascending and perfecting levels of the cosmos. Ultimately, surviving mortals achieve identity in a seven-dimensional universe.”
In this context, do you have any preferred concept about what Jesus meant by “seven-dimensional universe“?
George wrote:
[GP] How can this “apparent” planar concentration of galaxies be explained in terms of 7-dimensional space?
The idea I’m suggesting (and which is explored mathematically link – by Randall and Karch) is that any such planar concentrations would simply be within, or (technical term) “sequestered onto” our measureable 3-space. Think of such a 3-space as a (flat) membrane in relative motion within that absolutely ultimate (7-d?) bestowal of Paradise — space — designed to accommodate an eternal infinity of transcendental causation.
In other words, think of 3-space as a safe place for baby finaliters.
* * *
Regarding the red-shifting of spectral lines, George wrote:
[GP] You appear to propose some version of Fritz Zwicky’s “tired light” hypothesis of the 1930s, with the addition of counter-rotation effects and relativistic traverse time dilation effects. If you are proposing that the redshift-distance is, in general, invalid, then I think you’ve lost me. If this relation is held to be invalid, in general, no one would be able to prove that the immense reaches of outer space even exist.
What I’m suggesting is that (as UB students) we should reflect on the phenomenon that causes particles of light to switch from bullet-mode to wavicle-mode when passing through the segregated cyclones of segregata spun up by primary master force organizers. Imagine a trajectory that takes a stream of photons through multiple such (invisible) halos. Is it possible that such a radical change of state could affect the apparent wavelength of such a stream of photons? That’s the question I bump into. If so, then a component of cosmological redshift becomes a function of the quantity of segregata passed through.
If this turns out to be the case, then as you imply, we lose the ruler we depend on for mapping the depths of outer space. And all our assumptions based on CMB analysis melt away like so much mist.
Would this be bad news, or the provocation next-gen researchers have been hoping for?
* * *
Getting back to the relationship between Orvonton and the Milky Way, to help set the scene, please take another look at this 3 minute video showing what the Spitzer infrared mission has revealed about our major sector. Especially near the 56 second mark…
More soon, Nigel
* * *
PS: George, regarding the data from the Planck mission, worth noting the comment near the bottom of page 14 of the team’s report on the 2015 release:
“Then, the Planck temperature plus polarization data are compatible with r values as large as 0.19 (95% CL), at the cost of an almost 4-sigma deviation from spatial flatness (which, however, disappears as soon as lensing or BAO data are considered).”
Notice that they need to use assumptions about baryonic acoustic oscillations to restore the consensus model. Are you suggesting we should try to accommodate the Big Bang’s necessary moment of inflation 13.8 billion years ago in our UB models?
NN
Hi Nigel,
Thanks for these very thought-provoking comments. I would like to respond in three parts, since you bring up a number of deep theoretical issues.
* * *
The idea that the “flat” 3-D space-time we are able to observe is just a local component of a much larger 7-D manifold is an interesting idea. Has mathematical physics stumbled upon a model of what Jesus refers to as the “ascending and perfecting levels” of a “seven-dimensional universe?” I honestly don’t know, though I suspect these dimensions may possibly be related to the transcendental Architects of the master universe, who “exist in seven levels of the absonite” (31:9.2), extending from Paradise to the fourth outer space level. Is the geometry of space-time different on each (or some) of these seven levels? I suppose it could be, but how could we go about determining that it is?
Einstein transformed Newton’s metaphysics of absolute 3-D space and 1-D time (reality dimensions which exist independently of one another) into a single relative 4-D space-time manifold. This new metaphysics of space and time only gained scientific acceptance, because it is a falsifiable theory; it made predictions which can be empirically verified or disproven. Without this validation, it would have remained just another speculative metaphysical theory. The emergence of quantum mechanics in the 1930s predicted phenomena which could not be explained in Einstein’s causally deterministic 4-D manifold, such as quantum entanglement. Einstein flatly rejected this idea of “spooky action at a distance,” and proposed a thought experiment in 1935 to refute it. (For those following along, Wikipedia has a decent explanation of this “EPR paradox.”) Einstein was proven wrong by experiments in the 1970s, which demonstrated the reality of superluminal nonlocal interactions between quantum-scale particles (or, more precisely, quantum events). This evidence of faster-than-light interactions proves there is more to reality than Einstein’s 4-D space-time manifold. And this substantially supports the revealed concept of transcendental causation originating in another dimension(s), on which point we both appear to agree.
I’m open to the idea of additional dimensions, but I wonder if Randall’s theory embedding local 4-D space-time realities in a global 7-D space-time reality is another intrinsically unverifiable metaphysical theory, such as string theory or M-theory. Is it a truly scientific theory, one which is potentially falsifiable? Does it make any predictions which can be empirically tested and disproven in ways similar to how Newton’s absolute space and time or Einstein’s space-time manifold were disproven?
* * *
Your supposition that “a component of cosmological redshift becomes a function of the quantity of segregata passed through” seems quite plausible. While I am inclined to think that the cyclones of primordial force initiated by the Force Organizers disperse upon their withdrawal, because segregata are non-responsive to gravity (11:8.5), your idea that these cyclones remain as permanent features of nebulae is also a possibility.
While the space charge of universal force is homogeneous and undifferentiated, the organization of evolved energy into matter entails the concentration of energy into discrete masses of definite dimensions and established weight—precise gravity reaction. (42:6.1)
These local cyclones of concentrated segregata would then exist in the global background of “the force blanket of all space” (42:5.14), which pervades the master universe as a “homogeneous and undifferentiated” field of segregata. But I fail to see how this situation leads to the conclusion that the cosmological redshift-distance relation is fundamentally invalid.
You propose that redshift is “a function of the quantity of segregata passed through.” Since the quantity of segregata systematically varies with the distance between the emitter and the observer, the empirical redshift-distance relation is still valid. This is true whether cosmological redshift is a velocity-induced Doppler shift (now an outmoded theory), caused by the expansion of space during the time of propagation (as current theory supposes), a decrease/increase in the velocity of light, the loss of photonic energy through physical interactions (“tired light”), or some other “change of state” undergone by photons (as you suppose). By itself, cosmological redshift does disclose absolute distances. There are a number of possible causes for this redshifting of light, including the counter rotation effects between different space levels and transverse time dilation effects caused by the orbital velocities of these space levels. But these are all systematic effects, which means the redshift-distance relation is still a valid cosmic ruler of comparative distances, which have relative significance.
But I could be missing something. Why do you suppose the cosmological redshift-distance relation is not a systematic relationship? Why do you think this relationship is apparent and not real?
* * *
The CMB radiation is observable. But its interpretation as empirical evidence for a Big Bang origin about 13.8 billion years ago is no longer credible. The confirmed existence of a planar concentration of galaxies extending over tens of billions of light years (in relative distance measurements) conclusively disproves this theory.
In the abstract for the 2015 report you cite it says the 2015 results are consistent with the 2013 analysis. On page 42 of this 2013 report, at the end of section 6.2.3. on Curvature, they state “In summary, there is no evidence from Planck for any departure from a spatially flat geometry. The results of Eqs. (68a) and (68b) suggest that our Universe is spatially flat to an accuracy of better than a percent.” (http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.5076)
Did the collaborators change this conclusion in the 2015 report?
George
George wrote:
[GP] “I’m open to the idea of additional dimensions, but I wonder if Randall’s theory embedding local 4-D space-time realities in a global 7-D space-time… “
George, notice that if we picture our flat 3-space in motion at constant velocity through an N-dimensional absonite domain, then not only do we get an elegant explanation for the observer-independent velocity of massless particles, but an “arrow of time” is thrown in for free.
In your post above, you raise some crucial points:
(1) dissipation of those cyclones of space,
(2) that statement: “… force blanket of all space“.
I’ll address these before getting back to the Orvonton-Milky Way story.
First, a comment about my approach. Given that we need actual stuff before we can build an atom, a star or a galaxy, my speculations all begin with the connection between a spinning, oriented ultimaton, and the field of segregata in which it exists. For me, the simplest starting point is to model this ultimaton as some tiny motion of some quantum of this segregata. For example, as a tiny vortex. Notice that if we quantize such a vortex, then this simple vortical motion of a quantum of segregata provides both a discrete center (for gravitational action) and a spinning periphery (to mediate mutual interaction).
Now, given our shared assumption about gravita (that all measurable particles are built up from ultimatons), this means that anything astronomers and astrophysicists can measure must depend intimately on the way ultimatons huddle and cluster in their source-field of segregata. An intriguing wrinkle in this picture is found in paper 118:3.6,
“[…]. Hence, when a body moves through space, it also takes all its properties with it, even the space which is in and of such a moving body.” (1297.7, 118:3.6)
Pause to consider. What might it mean, for an ultimaton to take some “quantum of space” along with its other properties, of orientation and spin? Hard to say. Nevertheless, try to imagine a vast collection of such frame-dragging ultimatons, all in relative motion about some paradisiacal center (either a Paradise “force organizer”, or the nether Paradise “organizer-of-force”). Such a “cyclone of space” becomes literally a cyclone of… tiny spinning quanta of space.
Such an organized, local motion of space would clearly complicate Einstein’s simple (faintly glimpsed) idea, about mass curving space. In this context, recall that comment in paper 12:4.7, that absolutely ultimate space is real:
“[…]. Space is, however, real. It contains and conditions motion. It even moves. …” (133.9, 12:4.7)
Is this their hint that space can be relatively (and relativistically) dragged along by the motion of the organized energies it contains? Is this a clarification of Einstein’s (faintly glimpsed) idea of “frame dragging”? See Gravity Probe B experiment.
[Wiki] “The spatial geodetic precession is a measure of the missing “pie-slice” angle. Gravity Probe B was expected to measure this effect to an accuracy of one part in 10,000, the most stringent check on general relativistic predictions to date.
[Wiki] The much smaller frame-dragging effect is an example of gravitomagnetism. It is an analog of magnetism in classical electrodynamics, but caused by rotating masses rather than rotating electric charges.
Regarding this “gravitomagnetic effect of rotating masses”, think of the rotating mass of those dark gravity belts. To me, that’s worth “pausing to consider”.
When we put these considerations alongside the fact that the ancestral unqualified potential of space (“space potency”) is called absoluta, while absolutum is a name for the same stuff when actualized, we start to get a feel for the complexity our fledgling UB models must accommodate.
(continued… 2)
(p2, continued from above)
Regarding the relationship between “space potency” and “the primordial force charge of universe space“, George wrote:
[GP] These local cyclones of concentrated segregata would then exist in the global background of “the force blanket of all space” (42:5.14), which pervades the master universe as a “homogeneous and undifferentiated” field of segregata. But I fail to see how this situation leads to the conclusion that the cosmological redshift-distance relation is fundamentally invalid.
George is referring to statements found in these two paragraphs:
(475.10, 42:5.14) “[…] That these processions of energy particles appear as wave phenomena when subjected to certain observations is due to the resistance of the undifferentiated force blanket of all space, the hypothetical ether, and to the intergravity tension of the associated aggregations of matter. […]”
(476.3, 42:6.1) “While the space charge of universal force is homogeneous and undifferentiated, the organization of evolved energy into matter entails the concentration of energy into discrete masses of definite dimensions and established weight — precise gravity reaction.”
George, here we touch the central idea that defines my cosmological speculations. Let’s take a closer look.
In my (simplistic and sequential) scheme, I picture pervaded space being pervaded by [space potency], not by [primordial force-charge]. Only when some paradisiacal presence acts on some well-defined place in space does the unqualified potential of space potency take on actual (actualized) properties.
Thus whenever the authors mention actual stuff — be it energy, force, charge, or power — their context (by definition) must be some local domain previously activated by some paradisiacal presence. That is to say, when they speak of some “homogeneous and undifferentiated” space charge, by definition, they must be referring either to the “homogeneous and undifferentiated” space charge of grand universe space, or the “homogeneous and undifferentiated” space charge locked into one of those isolated islands of segregata within which astronomers can watch gravita evolve.
This crucial distinction allows for that red-shifting “change-of-state” I propose above, in which photons switch from fusillade mode to wavicle. While travelling through the (unqualified) space potency between halos of segregata, photons “traverse space like a fusillade” (461.2, 41:5.6). But when ploughing through these force-organized halos, these same photons interact with the (actualized) primordial force-charge, and we measure those photons as electromagnetic oscillations.
Please note, this is totally new physics.
* * *
Regarding your assumed dissipation of these ancestral source-halos of segregata, I’m mindful of the comment in paper 15:4.4, where they say of such spatial cyclones of organized energies: “[…] which, when once started, can never be stopped or limited…” (169.4, 15:4.4). Such statements lead me to think of these cyclones (of actualizing space potency) as persistent; that the segregata, once eventuated and held by a Primary paradisiacal presence (see “transcendental causation“), becomes itself held and dragged along by the “mass-movemented” motion of its gravitating modes (both absolute and linear).
Which leads to my current conception of the state of play at this moment of grand universe evolution: a relatively tiny central elliptical superuniverse domain, formed at the dawn of time from a homogenous distribution of segregata, “force-organized” by nether Paradise, surrounded by increasingly countless islands of segregata, frame-dragged by the absolute gravity of their internal ultimata, and by the linear gravity of the evolving systems of gravita they contain.
Such a picture has surprising implications for Orvonton.
* * *
Once again, in preparation for our fresh take on the nature of Orvonton, please take another look from the 56 second mark of this short video made by the NASA Spitzer team (infrared space telescope). When looking at this extraordinary distribution of gravita in our major sector, take a moment to consider what “gravity” might do, given those 1000 billion years.
As a warm-up, think what Saturn has done to her disk of rings.
Now, think what the source and center of material gravity (nether Paradise), together with the gravitomagnetic action of the rotating dark gravity belts, must have done to that (relatively tiny) innermost elliptical “homogeneous and undifferentiated” distribution of (grand universe) ultimata, force-organized at the dawn of time by nether Paradise itself.
Now imagine this original gravitomagnetic endeavor occurring long before the first galaxies appear in outer space.
What I’d like to consider next: given our location (like a bit of peperoni in that breathtakingly thin Milky Way pizza), what would a nearest neighbor major sector look like, if it lies to our north-west or north-east (i.e. slightly south west or south east of Uversa):
(359.8, 32:2.11) “[…] From Jerusem, the headquarters of Satania, it is over two hundred thousand light-years to the physical center of the superuniverse of Orvonton, far, far away in [ed. through] the dense diameter of the Milky Way. Satania is on the periphery of the local universe, and Nebadon is now well out towards the edge of Orvonton. From the outermost system of inhabited worlds to the center of the superuniverse is a trifle less than two hundred and fifty thousand light-years.”
Nigel
In my (simplistic and sequential) scheme, I picture pervaded space being pervaded by [space potency], not by [primordial force-charge].
Space potency (absoluta) might be considered to pervade the master universe, I suppose, since it is “the unquestioned free space presence of the Unqualified Absolute.” (42:2.3) But “Space potency is a prereality;” (42:2.5) “This primal endowment of Paradise is not an actual level of reality…” (11:8.8) As I conceive of it, it is not an energy reality, either actual or potential, but the presence of the infinite possibility for energy inherent in the Unqualified Absolute.
I now see that we have completely different conceptions of the nature of the “primordial force-charge” (segregata).
Pregravity Stages (Force). This is the first step in the individuation of space potency into the pre-energy forms of cosmic force. This state is analogous to the concept of the primordial force-charge of space, sometimes called pure energy or segregata. (11:8.5)
Primordial force… Passive and potential force becomes active and primordial in response to the resistance afforded by the space presence of the Primary Eventuated Master Force Organizers. Force is now emerging from the exclusive domain of the Unqualified Absolute into the realms of multiple response… (42:2-7-8)
Pure energy (primordial force) and pure spirit are wholly preresponsive to gravity. These primal forces, inhering in the Absolutes, are personally controlled by the Universal Father… (56:1.3)
Pure energy is the ancestor of all relative, nonspirit functional realities… (56:1.4)
All original force-energy proceeds from Paradise, and the matter for the making of untold universes now circulates throughout the master universe in the form of a supergravity presence which constitutes the force-charge of pervaded space. (12:8.2)
But there is something of mystery associated with the universal force-charge of space; we quite understand the organization of the material creations from the ultimatonic stage forward, but we do not fully comprehend the cosmic ancestry of the ultimatons. (15:4.1)
Though nonresponsive to Paradise gravity, this force-charge of space, the ancestor of all materialization, does always respond to the presence of nether Paradise, being apparently circuited in and out of the nether Paradise center. (15:4.1)
From these statements I can only conclude that primordial force – pure energy, the universal force-charge of space, original force-energy, the ancestor of all materialization – does, in fact, pervade the master universe. Since this “homogeneous and undifferentiated” force-charge does not respond to anything but Paradise, there is nothing to contain it in a “halo” about a galaxy, once the primary and associate force organizers depart. It dissipates into the universal “space drift” like unattached ultimatons.
I don’t believe this is the hypothetical dark matter you are looking for, since dark matter must be responsive to linear gravity, in order to save general relativity as a theory which can be applied to the whole universe.
George – thanks for clarifying your perspective.
Given that (as you remind us) space potency is a prereality pervading a possibly 7 dimensional master universe, I have no firm attachments to any of my speculations regarding this aspect of the Unqualified
— especially when we consider the complicated relationship between (unqualified) absoluta and (actualized) absolutum.Getting back to business, since the evolution and distribution of galaxies is so intimately connected with the action of the Paradise force organizers, we should take a close look at what they are said to do. For example, what do you make of these two statements:
“[…]. But regardless of any such possible relationships, the openly recognized transmutation of space potency into primordial force is the primary differentiating function of the tension-presence of the living Paradise force organizers.” (469.7, 42:2.7)
“The passive presence of the primary force organizers is sufficient to transform space potency into primordial force, and it is upon such an activated space field […].” (470.1, 42:2.10)
George, if the substance actualized from space potency by the action of a Primary Force Organizer (segregata) simply dissipates once their Associate Force Organizer “departs at right angles”, I can see why you settle for such compromises in your dilute and disorganized version of a grand universe.
But if we allow for the possibility that these cyclones persist, and (as I explain above) that their persistence involves an actual motion of space, then we can make a much more organized and compact grand universe. In fact, we get a system of superuniverses operating in a plane of materialization only a few thousand light years thick.
But such a scheme depends entirely on my assumption that the “… passive presence of the primary force organizers is sufficient to transform space potency into primordial force, and it is upon such an activated space field that these same force organizers begin their initial and active operations. […]” (470.1, 42:2.10)
If possible, what I’d like you to consider is how we might put some ultimatonic physics into your consensus astronomy. For example, do you have any intuitive feel for how an interactive, Higgs-type mechanism fits in?
* * *
George, thanks for working through all this with me. This is exactly the sort of criticism and discussion I need before unleashing my version on an unsuspecting astrophysical community
PS: did you get a chance to watch this visualization by NASA’s Spitzer team? If we’re going to discuss the Milky Way, we’ll need to keep up with what science is revealing.
Nigel
Nigel; it is stimulating to work through these ideas with you. I have learned several things from your efforts along these lines.
I may not have clearly expressed my concept of primordial force. We are certainly in agreement that the primary force organizers locally transform space potency into primordial force. At the same time, it is also stated that “force-energy … now circulates throughout the master universe in the form of a supergravity presence which constitutes the force-charge of pervaded space.” (12:8.2) This seems like an unambiguous statement that primordial force pervades the master universe. As far as I’m aware, there is no statement or concept in the Book which would prevent the force organizers from eventuating primordial force locally, while at the same time the master universe is pervaded by primordial force, or “cosmic force”, a parallel term used 14 times in the text. Apparently, you interpret this as referring to some other type of “force-charge.” Do you have any thoughts on what this “force-charge of pervaded space” might be, if it is not “primordial force-charge“?
I can’t say I have any feel for how the Higgs mechanism might fit in. I could be wrong, but didn’t you suggest this mechanism might involve a mass interaction between ultimatons and electronic matter? This strikes me as a particularly fruitful idea, since Paper 12 refers to an interaction of some sort between linear gravity and absolute gravity. In fact, I can’t think of a better concept for this oblique reference to a connection between these two types of gravity.
I look forward with great interest to the final unveiling of your revised cosmology.
George
Thanks George, I too look forward to a fruitful collaboration! You wrote:
[GP] Do you have any thoughts on what this “force-charge of pervaded space” might be, if it is not “primordial force-charge”?
How about this:
(469.8, 42:2.8) Passive and potential force becomes active and primordial in response to the resistance afforded by the space presence of the Primary Eventuated Master Force Organizers.
I’m happy to settle for the idea that the “supergravity presence which constitutes the force-charge of pervaded space” (12:8.2) is the “passive and potential force” which can be activated by the (paradisiacal) presence of the primary (paradise) force organizers.
Given our “conceptual poverty associated with so much ideational confusion” (UB 1.1, 0:0.1) regarding transactions involving the ancestral cosmic potencies and forces pervading pervaded space (!), how about for the purposes of discussion, we adopt the following scheme suggested by the author of Paper 42:
(469.2, 42:2.2) I will, however, endeavor to lessen conceptual confusion by suggesting the advisability of adopting the following classification for cosmic force, emergent energy, and universe power — physical energy:
- 42:2.3 – Space potency 42:2.6 – ABSOLUTA
- 42:2.7 – Primordial force 42:2.9 – SEGREGATA
- 42:2.10 – Emergent energies 42:2.13 – ULTIMATA
- 42:2.14 – Universe power 42:2.15 – GRAVITA
As you point out, there’s space for transcendental overlap between absoluta and segregata… maybe relating to transcendental causation? Nevertheless, using these simplified definitions and relationships, all I require is that the presence of a primary force organizer be sufficient to define and transform a region into something that their associate force organizers can then quantize into ultimatons.
Because as we know, these quantized ultimatons have that proclivity to “huddle” (478.4, 42:7.10).
What I’d like to propose is that this “huddling” begins in the simplest possible way — with the huddling of pairs and triplets of ultimatons into tiny dipolar and tripolar units, which might naturally tend to “cluster”. This gives us a starting point from which to build up standard model “particles” — from clusters of huddling ultimatons.
Notice that by allowing ultimatons to be (literally) spinning quanta of segregata, what we now have is clusters of ultimatons (quantized segregata) interacting (A) with each other, and (B) with that “condensate of activated potencies” (segregata) from which the individual ultimatons were evolved.
Now let’s thicken the plot. Let’s propose a “primitive charge” be associated with the interaction between these primitive clusters. If we call this primitive charge “weak hypercharge”, then we’ve just put ultimatonic foundations under the standard model of particle physics.
George, sorry to zoom down to such detail, but as I see it (as physicist not astronomer), before we can have galaxies, we need matter. So if we want to build a peer-reviewable cosmology, a good first step would be sorting out where matter comes from. For us, as students of the UB, this means tracing out the evolution of gravita from quantized ultimata and ancestral segregata.
You wrote:
[GP] I can’t say I have any feel for how the Higgs mechanism might fit in. I could be wrong, but didn’t you suggest this mechanism might involve a mass interaction between ultimatons and electronic matter?
No. My suggestion is that the oscillation of these charged clusters (of dipoles and tripoles of ultimatons) within their ancestral cyclone-blanket of force-charge (segregata) causes a “Higgs-type mechanism”, in which chiral ultimatonic structures emit and absorb quanta of weak hypercharge.
[GP] This strikes me as a particularly fruitful idea, since Paper 12 refers to an interaction of some sort between linear gravity and absolute gravity. In fact, I can’t think of a better concept for this oblique reference to a connection between these two types of gravity.
Precisely! I see the interaction between these tiny clusters inducing an inertial (linear) response, while the individual ultimatons within these clusters provide the absolute (non-linear) response to the source and center of material gravity.
This is the scheme I introduce in this graphics-heavy PDF (see pages 28-32). What I’d really appreciate is for you, or some physicist you know, to go through the document and point out where I go wrong. Since this paper sets up the foundations I’d like to use for modeling major sectors etc., I need to know where these foundations are inconsistent, either with the UB, or with the standard model of particle physics.
* * *
PS: regarding Orvonton, if you’re not truly satisfied with having to locate Nebadon so near the center of some vastly expanded “uninhabited” superuniverse, I think I have a neat fix. But first I need to tighten up my story of how those “force-organized cyclones of space” evolve. In this regard, did you see this report,
A dark disk spinning fast? Is this a young proto-galaxy in its pre-electronic stage?
More soon!
Nigel
Login to reply to this topic.
Not registered? Sign up here.