-
Posts
-
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?”
It’s a proposal that places a huge amount of mass in a place where currently only the mass of the Milky Way and its dwarf galaxies can be accounted for though. Nevermind not seeing the trillions of blazing suns, it seems the effect of all that mass pulling gravitationally on Andromeda would be pretty obvious to see in Andromeda’s motion.
Thanks tas, that’s exactly the right sort of observation to make. And it’s that kind of logical analysis that has led UB students to go fishing among the local group, and even superclusters, to find those missing “ten trillion blazing suns”.
I’d like to suggest an alternative. As I understand it, UB cosmology treats the “linear” attraction between clusters of ultimatons as a perturbation on top of an “absolute” interaction between the raw ultimatons of which those clusters are made. (132.2, 12:3.8)
And that this absolute interaction overlays an underlying motion of vast superfluid flows of emergent energies, through “space paths of lessened resistance to motion”. (125.2, 11:7.8), (128.5, 12:1.2)
Whether this linear perturbation is “big” or “small” is not stated, but as Richard Feynman liked to point out, the electric charge on a kilogram of electrons is enough to defeat the “gravity” of the entire earth (mass = 10^24 kg). Which implies what astronomers later discovered: that the gravitational effect due to baryonic matter is not the primary cause of galactic dynamics.
Now here’s the interesting bit: the so-called worst theoretical prediction in the history of physics involves the expected energy density of “the vacuum”. For quantum field theory (QFT) to work as advertised, so-called “empty space” must contain an enormous density of energy. However, such a distribution of energy pervading space would have caused a “Big-Banged” universe to collapse almost immediately. On the other hand, for native Cosmology to work as advertised, the energy density of empty space must be vanishingly small (but not quite zero — hence the famous cosmological constant).
But on the third hand, actual observation of the superclusters pervading space implies an invisible web of energy over-densities, and since e=mc^2, cosmologists now think that it’s this non-homogenous distribution of invisible mass that really determines the distribution and dynamics of galaxies.
As it turns out, UB cosmology predicts just the right sort of invisible web of mass — in the form of a non-homogenous distribution of ultimata. Which raises coupled questions: What if the density of emergent energies in the flows fostering this web of ultimata just happened to be about right to allow a (new and improved) Quantized Field Theory to work? And what if the vast spaces between the strands in this web were literally devoid of energy? Could this sort of non-homogenous distribution of (unobservable) ultimata resolve the old fashioned discord between cosmology and quantum mechanics?
tas, what I’m suggesting is that we think of Orvonton not so much as a system of nebulae interacting under standard model gravity, but as an elongated elliptical flow of ultimata, turning about Uversa. And that the nested systems of gravita which we can observe are embedded like so much fluff within this absolutely massive flow.
Up next, that taste of astronomy I promised last week.
Nigel
Once again, it’s worth repeating what the authors wrote:
“within a few short years many of our statements regarding the physical sciences will stand in need of revision” (1109.3, 101:4.2)
Also a reminder — the first step in this exercise is trying to work out what UB cosmology actually is. Which means we have to consider one of the fundamentals of UB cosmology — the evolution of emergent energies, over at least a trillion years, in the superuniverse space level.
Given the sort of ultimata/gravita-based model I understand the UB authors to be presenting, I’ve been exploring the idea that the Milky Way spiral is a major sector, and that the other major sectors might be equally thin spirals lying precisely in the same plane as the Milky Way (which is just what current disk theory would predict, given a trillion years orbiting Havona). However, if this were so (as indicated in recent diagrams), then astronomers face an obvious problem when attempting to map Orvonton.
This has to do with the angles subtended by neighboring major sectors, at each electromagnetic wavelength. The following sketch illustrates the issue: how an opaque foreground wall can easily hide a background source of radiation:
http://www.ubron.org/groupphotos/AnglesSubtend_A.jpg
With that as a warm-up, let’s consider the same issue, but this time on a major sector scale. Imagine a cross-section or side view of the Milky Way, relative to a hypothetical nearest-neighbour major sector, as indicated in the next diagram:
http://www.ubron.org/groupphotos/AnglesSubtend_B.jpg
Please note: in the above diagram, since the angles involved are so small, I’ve expanded the vertical scale.
That was a side view, as seen from some location in the plane of the Milky Way. Here’s the same layout as seen from above:
http://www.ubron.org/groupphotos/AnglesSubtend_C.jpg
And finally, a front-on perspective of what we might expect to see from Earth:
http://www.ubron.org/groupphotos/ProjectedSector.jpg
That thin black line is the infrared projection of that nearest-neighbour sector across our line of sight. Could current telescopic technique discover this? That’s the question my reading of the UB has raised. No fuss or contortions, just following the authors’ lead.
As you can see, given a trillion years of ultimata evolving in a superuniverse beltway of lessened resistance to motion (which is how I understand what the authors wrote), then there appears to be a case for thinking that native astronomy will have a very hard time discovering the layout of Orvonton.
Of course, given the contrast with current cosmological models, such a scheme must seem truly unlikely. But once we add the unmeasurable masses and flows revealed by the UB, and follow the astrophysics rather than beliefs about cosmology, then the stage is set for some interesting modelling, and robust discussion.
Sadly, I’ve never heard any student of these papers discuss the evolution of emergent energies (let alone “the limiting and critical explosion point of ultimatonic condensation” ). If anyone has thought about this, and the implications for cosmology, I’m very keen to hear fresh ideas about how to tidy up the many loose threads I’ve left dangling.
Regarding what statements “may stand in need of revision”, should I begin by revising my assumptions about the vast elliptical “plane” of the grand universe?
PS: thanks for enduring all this speculation
Nigel
The key concept in the previous post was the predicted infrared profile of a Milky Way-sized nearest neighbor major sector, co-planar with and lying behind, the galactic disk. “Pause to consider…” that 0.48 degree angle subtended at Urantia by the infrared wall of such a neighbor. I’ll get back to how astronomers are currently probing this astronomic data, but first a reminder about the motivation for reconsidering some assumptions about Orvonton.
What we’re considering here is not how linear gravity may have nudged galaxies around for 20 billion years. What we’re exploring is the UB story of how 70 major sectors were “force-organized” (in place) within a sheet of segregata centered on nether Paradise. And that this happened hundreds of billions of years before any spirals began to form in the first outer space level. And that an ancient, central and relatively small “grand universe” needs to be distinguished from the far younger outer space levels of a vastly larger “master universe“.
“The seven evolving superuniverses in association with the central and divine universe, we commonly refer to as the grand universe; these are the now organized and inhabited creations. They are all a part of the master universe, which also embraces the uninhabited but mobilizing universes of outer space.” (1.6, 0:0.6)
As far as I know, we students have not yet begun to consider the distribution and evolution of segregata. Yet it forms the foundation for the constrained cosmology set up in these papers. Let’s take a closer look:
Recall that the authors kick-start their (constrained) cosmology by describing an ancient, ancestral, homogenous distribution of segregata, within which evolved 70 major sectors of seven segregated superuniverse administrations. This initial (and truly ancient) distribution became the primordial force-charge of grand universe space. It formed an annular disk surrounding Havona, and possibly was “force-organized” by nether paradise itself,
“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.” (469.7, 42:2.7)
On the other hand, the much younger spirals of outer space, those separate cyclones of segregata, are said to have been organized by “force organizers”.
“Paradise force organizers are nebulae originators; they are able to initiate about their space presence the tremendous cyclones of force which, when once started, can never be stopped or limited until the all-pervading forces are mobilized for the eventual appearance of the ultimatonic units of universe matter. Thus are brought into being the spiral and other nebulae, the mother wheels of the direct-origin suns and their varied systems. In outer space there may be seen ten different forms of nebulae, phases of primary universe evolution, and these vast energy wheels had the same origin as did those in the seven superuniverses.” (169.4, 15:4.4)
Here are two pictures that help me imagine these “tremendous cyclones of force”, and how such segregated cyclones of segregata are ripened to give birth to spirals of stars:
figure 1: a primary master force organizer at work, spinning up “a vast cyclone of space”,
figure 2: the relationship between segregata, ultimata and gravita:
a cyclone of segregata gives birth to a spiral of stars!
(continued…)
Regarding this hypothetical distribution of segregata, from Havona out to the inner fringe of the first outer space level, here are three screenshots from upcoming movie. For context, “C of G” indicates McCall’s Council of Giants. The Milky Way is the 2nd inner red dot, next to M31 (Andromeda).
View 1: What astronomers measure – McCall’s Council of Giants surrounding both us and M31:
View 2: adding the segregated cyclones of segregata predicted by the UB:
View 3: And now, adding the central distribution of segregata, “force-organized” by nether Paradise:
With the stage now set, let’s try again to explore the flatness of the superuniverse space level, the region outlined in yellow in View 3 (the “ragged edge of the grand universe” 129.11, 12:1.13), that relatively tiny, central kernel of the master universe.
We’ll need to understand why current surveys of the Milky Way have to use near-infrared wavelengths (0.8 to 3 microns), and we’ll need to appreciate what it takes to observe a Cepheid variable star in regions co-planar with, and lying behind, the galactic disk.
Nigel
Hi Nigel….thanks for keeping this discussion going. I wish I could contribute but I struggle to just get my head around the concepts! It’s hard to imagine “segregata”!!
What has been helpful to me is the realisation that the grand universe is really quite small relative to the master universe and what I can see up there with the naked eye.
Keep up your great work Nigel…..and all you other clever minded people.
Hi All,
Here’s a link to first draft of first half of upcoming presentation on Revisionist Cosmology (4 MB)
This first part looks at the foundations of mass and matter; second part tidies up discussion of Orvonton.
If anyone has time to proof-read and criticise, would be much appreciated!
Regarding format, the pdf shows “Notes” pages from a PowerPoint storyboard for movie. Where text and diagrams appear to overlap, these are animated elements that keep out of each other’s way.
I’ll upload 2nd half (Orvonton) in a day or two.
Nigel
First draft of part 2 now in place:
[part 1] RevCosm part 1 of 2 (4 MB – UB foundations for mass and matter),
[part 2] RevCosm part 2 of 2 (4 MB – tidy up last year’s discussion about Orvonton).
Regarding embedded movies, the June presentation will be streamed, so for copyright reasons, I’ve removed 5 of the 6 clips I had planned to use. However, the 30 second clip teased on page 16 of part 1 is so good I asked BBC-Horizon for permission to play, and they said “ok”!
Original BBC link is here: How small is the universe? (59 mins)
YouTube versions come and go; links get taken down for copyright reasons.
Animation on page 33 of part 1 shows 40 second clip from this old movie (see time = 0:22 to 1:00)
Regarding format, the pdf’s show “Notes” pages from PowerPoint storyboards for upcoming movie. Where text and diagrams appear to overlap, these are animated elements that keep out of each other’s way.
Plan is for final version to become the missing Part 4 of 4 in this series – link.
I’m very keen to hear criticism: if something seems wrong, or if you can think of something else I should try to cover, please let me know!
Nigel
[Update] – I’ve deleted the early drafts in the links above, and moved discussion to the new thread. Please see Revisionist Cosmology.
For reference, here are links to (3) updated parts:
[Video4 A:] Intro (1 of 3) (1.6 MB)
[Video4 B:] MassMatters (2 of 3) (5.1 MB)
[Video4 C:] Orvonton (3 of 3) (4.4 MB)
If anyone has the time and interest to help clean up these early drafts, that would be great!
Nigel
Hi Nigel,
Your investigations are of the greatest interest, and I particularly enjoyed your outstanding presentation last week at the Science Symposium. For those who may be unaware, a video of Nigel’s presentation is available at http://www.ustream.tv/channel/XhtGPaUe4mh. You take us on an extraordinary journey into a whole new realm of physics.
More along the lines of the original topic of how the Milky Way is related to Orvonton, there are facts and relationships given in the Book which can be shown to firmly establish Orvonton as the Local Group of galaxies.
What is the size of Orvonton? Before determining the size of our superuniverse, we need to determine its center. We are told the Milky Way starry system is the central nucleus of Orvonton.
“The vast Milky Way starry system represents the central nucleus of Orvonton…” (15:3.1)
The sun is located 26,000 light-years (ly) from the center of the Milky Way galaxy, so we appear to be relatively near the center of Orvonton.
“From Jerusem, the headquarters of Satania, it is over two hundred thousand light-years to the physical center of the superuniverse 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.” (32:2.11)
“The whirl of the ten major sectors, the so-called star drifts, about the Uversa headquarters of Orvonton.” (15:3.13)
The Milky Way galaxy is 50,000 ly in radius. The location of Uversa, the center of Orvonton’s revolution, is between 200,000 and 250,000 ly away. It would appear that the authors are implying a region around our galaxy when they say the “vast Milky Way starry system represents the central nucleus of Orvonton.”
But another possibility is that the Milky Way is at the physical center of Orvonton and Uversa is at the spiritual center. The spiritual center of gravity in the master universe is on upper Paradise and is separated from the material center of absolute gravity on nether Paradise. The architectural sphere of Edentia is separated from the ten Supreme Power Centers for Norlatiadek, who are stationed on an “enormous stellar system at the physical core of the constellation.” (41:1.4) Similarly, the Supreme Power Center for Satania is not located on Jerusem but on “a dark island of space located at the astronomic center of the system.” (41:1.5)
It is not entirely clear whether the center of gravitational revolution is 26,000 or 200,000 ly distant. But if Orvonton has a radius that is much greater than 200,000 ly, this uncertainty does not significantly effect a determination of its size.
- Naked-Eye Limit on the Size of Orvonton
“Practically all of the starry realms visible to the naked eye on Urantia belong to the seventh section of the grand universe, the superuniverse of Orvonton.” (15:3.1)
“Although the unaided human eye can see only two or three nebulae outside the borders of the superuniverse of Orvonton, your telescopes literally reveal millions upon millions of these physical universes in process of formation.” (12:2.2)
Orvonton is essentially everything we can see with the naked eye, except for “two or three nebulae outside of the borders of the superuniverse of Orvonton.” This is a very specific limitation to the size of our superuniverse. The apparent magnitude or brightness of celestial objects can be objectively measured. The number for apparent magnitude increases as the object becomes dimmer. The sun is the brightest object with a magnitude of -26.7. The brightest star is Sirius with a magnitude of -1.46. The Andromeda galaxy has a magnitude of +4.36. Under perfect viewing conditions, the dimmest objects observable with the naked eye have magnitudes somewhere between +7.6 and +8.5. [1] [2] Knowing the naked-eye limiting magnitude is +8.5, we can query NASA’s Extragalactic Database for all galaxies with a magnitude of less than +9.
All Galaxies in NED with Apparent Magnitudes of less than +9 Local Group Galaxies App Mag Mly Observed 1 Large Magellanic Cloud 0.90 0.16 Yes 2 Small Magellanic Cloud 2.70 0.20 Yes 3 Andromeda Galaxy (Messier 31) 4.36 2.55 Yes 4 Sagittarius Dwarf Spheroidal Galaxy 4.50 0.09 Yes 5 Triangulum Galaxy (Messier 33) 6.27 2.87 Yes Galaxies Outside Local Group App Mag Mly Observed 6 Sculptor Galaxy (NGC 253) 7.09 10.56 Yes 7 Centaurus A Galaxy (NGC 5128) 7.84 12.35 Yes 8 Bode’s Galaxy (Messier 81) 7.89 12.08 Yes 9 NGC 2403 8.11 11.37 no 10 Southern Pinwheel Galaxy (Messier 83) 8.20 21.31 Yes* 11 Fireworks Galaxy (NGC 6946) 8.23 18.32 no 12 Pinwheel Galaxy (Messier 101) 8.31 23.07 Yes* 13 Messier 106 8.41 24.13 no 14 Sculptor Dwarf Elliptical 8.60 0.27 no 15 NGC 55 8.84 6.32 no 16 NGC 205 (Messier 110) 8.92 2.69 no 17 NGC 300 8.95 6.39 no 18 Whirlpool Galaxy (Messier 51a) 8.96 26.00 no 19 Sombrero Galaxy (Messier 104) 8.98 36.29 no 20 Messier 94 8.99 16.49 no * just a few reports There are just three galaxies beyond the Local Group which have been commonly reported as observed and they all have magnitudes of less than +8: the Sculptor galaxy, the Centaurus A galaxy, and Bode’s galaxy. These are 10.5-12.4 million light-years (Mly) distant. This is consistent with the statement that “the unaided human eye can see only two or three nebulae [i.e. galaxies] outside the borders of the superuniverse of Orvonton.” There have been isolated reports that M83 and M101 have been observed, which have magnitudes slightly above +8. It appears that under ideal viewing conditions, the limiting magnitude of +8 applies for people with normal vision. But whether or not M83 and M101 are considered commonly visible to the naked eye, we can definitely conclude that there are at least five galaxies in the superuniverse of Orvonton – the Magellanic Clouds, the Andromeda Galaxy, the Sagittarius Dwarf Spheroidal Galaxy, and the Triangulum Galaxy. We can also conclude that the radius of Orvonton is not less than 2.9 Mly, the distance to the Triangulum galaxy.
- Gravitational Limit on the Size of Orvonton
Orvonton contains at least five galaxies and is at least 2.9 Mly in radius. Orvonton cannot include the five observable galaxies beyond Triangulum, because these galaxies do not travel along with Orvonton.
“…some of the nebulae [i.e. galaxies] which Urantian astronomers regard as extragalactic are actually on the fringe of Orvonton and are traveling along with us.” (12:2.3)
“The whirl of the ten major sectors, the so-called star drifts, about the Uversa headquarters of Orvonton.” (15:3.13)
The galaxies in Orvonton move together as a unit, because they are bound together by linear gravity. They must travel together, because they are in gravitational revolution about the center of Orvonton. The ten major sectors whirl about the center of Orvonton. This gravitational dynamic limits the size of Orvonton to the Local Group, which has a radius of 4 Mly. [3] It is an established fact that the galaxies outside the 4 Mly radius of the Local Group move independently of it, because they are not gravitationally bound to it.
- Scale Inter-Dependencies
“If you could look upon the superuniverse of Orvonton from a position far-distant in space, you would immediately recognize the ten major sectors of the seventh galaxy.” (15:3.4)
“The vast star clouds of Orvonton should be regarded as individual aggregations of matter comparable to the separate nebulae [i.e. galaxies] observable in the space regions external to the Milky Way galaxy.” (15:4.9)
From a far-distant position, the ten major sectors of Orvonton are immediately recognizable as “vast star clouds” comparable to galaxies. It is clearly implied that the Milky Way galaxy is a major sector, since it is an individual aggregation of matter comparable to an extragalactic nebulae. This is consistent with the naked-eye visibility of the five brightest galaxies in the Local Group, four of which have been known since antiquity.
“The superuniverse of Orvonton is illuminated and warmed by more than ten trillion blazing suns. These suns are the stars of your observable astronomic system. More than two trillion are too distant and too small ever to be seen from Urantia.” (15:6.10)
There are 10 trillion suns in Orvonton, so the number of stars in a major sector should be one-tenth of this or one trillion suns. According to a 2015 NASA article, the estimated number of stars in the Milky Way is somewhere between 100 and 400 billion stars. [4] However, other studies indicate the Milky Way is about the size of Andromeda, which a 2006 study found has one trillion stars. [5] This wide range is an indication of how tenuous such estimates are. Nevertheless, the Milky Way has far too many stars to be a minor sector. There are 100 minor sectors in a major sector, so each minor sector should contain 10 billion stars (1/100th of a trillion). This number of stars in a minor sector is justified by the common “mass materialization” shared by all local universes.
“The energy charge of a local universe is approximately one one-hundred-thousandth of the force endowment of its superuniverse. In the case of Nebadon, your local universe, the mass materialization is a trifle less. Physically speaking, Nebadon possesses all of the physical endowment of energy and matter that may be found in any of the Orvonton local creations.” (32:1.4)
If the Milky Way contains the lowest estimate of 100 billion stars, it still has at least 10 times too many stars to be a minor sector. If the Milky Way has the highest estimate of a trillion stars, like Andromeda, it has far too few stars to be a superuniverse, which contains 10 trillion stars. The only organizational scale it is consistent with is that of a major sector. We are told that we are located in the major sector of Splandon, which can only be the Milky Way.
The Local Group is made up of more than 50 galaxies which together contain far more than one trillion stars, since there are this many in Andromeda alone. Its form is also inconsistent with that of a major sector, since the ten major sectors of Orvonton are individually recognizable from a distance as separate galaxies. The superuniverse space level contains 70 trillion stars. (7 superuniverses of 10 trillion suns each) The Local Group has too few stars to be the superuniverse space level. Its scale is only compatible with that of our superuniverse of Orvonton.
“Each superuniverse is simply a geographic space clustering of approximately one seventh of the organized and partially inhabited post-Havona creation, and each is about equal in the number of local universes embraced and in the space encompassed.” (12:1.12)
The evidence so far supports the conclusion that Orvonton is the Local Group. If the Local Group is Orvonton, it must make up one-seventh of the superuniverse space level. It does, in fact, make up one-seventh of the newly observable superuniverse space level, a ring-like structure that contains all seven superuniverses. [6] Seven superuniverses with a radius of 4 Mly just fit into the superuniverse space level, which has a radius of 9 Mly. The Local Group is the only cosmic structure which fits into the superuniverse space level.
Conclusion
There are five strong reasons why Orvonton must be the Local Group:
- The naked-eye limiting magnitude of +8 only allows us to see two or three galaxies beyond the borders of Orvonton. Of the eight galaxies commonly reported as being observed with the naked eye, three are outside the Local Group and five are within it. These five galaxies in the Local Group are within Orvonton.
- The galaxies in Orvonton must all move together as a unit. The Local Group consists of the galaxies gravitationally bound together with the Milky Way. This results in all of them moving together as a unit. Galaxies outside the Local Group are not bound to it and do not move with it.
- The Milky Way galaxy is too large to be a minor sector and too small to be a superuniverse. It is the only cosmic structure with the appropriate scale to be a major sector.
- The Local Group is the only cosmic structure with the appropriate scale to be a superuniverse, since it fits between a major sector containing 1 trillion stars and the superuniverse space level, which contains 70 trillion stars.
- The Local Group actually makes up exactly one-seventh of the newly observable superuniverse space level, conclusively confirming that it is the superuniverse of Orvonton.
Footnotes:
[1] Light Pollution and Astronomy: The Bortle Dark-Sky Scale, John E. Bortle, July 18, 2006, Sky & Telescope
“To the unaided eye the limiting magnitude is 7.6 to 8.0 (with effort)”
[2] Naked Eye Observer’s Guide, Dave Snyder, September 2005, University of Michigan
“The limiting magnitude at suburban locations is typically 3.5, and the limiting magnitude at dark sites is typically 6.5. Experienced observers at very dark sites have reported limiting magnitudes as high as 8.5.”
http://umich.edu/~lowbrows/guide/eye.html
[3] The Local Group of Galaxies, Sidney van der Bergh, August 5, 1999, Astronomy & Astrophysics Review
“The zero-velocity surface, which separates the Local Group from the field that is expanding with the Hubble flow, has a radius R = 1.18 +/- 0.15 Mpc.” 1.18 Mpc = 3.85 Mly
https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9908050
[4] How Many Stars in the Milky Way? Maggie Massetti, July 22, 2015, Blueshift
“The most common answer seems to be that there are 100 billion stars in the Milky Way on the low-end and 400 billion on the high end. But I’ve seen even higher numbers thrown around.”
http://asd.gsfc.nasa.gov/blueshift/index.php/2015/07/22/how-many-stars-in-the-milky-way/
[5] Andromeda galaxy hosts a trillion stars, Kelly Young, June 6, 2006, New Scientist
“Using about 3000 separate exposures, Pauline Barmby of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, US, and her team found that the spiral galaxy has about a trillion stars.”
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9282-andromeda-galaxy-hosts-a-trillion-stars
[6] Proving Divine Paradise is Responsible for Universe Evolution, George Park, June 2, 2016
http://www.urantia.org/urantia-book/study
Hi George — thanks for the update, and thanks for [zooming] in to Chicago last week!
A few thoughts:
- In the UB scheme, the so-called superuniverse space level is depicted as old, while the outer space levels may be (relatively) young. These space levels are assumed to be in elliptical motion with respect to a Paradise center.
- Also (in the UB scheme) any visible materialization (gravita) can only appear inside a massive ancestral disk of invisible (pre-electronic) ultimata, which in turn can only evolve within a halo of segregata.
As noted previously, all this can be made to fit neatly with McCall’s “council of giants” (a ring of giant galaxies surrounding a common center). Can you fit McCall’s data into your model?
PS: regarding my presentation at last week’s Science Symposium, to anyone interested, I’d recommend ignoring the video and working through (link) this PDF instead. Sadly, the detailed animations within the diagrams get washed out by the screen glare, and are thus not visible. The upcoming movie should make things much clearer, plus will include possible implications of [segregata + ultimata] for Orvonton.
Nigel
Hi Nigel,
I don’t see how the different ages of the various space levels are related to the scale and internal structure of the superuniverse space level.
If we accept that there are only “two or three” galaxies beyond Orvonton which are visible to the naked eye, then Orvonton cannot be smaller than the Local Group of galaxies. Unless you disagree with the limiting magnitude for naked eye observation or dispute the data in NASA’s database.
If we accept that everything in Orvonton is in gravitational revolution about its center, then Orvonton cannot be larger than the Local Group, since only the galaxies in this group are gravitationally bound together. Unless you disagree with the scientific consensus on what constitutes the Local Group and its approximate radius of 4 Mly.
The Local Group cannot be the superuniverse space level, since it has far fewer stars than the 70 trillion in the seven superuniverses. Neither can it be a major sector, since it has far more than one trillion stars. Unless you think the consensual estimate of 100-400 billion stars in the Milky Way is completely incorrect.
If we accept that Orvonton (Local Group) is one-seventh of the superuniverse space level, then there are six other galaxy groups the size of Orvonton arranged in a ring-like structure. Since the Local Group is near the center of the encircling Council of Giants, it cannot be part of this ring of galaxies.
George
Thanks George. To those following along, the issue George and I are exploring involves how the superuniverse space level (i.e. the “grand universe”) is historically and geographically related to the first outer space level. George is building a model for this by combining certain assumptions about UB statements with current assumptions used by astronomers and cosmologists, plus the latest astronomic data. What I’d like to do is to adjust some of the above assumptions, and to incorporate the unique foundations for finite (time-dependent) physics revealed by the 5th epochal revelation — segregata and ultimata.
George wrote:
[GP] I don’t see how the different ages of the various space levels are related to the scale and internal structure of the superuniverse space level.
George, while a philosopher or mathematician may be satisfied by finding a pattern that matches an expectation, UB-reading astrophysicists are confronted by the truly unsettling problem of modeling the astrophysics and dynamics of a grand universe (and hence the Milky Way) for at least a trillion years. Have you considered the implications of Orvonton orbiting the Paradise gravitational singularity for 1,000 billion years?
Regarding what’s inside and what’s outside the present ragged edge of the grand universe ,
“Although the unaided human eye can see only two or three nebulae outside the borders of the superuniverse of Orvonton,” (130.4, 12:2.2)
George wrote:
[GP] If we accept that there are only “two or three” galaxies beyond Orvonton which are visible to the naked eye, then Orvonton cannot be smaller than the Local Group of galaxies. Unless you disagree with the limiting magnitude for naked eye observation or dispute the data in NASA’s database.
Just to clarify, George is referring to the current “… list of galaxies that are visible to the naked-eye, for keen-eyed observers in a very dark-sky environment that is high in altitude, during clear and stable weather.” ( link: Naked-eye_galaxies ), i.e., visible to a keen-eyed astronomer standing beside the VLT on top of Cerro Paranal. On a good night.
However, as one of George’s links points out,
“The limiting magnitude at suburban locations is typically 3.5,”
George, if we consider the typical target reader of paper 12 (who is not standing on top of Cerro Paranal
), then search that NASA database for galaxies with apparent magnitude < 4.0, we find the author was referring to M31 and the Magellanic Clouds. Which seems more consistent with paper 15 section 4:“Andromeda, which is outside the inhabited superuniverse,” (170.1, 15:4.7)
Regarding gravitational dynamics, George wrote:
[GP] If we accept that everything in Orvonton is in gravitational revolution about its center, then Orvonton cannot be larger than the Local Group, since only the galaxies in this group are gravitationally bound together. Unless you disagree with the scientific consensus on what constitutes the Local Group and its approximate radius of 4 Mly.
Here’s where I’d like to bring in the UB’s unique foundation for physics, and suggest that galactic gravitational dynamics are not determined by the fluffy sprinkling of visible gravita, but by the invisible pools of massive ultimata and their embedding ancestral halos of “pure energy” or segregata (126.1, 11:8.5), (469.9, 42:2.9). (PS: think what it means that 1.4 solar masses worth of neutrons can fit inside a ball only 10 km across.)
Notice how neatly we can solve the current chief mystery of galactic dynamics (dark mass) by embedding those tiny spirals of electromagnetically bright gravita within massive disks of (electromagnetically dark) ultimata. That’s an easy Nobel Prize for someone.
Regarding the expected number of blazing suns (172.12, 15:6.10), George wrote:
[GP] The Local Group cannot be the superuniverse space level, since it has far fewer stars than the 70 trillion in the seven superuniverses. Neither can it be a major sector, since it has far more than one trillion stars. Unless you think the consensual estimate of 100-400 billion stars in the Milky Way is completely incorrect.
George, the model I’m exploring is that a trillion years of ultimatonic galactic dynamics has evolved Orvonton into a flattened structure, the bulk of which will be found (via ingenious infrared astronomy) to lie in a plane less than two thousand light years thick, almost entirely obscured by the (IR-opaque) midplane of our major sector, and that the physical center of Orvonton lies 174,000 light years through SgrA*, putting us near the outskirts of the superuniverse space level:
“Nebadon is now well out towards the edge of Orvonton.” (359.8, 32:2.11)
This proposed geography allows us to pack (“increased superimposition, layer upon layer“, 15:3.16) those ten trillion blazing suns in a surprisingly compact region, geographically extruded back beyond the far side of Uversa (i.e. in the gravitationally interesting region between Uversa and Havona).
Regarding McCall’s Council of Giants, George wrote:
[GP] If we accept that Orvonton (Local Group) is one-seventh of the superuniverse space level, then there are six other galaxy groups the size of Orvonton arranged in a ring-like structure. Since the Local Group is near the center of the encircling Council of Giants, it cannot be part of this ring of galaxies.
George, it’s precisely because “the Local Group is near the center of the encircling Council of Giants”, that makes me wonder if the Local Group is part of the present ragged edge of the superuniverse space level… which would make the “encircling Council of Giants” a very neat fit for the inner fringe of the first outer space level. So what I’d like to propose is that your mining of the astronomical databases is revealing not the superuniverse space level, but the first outer space level. Regarding your model’s extensions to regions beyond that, I “pause to consider” the statement in paper 12 section 4:
“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.” (134.3, 12:4.14)
To me, this suggests that our current attempts to map the distribution of galactic superclusters using their redshift is “wholly unreliable“.
The case I will be making is that the interaction of photons with segregata lowers a photon’s associated “internal frequency”. See hint of this model on page 28 of this PDF .
Nigel
Hi Nigel,
Your theory about the organization and evolution of segregata and ultimata over trillions of years is most interesting, particularly in your heroic effort to coordinate it with the standard model of particle physics. But this theory does not predetermine all of the specifics of the overall structure of the universe.
I understand your proposal that the major sectors of Orvonton and the other six superuniverses have all become flattened structures aligned with the plane of the Milky Way, as the result of revolving about Paradise for trillions of years. This makes these other major sectors invisible in the optical range, but you assume that eventually they will be identified from their infrared signatures. While this model may satisfy the astrophysical theory you are developing, it appears to be contradicted by well-known astronomical facts and what we are told in the Book.
1. Number of Galaxies in Orvonton
I don’t see a reasonable justification for your interpretation of the statement about the naked eye visibility of galaxies in Orvonton. Why do you think the limiting magnitude of +3.5 or +4.0 should be used, which only applies in urban areas, instead of +8.0 or +8.5, the actual physical limit to the sensitivity of the human eye? If this statement was written with city dwellers in mind, as you suggest, then only the Magellanic Clouds are located within Orvonton. This is inconsistent with the number of major sectors in Orvonton which were observable circa 1934.
“Of the ten major divisions of Orvonton, eight have been roughly identified by Urantian astronomers.” (15:3.4)
This statement is unambiguous and is irreconcilable with your model, which supposes that the other nine major sectors in Orvonton are hidden behind the stars in the plane of the Milky Way. Under the assumptions of your model, this statement must be false. On the other hand, this statement is consistent with the seven galaxies known at the time to be closest to the Milky Way. Hubble identifies eight (or nine) members of the Local Group in his seminal 1936 work, The Realm of the Nebulae.
“The known members of the ‘local group’ are the galactic system [i.e. Milky Way] with the Magellanic Clouds as its two companions; M31 with M32 and NGC 205 as its companions; M33, NGC 6822 and IC 1613.” (pg. 125)
QUESTION 1: If these galaxies are not part of Orvonton, on what basis do you exclude them, apart from your interpretation that the limiting magnitude of visibility is given to us in terms of people who live in modern urban areas?
2. Gravitational Unification of Orvonton
The introduction of invisible and undetectable matter into Orvonton – whether as segregata or the as-yet to be proven hypothesis of dark matter – does not change the dynamics of gravity. In fact, it was the discovery in the 1980s that the linear gravity of Newton and Einstein cannot explain the rotational velocities of galaxies, which forced physicists to assume that dark matter must exist. This was the only way to save the general theory of relativity, as it applies to galaxies. While the estimated number of stars in the Milky Way is 100-400 billion, the gravitational dynamics of our galaxy require about 5 times the mass of all these stars to be present in the form of invisible dark matter. However, the mass of dark matter does not change the law of linear gravity; rather it was necessary to hypothesize this mass in order to save the law of linear gravity.
Both before and after the hypothesis of dark matter, the Local Group has been consistently understood as a gravitationally bound group of galaxies. Under this universal scientific consensus, the Local Group is the only cosmic structure which has the potential to be in gravitational revolution about the “Milky Way starry system,” as the Book says. It is only because the galaxies of Orvonton are gravitationally bound together that they “are traveling along with us.” It is, again, the scientific consensus that galaxies beyond the borders of the Local Group are not bound to it and do not move with it.
QUESTION 2: If you do not accept this universal scientific consensus on the Local Group, can you provide any empirical evidence demonstrating that it is incorrect?
3. The Planar Structure of the Space Levels in the Master Universe
Your model places all of the major sectors of Orvonton and the other superuniverses in the same plane as that of the Milky Way galaxy. This is what makes them (currently) unobservable. We are told in multiple locations that the concentric space levels of the master universe are all on the same plane of creation (cf. 11:7.6). McCall’s Council of Giants is a very rough ring of galaxies surrounding the Local Group. This roughly planar arrangement of a dozen or so galaxies cannot identify the plane of some encircling space level, because these galaxies describe a plane that is tilted more than 80 degrees to the plane of the Milky Way. Since you propose that the plane of the superuniverse space level is the same as the plane of the Milky Way, the plane of any concentrically arranged encircling space level must also lie in this same plane. The Council of Giants is approximately perpendicular to this, which contradicts your own model.
QUESTION 3: If you don’t accept the concept of a universal plane of creation formed under the influence of trillions of years of gravitational revolution about Paradise, can you present any theoretical reasons or empirical evidence which supports a different universal structure?
- The Redshift-Distance Relation:
“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.” (12:4.14)
This clearly states that the apparent recessional velocities of galaxies calculated using redshift are “wholly unreliable.” However, your assumption that mapping “the distribution of galactic superclusters using their redshift is ‘wholly unreliable’” confuses the empirical measurement of redshift with its interpretation as a velocity. Astronomic velocities are an interpretation of what the fact of redshifts mean. The empirical redshift-distance relation, first identified by Hubble in the 1930s, has been more extensively tested and verified than any other aspect of modern cosmology. There is a universal scientific consensus that this proportional relationship between increasing redshift and increasing distance is a fact. This fact is even universally accepted by the very small minority of astrophysicists who still reject a Big Bang and the idea that the universe is expanding. And the Book confirms that this empirical redshift-distance relation is true in principle.
“Many influences interpose to make it appear that the recessional velocity of the external universes increases at the rate of more than one hundred miles a second for every million light-years increase in distance.” (12:4.14)
This rate of recession is the same figure, expressed in the same way, as that given by Hubble in The Realm of the Nebulae.
“Velocities, on the average, increased at the rate of roughly 100 miles/sec., per million light-years of distance, over the observed range of about 6.5 million light-years.” (pg. 115)
There are “many influences” interposed between us and distant galaxies which cause their redshifts to increase in proportion to their distances from us. The redshift-distance relation is not an erroneous interpretation of the data; it is an empirically determined proportional relationship that is caused by “many influences.” Since redshift was interpreted as a Doppler shift caused by the recessional velocity of galaxies, distant galaxies were assumed to be receding from us at this rate. “But this apparent speed of recession is not real.” (12:4.14) While this rate of 100 mi/s has been subsequently shown by the evidence to be much too large, the principle of the redshift-distance relation has been conclusively proven true by almost a century of empirical investigation.
The relative velocities of distant galaxies calculated from their redshifts are wholly unreliable. While measuring the absolute distances to galaxies is still problematic, their relative distances can be reliably determined based upon their cosmological redshifts. And it is now possible to directly observe at least three concentrically arranged aggregations of galaxies in a single plane which extends continuously from tens of millions of light-years out to tens of billions of light-years, using the current (and almost certainly flawed) method of calculating absolute distances.
QUESTION 4: If you do not accept the universal scientific consensus on the validity of the redshift-distance relation, can you provide any empirical evidence that it is invalid?
Every conclusion, of course, depends upon the assumptions we make and the facts we accept. Based upon my assumptions and facts, I need answers to the four questions posed, before I can proceed with a more in-depth consideration of your model. But it may turn out that there is not enough commonality between our respective sets of beliefs and facts for us to reach further agreement, and we will have to leave this matter unresolved between us, for the time being.
George
George, thanks for tolerating my speculation, and for your set of appropriate questions. I’ll work through them over the next few days.
In the meantime, I should explain that, given what Jesus said that day in Carthage ( 7. At Carthage — Discourse on Time and Space), I find it hard to see how the rotated Maltese cross of (11:7.3) could be thought of as 3 dimensional, rather than hinting at an absonite projection of a transcendental eventuation embedded in absolutely ultimate space.
more soon!
Nigel
Login to reply to this topic.
Not registered? Sign up here.