As some of you know, Gard Jameson and Ralph Zehr have organized “science symposium 3” for June 2-5 in Chicago this year. I’ve used this deadline as motivation to bring together the missing Part 4 of this video series. Parts 1-3 covered the more personal aspects of the UB revelation; Part 4 will be a fresh look at things cosmological, from a 21st century perspective.
Regarding plans for June 3 in Chicago, due to time constraints, I plan to cover just the middle section, on “Mass, Matter and Dark Islands that go Boom“. Given the author’s statement in paper 101 section 4:
“within a few short years many of our statements regarding the physical sciences will stand in need of revision” (1109.3, 101:4.2)
and since I’m keen to get on with this revision, I’ve titled my presentation “Revisionist Cosmology”
Here are links to current versions of the 3 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!
Updated version for Chicago presentation (June 3): MassMatters v2 (5.3 MB)
Once again, I’d love any feedback or criticism on content, sequence, assumptions, etc.
For reference, here are the three parts I plan to combine as 45 minute movie:
[Video4 A:] Intro (1 of 3) (1.6 MB)
[Video4 B:] MassMatters v2 (2 of 3) (5.3 MB)
[Video4 C:] Orvonton (3 of 3) (4.4 MB)
This looks brilliant. I’ll need time to have an good read to digest it all but if your past videos are anything to go by, I know this will be a masterpiece.
You are a true teacher of the teachings and I urge everyone to take a good look at your work.
I wish you all the best for your trip and presentation.
From Sydney, Australia
Hi All — here’s the final version of my script for next weekend’s science symposium at the Foundation:
[Video4 B:] MassMatters (2 of 3) (4.7 MB)
Next hurdle will be getting the hi-res 1080p video to play. Seems like we were supposed to “bring our own device”, but my compute.node requires 3 strong men to lift
Once again, the current set of three parts:
[Video4 A:] Intro (1 of 3) (1.6 MB)
[Video4 B:] MassMatters (2 of 3) (4.7 MB)
[Video4 C:] Orvonton (3 of 3) (4.4 MB)
Update on project:
To simplify recording, I’ve split my work into 4 bite-sized sections. The first part continues the sequence of these three previous videos, and breaks-the-ice with regard to some fundamentals of UB physics. Part 2 sets up an ultimatonic model for matter. Part 3 describes what ultimatons imply for matter that collapses behind an event horizon (dark islands). Part 4 will explore what these new foundations may mean for the Milky Way.
Please note that all this work concerns physics local to our sector of Orvonton. Regarding the global cosmology of the master universe, I’m thrilled that George and others are attempting to map the large-scale structure. Their work will get an enormous boost with the next generation of space and ground-based telescopes.
Regarding my own work, a central idea is that the mechanics of quantum fields is really the mechanics of segregata and ultimata. Thus our evolving quantum field theories really only apply within those islands of space where segregata and ultimata have been evolved (i.e. galaxies). This gets interesting when we consider what happens to photons when they cross the deep between galactic halos. The UB claims that when moving within a field of (active and primordial) segregata, photons wiggle. But when moving between these islands of pure energy, they lose this wave-like attribute.
Is it reasonable to speculate that each time a photon suffers such a change-of-state (i.e. passing through multiple galactic halos on its way to our telescopes) its apparent wavelength will be “shifted toward the red”?
- [Notes Part 4A] Introduction (1 of 3) (2.55 MB)
- [Notes Part 4B] Ultimatons (2 of 3) (2.44 MB)
- [Notes Part 4C] Dark Islands (3 of 3) (2.16 MB)
If anyone has time to look through one or all, I’d be very thankful for comments and criticism!
— Update, 22 September 2018 —
Hi all, pleased to report some progress! The following set of scripts and YouTube videos attempt to set up a framework in which to explore the idea of ultimatons in physics.
The idea is to describe (predict) ultimatonic foundations, sufficient to explain current standard models in both cosmology and particle physics.
Here are links to the YouTube videos:
Playlist: Urantia Book Cosmology
For reference, and to make it easier to discuss particular issues, the following PDF versions (used as scripts for the videos) contain exactly the same text/narration as the videos, together with corresponding pics:
In the upcoming “Part 4 D”, I’ll attempt to bring together some of the threads left dangling in the above.
PS: The above cosmological speculation (i.e. Part 4 in the video series) follows on from Parts 1, 2 and 3 (links below). These first three parts explore the more personal side of the 5th epochal revelation:
Playlist: The Urantia Book and Personality
PS: when combined as chapters and printed in full color, the above set of 6 PDF scripts make quite a book!
Regarding possible connections between ultimatons and current scientific work, the idea of “ghostly axions” — appearing mysteriously within a “primordial condensate of charge“ — is becoming a favored contender for explaining two types of invisible mass that seem to be shaping (a) galaxies and (b) large scale structure.
And in his 2005 book, “A Different Universe: Reinventing Physics from the Bottom Down”, Robert Laughlin (Nobel/Physics 1998) hinted that electrons might emerge from “hundreds of such little ghosts, linking arms”, where these little ghosts would be “axions“. Laughlin (and others) seem to be one small step from the Urantia Book idea: that the quantized complexity of fermion properties might emerge from “clusters of clusters of huddling ultimatons“.
Using current terminology, we might think of ultimatons as “axionic preons“.
Given the preliminary stage of this work, I can easily adjust stuff. So if anyone has ideas on what to change, improve or delete, or just general criticism, please let me know!
Given my speculation last year about the formation and explosion of dark islands (YouTube, v2, 2017), I’m wondering if that astronomical “holy cow” event of June 16 this year will require a UB perspective? Do cooling and contracting dead stars really have a “limiting and critical explosion point” (41:3.6) ?
[pop. sci]: “I’ve never seen anything like this“.
From [paper] arxiv.org 1808.00969,
“[…] In either case, AT 2018cow suggests that the population of fast luminous transients represents a new class of astrophysical event. Intensive follow-up of this event in its late phases, and of any future events found at comparable distance, will be essential to better constrain their origins.”
From UB 41:3.6:
“This process of cooling and contraction may continue to the limiting and critical explosion point of ultimatonic condensation.” (458.6, 41:3.6)
PS: Next and final video in the series (cosmology, part 4D) shaping up well!
warm regards and love to all,
If it was unlike a supernova, but they want to think that it was one.
The unusual event has offered an unprecedented window on to the collapse of a star, two teams of researchers suggest in papers submitted to the arXiv preprint server on 25 October.
Contrary to the slow ramp-up of a typical supernova, Cow became stupendously bright essentially overnight, leaving astronomers perplexed.
“It popped up out of nowhere,” says Stephen Smartt, an astronomer at Queen’s University Belfast, UK, who first discovered the explosion, and who named it according to an alphabetical protocol that just happened to spell out the word ‘cow’.
So, what was it?
Is there a supermassive black hole in the center of this galaxy (Orvonton / Milky Way), or is it something else?
“Is there a supermassive black hole in the center of this galaxy (Orvonton / Milky Way), or is it something else?”
Given the role of the two orders of Force Organizers, we might model the Sgr A* anomaly not as mere accumulation of collapsed mass, but as actualized absonite anchor? From 42:2.3:
“[…], while the intension of this concept implies the totality of cosmic reality — universes — which emanated eternitywise […]” (42:2.3)
See also transcendental causation (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. Force is now emerging from the exclusive domain of the Unqualified Absolute into the realms of multiple response — response to certain primal motions initiated by the God of Action and thereupon to certain compensating motions emanating from the Universal Absolute. Primordial force is seemingly reactive to transcendental causation in proportion to absoluteness.” (42:2.8)
I point to (then skip over) this at time 8:00 in this video.
You can find this reference on page 13 of the script for the video here: part 4C, Exploding dark islands .
From page 13 [quote]:
Of course, these extra levels of support imply a range of sizes for these dark islands, from say 3 solar masses all the way up to some… unspecified limit. The point being that, in this model, there is some upper limit to their mass. In other words, these evolutionary, “solar mass” dark islands do not continue to merge and grow, to become those “supermassive” things that seem to anchor galaxies in space. Nevertheless, these ultra-compact objects are said to have some… very useful properties.
If you’d like to help put these ideas into a mainstream astronomical context, here are links to a preliminary script for the final video in the series,
I’d love some critique… What to fix? What to add? What to leave out?
In anticipation of the upcoming launch of the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), here’s a link to the final part in that “Cosmology” series of videos (PlayList). Please excuse the length; for future reference, I wanted to keep the story of Orvonton together with issues faced by current cosmology.
On smaller screens, video is best viewed at 720p. For big screen TVs, the full 1080p version looks good… but the file is over is 4 GB.
YouTube video: Ancient Orvonton, and a young cosmic web?
You will never fully understand the mysteriousness of this.
13:1.23 (147.4) You will never fully understand this mysterious transaction until you reach Ascendington. And that is just why all Ascendington will be open to your wondering gaze. One seventh of Ascendington is forbidden to me—that sector concerned with this very secret which is (or will be) the exclusive experience and possession of your type of being. This experience belongs to your human order of existence. My order of personality is not directly concerned with such transactions. It is therefore forbidden to me and eventually revealed to you. But even after it is revealed to you, for some reason it forever remains your secret. You do not reveal it to us nor to any other order of beings. We know about the eternal fusion of a divine Adjuster and an immortal soul of human origin, but the ascendant finaliters know this very experience as an absolute reality.
As some of you know, Gard Jameson and Ralph Zehr have organized “science symposium 3” for June 2-5 in Chicago this year. I’ve used this deadline as motivation to bring together the missing Part 4 of this video series. Parts 1-3 covered the more personal aspects of the UB revelation; Part 4 will be a fresh look at things cosmological, from a 21st century perspective. Regarding plans for June 3 in Chicago, due to time constraints, I plan to cover just the middle section, on “Mass, Matter and Dark Islands that go Boom“. Given the author’s statement in paper 101 section 4:
“within a few short years many of our statements regarding the physical sciences will stand in need of revision” (1109.3, 101:4.2) and since I’m keen to get on with this revision, I’ve titled my presentation “Revisionist Cosmology” Here are links to current versions of the 3 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
“I want to thank you for your efforts to compare and contrast modern ideas on astronomy with the relevant parts of the Urantia Book. Besides viewing 3 of the 4-part videos (with the Milky Way video still to come), I read some of the related posts in some of the others forums you started, along with some of the comments from others. I have a better understanding of the foundational structures at the macro & micro levels.
So now may I ask, should we think of Segregata as Dark Matter, and Dark Energy as a force coming from Nether Paradise? Also, should we think of the Ultimaton as a kind of bridge between observable matter/gravity & (currently) non-observable counterparts, especially since one of its properties is anti-gravity? I ask that because vortices are thought by some to serve as portals linking lesser to greater realities.”
What a great set of questions! Here are some thoughts:
Before 1998, astronomers had identified three particular issues that cosmologists were finding it hard to explain: (i) the way galaxies cluster, (ii) rotation curves of spiral galaxies, and (iii) excessive gravitational lensing.
Around 1933 (the same time the Urantia papers were being delivered), Fritz Zwicky was studying that first issue, the way galaxies cluster. To make sense of his observations, he proposed that galaxies might be merely bright cores embedded within vast halos of invisible mass. Later, assuming such invisible “mass” must be associated with some kind of invisible “particle”, cosmologists inserted distributions of “dark matter” into their models. This simple fix seemed to work quite well, at least for explaining why galaxies seem to gravitate into clusters along some (massive, invisible) cosmic web.
However, it did not work well for explaining the rotation curves of spiral galaxies. But something else did: replace Einstein’s model for gravity with a modified version of Newton’s. Sadly, this sort of modified Newtonian dynamics (MOND) failed to explain either galaxy clustering or gravitational lensing.
So cosmologists accepted that they would have to get creative. As it turns out, the sort of model that seems to fit best involves rotating disks of some primitive (invisible) superfluid, embedded within (invisible) halos of gravitational potential.
Of course, proposing two types of dark mass is twice as bad as invoking one, but such models DO seem to match what astronomers observe.
Which is why I got interested. As I explore in these videos (playlist), segregated islands of segregata (“pure energy“) serve nicely as invisible halos of gravitational potential (e = mc^2); and “force-organized” cyclones of ultimata are the perfect analog for massive, invisible superfluid disks.
So the Urantia book’s model — of spiral galaxies forming within cyclones of ultimata, which evolve within islands of segregata — fits the data quite well. All we need do is to model “dark matter” as two (invisible) phase-states of space potency: segregata and ultimata.
So what about this now widely accepted idea, that some kind of “dark energy” is accelerating the rate of expansion of a 14 billion year old Big-Banged universe? First a bit of background.
In the 1990’s, Type 1a supernovae were a hot topic: If these could be used as “standard candles”, they could serve as a new rung in the distance ladder which astronomers use to estimate distances to high redshift galaxies and quasars.
By 1998, two teams studying these supernovae came to the same unexpected conclusion: some of these (Type 1a) supernovae were dimmer than expected. Now, assuming a Big Bang cosmology, one way to fit the data was to assume that about 5 billion years ago, the rate of expansion of the universe began to increase.
Why? We don’t know. But the currently favoured place-holder idea is that some type of energy is fostering the expansion of space. And because cosmologists have no evidence for what this type of energy might be, they naturally called it “dark”.
But notice, cosmologists only REALLY need “dark energy” to explain an accelerated expansion of the universe. And they only REALLY need an accelerated expansion to explain why some supernovae are dimmer than expected. Or rather, dimmer than predicted by a lambda-CDM Big Bang.
But what if such a “Big Bang” model is wrong? Or “not even wrong”? Can we explain supernova luminosities without an accelerating expansion of a young, Big Banged universe? This is what we explore in the 2nd half of video Part 4D (or see PDF script here)
Regarding forces “coming from nether Paradise“, the sort of dark energy required by Big Bang cosmology is thought of as some property of space, that makes space itself expand. Conceptually, could this be a first hint of a glimpse of how “space work” works?
“When the universes expand and contract, the material masses in pervaded space alternately move against and with the pull of Paradise gravity. The work that is done in moving the material energy mass of creation is space work but not power-energy work.” (12:4.13)
Recall that the foundations of Urantia book cosmology involve “space respiration” (see 11:6.0). So cycles of accelerated (+/-) expansion and contraction will be fundamental to any model we try to build. Watch this space!
[Ultimatons as bridge]
In (42:1.2), the ultimaton is described as “the first measurable form of energy“. So it certainly does seem to act as “a bridge between observable matter/gravity & (currently) non-observable counterparts“, as you stated so well
Personally, I think of “the mature ultimaton” (46:1.2) more as a borderland phenomenon, quite literally a (minimal) quantization of the angular momentum injected by Master Force Organizers into their halo of segregata (and maybe the cause of Planck’s constant).
So with regard to “vortices and portals linking phases of reality“, if we think of an ultimaton as a quantized vortex of segregata, interacting with its ancestral field of segregata, all the while acting as a component in some Standard Model particle, then this tiny axionic preon might be seen as linking absonite and finite realities…
But trying to imagine such things is well above my pay-grade.
thanks for asking,
Hello Nigel – I knew you would have good answers to my last set of questions! And was glad you redirected our thread of recent posts, for I knew this material was not related to reincarnation, but I had not seen any recent posts in this forum. I read your thoughtful reply but still want to explore the links you provided before I comment on your recent post, which I hope will be later today.
I have not yet watched your 1+ hour-long video, but I will soon. In the meantime, I thought about how best to reply to your most recent, enlightening post consisting of multiple sections. While I appreciate the way you answered my prior lost of questions point by point, for now I want share what I once read several years ago about vortices, and then share what I read more recently, for it may prove to be research very relevant to some of your research and conclusions.
In the book “The Mammoth Encyclopedia of the Unsolved”, in the chapter “Vortices: The Bridge Between the Natural and the Supernatural?”, I found the following relevant quotes:
“Energy is the prime reality. But is our physical universe the only reality? If matter & light are 2 forms of energy (as Einstein showed), is is not possible that there are other forms of energy, so-called nonmaterial forms?…If, as Lord Kelvin believed, matter is made up of ‘vortices’ or whirlpools, what are these whirlpools in?…Before Einstein, scientists believed that light was a vibration in the ‘ether’ – an unknown fluid that pervades all space. Two physicists named Michelson & Morley showed that the ‘ether’ does not exist. Light seems to be ‘pure movement’, not a movement in something…David Ash suggested that, just as energy is more fundamental than matter, so pure movement is more fundamental than energy.” (It continues to the next paragraph)…
“So why should energy be restricted to the speed of light? If movement could have a faster speed, it would give rise to a completely different type of energy, which Ash called ‘super-energy’. In fact, physicists have suggested in recent years the possibility of a particle called the ‘tachyon’, which is faster than light.”
(Now me writing)…Today, I looked online for more info on tachyons and was surprised to find a researcher named E. C. George Sudarshan from Texas supposedly found tachyons and is now known for “Tachyon Quantum Zeno effect”. Elsewhere online, I found an interesting multicolored diagram labeled, “The Science of Tachyon”, which very much reminded me of the diagrams you had in you video regarding Segregata, Ultimata, and Ultimatons, except the terms listed and briefly described were Pre-Frequency Zero-point Energy, Pre-Frequency Tachyon Energy, and Subtle Organizing Energy Fields.
From all that I read today, I now wonder if Tachyons are actually what the Urantia Book calls Ultimatons! I honestly hope you will consider looking online to see not only what I saw online today, but also to consider at least briefly looking further into the topic of Tachyons, for you are more qualified than I am to determine if my assumption is correct.
Bye for now, Michael
Login to reply to this topic.
Not registered? Sign up here.