The Cosmology of Light & Life

Home Forums Science & History The Cosmology of Light & Life

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 50 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #26586
    Avatar
    George Park
    Participant

    We are not schooled in the subject (of cosmology).

    I suspect there is much more behind the little attention generally given to cosmology. The concept of the universe presented by modern science is the ugliest and most repulsive cosmology imaginable, because it is purely materialistic. Who can work up any enthusiasm for a nihilistic cosmology which describes a universe that is without purpose, value, or meaning of any kind? The very first thing anyone who looks into this cosmology encounters is the absolute unqualified assertion that there is no center to the universe. There is a reason for the insistence of this assertion which goes back to a decision made at the very beginning of modern cosmology.

    Prior to Edwin Hubble’s discovery of the expansion of space in 1929, everyone thought the universe was eternal and constant in size, even Einstein. Most astronomers estimated it was roughly 300,000 light-years in diameter. Hubble discovered that the more distant a galaxy was, the more redshifted was its light. This redshift in the light of galaxies was interpreted as being caused by the expansion of space. The size of universe suddenly expanded more than a thousand times. This was a thrilling discovery, and The Urantia Book confirms that the phenomenon of space expansion is real.

    However, this discovery also greatly troubled certain influential scientists, like Hubble. A straight forward interpretation of the evidence shows that the space of the universe is expanding from a location that is not too far (in cosmic terms) from our location. If space is expanding from some nearby location, this naturally leads to the idea that the universe has a center. If the universe has a center, this becomes a possible location for God in the universe. It was decided that space expansion must be presented in a way which forestalls any idea of the transcendent presence of God in the universe. The best way to do this was to assert, without proof, that space expands from every point in every direction in exactly the same way.

    Regardless of all the theoretical smoke and mirrors thrown up by cosmologists and astrophysicists over the intervening decades, the empirical data has not changed in character. The simplest and most straight forward interpretation of it is that space is expanding from some location that is not too far from us. The Book tells us that space is expanding from “just below nether Paradise.”

    Sorry if I have run on about this.

    #26607
    Van Amadon
    Van Amadon
    Participant

    Prior to Edwin Hubble’s discovery of the expansion of space in 1929, everyone thought the universe was eternal and constant in size, even Einstein. Most astronomers estimated it was roughly 300,000 light-years in diameter. Hubble discovered that the more distant a galaxy was, the more redshifted was its light. This redshift in the light of galaxies was interpreted as being caused by the expansion of space. The size of universe suddenly expanded more than a thousand times. This was a thrilling discovery, and The Urantia Book confirms that the phenomenon of space expansion is real.

    However, this discovery also greatly troubled certain influential scientists, like Hubble. A straight forward interpretation of the evidence shows that the space of the universe is expanding from a location that is not too far (in cosmic terms) from our location. If space is expanding from some nearby location, this naturally leads to the idea that the universe has a center. If the universe has a center, this becomes a possible location for God in the universe. It was decided that space expansion must be presented in a way which forestalls any idea of the transcendent presence of God in the universe. The best way to do this was to assert, without proof, that space expands from every point in every direction in exactly the same way.

    This is from Wikipedia:

    Hubble demonstrated that the redshift of other galaxies is approximately proportional to their distance from the Earth (Hubble’s law). This raised the appearance of our galaxy being in the center of an expanding Universe, however, Hubble rejected the findings philosophically:

    How interesting. That the findings of science are determined, at least sometimes, philosophically!

     

    #26612
    Avatar
    Nigel Nunn
    Participant

    Hi all — and thanks George for this great topic!

    Let’s “pause to consider” the difference between (a) a distance to M31, and (b) the motions of “absolutely ultimate” space (118:3.5). The first is something that native science delights to discover; the second is something that is simply not discoverable by any finite technique.

    Regarding that distance to M31 (in Andromeda), any reader familiar with astronomy would recognise “almost a million years” as a quote from Hubble (1924-5), and move on. Technically, there should be quotation marks around that phrase. (Think what a difference that little pair of quotation marks would have made.)

    But getting back to that “pause to consider“, the point of that statement (which may or may not “stand in need of revision“) was to encourage a contemporary (1935) audience to take a moment to reflect on one of the great revelations of native science, that the entire Milky Way system is merely a pin-prick of light near the center of an unimaginably stupendous expression of our Father’s exuberant endeavor.

    Given the first fact of UB cosmology — our Father as first cause — the second central fact is the Isle of Paradise. But if we are to accept Paradise as a universe fact, then we may need to take more seriously what Jesus said that day in Carthage. In a section titled “Discourse on Time and Space”, the authors paraphrase Jesus as saying:

    (130:7.7,8) “[…] Ultimately, surviving mortals achieve identity in a seven-dimensional universe. The time-space concept of a mind of material origin is destined to undergo successive enlargements as the conscious and conceiving personality ascends the levels of the universes.

    What does this have to do with Paradise? Recall that Paradise is not in the spacetime we can measure. And that geographically, the master universe itself is excavated from some quiescent absolute extent of — or bestowed by — Paradise. And that this master universe, once perfectly eventuated, serves merely as certain transcendental foundations for the primary purposes of our Dad. From paper 106 section 7,

    (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… “.

    As I understand it, what we have in UB cosmology is an appropriate down-grasp responding to our contemporary (1935) capacity to up-reach, a philosophically brilliant mingling of universe fact together with “statements that stand in need of revision.”

    How to proceed?  Notice that if we accept our loving personal universal Father as the uncaused First Cause of science, and then accept Paradise as his first fact (from the Latin: facio, “I make“), and then assume the need for “master architects” and transcendental “organizers of force”, the we find ourselves poised between, on the one hand, a 1930’s view of the atom, and on the other hand, actual factual revelation about the emergence and evolution of energy within the narrow slice of spacetime we (currently) can measure.

    Anyone keeping up with current particle physics will notice how neatly these revelations — about the evolution of energy and force — can serve as an essential (and otherwise unobtainable) missing link in our cosmological theory.  Without this missing link, our precocious science has been free to drive western cultural momentum — relentlessly and blindly — into ever smaller and darker corners.

    Given the implications of this trend, I believe the revelators had the leeway to provide just enough facts about reality for us to work our way out of this hole.  But George, this may require of us that we “lift our game”.  For example, the seven space-like dimensions implied by Jesus that day in Carthage (paper 130 section 7) together with “transcendental causation” via force organizers collaborating with Master Architects, plus the absolute flow of emergent energies along “space paths of lessened resistance to motion“, all point to the “Maltese cross” model of the master universe as being a low dimensional projection of something more interesting.

    Can we expand our concept-frames to accommodate such things?

    PS: currently recording video Part 4-B; link available soon!

    Nigel

    #26613
    Avatar
    George Park
    Participant

    This is from Wikipedia:

    Hubble demonstrated that the redshift of other galaxies is approximately proportional to their distance from the Earth (Hubble’s law). This raised the appearance of our galaxy being in the center of an expanding Universe, however, Hubble rejected the findings philosophically:

    How interesting. That the findings of science are determined, at least sometimes, philosophically!

    It is interesting how philosophical bias can spin the interpretation of empirical facts.

    It should be pointed out that space expansion can be mathematically described in two equally valid ways; as expanding from one point in the universe, as the Book describes, or as expanding from every point in the universe, as modern cosmology insists. An honest  scientific interpretation of the facts would recognize the validity of both of these interpretations. This recognition does not prove the Book is correct, only that what the Book says is consistent with the facts as they are currently known.

    But modern science is dominated by the philosophy of materialism, which prevents such an honest assessment. It must insist that the universe cannot be expanding from a universal center, and it does so unrelentingly in the strongest possible terms. This possible interpretation must be delegitimized at all costs, in their view. There cannot be a center to the universe for materialists, because this would imply a pre-existing order, which opens up the possibility of the transcendent presence of God in the universe, something they utterly reject on the basis of their beliefs.

     

    #26614
    Avatar
    George Park
    Participant

    Hi Nigel – You raise some very good points. For those who may not be aware, Nigel is doing some ground-breaking work in cosmology in the areas of dark matter and energy evolution. Can you post the links here to the excellent videos you have already produced?

    I have pondered Jesus’ “Discourse on Time and Space” many times, and have to admit that I still come away with little understanding of what he really means by “achiev(ing) identity in a seven-dimensional universe.” I simply can’t imagine what this attainment of the Ultimate level of reality is like following our sojourn on Paradise when we become seventh stage spirits. I cannot really grasp how “circular simultaneity (will) increasingly displace the onetime consciousness of the linear sequence of events.” (130:7.5) Are the inhabitants of worlds entering the era of Light & Life able to conceive of such things? I really don’t know, but I am inclined to doubt they “see” a seven-dimensional universe.

    On the other hand, I find it possible to conceive of Paradise as being at the absolute center of the master universe, since all of the galaxies of creation are held in orbital revolution about the central Isle by the absolute gravity of Paradise. I can also imagine the two absolute motions space respiration and universal revolution of the space levels, since these occur relative to Paradise, which is the one absolutely stationary point in the universe. And I think I understand what our teachers mean when they talk about absolute direction in the universe.

    These differences in dimensions (i.e. of Paradise), taken in connection with its stationary status and the greater out-pressure of force-energy at the north end of the Isle, make it possible to establish absolute direction in the master universe. (11:2.3)

    Paradise does not exist in  space, yet the dimensions of Paradise “establish absolute direction in the master universe.” If Paradise is outside of space, how can it have dimensions which can be measured? How can these nonspatial dimensions define direction in the space of the master universe?

    But the concept of distance, even absolute distance, has very much meaning as it may be applied to relative locations on Paradise. Paradise is nonspatial; hence its areas are absolute and therefore serviceable in many ways beyond the concept of mortal mind. (11:2.11)

    We see no difference between distance and space, but apparently Paradise exists in a place where there is no space but distance is still real. What can this possibly mean?

    We are told there are absolute places, motions, and directions in the master universe. But are these really absolute things or are they relative distortions of the truth which the authors are forced to give us, because we are unable to grasp the truth? Is Paradise really one of the Seven Absolutes of Infinity located at the absolute center of the universe? Or is this merely a relative truth, conceptual scaffolding which will be taken down sometime in the future and replaced by the real absolute truth?

    We all know the direct course to pursue to find the Universal Father. You are not able to comprehend much about the divine residence because of its remoteness from you and the immensity of the intervening space, but those who are able to comprehend the meaning of these enormous distances know God’s location and residence just as certainly and literally as you know the location of New York, London, Rome, or Singapore, cities definitely and geographically located on Urantia…. Provided with all the necessities for the journey, it is just as possible to find the personal presence of God at the center of all things as to find distant cities on your own planet. (11:1.3)

    Is the Perfector of Wisdom speaking figuratively, metaphorically, or poetically when he says “We all know” the location of Paradise in the universe? Or is he being straight forward when he says it is “just as possible to find the personal presence of God at the center of all things as to find distant cities on your own planet”? Going back to the original question, on the worlds which finally enter into the era of Light & Life, does everyone on these worlds already know the direction and distance to the Eternal Isle?

     

     

    #26630
    Bradly
    Bradly
    Participant

    George…here’s hoping you and Nigel both “run on”!!  Hahahahaha……

    Well….no one has commented on my question regarding the phrase “not inspired”.  Seems a rather crucial definition regarding the topic.  Does not-inspired mean fictional?  Or not factual?  Or does it mean the opposite?

    I have always presumed not-inspired means factual and empirically-evidentiary.  In other words, not one’s opinion or said with any lack of knowledge….a factual presentation of reality – as limited by the disclosures on its restrictions/limits in presentation by the authors.  The text is obviously incomplete…how many volumes would be required for all facts known by the authors?

    We’ll find out one day!!

    Enjoying the discussion very much…and I’m no science-guy.  ;-)

    #26636
    Avatar
    George Park
    Participant

    Well….no one has commented on my question regarding the phrase “not inspired”. Seems a rather crucial definition regarding the topic.

    Truth may be but relatively inspired, even though revelation is invariably a spiritual phenomenon. While statements with reference to cosmology are never inspired, such revelations are of immense value in that they at least transiently clarify knowledge by: (101:4.5)

    The fact that cosmological statements in the Book are “never inspired” has always bothered me, as well, Bradly. Many of the things they tell us about the physical universe are revelations which no human has ever before dreamed of or imagined. So what are they trying to tell us by making such a very specific point about these statements not being inspired?

    A decade ago, I went through the Book and collected every statement I could find on the physical structure of the universe. I thought it should be possible to put all of these pieces together to form a whole, like a puzzle. Instead, I ran head-on into something long-time Urantia student Dick Bain had already discovered. In a 2006 paper titled “A Tale of Two Orvontons”** Dick clearly identifies the presence of at least two different conceptions of Orvonton. One set of statements seems consistent with Orvonton being as small as our Milky Way galaxy. Another set seems consistent with Orvonton being much, much larger than the Milky Way. Dick makes a very compelling case that all of the cosmological statements about Orvonton in the Book do not give a single consistent picture of its size and structure. I have come to think that this is what “not inspired” means; that is, these cosmological statements do not form a single wholly consistent truth.

    And then I noticed a couple of statements about the presence of multiple cosmologies in the Book, one of which has already been referenced in this thread.

    Any cosmology presented as a part of revealed religion is destined to be outgrown in a very short time. Accordingly, future students of such a revelation are tempted to discard any element of genuine religious truth it may contain because they discover errors on the face of the associated cosmologies therein presented. (101:4.1)

    Owing to the isolation of rebellion, the revelation of truth on Urantia has all too often been mixed up with the statements of partial and transient cosmologies. Truth remains unchanged from generation to generation, but the associated teachings about the physical world vary from day to day and from year to year. Eternal truth should not be slighted because it chances to be found in company with obsolete ideas regarding the material world. (102:1.3)

    There were, in fact, two different “transient” cosmologies present when the Book was indited in 1934. In the two centuries prior to the 1930s, a universal consensus had emerged that the Milky Way was the only galaxy in the universe, which was believed to be eternal and roughly 300,000 light-years in diameter. Hubble discovered space expansion in 1929, which suddenly increased the size of the universe more than a thousand fold and gave it a beginning in time, instead of being eternal. But it was not until Sir Arthur Eddington published The Expanding Universe in 1933 that the public first began to hear about this discovery. The American astronomer Alan Sandage called the discovery of space expansion the “second Copernican revolution.” Although this is a fair assessment, like the first it took more than a decade before this discovery made its way into the general consciousness of the intellectual elites. It is was not until a 1948 article in Time magazine that this discovery made it into the popular mainstream of thought.

    It appears the revelators incorporated aspects of both of these very different evolutionary cosmologies. However, they also included purely revealed cosmological concepts, such as the space levels of the master universe, the absolute status of the Isle of Paradise, and the phenomenon of space respiration. These eternal truths should not be discounted because they appear to keep company with certain obsolete concepts of evolutionary cosmology.

    ** http://urantia-book.org/archive/newsletters/spiritual_fellowship_journal/SpringSummer-06.pdf

     

    #26655
    Avatar
    George Park
    Participant

    Postscript to the above:

    The distance to Andromeda given in the Book of “almost one million” light-years is just one example (or appears to be) of the presence of obsolete cosmological ideas the authors warn us about. Readers have responded in several ways to this. Some think the currently measured distance of 2.5 million light-years means that scientific cosmology must be incorrect; scientific knowledge can be disregarded whenever it conflicts with whatever is in the text. Others think that one million light-years is an example of: “our statements regarding the physical sciences will stand in need of revision;” cosmological statements in the text can be disregarded whenever they conflict with anything astronomers assert about the universe. This and other errors lead some to reject all of the cosmological statements in the Book as probably untrue (Martin Gardner). Others have concluded that these cosmological statements are irrelevant to the spiritual purpose of the Book and should be ignored (Meredith Sprunger).

    There is really no danger that the cosmological statements in the Book will make anyone feel compelled to believe that it is an epochal revelation. Rather, it seems it will require quite a lot of work to separate the cosmology of Light & Life from the “obsolete ideas regarding the material world” which belong to evolutionary cosmologies. While this may be disappointing to those of us who would really like know this now, it is apparently an unavoidable consequence of the limitations placed upon the revelators by a higher and more far-seeing wisdom. 

     

     

    #26656
    Avatar
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    The example of the distance to Andromeda given in the Book of “almost one million” light-years is just one example (or appears to be) of the presence of obsolete cosmological ideas the authors warn us about. Readers have responded in several ways to this. Some think the currently measured distance of 2.5 million light-years means that scientific cosmology must be incorrect; scientific knowledge can be disregarded whenever it conflicts with whatever is in the text. Others think that one million light-years is an example of: “our statements regarding the physical sciences will stand in need of revision;” cosmological statements in the text can be disregarded whenever they conflict with anything astronomers assert about the universe. This and other errors lead some to reject all of the cosmological statements in the Book as probably untrue (Martin Gardner). Others have concluded that these cosmological statements are irrelevant to the spiritual purpose of the Book and should be ignored (Meredith Sprunger).

    One might consider that the statements made in the UB are correct and then when compared to today’s scientific cosmology, we should ask why is there a difference.  The first thing which comes to mind is that today’s science indicates that there is a “Halo” around the Andromeda Galaxy which extends out to about 1 million light years from its visual point, and assuming that they have taken this in account, would assume that light would travel slower through this “Halo” therefore compensating for it?  If based on this information, their assumptions are incorrect and where light may travel faster then calculated or compensated for (because of the increased temperature, and the hot gases) , they might need to alter their opinions as to the actual distance, we are from Andromeda.  If so, then what has been indicated in the UB would be correct, thereby needing to present a reason for the error, and if confirm-able could change today’s science enough to make many other differences.

     Andromeda Galaxy is surrounded by a large and massive halo of hot gas that is estimated to contain half the mass of the stars in the galaxy. The nearly invisible halo stretches about a million light-years from its host galaxy, halfway to our Milky Way galaxy. Simulations of galaxies indicate the halo formed at the same time as the Andromeda Galaxy. The halo is enriched in elements heavier than hydrogen and helium, formed from supernovae and its properties are the expected on a galaxy that lies in the “green valley” of the Galaxy color–magnitude diagram (see below). The supernovae erupt in Andromeda Galaxy’s star-filled disk and eject these heavier elements into space. Over Andromeda Galaxy’s lifetime, nearly half of the heavy elements made by its stars have been ejected far beyond the galaxy’s 200,000-light-year-diameter stellar disk.

    #26660
    Avatar
    tas
    Participant

    Bradley wrote:

    “Don’t mean to quibble and I am really enjoying the topic! But the “not inspired” issue is perplexing…or so it is to me.”

    George wrote:

    “The fact that cosmological statements in the Book are “never inspired” has always bothered me, as well, Bradly. Many of the things they tell us about the physical universe are revelations which no human has ever before dreamed of or imagined. So what are they trying to tell us by making such a very specific point about these statements not being inspired?”

    I was curious to be more grounded about the definition and looked it up with the nearest dictionary I have on-hand (Oxford). When used as an adjective, the word “inspired” means:

    “of extraordinary quality, as if arising from some external creative impulse”

    That would seem to be a good fit for how we see The Urantia Book overall. The more common use of the word “inspired” is a little different, it’s as a verb (“she inspired them to do their best”).

    There’s another place where The Urantia Book interestingly speaks about inspired writings. While the book says that the cosmology is not inspired, here are some comments it makes about words that are taken as “inspired”:

    “To become fetishes, words had to be considered inspired, and the invocation of supposed divinely inspired writings led directly to the establishment of the *authority* of the church, while the evolution of civil forms led to the fruition of the *authority* of the state. (88:2.10)”

    I think the natural default inclination for a reader who recognizes the overall extraordinary quality of The Urantia Book would be to assume the cosmology also is of the same extraordinary quality. But the book instead goes to significant lengths to emphasize that its cosmology is “not inspired“, using italics and repeating itself (“cosmology is never inspired”), and telling us “let it be clear”. When they are telling us the cosmology is not inspired, it seems clear to me they want us to not see it as authoritative and not to let ourselves fetishize it.

    From the dictionary definition, to be “not inspired” would mean the cosmology is not of extraordinary quality, and not as if arising from some external creative impulse. Considering they tell us “within a few short years” many of their statements regarding the physical sciences will stand in need of revision, I would have to agree that those statements aren’t of extraordinary quality really. While the religious truths can be seen as inspired and of extraordinary quality, to me the cosmology isn’t.

    Now, what to take from the cosmology though. There is a lot of important value still I think. Take a look at this essay from C.S. Louis if you have a little time, “Religion and Rocketry” (it’s pasted as a blog post but is his essay):

    https://scientificintegrity.blogspot.com/2010/04/religion-and-rocketry-by-cs-lewis.html

    It captures such an interesting moment in time. CS Lewis is the writer known for the Narnia books, the Screwtape Letters, and one of the most famous pieces of Christian apologetics last century, “Mere Christianity”. Here is this top creative religious mind thinking through the cosmologic implications of the Christian faith, only years after The Urantia Book was published. The essay is originally from 1958.

    Nevermind whether the exact shape or dimensions or other details of cosmology in The Urantia Book are precisely taken as literal, but you can’t help but marvel at how much further the UB takes us from the evolutionary understandings of the time it was indited, to let us much more effortlessly see the modern physical universe with spiritual eyes.

     

    [Your post got lodged in the spam folder.  Sorry for that. Moderator-1]

    #26665
    Avatar
    George Park
    Participant

    One might consider that the statements made in the UB are correct and then when compared to today’s scientific cosmology, we should ask why is there a difference.

    It is certainly valid to begin by assuming that the cosmological statements in the UB are correct. One of these cosmological statements informs us that we will “discover errors on the face of the associated cosmologies” in the UB. If we assume this statement is also correct, there must be errors of scientific fact and/or interpretation in the text which we will discover over time. We are advised that the cosmological statements in the UB cannot be approached as though they are necessarily infallibly true.

    The distance to Andromeda is a scientific fact, something we are potentially able to discover for ourselves. The revelators inform us they are “forbidden to include such humanly undiscovered facts in the revelatory records.” If the distance of “almost one million” light-years cannot be a fact revealed by the authors, it must have been a humanly discovered fact which was known in 1934, when the Book was indited. This fact is recognized in Edwin Hubble’s 1936 book The Realm of the Nebulae, in which he describes how he first determined the distance to Andromeda in 1923.

    The first extragalactic Cepheid was definitely recognized toward the end of 1923 in M31. … It was a typical Cepheid with a period of about one month…. To appear as faint as the observations indicated (m [max] = 18.2), the required distance was of the order of 900,000 light-years. (pg. 93)

    The distance to Andromeda given in the UB was scientifically correct in 1934, just as we might expect from an epochal revelation. However, in 1952 the astronomer Walter Baade discovered a fundamental problem with Hubble’s calculation which more than doubled the distance to Andromeda. And in 1958 the astronomer Alan Sandage found additional errors, which increased the distance yet again to a value which is roughly the same as that known now in 2017. What was once an accurate scientific fact has become an obsolete scientific fact.

    It is still possible to argue that the distance in the UB is the correct one, but only if the findings of Baade, Sandage, and others can be shown to be scientifically flawed or misinterpretations of the facts. Belief in the truth of a fact is different from the knowledge that a fact is true; “Science must always be grounded in reason.”

    #26667
    Avatar
    tas
    Participant

    The Andromeda example is interesting for another reason that often is overlooked. The relevators themselves give their thumbs-up and seal of approval that Edwin Hubble’s approach is an accurate and precise technique to use:

    “In one group of variable stars the period of light fluctuation is directly dependent on luminosity, and knowledge of this fact enables astronomers to utilize such suns as universe lighthouses or accurate measuring points for the further exploration of distant star clusters. By this technique it is possible to measure stellar distances most precisely up to more than one million light-years. (41:3.10)

    The techniques of the 1920s and 1930s are on record as already perfectly fine to measure distances in the range (“more than one million light-years”) where Andromeda was at first calculated to be (“almost one million”). What scientists didn’t yet know at the time, and which the relevators didn’t give as unearned knowledge, was the discovery that one population of Cepheid variable stars is a lot brighter than the kind scientists were familiar with then.

    It was only the brighter ones that were possible to see in Andromeda at the time. They are what Hubble really saw. With a later scientist (Baade) confirming that and recalculating the distance once it was taken into account these stars’ real brightness — still with the very same technique the revelators say is an accurate and precise method — the distance estimate to Andromeda correspondingly increased, by a factor of two. Like you point out George, has been bit more refinement as well since Baade.  Other techniques that are even more precise have been developed and have confirmed the relevators were right that the use of variable stars to measure distance is accurate. The different techniques corroborate each other well. Knowledge has been earned, it seems to me.

    It makes it that much more clear to me that Andromeda is an example where non-inspired information was used that “within a few short years” was “in need of revision”, like the relevators said we should expect to see.

    #26668
    Bradly
    Bradly
    Participant

    Thank you George and tas…..a very illuminating contribution to my understanding by both of you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    :good:

    #26674
    Avatar
    George Park
    Participant

    It makes it that much more clear to me that Andromeda is an example where non-inspired information was used that “within a few short years” was “in need of revision”, like the relevators said we should expect to see.

    This is my essential takeaway, as well. But, if the distance to Andromeda has become scientifically obsolete, has this also occurred (or will it occur) to the only other distance to something given in the Book – the distance to Uversa?

    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 the dense diameter of the Milky Way…. 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 example of Andromeda might make us look upon this distance to the rotational center of Orvonton with suspicion. In fact, quite a few students do just that and have decided this distance to Uversa is incorrect. In over half the papers investigating the cosmology in the Book I have reviewed, the authors put Uversa in the Virgo Cluster of galaxies, which is currently estimated to be over 50 million light-years distant. They give various reasons for doing so, but these all boil down to basically the same thing: the cosmological information in the Book is obsolete and can be disregarded where it conflicts with science. I find this reasoning to be somewhat specious, for at least a couple of reasons.

    The revelators used the most accurate distance available in 1934 for Andromeda, which was Hubble’s distance of almost one million light-years. In a paper published in 1931 Hubble gives a distance of 5.9 million light-years to the Virgo Cluster. This was the most accurate distance available in 1934; actually, this was the only scientifically measured distance at the time. Why would they use a ridiculously inaccurate distance of 200,000-250,000 light-years to Uversa, if it is actually located in the Virgo Cluster, which was estimated in 1934 to be 5.9 million light-years away? Why would they use the best estimate for the distance to Andromeda and the worst possible estimate for the distance to the Virgo Cluster?

    We are told that Uversa, the center of the superuniverse of Orvonton, is located “far, far away in the dense diameter of the Milky Way.” This can only be interpreted to mean that Uversa lies somewhere behind the dense belt of stars we call the Milky Way. The Virgo Cluster is located more than 74 degrees above the plane of the Milky Way, which is defined by this belt of stars. Virgo is nearly as far away from the plane of the Milky Way as it could possibly be.

    There is another thing which makes this distance fundamentally different from the one to Andromeda. Andromeda was observable in 1934, while Uversa never has been. There is nothing comparable to the concept of Uversa found anywhere in evolutionary astronomy. There is no star, no cluster, no galaxy concealed behind the belt of the Milky Way which was or is thought to be a dynamic center around which the Milky Way and the other galaxies in Orvonton revolve. Uversa is favorably situated for the celestial astronomers, because it is away from any star clusters: “there are no gigantic living or dead suns near at hand to disturb the energy currents.(30:3.2) The existence of Uversa appears to be the “pure revelation” of a new cosmological fact.

    From the little we are told, it does not appear that it will ever be possible for our telescopes to observe Uversa, which would mean there is no way we can ever measure and validate the distance to it. It seems this distance may not be humanly discoverable, even potentially. Because it may not be possible for us to ever earn this knowledge, the authors might have been permitted to reveal this cosmological fact to us. Perhaps this gift of unearned knowledge was allowed because it serves the purpose of “supplying … information which will fill in vital missing gaps in otherwise earned knowledge.” (101:4.9)

    In formulating the succeeding presentations having to do with the portrayal of the character of the Universal Father and the nature of his Paradise associates, together with an attempted description of the perfect central universe and the encircling seven superuniverses…. We may resort to pure revelation only when the concept of presentation has had no adequate previous expression by the human mind. (0:12.11) 

     

    #26677
    Avatar
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    From the little we are told, it does not appear that it will ever be possible for our telescopes to observe Uversa, which would mean there is no way we can ever measure and validate the distance to it. It seems this distance may not be humanly discoverable, even potentially. Because it may not be possible for us to ever earn this knowledge, the authors might have been permitted to reveal this cosmological fact to us. Perhaps this gift of unearned knowledge was allowed because it serves the purpose of “supplying … information which will fill in vital missing gaps in otherwise earned knowledge.”(101:4.9)

    In formulating the succeeding presentations having to do with the portrayal of the character of the Universal Father and the nature of his Paradise associates, together with an attempted description of the perfect central universe and the encircling seven superuniverses…. We may resort to pure revelation only when the concept of presentation has had no adequate previous expression by the human mind. (0:12.11)

    The assumption seems obvious that by indicting that we are told little, in the UB would confirm that not all has been associated or combined from the text to make sense without combining or overlapping the information from other text in the UB.  The major misconception would be how the Superuniverses, are inter-associated and work together as one conceptual structure.

     (1439.4) 130:7.6 There are seven different conceptions of space as it is conditioned by time. Space is measured by time, not time by space. The confusion of the scientist grows out of failure to recognize the reality of space. Space is not merely an intellectual concept of the variation in relatedness of universe objects. Space is not empty, and the only thing man knows which can even partially transcend space is mind. Mind can function independently of the concept of the space-relatedness of material objects. Space is relatively and comparatively finite to all beings of creature status. The nearer consciousness approaches the awareness of seven cosmic dimensions, the more does the concept of potential space approach ultimacy. But the space potential is truly ultimate only on the absolute level.

    Assuming that our measurement of the speed of light is based on a vacuum density of space, it can be ascertained that since space is not a vacuum, that our assumed speed of light would be in error, thereby making any distances associated with this measuring technique, flawed.  Also, based on the unknown understanding of time, where I have observed variations of light as an observable distortion as the reflective quality through time pockets which seem to be effected by electromagnetic fields, that time is a separate observable entity which must be studied differently in order to truly conceive of what is presented in the UB.

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 50 total)

Login to reply to this topic.

Not registered? Sign up here.