Jump to content


Black Holes & The Urantia Book

Black Holes Capital Spheres I

  • Please log in to reply
14 replies to this topic

#1 Guest_Majestone_*

Guest_Majestone_*
  • Guests

Posted 06 April 2012 - 03:12 PM

Hey everyone,

I know in TUB it says that our capital spheres are lighted by a technique that keeps these spheres invisible to humans.
We have many capital spheres...Jerusem (Mansonia) (the other system capitals), Edentia of Norlatiadek (the other constellation capitals), Salvington of Nebadon (the other local universe capitals), our Minor and Major Sector Capitals and Uversa of Orvonton.

I believe their are dark space bodies in our superuniverse that could be mistaken for Black Holes.

But, here is a link that suggests there is a black hole at the center of our Milky Way galaxy.

Could this be the cluster of headquarters spheres of Uversa?

http://www.space.com...ariusastar.html

Edited by Majestone, 06 April 2012 - 03:12 PM.


#2 Nelson G

Nelson G

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 148 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA
  • Interests:Pianos fast cars and airplanes.

Posted 04 July 2012 - 11:49 PM

In my mind, the idea of black holes based on current science does not make sense.
We are told by Newton, Einstein and others that gravity is proportional to mass. More massive bodies have more gravity - rocket science proves this.
Taken to an extreme, a larg enough body would posess enough gravity to trap light or other energy that can travel at light speed.
When a larg enough star dies it creates one of these things called a black hole.
Then physics seems to change and gravity is now proportional to density - what gives?
Thinking about the original star, it seems to me that initially it was much more massive than the resulting black hole, because it blows up and looses enormous mass and the remainder increases in density after fusion shuts down.
How could light/energy have ever escaped from the star at any time in its life if its original mass was considerably more than the black hole it leaves behind?
Life often gives us our greatest gifts brilliantly disguised as our worst nightmares.

#3 Nigel Nunn

Nigel Nunn

    Poster

  • Administrators
  • PipPip
  • 1,118 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia

Posted 05 July 2012 - 03:29 AM

Hi Nelson G,

More interesting than the concept of a black hole is the concept of a Schwarzschild (or gravitational) radius. The idea goes, if an object collapses into a volume smaller than its gravitational radius (this is where energy density comes in), then an "event horizon" forms (depending on speed of rotation). At this horizon, escape velocity is assumed to approach the speed of light, and the rate of flow of time is assumed to get (very!) slow.

The thing to keep in mind here is that an event horizon need not imply a black hole. The Urantia book describes matter in such a way that implies "event horizons" will be very common, but that the old fashioned idea of a black hole ("singularity") is wrong:


(458.6) 41:3.6 "[...] This process of cooling and contraction may continue
to the limiting and critical explosion point of ultimatonic condensation."


The idea here is that once self-gravity brings the component ultimatons of a star's worth of matter too close, the binding energy of the ultimatons is disturbed, and the leptons and quarks get unzipped. This unstoppable reaction may be the cause of one type of those famous gamma ray squirters.

PS: another type of hypothetical black hole is called "super massive". These appear to anchor galaxies in our spacetime. For students of the UB, a better explanation than "super massive" gravitational singularity, may be "rotational axis" imposed by the (associated transcendental) master force organizer responsible for spinning up that galaxy. A rotating disc of ultimata allows for a better solution to the problem of galactic rotation curves than any current theory of (material) gravity.

Nigel

#4 Nelson G

Nelson G

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 148 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA
  • Interests:Pianos fast cars and airplanes.

Posted 05 July 2012 - 09:51 PM

Curious why TUB would mention the ultimaton. The revelators state that in regard to cosmology, they do not give unearned information.
But it does suggest a substructure that is not divisable.
Do you think it may be the Higgs? Something that could give mass to mass-less particles.
Life often gives us our greatest gifts brilliantly disguised as our worst nightmares.

#5 -Scott-

-Scott-

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,023 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada
  • Interests:Camping, Hiking, Soccer, Movies, Games,

Posted 05 July 2012 - 10:00 PM

I was wondering if Time Dilation as it is described by modern physics is supported by the U.B. There seems to be some talk that time is related to gravity in physics and I do not understand this. :blink:

The Higgs Boson is interesting Nelson, I really have no idea how it fits with the u.b. though. :wacko:
If one man craves freedom -- liberty -- he must remember that all other men long for the same freedom

#6 Nelson G

Nelson G

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 148 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA
  • Interests:Pianos fast cars and airplanes.

Posted 05 July 2012 - 10:18 PM

Hi Boomshuka
I don't understand Time Dilation either and this is another one that current scinence does not make sense out of for me: For any time dilation measurements that have been made - clocks moving at different rates depending on distance from the earth - the necessary adjustments for proper operation and accuracy of GPS etc - it is always the measuring device that changes. The assumption then is that time and measuring devices are synomous, or one and the same.
Are you comfortable with that?
Life often gives us our greatest gifts brilliantly disguised as our worst nightmares.

#7 -Scott-

-Scott-

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,023 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada
  • Interests:Camping, Hiking, Soccer, Movies, Games,

Posted 06 July 2012 - 12:09 AM

Yea I have read literature on how these clocks are affected by time itself. For some reason I just cannot buy that story.
If one man craves freedom -- liberty -- he must remember that all other men long for the same freedom

#8 Alina

Alina

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,393 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:UNIVERSO
  • Interests:*

Posted 06 July 2012 - 01:44 PM

Hi all!

I think UB cosmology. is actually closer to the quantum physics of the traditional, but can be reconciled.
The so-called God particle, maybe they have found the ultimaton, :o but of course God will not, says a quote.Scientists say that the Higgs Boson could be the bridge to understanding 96% of the universe is hidden.
But the full study will be published later this month.

Posted Image

***
Moreover, I realized that scientists often get stuck in an investigation, because they consider only one type of gravity. The UB. says there are three, material, mental, spiritual.

Synthetically in relation to time
For me time is a matter of perception of individual mind, in my humble opinion this shows what relativity it is.



(135.4) 12:5.5

Relationships to time do not exist without motion in space, but consciousness of time does. Sequentiality can consciousize time even in the absence of motion. Man’s mind is less time-bound than space-bound because of the inherent nature of mind. Even during the days of the earth life in the flesh, though man’s mind is rigidly space-bound, the creative human imagination is comparatively time free. But time itself is not genetically a quality of mind.


(135.5) 12:5.6 There are three different levels of time cognizance:

(135.6) 12:5.7 1. Mind-perceived time — consciousness of sequence, motion, and a sense of duration.

(135.7) 12:5.8 2. Spirit-perceived time — insight into motion Godward and the awareness of the motion of ascent to levels of increasing divinity.

(135.8) 12:5.9 3. Personality creates a unique time sense out of insight into Reality plus a consciousness of presence and an awareness of duration.


Greetings,

Alina
***

Edited by Alina, 06 July 2012 - 01:45 PM.


#9 -Scott-

-Scott-

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,023 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada
  • Interests:Camping, Hiking, Soccer, Movies, Games,

Posted 06 July 2012 - 05:48 PM

How do you think urantias concept of time relates to physics definition of time? It would seem to me that in physics time is based off of motion+gravity. Of coarse in the u.b time is relative to consciousness. Here it would seem in the u.b. they are saying that humans have more freedom in time but less in space, which makes sense to me. I don't know how to reconcile physics version of time and the u.b's maybe someone can help me lol. :wacko:
If one man craves freedom -- liberty -- he must remember that all other men long for the same freedom

#10 Nelson G

Nelson G

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 148 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA
  • Interests:Pianos fast cars and airplanes.

Posted 20 September 2012 - 07:39 PM

Watching a Stephen Hawkings show on tv and he makes a comparison of black holes to his idea of the state of the universe just prior to the big bang. It must be the mother of all black holes.
I have not heard any talk about exploding black holes to date but if the big bang can do it, so can a black hole.
There must be a force more powerful than the black hole or the mother of all black holes that Hawkings has not considered.

Maybe somebody has a handle on the big picture here and can help out.
On another note - descriptions of the master universe, from paradise, havona, the super universes and the four outer space levels always suggests expansion and that motion is eliptical and somewhat flat (flat being relative and is my assumption based on reading) - similar to viewing a galaxy? But not spherical, no refernece to spherical that I can find.
If this be the case, what would you suppose that space - perpendicular to the plane of the seven universe components
would be referred to as - just another outer space level? Part of the existing outer space levels?
Life often gives us our greatest gifts brilliantly disguised as our worst nightmares.

#11 Nigel Nunn

Nigel Nunn

    Poster

  • Administrators
  • PipPip
  • 1,118 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia

Posted 21 September 2012 - 02:56 AM

"There must be a force more powerful than the black hole or the mother of all black holes that Hawkings has not considered."


Hi Nelson,

As a warm up, see my earlier comments about black holes above ( previously ). The binding energy of huddling ultimatons may be just what we need to halt and reverse the collapse of stellar mass "black holes".

Worth noting that the idea of matter (e.g. a "neutron star") collapsing not to a black hole but to a "dark island" behind an event horizon (e.g. quark or preon star) is actively discussed. All this needs is another level of structure in the material hierarchy to provide another level of (quark / preon / ultimaton) degeneracy pressure.

But there is another reason for adding black holes to models: spiral galaxies.

In a young, big-banged universe, physicists had to invent supermassive black holes (SMBH) to do two jobs: (1) get spiral galaxies started quickly, and (2) power the discs and jets we can see at the center of those spirals. But if we are to believe what the revelators imply regarding (the mother of all) explosions at the limiting and critical point of ultimatonic condensation (during stellar collapse), then for me, the question is: how much mass can be accumulated in one place? Textbooks propose no energy source able to resist the collapse of more than the theoretical 2 or 3 solar masses of the TOV (Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff) limit. So once a neutron star accumulates more than this limit, it must collapse.

Unless the ultimaton is real.

While the unimaginable-but-necessary binding energy between huddling ultimatons serves nicely to explain certain gamma ray bursts, this raises a question: if there is a low limit to the accumulation of matter (say 10 - 100 solar masses), then what is doing the (very necessary) job of (hypothetical) supermassive black holes at the center of spiral galaxies?

Well, the UB does state, without missing a beat, that the (pre-photonic, i.e. dark) massive disk-halos necessary for spiral galaxies to work are spun up by Force Organizers. So which is the better explanation: SMBH or superfluid vortex on transcendental axis? Both mechanisms should be able to spin up accretion disks, and to power those fabulous light shows... :D

Regarding earlier comments about Higgs/mass:

The fact that some particles are observed to have a response to a particular type of gravity is not well explained by current theories. The "Higgs mechanism" is one attempt to fix this. This mechanism requires certain other particles (e.g. various bosons), and the blip noticed recently at CERN is consistent with such a particle appearing and disappearing during a collision.

However, the idea of that all matter is built from some kind of "pre-on" (such as the UB's ultimaton) is far more interesting (and mathematically consistent). The reason such models fell out of favour a few decades back is that the energy density implied by huddling preons, or ultimatons, was too big to fit in with existing theories. But such energy density would fit nicely in a model that unzips black holes with a brief squirt of gamma rays.

Regarding "unearned knowledge", this limitation only applies to things that we can discover or work out for ourselves. If the ultimaton is technically undiscoverable, then maybe they were free to tell us about it?

Regarding time, remember that time is a necessary technique for the finite to work. To get a conceptual grip on time, how about we look at how the finite is managed: enter the Seven Master Spirits. Consider the way these guys are (in a sense) "anchored" near peripheral Paradise, yet they supervise seven finites that evolve in isolation. For me, the way they link their finite nests with a more-than-finite context implies that somehow their motion imposes an "arrow of time" on their membranes of creation.

Picture their presence in motion through absolutely ultimate space, in stately circulation about Paradise. Could this synchronized and Paradise-relative motion (of a highly qualified domain) actually cause the finite?

Regarding the relativity of time: remember how chronoldeks -- as "barometers" of energy quality and density -- are required for indicating local rates of flow of time? If we see time as absonitely artificial, then no wonder its rate of flow is a function of circumstance.

On another note - descriptions of the master universe, from paradise, havona, the super universes and the four outer space levels always suggests expansion and that motion is eliptical and somewhat flat (flat being relative and is my assumption based on reading) - similar to viewing a galaxy? But not spherical, no reference to spherical that I can find. If this be the case, what would you suppose that space - perpendicular to the plane of the seven universe components would be referred to as - just another outer space level? Part of the existing outer space levels?


This takes us to a discussion of the topology and differential geometry of absolutely ultimate space. While this is above my pay-grade, I do love to waffle on about it...

another time?
Nigel

#12 Nelson G

Nelson G

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 148 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA
  • Interests:Pianos fast cars and airplanes.

Posted 23 September 2012 - 01:07 PM

In a young, big-banged universe, physicists had to invent supermassive black holes (SMBH) to do two jobs: (1) get spiral galaxies started quickly, and (2) power the discs and jets we can see at the center of those spirals. But if we are to believe what the revelators imply regarding (the mother of all) explosions at the limiting and critical point of ultimatonic condensation (during stellar collapse), then for me, the question is: how much mass can be accumulated in one place? Textbooks propose no energy source able to resist the collapse of more than the theoretical 2 or 3 solar masses of the TOV (Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff) limit. So once a neutron star accumulates more than this limit, it must collapse.

Unless the ultimaton is real.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
If I get this - the explosive nature of - condensed to the limit ultimatons - provides the energy that breaks the strong force, liberating those hadrons or whatever makes up protons and nutrons, that are then able to escape the event horizon at near light speed? Possibly when we see gamma bursts or quesars, this is the mass limit so mass in either singularity could never be infinite.
To me, the vortex idea allows me to imagine the workings of the supreme creative spirits. If the universe is expanding, where else could this be evident?
Life often gives us our greatest gifts brilliantly disguised as our worst nightmares.

#13 Nelson G

Nelson G

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 148 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA
  • Interests:Pianos fast cars and airplanes.

Posted 23 September 2012 - 04:49 PM

Regarding the relativity of time: remember how chronoldeks -- as "barometers" of energy quality and density -- are required for indicating local rates of flow of time? If we see time as absonitely artificial, then no wonder its rate of flow is a function of circumstance.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The Chronoldeks are still indicators. We know that indicators can vary based on relativity but still I see time itself as separate from the indicator.
An absonite time is a bit more comfrotable.
Life often gives us our greatest gifts brilliantly disguised as our worst nightmares.

#14 Rick Warren

Rick Warren

    Rick Warren

  • Administrators
  • PipPip
  • 9,923 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas

Posted 24 September 2012 - 06:58 AM

Absonite time! Sounds like stretchy, flexible (spongy?) time...

#15 Raymond

Raymond

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 177 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Akron,Ohio - USA
  • Interests:Reading, Golf, Cooking.

Posted 29 September 2012 - 08:49 AM

Just wanted to say that with my limited scientific knowledge, I take great pleasure and joy in reading these comments from those with more expansive knowledge in this arena. Especially knowing that the UB and these readers can correlate the UB with current scientific trends and thinking. Thank you all.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users