Jump to content


Photo

The Urantia Book and the Big Bang


  • Please log in to reply
48 replies to this topic

#21 Cal

Cal

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 19 posts

Posted 08 December 2012 - 09:10 PM

While you have failed thus far to list a single error in TUB, despite many attempts to do so, I recognize your tenacity in rejecting the Revelation yourself and your persistant efforts to bring doubt to others by inference, and innuendo.


I don't know about the other side of what you said or have insights into what other people believe or not, or their true motives, I think only God can judge, but about listing an error, it's not really hard to do. Here is a simple one:

Paper 15, section 4: "There are not many sun-forming nebulae active in Orvonton at the present time, though Andromeda, which is outside the inhabited superuniverse, is very active. This far-distant nebula is visible to the naked eye, and when you view it, pause to consider that the light you behold left those distant suns almost one million years ago."

The light we behold when we look at Andromeda left those distant suns 2.5 million years ago rather than one million years ago.

At about the time TUB was being given, in 1929 Edwin Hubble published a famous paper showing Andromeda to be 900,000 light years away based on the measuring technology of the time. It is no surprise at all there is a figure of "almost one million years" in TUB. It would have been unearned knowledge to say differently.

With advances in technology and techniques, modern measurements using four different ways of measuring the distance all show there really isn't any more reason for doubt, all the different ways to measure it corroborate each other remarkably and agree very well that the light we see left Andromeda 2.54 million years ago.

http://en.wikipedia....stance_estimate

It's not surprising either, or a big deal, the cosmology "is not inspired" in TUB

#22 -Scott-

-Scott-

    Poster

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

Posted 08 December 2012 - 10:34 PM

Cal the u.b is saying the light left those stars one million years ago, they are not giving its actual distance. The u.b also explains how red shifts and other space phenomenon distort our measurements. Scientists also have no idea how light is affected by dark matter and other space phenomenon. Please provide us with a proven error in the u.b, to prove your point or don't bother. Space distances are easy to cherry pick but man made distances in deep space have changes alot, and the u.b explains why this is. If you have courage you should come to my online study group on Tuesday and throw out your best supposed-error to an actual scientist who has read the urantia book all his life. The group is called "symmetryofsoul" and it is on blogtalkradio.com. You can even call in on the show and ask any question :).

Edited by -Scott-, 09 December 2012 - 12:06 AM.

If one man craves freedom -- liberty -- he must remember that all other men long for the same freedom

#23 Bradly aka/fanofVan

Bradly aka/fanofVan

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 793 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Midwest USA
  • Interests:Gardening, sustainable agriculture/micro-farming, history, philosophy, behavioral psych, economics (quit laughing), the blues, learning from children.

Posted 09 December 2012 - 08:34 AM

Cal - don't know if you're right, and if so then so is your explaination, or if boom is right and our measurements are deficient. Doesn't matter to me as I trust the "unearned" to explain all such and do not claim the text is "inerrent". And I appreciate you posting the actual text you believe is in error which is the one I keep hearing about the most and your logic is sound and perhaps your conclusion as well.

But it would be quite illogical to then declare the rest of the cosmology inaccurate, eh? Which the big bang certainly would. Howard claims the theories of human science trump the revelation which gives far more credit to modern science than it asks for itself as most such theories have a short shelf life due to further advances in both technologies AND theories push aside or further refine existing theories.

The credibility of the Revelation seems always to be an issue with friend Howard - straining at gnats, while he swallows the camels of science and humanist history and religion whole. There is a danger in this persistant and pernicious philosophy of choice and personal preconception. And unlike Cal's post, there never is any specific text offered for question or discussion or refutation. But the big bang would invalidate much of the cosmology presented. This is not "scholarly" evaluation or comment as presented....it is a core, philosophical perspective of choosing one authoritative source over another. Howard prefers another authority for history, science, celestial administration, the sleeping subject identity, Sadler's role, and virginity.....so be it. His choice.

When his authorities disagree with the Revelation, he presumes the text is in error, and those who present text in refutation of such malarky will, hopefully, persist in presenting our authority as contrast to Howard's human sources - when he provides them.

Cal - there is a current thread at truthbook.com called "The Speed of Light" in which this Andromedda distance issue is under discussion. I recommend it!

Edited by Bradly aka/fanofVan, 09 December 2012 - 09:07 AM.

Peace be upon you."

#24 Raymond

Raymond

    Poster

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

Posted 09 December 2012 - 09:16 AM

I am fascinated by this discussion! I love to just follow it for I can not contribute a scientific background; just like learning in bits and drabs. But from no thing to all things is what I gather. No thing prior to existence - to all things existential. From the First Great Source and Center - pre-existential - an infinity reality! Yea, a true void. Yea, also pre-experiential. As far as I can determine - many many theories will abound - but total unification has thus been revealed. All is harmonious and balanced. Progress will leap forward due to the melding and uniting of all powers from the one power source. How far off am I - Nigel?

#25 Louis aka loucol

Louis aka loucol

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 100 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Florida
  • Interests:Science Philosophy and Religion as they relate to The Urantia Book

Posted 09 December 2012 - 10:14 AM

I don't know about the other side of what you said or have insights into what other people believe or not, or their true motives, I think only God can judge, but about listing an error, it's not really hard to do. Here is a simple one:

Paper 15, section 4: "There are not many sun-forming nebulae active in Orvonton at the present time, though Andromeda, which is outside the inhabited superuniverse, is very active. This far-distant nebula is visible to the naked eye, and when you view it, pause to consider that the light you behold left those distant suns almost one million years ago."

The light we behold when we look at Andromeda left those distant suns 2.5 million years ago rather than one million years ago.

At about the time TUB was being given, in 1929 Edwin Hubble published a famous paper showing Andromeda to be 900,000 light years away based on the measuring technology of the time. It is no surprise at all there is a figure of "almost one million years" in TUB. It would have been unearned knowledge to say differently.

With advances in technology and techniques, modern measurements using four different ways of measuring the distance all show there really isn't any more reason for doubt, all the different ways to measure it corroborate each other remarkably and agree very well that the light we see left Andromeda 2.54 million years ago.

http://en.wikipedia....stance_estimate

It's not surprising either, or a big deal, the cosmology "is not inspired" in TUB


Hi all:

This is a topic that interests me in particular. Why are we assuming that light 'particles' are traveling these distances? I am suggesting that photons travel only locally. The light we perceive and measure from far distant sources are locally manifest from energy transmitted from excitation in the force-charge of space. There are no Andromeda photons between here and there. We see the photons produced locally when the wave energy from Andromeda excites local matter which we perceive and measure.


42:5.15 The excitation of the content of space produces a wavelike reaction to the passage of rapidly moving particles of matter, just as the passage of a ship through water initiates waves of varying amplitude and interval.



When we consider that space is expanding, one can see that distance measurements could be confounding. Light 'energy' is being transmitted through an expanding space. Over any period of time we are farther away from other objects in space. Does not the transmission of this light energy accelerate in time as space expands? Time and space are inversely related. More space, less time. One million years may be equivalent to 2.5 millions years in an expanding space. Does an ocean wave accelerate if water is continuously added to that ocean? :rolleyes: So, maybe TUB is imparting information disguised in an apparent error where no error truly exists.

Regards, Louis

Edited by loucol, 09 December 2012 - 07:21 PM.

His Will Be Done

#26 -Scott-

-Scott-

    Poster

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

Posted 09 December 2012 - 12:03 PM

Not to mention scientists assume that light remains unaffected by black holes, dark matter, stars, and reaches our telescopes in this nice neat constant flow. We are making a ton of assumptions on space when we really have no idea what is happening out there in deep space. We have not even accounted for all the rotational forces that are going on in space. Space is not only respiring, but it is rotating which is something scientists have to account for in measuring distances. On top of that our telescopes are affected by red-shifts and other space phenomenom which distort our measurements. It is easy to dismiss the urantia book when we rely on a science that is in its infancy.

Edited by -Scott-, 09 December 2012 - 12:08 PM.

If one man craves freedom -- liberty -- he must remember that all other men long for the same freedom

#27 Nelson G

Nelson G

    Poster

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

Posted 09 December 2012 - 01:08 PM

Bear with me as I think out loud for a minute with my uneducated mind.
Is it not true that because of Hubble's red shift discovery, our cosmologists believe the universe is expanding - all galaxies are red shifted. If this is true then the Milky Way and Andormeda have been moving away from eachother at an accelerating rate for eons of time.
Seems to me that by anybody's measurement standard, conclusions involve moving targets.
On the other hand, the red shifted Andromeda is said to be on a collision course with the Milky Way.
So possibly Andromeda is the blue shifted exception???
Somebody educate me please.
Life often gives us our greatest gifts brilliantly disguised as our worst nightmares.

#28 -Scott-

-Scott-

    Poster

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

Posted 09 December 2012 - 04:59 PM

We are not even sure of all the varying velocities of outer space, infact it would seem we are not even close to being able to tell what speed these distant Galaxies are moving at and we are not aware of the rotations of all these galaxies.

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. . .


I thought this was an interesting article about what Chris had to say regarding distances in outer space.

Dr. Halvorson thinks that the high redshift galaxies in the Deep Field images are not billions of light years away; they are only a few hundred million light years away (in what would be the second, not the third, outer space level, according to The Urantia Book). In addition, as described in The Urantia Book, the distribution of galaxies is not spherically symmetric: the levels are toroidal (doughnut-shaped). Together, these two ideas would imply that the current extrapolations—extrapolations to the entire celestial sphere of the number of galaxies in the very small angular areas of the Deep Field images—are huge overestimations.


Edited by -Scott-, 09 December 2012 - 05:05 PM.

If one man craves freedom -- liberty -- he must remember that all other men long for the same freedom

#29 Louis aka loucol

Louis aka loucol

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 100 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Florida
  • Interests:Science Philosophy and Religion as they relate to The Urantia Book

Posted 09 December 2012 - 05:04 PM

Hi NelsonG and Scott:

I know what you mean. We know that our scientists register Andomeda as BLUE shifted and that would imply that it is approaching us, at least at that time in the distant past when the light energy was generated. But this should not necessarily imply that we are on a collision course with Andromeda.

The only thing I can come up with to explain that observation and correlate it with fact of space expansion is the following:

Perhaps Andromeda is in the first outer space level and encircling Paradise in a clockwise fashion, counter to our motion in the Superuniverse level. If one could then equate that to the situation of a two lane highway with two cars approaching one another going in opposite directions. Now imagine the median between the lanes getting wider, corresponding to space expansion. One could conceive a scenario where the rate of the cars approaching one another, exceeds the rate at which they separate by the widening median. The net result is a closing of the distance between cars. Obviously the cars do not collide because they are on different lanes. The cars would approach each other until they pass each other. Then they would begin to add distance between them. Perhaps in the future we are to see Andromeda as red shifted if this is the case. Perhaps even now this has occurred but we will not know for some time. It is possible that we are not taking into account distances as it relates to time delays for light energy travel or even if that light travel is uniform.

Anyone with a different take?

Regards, Louis

Edited by LouisM, 09 December 2012 - 09:34 PM.

His Will Be Done

#30 Louis aka loucol

Louis aka loucol

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 100 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Florida
  • Interests:Science Philosophy and Religion as they relate to The Urantia Book

Posted 09 December 2012 - 07:18 PM

Hi Scott:

I agree with Halvorson on this. TUB is descriptive of a hyperbolic topology and elsewhere in posts on Truthbook I have discussed this in detail. The toroidal (imbedded tori) describes these space levels best. A donut shape is a perfect sphere, inverted into a hyperboloid with foci 'pulled back' from infinity. The donut 'hole' is an undefined 'area' reminiscent of where one would place Paradise.

I am not sure if Andromeda is in the first space level or in Orvonton. But it would make sense that it is in outer space level one in light of what TUB states about measurement being unreliable out there. I have heard many opinions on this debate. Interesting, uh?

Regards, Louis
His Will Be Done

#31 Cal

Cal

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 19 posts

Posted 09 December 2012 - 11:44 PM

Cal the u.b is saying the light left those stars one million years ago, they are not giving its actual distance.


I agree the book is saying the light left those stars one million years ago. Scientists meanwhile say it left those stars 2.54 million years ago, so the disagreement is with them, not with me. I've looked at the research and I don't find any necessary reason to disbelieve their number on this point.

The u.b also explains how red shifts and other space phenomenon distort our measurements.


The UB explains that the exact method used to measure the distance to Andromeda by Edwin Hubble (and used with further precision with better modern technology since then) has the revelators seal of approval as accurate:

Paper 41, section 3: "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."

Andromeda wasn't measured with red shifts, it was measured with Cepheid variable stars just as described in Paper 41 above. Then it was measured in 3 other different ways scientists have creatively worked out, and all 4 independent techniques are in agreement about its distance. Andromeda isn't in deep space and the red shifts and rotational distortions aren't applicable. It's not far away from the Milky Way on the scale of the cosmos, and the mutual gravitational attraction of these two galaxies is leading them to drift closer to each other, they're not expanding apart. Andromeda is blue shifted to us, not red shifted.

Notice also how the revelators carefully call the state-of-the-art measurement of the time -- the one million light years that then was the most anyone had measured -- as not the limit but that more than that amount was going to be possible for precise measurements. In that way it was clear they were careful not to give unearned knowledge of what was going to become possible and be earned by scientists beyond the state of the art of the 1920s and 30s.

Paper 101, section 4 (a UB passage I'm sure many here know too): "While the historic facts and religious truths of this series of revelatory presentations will stand on the records of the ages to come, within a few short years many of our statements regarding the physical sciences will stand in need of revision in consequence of additional scientific developments and new discoveries. These new developments we even now foresee, but we are forbidden to include such humanly undiscovered facts in the revelatory records. ... The cosmology of these revelations is not inspired."

Indeed within "a few short years" it was discovered that there was a second type of Cepheid variable that Edwin Hubble hadn't known about, and factoring this discovery in, it doubled the estimated distance to Andromeda, making it close to the modern estimate, which then became more fine tuned with extra developments and research to the point that there is a very well accepted number now with very low margin of error saying that the light we see from Andromeda left it 2.54 million years ago.

Scientists also have no idea how light is affected by dark matter and other space phenomenon.


Well, dark matter is called "dark matter" since it's not interacting directly with light at all -- not absorbing, emitting, reflecting, blocking it etc -- so that's why it has been dubbed "dark". And since the gravity it exerts nonetheless is detectable in how it helps bend light at galaxy clusters (among other gravitational effects), it is dubbed "matter" (though what that "stuff" is as opposed to baryonic matter isn't known). So, they do have two ideas about how light is affected by dark matter, and actually have defined the term itself from those two ideas.

Please provide us with a proven error in the u.b, to prove your point or don't bother.


The Andromeda distance is a quite simple and obvious proven error to my satisfaction. It's ok if it's not to your satisfaction.

But it would be quite illogical to then declare the rest of the cosmology inaccurate, eh? Which the big bang certainly would. Howard claims the theories of human science trump the revelation which gives far more credit to modern science than it asks for itself as most such theories have a short shelf life due to further advances in both technologies AND theories push aside or further refine existing theories.


Hi Bradly,

I agree that the big bang model is problematic to reconcile against the UB's descriptions. But though Paradise-Havona is eternal, there definitely was a start to the rest of the universe at some point.

Paper 15 introduction: "Early in the materialization of the universal creation the sevenfold scheme of the superuniverse organization and government was formulated. The first post-Havona creation was divided into seven stupendous segments, and the headquarters worlds of these superuniverse governments were designed and constructed. The present scheme of administration has existed from near eternity, and the rulers of these seven superuniverses are rightly called Ancients of Days."

The UB describes that the very first personality entry at the dawn of this time from "near eternity" was the record of the creation of the Ancients of Days:

Paper 18, section 3: "The Ancients of Days were all trinitized at the same time. They represent the beginning of the personality records of the universe of universes, hence their name Ancients of Days. When you reach Paradise and search the written records of the beginning of things, you will find that the first entry appearing in the personality section is the recital of the trinitization of these twenty-one Ancients of Days."

If I may step back and make a general comment.... As UB becomes more and more widely known it inevitably is going to be assessed against things like the big bang, and I think it's inevitable that some people are going to find both the big bang evidence convincing and the UB's teachings appealing, and have to come to their conclusions on what to do with those two directions of thought. Some will definitely take the route it seems you and others here propose and prefer, which is to not accept the big bang, assuming it will be replaced by something later that is more in line with TUB. But the big bang model has only gotten to its prominent and convincing perch among cosmologist scientists because of the evidence and its success in having its predictions born out by observations. Some UB-minded people are going to inevitably find the theory sensible and convincing for the same reason.

Me personally, I think it's fun to play around with the ideas and see where logic leads, but as far as life goes my main take away from the cosmology in the UB and the cosmology from current science is that both say it really is a big and old universe no matter how you look at it. This life is such a miniscule baby step in the grand scheme of the epochs before us where we'll have more clarity about these topics to our hearts content. So I'm not concerned especially in however people want to interpret it, but maybe that's just me.

This is a topic that interests me in particular. Why are we assuming that light 'particles' are traveling these distances? I am suggesting that photons travel only locally. The light we perceive and measure from far distant every sources are locally manifest from energy transmitted from excitation in the force-charge of space. There are no Andromeda photons between here and there. We see the photons produced locally when the wave energy from Andromeda excites local matter which we perceive and measure.


Hi LouisM,

This however would then invalidate what the revelators say in the quote I give further above that measuring luminosity of variable stars is an accurate way to measure stellar distances. Also, there is much that is conceptionally problematic with this type of idea you give. Light is itself an electromagnetic wave. The "wave energy" from Andromeda you mention is the light itself, there isn't a need to propose a theoretical different carrier wave energy form that blinks out of existance no longer being a photon when it's leaving Andromeda and then happens to reemerge as a photon locally right at the time it would need to be observed to be seen by us.

#32 Cal

Cal

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 19 posts

Posted 09 December 2012 - 11:58 PM

Bear with me as I think out loud for a minute with my uneducated mind.
Is it not true that because of Hubble's red shift discovery, our cosmologists believe the universe is expanding - all galaxies are red shifted. If this is true then the Milky Way and Andormeda have been moving away from eachother at an accelerating rate for eons of time.
Seems to me that by anybody's measurement standard, conclusions involve moving targets.
On the other hand, the red shifted Andromeda is said to be on a collision course with the Milky Way.
So possibly Andromeda is the blue shifted exception???
Somebody educate me please.


Yeah, Andromeda is a blue-shifted exception. The reason is that though on the whole, observations indicate red shift of galaxies, and the degree of red shift being directly related to the distance of the galaxy from us, there are some galaxies that are close enough to each other that the effect of their gravity in pulling them toward each other is more than the so-called expansion rate.

So in these local cases, those galaxies move toward each other. The Milky Way and Andromeda are relatively close and their gravity is pulling them toward each other more than the so-called expansion rate is pushing them apart. Scientists see that as the reason for the blue shift of Andromeda.

Edited by Cal, 10 December 2012 - 12:00 AM.


#33 -Scott-

-Scott-

    Poster

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

Posted 10 December 2012 - 11:35 AM

Scientists believe that Andromeda is on a collision course with our Galaxy. But the u.b explains that we do not understand our own velocity relative to the universe so it screws up our esimations of deep space velocity. If science used the topographical donut model of the u.b and recognized that Andeomeda is likely moving relative to our movement they would probably get a much different number for distance. But because we have no way of knowing if we are stationary or not we just assume we are and that andromeda must be hurtling towards us on a collision course. Under the u.b model we are in an expansion phase and we are rotating which would mean Andromeda is being measured under a false premise to begin with.

Edited by -Scott-, 10 December 2012 - 11:43 AM.

If one man craves freedom -- liberty -- he must remember that all other men long for the same freedom

#34 Rick Warren

Rick Warren

    Rick Warren

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

Posted 10 December 2012 - 12:34 PM

Scientists believe that Andromeda is on a collision course with our Galaxy. But the u.b explains that we do not understand our own velocity relative to the universe so it screws up our esimations of deep space velocity. If science used the topographical donut model of the u.b and recognized that Andeomeda is likely moving relative to our movement they would probably get a much different number for distance. But because we have no way of knowing if we are stationary or not we just assume we are and that andromeda must be hurtling towards us on a collision course. Under the u.b model we are in an expansion phase and we are rotating which would mean Andromeda is being measured under a false premise to begin with.


Precisely! Well expressed too.

#35 JR Sherrod

JR Sherrod

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 204 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Las Vegas, Nevada
  • Interests:I am a Lapidary, and Jewelry Artist & Designer. I love reading the Urantia Book, science fiction, and speculative non-fiction. I am a Choral Singer. I was, at various times in my past, a Military Policeman, Police Instructor, Computer Programmer/Analyst, and Post-secondary technical instructor. I love astronomy, aeronautice & aerospace, and planes & rockets of all types. I bicycle and walk for fun and fitness. I am an Advanced Toastmaster - Bronze. I write Autobiographic Self-Help, and Speculative Non-Fiction.

Posted 10 December 2012 - 07:27 PM

I'd like to get back to the primary, implied, question of this thread... Is the "Big Bang" theory incompatible with the cosmology of the Urantia Book?

I consider the question answered. The simple fact of the timeline of the history of Urantia shatters the "BB" myth! Isn't a core tenent of "BB" an age for the universe (as defined by earth-science), of only a smidge over 14 billion years?

I believe the narration of the history of Urantia.

[ P.651 - 3 thru P.652 - 1 ] Urantia is of origin in your sun, and your sun is one of the multifarious offspring of the Andronover nebula, which was onetime organized as a component part of the physical power and material matter of the local universe of Nebadon. And this great nebula itself took origin in the universal force-charge of space in the superuniverse of Orvonton, long, long ago. At the time of the beginning of this recital, the Primary Master Force Organizers of Paradise had long been in full control of the space-energies which were later organized as the Andronover nebula. 987,000,000,000 years ago associate force organizer and then acting inspector number 811,307 of the Orvonton series, traveling out from Uversa, reported to the Ancients of Days that space conditions were favorable for the initiation of materialization phenomena in a certain sector of the, then, easterly segment of Orvonton. 900,000,000,000 years ago the Uversa archives testify, there was recorded a permit issued by the Uversa Council of Equilibrium to the superuniverse government authorizing the dispatch of a force organizer and staff to the region previously designated by inspector number 811,307. The Orvonton authorities commissioned the original discoverer of this potential universe to execute the mandate of the Ancients of Days calling for the organization of a new material creation. The recording of this permit signifies that the force organizer and staff had already departed from Uversa on the long journey to that easterly space sector where they were subsequently to engage in those protracted activities which would terminate in the emergence of a new physical creation in Orvonton.

A lot of scientists and astronomers will simply explode and let blood shoot out of their eye, before they will concede a cosmos more ancient than the implied Trillion years - possibly many trillion years! Until they allow that there was/is actually 'Intelligent Design' and a really intelligent designer to the universe, we will have the current cosmologically weak view of our universe - at least as it applies to what is taught in public schools!

Am I wrong?

Edited by JR Sherrod, 11 December 2012 - 02:24 AM.

Ah! To be host to God, Himself; and to be enriched beyond measure by that incomprehensible treasure!

#36 Cal

Cal

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 19 posts

Posted 12 December 2012 - 02:42 PM

Scientists believe that Andromeda is on a collision course with our Galaxy. But the u.b explains that we do not understand our own velocity relative to the universe so it screws up our esimations of deep space velocity. If science used the topographical donut model of the u.b and recognized that Andeomeda is likely moving relative to our movement they would probably get a much different number for distance. But because we have no way of knowing if we are stationary or not we just assume we are and that andromeda must be hurtling towards us on a collision course. Under the u.b model we are in an expansion phase and we are rotating which would mean Andromeda is being measured under a false premise to begin with.


Sorry the false premise is that the velocities have anything to do with measuring the distance like you're describing. It doesn't.

No matter how fast and in which directions the Milky Way and Andromeda galaxies are traveling in relation to each other, the speed light is traveling to go from one to other is completely unaltered by those motions and so it's accurate to measure distance. And the UB authors say this themselves. The very same astronomy technique used to measure distance to Andromeda, and on the same distance scale that Andromeda is found to be, is specifically cited and directly praised by the UB's authors as "accurate" and "most precise". They also then say they know people are going to improve on the technique and discover even better ones for measuring, both which have proven true and is unsurprising.

You're confusing this topic with the section in the book that talks about "estimations of astronomic velocities", which doesn't have anything to do with distance measurements.

Edited by Cal, 12 December 2012 - 02:43 PM.


#37 -Scott-

-Scott-

    Poster

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

Posted 12 December 2012 - 03:30 PM

The u.b does not say that light will travel unaltered in space though, they even give velocities of beings who travel faster than light also they explain that light has mass there for it is very likely that it can be affected. Also the method used to gauge the distance to Andromeda is based on estimations using variable stars. These distances have changed over 20% in the last 15 years. It is safe to say that scientists are still not sure how far away Andromeda is, or else they would not keep changing the distance. The u.b does say that any measurement of distances outside our superuniverse are entirely unreliable. If we take the u.b's model of a donut shaped universe we would extrapolate a different distance for Andromeda. The current model of the universe is based off the big bang theory. It is true that this hardly falls under the category of science proving the urantia book, but because Andromedas distance has been changed so much and given the fact that we still have not accounted for just how light is affected by space, this distance is far from a scientific fact. Not to mention the u.b mentions that there are many "space distortions" that mess up our telescopes, it would be rather premature to just write the u.b off on this, when its track record has been so great.

Edited by -Scott-, 12 December 2012 - 03:37 PM.

If one man craves freedom -- liberty -- he must remember that all other men long for the same freedom

#38 Howard509

Howard509

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 352 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 15 December 2012 - 12:59 AM

I think that the big bang's estimates for the age of the universe may be way off, just as the Urantia Book tells us. I also understand that many scientists, instead of seeing the big bang as evidence of an uncaused first cause, merely see it as all the matter in the universe expanding from an infinitely small dot, which, if you think about it, is harder to believe than there being a God unless you have a philosophical agenda against theism.

We are not human beings having a spiritual experience; we are spiritual beings having a human experience. -
Teilhard de Chardin


#39 Howard509

Howard509

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 352 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 15 December 2012 - 11:56 AM

I remember reading Stephen Hawking and his claim that everything in the universe began with the Big Bang. OK. Let’s see how this works. First, there is nothing. And nothing must mean nothing or language losses its influence. Then, out of nothing, absolutely nothing, an uncaused spontaneous burst of energy emanating from an almost incalculably tiny point flashed everything else into existence. Wow. That would be cool, I guess. So, nature created itself? Yup. That’s the working assumption.
Let me put this in a clearer way. This means, according to Big Bang itself, that everything, yes everything, has a contingent cause. In other words, scientists know that all things need a cause, it’s just that their cause is the uncaused Big Bang. Whoops. The only thing that doesn’t have a contingent cause according to the Big Bang is of course Big Bang itself! Isn’t that convenient.
Don’t worry though, because it gets much worse. Not only does this uncaused Big Bang then cause everything else, but the everything else that the Big Bang causes is also miraculously regular. Regular? Yes, regular. Regularity is the basic requirement of all inductive science. In other words, what happens in the laboratory beaker today needs to happen in the laboratory beaker tomorrow, or things are not scientific. If the earth spins this way today, it better reliably and regularly spin this way tomorrow or all measurement becomes complete guesswork, and then, science stops.
And just think. All this just happened. Nothing creates everything. And everything is regular and therefore measurable. Whew. Now, that’s a miracle, isn’t it? You gotta admit. Unbelief says that the best way to organize all this data is to claim that there is no God and it all just happened. Really? That’s the best hypothesis that you can come up with?
http://drstevemeidah...y-provable-but/


We are not human beings having a spiritual experience; we are spiritual beings having a human experience. -
Teilhard de Chardin


#40 Louis aka loucol

Louis aka loucol

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 100 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Florida
  • Interests:Science Philosophy and Religion as they relate to The Urantia Book

Posted 15 December 2012 - 03:36 PM

I agree the book is saying the light left those stars one million years ago. Scientists meanwhile say it left those stars 2.54 million years ago, so the disagreement is with them, not with me. I've looked at the research and I don't find any necessary reason to disbelieve their number on this point.



The UB explains that the exact method used to measure the distance to Andromeda by Edwin Hubble (and used with further precision with better modern technology since then) has the revelators seal of approval as accurate:

Paper 41, section 3: "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."

Andromeda wasn't measured with red shifts, it was measured with Cepheid variable stars just as described in Paper 41 above. Then it was measured in 3 other different ways scientists have creatively worked out, and all 4 independent techniques are in agreement about its distance. Andromeda isn't in deep space and the red shifts and rotational distortions aren't applicable. It's not far away from the Milky Way on the scale of the cosmos, and the mutual gravitational attraction of these two galaxies is leading them to drift closer to each other, they're not expanding apart. Andromeda is blue shifted to us, not red shifted.

Notice also how the revelators carefully call the state-of-the-art measurement of the time -- the one million light years that then was the most anyone had measured -- as not the limit but that more than that amount was going to be possible for precise measurements. In that way it was clear they were careful not to give unearned knowledge of what was going to become possible and be earned by scientists beyond the state of the art of the 1920s and 30s.

Paper 101, section 4 (a UB passage I'm sure many here know too): "While the historic facts and religious truths of this series of revelatory presentations will stand on the records of the ages to come, within a few short years many of our statements regarding the physical sciences will stand in need of revision in consequence of additional scientific developments and new discoveries. These new developments we even now foresee, but we are forbidden to include such humanly undiscovered facts in the revelatory records. ... The cosmology of these revelations is not inspired."

Indeed within "a few short years" it was discovered that there was a second type of Cepheid variable that Edwin Hubble hadn't known about, and factoring this discovery in, it doubled the estimated distance to Andromeda, making it close to the modern estimate, which then became more fine tuned with extra developments and research to the point that there is a very well accepted number now with very low margin of error saying that the light we see from Andromeda left it 2.54 million years ago.



Well, dark matter is called "dark matter" since it's not interacting directly with light at all -- not absorbing, emitting, reflecting, blocking it etc -- so that's why it has been dubbed "dark". And since the gravity it exerts nonetheless is detectable in how it helps bend light at galaxy clusters (among other gravitational effects), it is dubbed "matter" (though what that "stuff" is as opposed to baryonic matter isn't known). So, they do have two ideas about how light is affected by dark matter, and actually have defined the term itself from those two ideas.



The Andromeda distance is a quite simple and obvious proven error to my satisfaction. It's ok if it's not to your satisfaction.



Hi Bradly,

I agree that the big bang model is problematic to reconcile against the UB's descriptions. But though Paradise-Havona is eternal, there definitely was a start to the rest of the universe at some point.

Paper 15 introduction: "Early in the materialization of the universal creation the sevenfold scheme of the superuniverse organization and government was formulated. The first post-Havona creation was divided into seven stupendous segments, and the headquarters worlds of these superuniverse governments were designed and constructed. The present scheme of administration has existed from near eternity, and the rulers of these seven superuniverses are rightly called Ancients of Days."

The UB describes that the very first personality entry at the dawn of this time from "near eternity" was the record of the creation of the Ancients of Days:

Paper 18, section 3: "The Ancients of Days were all trinitized at the same time. They represent the beginning of the personality records of the universe of universes, hence their name Ancients of Days. When you reach Paradise and search the written records of the beginning of things, you will find that the first entry appearing in the personality section is the recital of the trinitization of these twenty-one Ancients of Days."

If I may step back and make a general comment.... As UB becomes more and more widely known it inevitably is going to be assessed against things like the big bang, and I think it's inevitable that some people are going to find both the big bang evidence convincing and the UB's teachings appealing, and have to come to their conclusions on what to do with those two directions of thought. Some will definitely take the route it seems you and others here propose and prefer, which is to not accept the big bang, assuming it will be replaced by something later that is more in line with TUB. But the big bang model has only gotten to its prominent and convincing perch among cosmologist scientists because of the evidence and its success in having its predictions born out by observations. Some UB-minded people are going to inevitably find the theory sensible and convincing for the same reason.

Me personally, I think it's fun to play around with the ideas and see where logic leads, but as far as life goes my main take away from the cosmology in the UB and the cosmology from current science is that both say it really is a big and old universe no matter how you look at it. This life is such a miniscule baby step in the grand scheme of the epochs before us where we'll have more clarity about these topics to our hearts content. So I'm not concerned especially in however people want to interpret it, but maybe that's just me.



Hi LouisM,

This however would then invalidate what the revelators say in the quote I give further above that measuring luminosity of variable stars is an accurate way to measure stellar distances. Also, there is much that is conceptionally problematic with this type of idea you give. Light is itself an electromagnetic wave. The "wave energy" from Andromeda you mention is the light itself, there isn't a need to propose a theoretical different carrier wave energy form that blinks out of existance no longer being a photon when it's leaving Andromeda and then happens to reemerge as a photon locally right at the time it would need to be observed to be seen by us.


Hi Cal:

TUB tells us that light is a particle and that the 'electromagnetic wave' is a repercussion of that particle's motion through the force-charge of space. This, IMO negates the 'wavicle' theory of the SM.


42:5.15 The excitation of the content of space produces a wavelike reaction to the passage of rapidly moving particles of matter, just as the passage of a ship through water initiates waves of varying amplitude and interval.


So, why not a new theory? If you could 'tag' photons, wouldn't that be an interesting experiment? I would be truthfully impressed if a photon from Andromeda made it here, all the way through all that space without colliding with some particle. Recall that TUB tells us that space is not empty that there is the equivalent of one electron (100 ultimatons) per sq. inch.

Regards, Louis

Edited by LouisM, 15 December 2012 - 05:15 PM.

His Will Be Done




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users