Jump to content


Photo

Mapping Orvonton


  • Please log in to reply
25 replies to this topic

#1 HSTa

HSTa

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 426 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Finland

Posted 19 February 2009 - 12:20 PM

Mapping Orvonton

I promised Nigel some time ago, to open a new thread on this subject.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_Way

If we believe Wikipedia the mass OF OUR Milky Way is 5.8 * 10^11 solar masses, and the distance of our sun to the Sagittarius centre is about 26000 light years ( ..at a hypothesized distance of 7.62±0.32 kpc (~25,000±1,000 ly) from the Galactic Center.)

Number of stars 200 to 400 billion

A lot of development has happened in this field since the 1930ies, when the Urantia Papers appeared.
I will try to discuss some of the new findings and conclusions, compared to older knowledge, in this thread.

Nigels picture:
Posted Image

#2 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 19 February 2009 - 05:34 PM

Thanks HSTa for starting this thread.

A couple of days ago I discovered the following tidbit of "informed speculation" attributed to Dr. Alan Boss, astronomer at the Carnegie Institution of Washington, Department of Terrestrial Magnetism, on a website called PHYSORG.com; and it seemed to be a good addition to your thread.

"There are something like a few dozen solar-type stars within something like 30 light years of the sun, and I would think that a good number of those -- perhaps half of them have Earth-like planets," Doctor Alan Boss told the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AASS). "I am not talking about a planet with intelligence on it. I simply say if you have a habitable world ... sitting there, with the right temperature with water for a billion years, something is going to come out of it. "At least we will have microbes," said Dr. Boss.

Here is the link to the whole PhysOrg article: http://www.physorg.com/news153995730.html .

Also, on a website called UniverseToday.com, Dr. Alan Boss was quoted as saying: "Not only are they probably habitable but they probably are also going to be inhabited. But I think that most likely the nearby 'Earths' are going to be inhabited with things which are perhaps more common to what Earth was like three or four billion years ago." In other words, it's more likely that bacteria-like lifeforms abound, rather than more advanced alien life.

Here is the link to the whole UniverseToday article: http://www.universetoday.com/2009/02/16/the-milky-way-could-have-billions-of-earths/ .

My take on the subject is one of amused pity! These two articles reflect the ubiquitous "Country-Club" attitude of a lot of the leading religionists and scientists. They seem, to me anyway, to be saying that Intelligent human life on Earth is unique in the universe. Such opinions proclaim to the peoples of earth that we are the only members of a rather exclusive club, and we should take pride in our premier position in the cosmos. These are the same experts who tell us the universe is only 12 - 14 Billion years old; and they say that life sprang up only in the last 3 Billion years; and only on our little planet has intelligent civilization developed! How special we are!

In fact, the majority of discussions I hear and read on this subject seem to take the position that the fact of intelligent human civilization on Earth is actually the exception that proves the rule of barrenness of intelligent life everywhere else.

Only in the Urantia Book do I hear authoritative discussion of Trillions of planets in Orvonton, populated with intelligent human civilizations.

ALSO: Most scientific discussions seem to be severely crippled by the quaint notion that travel between the various stars must be limited by the short human lifespan. They dismiss UFO's, and any type of visitation of our little planet by extraterrestrial intelligences, simply because of the immensity of our galaxy and the speed limit of "the speed of light" in our universe. Then, after having dismissed the possibility of alien visitation of our planet, they commit the logical error of pointing to the very same "lack of visitation" as proof that we are unique!

The Urantia book clearly acknowledges the huge distances and inherently lengthy travel times within our wonderful superuniverse. However, what are a few centuries or millennia to beings of immortal & eternal lifespans? I relish the prospect of actually seeing and living among the myriad planetary systems of Orvonton during my ascent to Paradise.

HSTa, I'm really looking forward to watching this discussion evolve in this Thread!

"JR" the Dreamer

Edited by JR Sherrod, 19 February 2009 - 05:37 PM.

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

#3 Nigel Nunn

Nigel Nunn

    Poster

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

Posted 20 February 2009 - 06:01 AM

Here's a version that suggests the gravitational well of that great attractor, Paradise.

Posted Image

Nigel

#4 HSTa

HSTa

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 426 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Finland

Posted 20 February 2009 - 06:36 AM

Hello Nigel,

My intention was really to tell a little about recent results concerning the mass, composition and number of stars in the Milky Way system. Sagittarius is obviously just one close rotational center in the Milky Way system and the local group. More later.

You might compare the following picture with the UB description of the ‘tubular arrangement’ (UB p. 153) of the central dark gravity bodies:

Posted Image

In the magazine ‘Astronomy and Astrophysics’ I have seen calculated the following outward level for this large flat mass. This outer circuit (as calculated by scientists) really was much higher than the first circuit. I’m not however familiar with the details of these calculations.

#5 HSTa

HSTa

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 426 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Finland

Posted 20 February 2009 - 10:07 AM

It is obvious that the estimated number of stars and of galaxy masses are growing with time, when more and better observational material is accumulating. Recent estimates are of the same order of magnitude as given by the Urantia Book!

Some data from various sources:

Number of
Zeros____ U.S. ____Other countries
3 _______thousand_____ thousand
6 _______ million ______million
9 _______ billion ______ 1000 million ( = 1 milliard)
12_______trillion ______ billion

A trillion in the U.S. is 1 followed by 12 zeros, or 1 * 10^12


UB p.172
The superuniverse of Orvonton is illuminated and warmed by more than ten
trillion blazing suns. These suns are the stars of your observable astronomic
system. More than two trillion are too distant and too small ever to be seen
from Urantia. But in the master universe there are as many suns as there are
glasses of water in the oceans of your world.

1. “At a distance of the sun from the center, the period of rotation is of the order of 220 million years. This period suggests a total mass for the galactic system of the general order of 200,000 million times the mass of the sun.”

Table VIII: Spectrographic masses of Nebulae:
Gal.Sys.: (Sc ?) 2 x 10^11 suns
M31(Andromeda): (Sc) 3 x 10^10 suns

That is, Edwin Hubble gives the mass of our galactic system as 200,000 million times the mass of the sun, slightly before the year 1936. He mentions about 10 known or possible members of ’The Local Group’, (Chapter VI).

2. Milky Way (Galaxy) mass M = 1.8 x 10^11 M(sun). (Solar mass 1.989 x 10^33 g)

3. Galaxy M / M(sun) = 1.3 x 10^11, M31(Andromeda): 3.1 x 10^11

4. ”... the one to be taken seriously giving a total mass for the Local Group between 3 and 6 times 10^12 M(sun).”

5. Urantia Book p.172:

10 * 10^12 ’suns’, 2 * 10^12 ’too distant and too small ever to be seen from Urantia’.

6. Wikipedia (2009):

- ’The Milky Way's mass is thought to be about 5.8×10^11 solar masses comprising 200 to 400 billion stars. ’

- ’This in turn implies that the Milky Way has a total mass equivalent to around
3 trillion suns (= 3*10^12), about 50% more massive than previously thought.’

= = =

References:

1. The Realm of the Nebulae by Edwin Hubble, (“lectures designed to illustrate the presence and providence of God as manifest in the natural and moral world”), Yale University Press, Copyright 1936 and 1982. (p. 130 and 180)

2. Gravitation by Charles W. Misner, Kip S. Thorne and John Archibald Wheeler, Copyright 1973 by W.H. Freeman, San Francisco, ( final pages: “Some Useful Numbers...”)

3. Astrophysical Concepts by Martin Harwit, Copyright 1973, John Wiley and Sons. ( p.42)

4. On the mass of the Local Group and the motion of its barycentre by
J. Einasto and D. Lynden-Bell, Mon. Not R. astr. Soc. (1982) 199, 67-80

http://adsbit.harvar...MNRAS.199...67E

5. The Urantia Book, 1955.

6. Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_Way

#6 Midsoniter woman

Midsoniter woman

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 383 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Arizona
  • Interests:politics

Posted 20 February 2009 - 01:54 PM

"Urantia belongs to a system which is well out towards the borderland of your local universe; and your local universe is at present traversing the periphery of Orvonton (165)." Maybe that's why we can't see much action out there.

I just received this song from an oldtimer in my UB study group. It really helps me learn the numbers of the galaxy. Turn up speakers. Photos by NASA.


"If woman aspires literally to enjoy all of man's rights, then sooner or later, pitiless and emotionless competition will certainly replace that chivalry and special consideration which many women now enjoy, and which they have so recently won from men (Urantia Book, 938)."

#7 joer

joer

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 59 posts

Posted 20 February 2009 - 05:14 PM

"Urantia belongs to a system which is well out towards the borderland of your local universe; and your local universe is at present traversing the periphery of Orvonton (165)." Maybe that's why we can't see much action out there.
I just received this song from an oldtimer in my UB study group. It really helps me learn the numbers of the galaxy. Turn up speakers. Photos by NASA.

Hi Jessica and all. HSTa as usual exemplary posts. Thank You. Here's a couple of links you might find enjoyable in relation to the topic. John Causland's is more in focus with the Topic. Dick Bain's touches on it in his general presentation

SCIENCE IN THE URANTIA BOOK: PROPHETIC OR PROBLEMATIC?
Dick Bain Presentation

See John Causland's Slide Show on a comparison between TUB and earth's Cosmological terms!
John Causland Presentation
The more we discover how much we are Loved by God, the more we want to do God's Will.

#8 HSTa

HSTa

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 426 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Finland

Posted 21 February 2009 - 12:05 PM

Jessicas ‘song’ was nice. It had other qualities than scientific, also.

Concerning the links by joer: to me the expression ‘PROPHETIC SCIENCE’ is a bit problematic. Personally I wouldn’t use such an expression. It brings to your mind someone who is predicting the future. The UB texts are no predictions by a prophet; they represent knowledge from cosmic sources, even libraries, that are immensely older than the human civilization.

What is told about basic science, cosmology and related knowledge in the Urantia Papers probably represents fundamental information know to any cosmic being from a normal developed world of space; which we are not.

It is also quite clear that the UB does not merely represent the conceptions of the astronomers and scientists of the 1930ies. Martin Gardner expressed such and idea in his book, without noticing that a lot of information expressed in the UB is radically new knowledge to us.

The Milky Way galaxy is still often described as a single spiral with two protruding spiral arms. Most astronomers of today really should know that this simple picture isn't relevant any more!

Sagittarius is described in the UB as a ‘'subgalactic system'. The distance to the barycenter of the Milky Way system is much larger than the distance to the Sagittarius center .

Uversa, the physical center of Orvonton, is ‘'over two hundred thousand light-years … far, far away in the dense diameter of the Milky Way'. ‘This is 8 times the estimated distance to the Sagittarius center of the two Milky Way spiral arms known to us.

One recent picture (of the Sagittarius center ?):

Posted Image

Uversa therefore obviously is situated at the physical center of our (local) group of spiral galaxies and other nebulae.

The present conception among many astronomers of today is, that galaxies often are built up from ‘mergers’, i.e. stellar systems and spirals that have merged to larger systems. This is also what is expressed in the UB!

= = =

NATURE (vol. 402, Nov. 1999) "Multiple stellar populations in the globular cluster omega Centauri as tracers of a merger event": The discovery of the Sagittarius dwarf galaxy, which is being tidally disrupted by and merging with the Milky Way, supports the view that the halo of the Galaxy has been built up at least partially by the accretion of similar dwarf systems. … Mergers probably were much more frequent in the early history of the Galaxy and omega Centauri appears to be a relict of this era.

= = =

Galactic Mergers in the Universe
Milky Way and Andromeda
© Stephanie Cox

May 28, 2008

Galaxies are the gems of the universe. They form in clumps that dot the seemingly empty vacuum of space. Within these clusters, galactic collisions are common. The average galaxy, including ours, has collided or merged with another galaxy at least once it its lifetime.

http://deep-space-as...alaxies_collide

= = =

It is therefore very obvious, that dust and matter in the plane of the nearby parts of the Milky Way will obscure from us much that lies behind the Milky Way in the densest plane. But already have radio astronomers found other spirals, nebulae and gas clouds in this plane also.

The general view is that the Milky Way 'is growing'’.

Also have halo stars been seen far away from the Andromeda (M31) galaxy, in regions were stars are sparse and therefore require very long times to be discovered by our telescopes. This recent observation is another confirmation of what is clearly stated by the UB texts.

Some astronomers even report that the stars of Andromeda (M31) and the Milky Way, almost overlap.

Edited by HSTa, 21 February 2009 - 12:15 PM.


#9 Nigel Nunn

Nigel Nunn

    Poster

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

Posted 12 August 2009 - 04:23 PM

As we wonder about the shape of Orvonton, it's time again to raise that old question, "How hard can it be to see our neighboring major sectors through the plane of the Milky Way?" Actually, it was and will be very hard to do. The wall of dust and gas remains a real problem for astronomers. X-rays sources can poke through, and radio frequencies can wiggle their way to our telescopes, but the veil of dust is completely opaque to the optical bands.

All we can really measure about our "Milky Way" is that there is some sort of rotational center about 26,000 light years in the direction of Sagittarius. We can measure this from the famous 21 cm radio signal that comes from "electron flips" in the vast clouds of hydrogen (that we measure to be) in orbit around the 4 million-solar-mass gravitator (dark island?) in Sagittarius A*. We also observe lots of X-ray sources, but which lie within and which without Orvonton is very hard to tell.

Is there any hope for Urantian astronomers ever to map the true shape and nature of Orvonton? From page 459:4,

"Better methods of space measurement and improved telescopic technique will sometime more fully disclose the ten grand divisions of the superuniverse of Orvonton; you will at least recognize eight of these immense sectors as enormous and fairly symmetrical star clusters."


Well, our "telescopic technique" has been improving. The current issue of "New Scientist" magazine reports a recent study in which astronomers have been able to detect what seems to be a center of mass weighing in at 10 billion solar masses lying through the plane of Orvonton at a distance of about 300,000 light years, or a little bit more than the half the proposed diameter (along the long axis?) of our superunivese. Here's a link to a report of this (possible) discovery.

Milky Way may have a huge hidden neighbour

Link: Another huge hidden neighbour for the Milky Way?

12 August 2009 by Ken Croswell

A LARGE satellite galaxy may be lurking, hidden from view, next door to our own.

Sukanya Chakrabarti and Leo Blitz of the University of California, Berkeley, suspected that the gravity of a nearby galaxy was causing perturbations that have been observed in gas on the fringes of the Milky Way. "We did a large range of simulations where we varied the mass of the perturber and the distance of closest approach," says Chakrabarti. In the best-fitting simulation, the unseen galaxy has about 1 per cent of the Milky Way's mass, or 10 billion times the mass of the sun.

That's a lot. It means the object has roughly the same mass as the Milky Way's brightest satellite galaxy, the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC).

Right now, says Chakrabarti, the galaxy is roughly 300,000 light years away from us - about twice as far away as the LMC. But the simulations suggest it follows a highly elongated elliptical path, and about 300 million years ago it swept through our own galaxy just 16,000 light years from the galactic centre - closer in than Earth - disturbing the Milky Way's outskirts as it went."

[...]


You can find the rest of the article at the link above.
Nigel

#10 Carmelo M

Carmelo M

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 12 posts

Posted 24 September 2009 - 10:04 AM

As we wonder about the shape of Orvonton, it's time again to raise that old question, "How hard can it be to see our neighboring major sectors through the plane of the Milky Way?" Actually, it was and will be very hard to do. The wall of dust and gas remains a real problem for astronomers. X-rays sources can poke through, and radio frequencies can wiggle their way to our telescopes, but the veil of dust is completely opaque to the optical bands.

All we can really measure about our "Milky Way" is that there is some sort of rotational center about 26,000 light years in the direction of Sagittarius. We can measure this from the famous 21 cm radio signal that comes from "electron flips" in the vast clouds of hydrogen (that we measure to be) in orbit around the 4 million-solar-mass gravitator (dark island?) in Sagittarius A*. We also observe lots of X-ray sources, but which lie within and which without Orvonton is very hard to tell.

Is there any hope for Urantian astronomers ever to map the true shape and nature of Orvonton? From page 459:4,


Well, our "telescopic technique" has been improving. The current issue of "New Scientist" magazine reports a recent study in which astronomers have been able to detect what seems to be a center of mass weighing in at 10 billion solar masses lying through the plane of Orvonton at a distance of about 300,000 light years, or a little bit more than the half the proposed diameter (along the long axis?) of our superunivese. Here's a link to a report of this (possible) discovery.



You can find the rest of the article at the link above.
Nigel





Hi Nigel and all,

Owing to my very limited spare time I rarely plung into this Forum, and owing to my limited fluency in English my expressivenss is scarce. In spite of that I will try to share with you my concepts on how Orvonton looks like.

A few hours ago I leapt out of my chair as I entered in this Forum after a long time, and as I saw Nigel's picture. It's very similar to the one I outlined some months ago. See it below.

Attached File  Orvonton_N_badon.jpg   88.01KB   35 downloads

Orvonton would be the big blue ellipse, its main axis being 500,000 light years in length, and the small one, 200,000 light years; the Milky way, the left blue circle (100,000 light years in diameter length). The yellow circle centered on Uversa embraces all points being 200,000 light years away from the Orvonton capital. The circle inside Milky Way embraces all points being 26-30,000 light years away from its center. So we would be in one of these points; and as we must be "...over two hundred thousand light-years to the physical center of the superuniverse of Orvonton..." (359:8) we would be located at one of the red dots.

Probally you have noticed the difference. To me, our planet, system, constellation, local universe, are not in the main axis of Orvonton ellipse. If we assume the entire Grand Universe (the seven superuniverses) shares the same 4-dimension time-space continuum, according to page 165 they must look like this:

Attached File  El_gran_universo.jpg   41.14KB   35 downloads

So "looking toward the residential universe" we are not looking toward Uversa.

Probably, the point is, do the seven universes share the same 4-dimension time-space continuum? But this is another question.

And morover, I think that the galaxy we know as Milky Way is a major sector, to be precise Umajor the fifth. According to the definite hint at 458:2, suns, at least in our local universe, "have just as much comparative elbow room in space as one dozen oranges would have if they were circulating about throughout the interior of Urantia, and were the planet a hollow globe." In they same paragraph we read "These suns have an average diameter of about one million miles." If we assume an average orange is 0.32 inches in diameter, and take the pain of performing some boring calculations (I actually performed them in kilometers and centimetres) we will conclude that our local universe is 1.704755 E10 cubic light years in volume.

If we model the Milky Way as a cylinder 100,000 light years in diameter and 18.000 light years in high (only disk, no nucleus, no halo) we will find that it can contain 8,043 local universes, a figure very close to the 10% of the total local universes in a superuniverse, i.e, the local universes in a major sector. Perhaps I'm using a not very much accurate model, but I think it is an accurate enough model as to get a whole idea.

Estimated according to previous calculations, the total number of stars in Milky Way is 165 billion. Are I underestimating everything at a 80%?

What is behind this white band in the sky we really know little, as illustrated in picture below (from Atlas of The Universe), buy TUB says it is swarming with stars, clouds, clusters, dust, gas, .... and life!

Attached File  Orvonton_y_V_a_L_ctea.jpg   47.1KB   31 downloads

Best regards
Carmelo

#11 Bill Martin

Bill Martin

    Poster

  • Moderators
  • PipPip
  • 941 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rio Dulce, Izabal, Guatemala
  • Interests:destiny interception, kindred spirits, Sailing my ketch, cooking, reading ( a book a day, if possible), helping fellow sojurners on the path of righteousness.I am most interested in building strong relationships with fellow kingdom builders knowing that we will be serving together, off and on, through time and into eternity.

Posted 24 September 2009 - 08:14 PM

Thank You Carmello,

Your English seems flawless and I appreciate you sharing your observations with us. My question about the "residential universe" stems from the following quotation
P.167 - §19 Observation of the so-called Milky Way discloses the comparative increase in Orvonton stellar density when the heavens are viewed in one direction, while on either side the density diminishes; the number of stars and other spheres decreases away from the chief plane of our material superuniverse. When the angle of observation is propitious, gazing through the main body of this realm of maximum density, you are looking toward the residential universe and the center of all things.

Can you shed any more light?

Bill Martin
Slowly but surely the Power of Love is overcoming the Love of Power

#12 Carmelo M

Carmelo M

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 12 posts

Posted 25 September 2009 - 10:40 AM

Hi Bill,

I'm afraid there is no much more I can contribute. Revelators are sometimes a bit enigmatic in their way of writing. Why? I don't know, perhaps because of restrictions on revelation itself.

In the paragraph you quote they refer to "the so-called Milky Way", and I don't remember that throughout TUB they recognize the Milky Way as something different to this white band in sky. We assume this band is an actual galaxy, viewed from its inside, but as far as I remember, revelators don't state such a thing nowhere throughout TUB.

We don't take much risk if we assume that "this realm of maximum density" is actually the band in sky we call Milky Way. But to what are they referring when they say "main body"? Why are they not saying just "nucleus" or "core" o something else more obvious? Perhaps because "nucleus" or "core" entails their recognition of the Milky Way as a galaxy, and they don't want to do so. Obviously, only perhaps, because actually nobody knows.

Anyway, to assume the revelators refer just to the area in the Milky Way of greatest concentration of stars is the more acceptable choice; and we find this area in (the direction of) Sagittarius (constellation). So we can assume the residential universe is in this direction; and be fairly sure we are right.

Why haven't we detected as yet "this enormous wall of 'nothingness'"? Well, perhaps because (probably) it lies more than a million light years away from us, and we have a realm of maximum opacity in between. And perhaps because the intervening dark bodies affect light in a manner unknown to us. What else does it mean that "dark gravity bodies neither reflect nor absorb light"? That "they are nonreactive to physical-energy light"?

By the way, if the white band in sky we call Milky Way is the galaxy in which we are (so a band of opacity to us), if it "represents the central nucleus of Orvonton" (so a small part of our superuniverse), and if the rest of Orvonton is behind it, how can revelators say "Of the ten major divisions of Orvonton, eight have been roughly identified by Urantian astronomers"?


Carmelo

#13 nameless until fused

nameless until fused

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 389 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:USA

Posted 25 September 2009 - 08:20 PM

Hi Bill,

I'm afraid there is no much more I can contribute. Revelators are sometimes a bit enigmatic in their way of writing. Why? I don't know, perhaps because of restrictions on revelation itself.

In the paragraph you quote they refer to "the so-called Milky Way", and I don't remember that throughout TUB they recognize the Milky Way as something different to this white band in sky. We assume this band is an actual galaxy, viewed from its inside, but as far as I remember, revelators don't state such a thing nowhere throughout TUB.

We don't take much risk if we assume that "this realm of maximum density" is actually the band in sky we call Milky Way. But to what are they referring when they say "main body"? Why are they not saying just "nucleus" or "core" o something else more obvious? Perhaps because "nucleus" or "core" entails their recognition of the Milky Way as a galaxy, and they don't want to do so. Obviously, only perhaps, because actually nobody knows.

Anyway, to assume the revelators refer just to the area in the Milky Way of greatest concentration of stars is the more acceptable choice; and we find this area in (the direction of) Sagittarius (constellation). So we can assume the residential universe is in this direction; and be fairly sure we are right.

Why haven't we detected as yet "this enormous wall of 'nothingness'"? Well, perhaps because (probably) it lies more than a million light years away from us, and we have a realm of maximum opacity in between. And perhaps because the intervening dark bodies affect light in a manner unknown to us. What else does it mean that "dark gravity bodies neither reflect nor absorb light"? That "they are nonreactive to physical-energy light"?

By the way, if the white band in sky we call Milky Way is the galaxy in which we are (so a band of opacity to us), if it "represents the central nucleus of Orvonton" (so a small part of our superuniverse), and if the rest of Orvonton is behind it, how can revelators say "Of the ten major divisions of Orvonton, eight have been roughly identified by Urantian astronomers"?


Carmelo


Hi Carmelo,

The enigmatic clues make more sense if you contemplate them within the context of "fractals" theory....

Just don't ask me to do the math for you :)

Kind regards

Edited by nameless until fused, 25 September 2009 - 08:22 PM.


#14 Allen

Allen

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 12 posts

Posted 11 November 2009 - 11:38 AM

Am I mistaken in the interpretation of page 167?

“From the astronomical position of Urantia, as you look through the cross section of near-by systems to the great Milky Way, you observe that the spheres of Orvonton are traveling in a vast elongated plane, the breadth being far greater than the thickness and the length far greater than the breadth.”

I see this is as a description of the MW that contains part of the spheres of Orvonton, but it is a description of the MW as we look at it, not Orvonton. The detail of the elongated plane of breadth, thickness and length pertains to the MW.
It is what we would see when inside a large galaxy, and by eye see relatively little of Orvonton except that the MW is what we see as a major part of Orvonton.

I might point out that the view of ‘watch like’ band of the MW’s stars appear to the unaided eye as one long band of stars, which in reality are made up of several bands or arms of the MW, some more distant than others. It takes study of the groupings of these stars relative to distance that astronomers can start to distinguish where the arms of the galaxy are, using Cepheid variables as distance candles. Cepheid’s though are not very accurate unless intervening dust is adequately accounted for which seldom is the case.
Allen

#15 John Anngeister

John Anngeister

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 109 posts

Posted 11 November 2009 - 07:15 PM

Allen, and others,

I have been in this thread a couple times this week looking for a discussion starter on Orvonton. Allen, your post is just the kind of thing I needed to get some ideas on the board for criticism (if any will oblige me).

Am I mistaken in the interpretation of page 167?

I recognize both your interpretation and question as meditations I have made myself. But more recently I am wondering about a different view and a new understanding of what you have called “the Milky way as we look at it.”

Instead of accepting the standard astronomical interpretation of the visible Milky Way - which is, as you say, “what we would see when inside a large galaxy,” I’m starting to make better sense of the mix of facts and revelation when I view that great band of star clouds as rather more like what we would see when immersed within the ragged outskirts of an incomplete superuniverse.

What’s the difference? An important one of location and scale, I think. For one, how is it that the first astronomer suggested that our sun was in a gigantic spiral arm? Wasn’t it after he looked into the outer space level and viewed all those brand new uninhabited spirals in very early stages of development? Is there warrant for a remnant spiral of such dimensions from the revealed tale of the Andronover nebula? Is a “star stream” the same as a spiral arm? I don’t think so, and I don’t believe, after all is said and done, that there is any direct connection between the stellar family of origin in old Andronover and those “stupendous stellar coils” which the UB describes as emanating from the region of the Sagittarius star cloud.

Andronover produced a little over a million stars. Some were engulfed and blown away in the process. Rather than having a “home galaxy,” we have a “home star cloud” - the Andronover cloud (one which we cannot very well see due to our being inside it).

If we stop viewing as “spiral arms” that great milky band of star clouds (centered in Scorpius and Sagittarius and stretching all the way to Cassiopea on one side and Auriga on the other), we might start “seeing” the visible tip of the aggregate iceberg which is mighty Orvonton itself.

There’s tons I have to talk and wonder about here, and I have alluded to more than one UB page that is not cited (sorry, maybe if there's any interest...).

-John

“From the astronomical position of Urantia, as you look through the cross section of near-by systems to the great Milky Way, you observe that the spheres of Orvonton are traveling in a vast elongated plane, the breadth being far greater than the thickness and the length far greater than the breadth.”


I see this is as a description of the MW that contains part of the spheres of Orvonton, but it is a description of the MW as we look at it, not Orvonton. The detail of the elongated plane of breadth, thickness and length pertains to the MW.
It is what we would see when inside a large galaxy, and by eye see relatively little of Orvonton except that the MW is what we see as a major part of Orvonton.



#16 John Anngeister

John Anngeister

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 109 posts

Posted 14 November 2009 - 02:33 PM

Paper 12 Sec. 1 p.129: The Seven Superuniverses are not primary physical organizations; nowhere do their boundaries divide a nebular family, neither do they cross a local universe, a prime creative unit. Each superuniverse is simply a geographic space clustering of approximately one seventh of the organized and partially inhabited post-Havona creation, and each is about equal in the number of local universes embraced and in the space encompassed. Nebadon, your local universe, is one of the newer creations in Orvonton, the seventh superuniverse.

Allen has introduced a problem in interpretation, and I follow with another. I read the above paragraph as one who wants to believe that Orvonton is basically a clustering of the starry offspring of the nebulae into ten major sectors which "whirl" about Uversa, each holding 100 minor sectors in its gravity grasp, with each sector bringing 100 local universes in tow (etc, etc. see p.168). But it's a difficult picture in terms of the kinds of inter-sector and inter-minorsector spaces involved. None of the artist's renditions I've seen satisfy the naturalist part of me.

And this mention of "boundaries" between superuniverses causes me to wonder about the proximity of the superuniverses themselves to each other. On the one hand, I suppose if superuniverses do not share the same nebular families, we are talking about a separation wide enough to prevent gravitational swapping of "prime real estate" - i.e. local universe material. This must require a significant area. But I think we might establish as a minimum no more space than the major sectors themselves require (and these are spoken of as potentially distinguishable (bottom of p.167). In which case the Grand Universe elipse itself might be clearly distinguishable as a more or less homogeneous band of 70 major sectors (rather than 7 big clumps featuring 10 big merry-go-rounds within merry-go-rounds).

Just sayin'. I also like the problem of the distances between the superuniverses because I am inclined to think that some of the nebular phenomena that is obviously outside Orvonton may still be within the superunverse level and not simply in the first outer space level.

By the way, Allen, I see on p.168 that we are placed by the authors within "one of the arms of this distorted spiral," that being the one-time Andronover nebula. So I've found answers to some of the mistaken rhetorical questions in my previous post. As long as we are not viewing the "Milky Way" as the progeny of the Andronover spiral, I'm OK with talk of spirals.

#17 Allen

Allen

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 12 posts

Posted 14 November 2009 - 05:54 PM

Hi John and those interested,

There are maps of the local groups of galaxies from astronomy work such as the Atlas of the Universe that represents a good picture. I put together a crude sketch of the seven superuniverses some time back based on a good map from the National Geographic Society drawn in about 1983. There are about a dozen candidates for the superuniverses and I choose 6 plus ours for the sketch. These are not in a single plain but most are close to it. They seem to fit in an area of about 20 Mlys by 10 Mlys.





Allen

Attached Files



#18 John Anngeister

John Anngeister

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 109 posts

Posted 14 November 2009 - 07:35 PM

Fascinating, Allen

I have some good catalogues home from the State College library right now, and so I was able to quickly view and read about your candidates (except 6, which I'll catch later).

Your "island universe" picks represent a theory that is exactly the opposite my own recent thinking. But I'm glad to have something so "solid" to bounce off of.

However, I was curious to know why, when almost all of your picks appear inside of groups of galaxies, you do not include more than a single galaxy for 1-6, while you allow an entire "local group" for our own.

Again, fascinating. But I'm not buying it just yet.

#19 Allen

Allen

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 12 posts

Posted 15 November 2009 - 09:18 AM

Hi John,

Often a galaxy group has the same name as the main galaxy within the group but my intent was to show that the superuniverses were composed of all their own local group stars. This naming thing also confused me at first.

There are no large single galaxies that would contain enough stars to be even close to the star count of a superuniverse which includes Orvonton. And I do not think some of the ideas of Causland are very accurate, especially his sketches of the superuniverses. What is seen in these nearby galaxy groups are the distinct galaxies that make up the group. We cannot see much of the small star clouds and that sort of thing yet within each group.

There could be other candidates for superuniverses on the other side of the center of the MW where we cannot yet see very well. This would be on the other side of Havona. So do not take my sketch very seriously.

I think this might bring us closer in agreement. Sorry about misspellings in the sketch.

Allen

#20 John Anngeister

John Anngeister

    Poster

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 109 posts

Posted 16 November 2009 - 02:39 PM

I think every would-be mapper of Orvonton could do no better than start at Paper 15, Sec. 3, pp.167-8.

In the first post on this thread HSTa includes an early representation of the superuniverse by Nigel which cites these two pages by the Universal Censor. (Note: I think Nigel’s second picture at post #3 better depicts Orvonton with the wider end on the outside.)

Two other UPs of supreme interest are numbers 41 and 57. Paper 41 is a collaborative effort authored by two personalities - an Archangel and the Chief of Nebadon Power Centers (!). 41 was cited for the first time on this thread by Nigel at post #3 and again in #9. Carmello in #10 also cites Paper 41 (and a bit from Paper 32, an important auxilliary).

Now back to Paper 15:

Sec. 3 offers two very interesting clues to the biggest pieces in the puzzle (the ten major sectors).

1. From p. 167 (bottom) it may be judged that 8/10 of the major sectors of Orvonton were “roughly identified” by astronomers before the mid-1930s.

2. On p. 168 the major sectors themselves are referred to by a Universal Censor as “the so-called star drifts” (item 6 on the list of rotational components).

Possible question: “What kinds of stellar formations were called ‘star drifts’ by astronomers prior to the mid-1930s?”

I think the name most associated with the concept of the star drifts was Arthur Stanley Eddington (famous early paper on the topic around 1908). But his inspiration was the Dutch astronomer Kapteyn, who gave the world in 1904 a stellar motion study depicting two local “star streams” (as he called them) moving in nearly opposite directions in our local space. I haven’t yet penetrated the material from 1920-1935.

These two early studies seem at first to be of a scale not quite up to the magnitude of a major sector, but it is possible to consider them as aids to identify major sector stellar “arteries” flowing in our neighborhood.

As if there were not enough to consider here, Nigel (post #9) offers a quote from Paper 41 which seems to contradict Paper 15:

UB 459.4 Better methods of space measurement and improved telescopic technique will sometime more fully disclose the ten grand divisions of the superuniverse of Orvonton; you will at least recognize eight of these immense sectors as enormous and fairly symmetrical star clusters


I say “contradict” because the term clusters has more than one meaning in astronomy, but not one that I can think of which is similar to what are known as star streams or star drifts.

I can, however, report that I’ve seen photographs of 5 local group galaxies which represent them as gigantic masses or clusters of stars similar to the two Clouds of Magellan. I don’t think I am confusing these structures with the hundreds of open or globular clusters within the Milky Way (which the revelators say are common terminal configurations of played-out spirals).

Five cluster “galaxies” of the Local Group:
Wolf-Lundmark-Melotte (WLM)
CMa dw
Leo I
NGC6822
IC5152

Visible at: List of Local Group Galaxies
And I do think Carmello’s suggestion (post #10) has some merit: that most of the visible Milky Way might be simply the bulk of our own major sector.

I’m just trying to get the ducks in a row here. Discussion welcome. (Hi, Allen!)




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users