Jump to content
Urantia Book Forum, conversations with other readers
Howard509

The Urantia Book and the Big Bang

Recommended Posts

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-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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-
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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-
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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://drstevemeidahl.com/2012/02/29/god-is-not-scientifically-provable-but/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Pause to consider", "almost a million years...".

 

As a scientist, I've always read this as just another quote from a human source. Imagine Eddington, Shapley, Hubble, "pausing to consider". New telescopes were just then revealing certain fuzzy patches to be entire galaxies, separate from what was then thought to be "the universe" (our local disc of stars). This startling fact was truly worth pausing to consider -- island universes, dotted throughout space. I sketch the scene (top of page 4 of attached pdf) over here.

 

But more interesting is what they say about spiral galaxies evolving within discs of dark matter; about the "dark flows" we should soon be able to identify; and about why "dark energy" is not required for space respiration. UB students keeping up with cosmological research will soon notice some rich pickings.

 

Nigel

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

P.354, par.5 There are at least 70,000 physical aggregations in outer space and each one is larger than a superuniverse.

P.130, par.6 Someday our astronomers will see no less than 375 million new galaxies in the remote stretches of outer space.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Considering that physical creation, which begins after the appearance of Havona, then the Superuniverses, which are followed by the outerspace levels where new aggregations and galaxies are coming into existance, we are told by the revealators that we will begin to soon see this new stuff. Does this simply mean that the revealators know that our telescopes are getting better or possibly they are telling us that the light from these new objects is begining to reach us and we will continue to see new stuff that has been newly created as its light decends upon us? This would mean that around the mid 1900's we begin to see these 375 million new galaxies but by 2013 we will see billions possibly??? Regardless of our refined optics??

The big bang would tell us that the outerspace levels contain the oldest matter in the universe but is creation revealed in the Urantia Book telling us that the outer space levels contain the newest material in all creation??

Seems to me that our astronomers may have a new approach for measuring the universe?

Please tell me if I am misinterpreting the Revelation.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nelson, that's something that I head is spinning! :blink:

I do not know with certainty, but I do not think we're too off track.

Let's investigate, between turns ... and translations ... mmm

 

 

Alina

***

Edited by Alina

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Alina. I cannot help but wonder and try to imagine how the meaning of astronomical observation could change if the observers believed that those distant galaxies had come into existance out there as a result of the creation process as opposed to traveling out there after being blown out into space because of the big bang?

 

One possible example could be that we may be able to deduce that the universe is considerably older than 13 billion years??

Edited by Nelson G
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"If we place the beginning of the history of Nebadon in the arrival of Michael, then we can say that the local universe is about 100 billion years older than Lucifer, which means one and a third older.

 

We calculate the age of a abandontario Uversa as 30,000 billion years. If Orvonton is one and one third oldest, then we should add 10,000 billion years ago at the age of abandontario to reach the estimated age of Orvonton. The sum of these two numbers gives a total time span of 40,000 billion years for the estimated age of our superuniverse"

 

Read here and see if it helps:

 

 

http://www.urantia.org/appendices-study-master-universe/appendix-xvii-time-magnitudes-master-universe

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks again Alina,

A most awsome deduction.

Now if our scientists can begin to learn how to see past 13billion, won't that be something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nelson,

I think it will mean a lot! a breakthrough, previously unthinkable.

How should scientists be working! but we will not have much news to be some time ... so we have to do our own research, within our current capabilities and some data that we receive. :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

P.354, par.5 There are at least 70,000 physical aggregations in outer space and each one is larger than a superuniverse.

P.130, par.6 Someday our astronomers will see no less than 375 million new galaxies in the remote stretches of outer space.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Considering that physical creation, which begins after the appearance of Havona, then the Superuniverses, which are followed by the outerspace levels where new aggregations and galaxies are coming into existance, we are told by the revealators that we will begin to soon see this new stuff. Does this simply mean that the revealators know that our telescopes are getting better or possibly they are telling us that the light from these new objects is begining to reach us and we will continue to see new stuff that has been newly created as its light decends upon us? This would mean that around the mid 1900's we begin to see these 375 million new galaxies but by 2013 we will see billions possibly??? Regardless of our refined optics??

The big bang would tell us that the outerspace levels contain the oldest matter in the universe but is creation revealed in the Urantia Book telling us that the outer space levels contain the newest material in all creation??

Seems to me that our astronomers may have a new approach for measuring the universe?

Please tell me if I am misinterpreting the Revelation.

 

Yea you bring up a good point..Hmmm I just had a thought, what if our scientists instead of recognizing the outward expansion of the universe as evidence of a big bang are interpreting the counter-clockwise rotation of the 1st outer space level as evidence of the big bang? This 1st level of counter-clockwise rotation would probably be more obvious than the expansion of the universe. Especially considering we are moving in opposite direction of it. It could also explain why scientists are looking at a big chunk of universes in outer space as being closer to the center of the universe than we are. Those universes would probably also become less and less visible as they are viewing it at the edge of that massive black energy void around Havona. There would be only a tiny congregation of universes, because the rest would be cut off from view due to a massive black void that is surrounding Havona. That could also explain why the big bang appears to be speeding up as we look far out in the other direction towards where the rotation is heading, that expansion may be more apparent as these universes circle around away from view counter-clockwise.

 

Also if you think about it if the entire universe is in an expanding phase, it may be much more difficult to detect than the obvious procession of 70 thousand plus universes moving counter-clockwise as we move clockwise.

Edited by -Scott-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi All:

 

Just imagine how complicated it all gets when one considers space respirations. The 2 billion year cycles really does destroy much of our ability to calculate distances considering the finite speed of light and time distortions inherent in cycles of time. Consider that 1.5 billion years ago everything was much farther apart. And 2.5 billion years ago we were all very close together, relatively.

 

 

12:5.1 Like space, time is a bestowal of Paradise, but not in the same sense, only indirectly. Time comes by virtue of motion and because mind is inherently aware of sequentiality. From a practical viewpoint, motion is essential to time, but there is no universal time unit based on motion except in so far as the Paradise-Havona standard day is arbitrarily so recognized. The totality of space respiration destroys its local value as a time source.

 

IMO,this tells us that motion is not exactly reliable as a local time source. So, does this mean that our clocks are of limited use? All data is local. We must rely on transforms to convert local data to actual data. Can we even rely on our transforms? Perhaps Nigel can chime in on this one and lend some expertise.

 

Regards, Louis

Edited by Louis aka loucol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In his book Field Propulsion by Control of Gravity Stoyan Sarg (Sargoytchev, actually) explained that the Big Bang theory cannot be right, because our absolute velocity through space has been repeatedly measured and that velocity is far too small to be compatible with the Big Bang. In that book there is Appendix 1 on page 127, showing a table of many measurements, and relevant references listed on page 128.

 

I quote Sargoytchev:

 

Page 19:

 

In order to understand the inertial properties of an elementary particle or a solid object in CL space we must have a reference frame. From the analysis of the astronomical observations in Chapter 10 and 12 of BSM-SG, it becomes evident that the space of the Milky Way (and other galaxies) could be considered as an absolute reference frame. This is confirmed by a large number of appropriately arranged experiments measuring the vector of our motion in absolute space (See Appendix 1). Some of these experiments are made in a laboratory and they usually detect the larger component of our absolute motion, which comes from the solar system motion. Since this velocity is in the range of about 300–400 km/s, it is completely inconsistent with the Big Bang model of expanding Universe, according to which the Universe expands with a velocity approaching the speed of light. This is one of many problems of the Big Bang model, which became inconsistent with the results from the accumulated cosmological observations.

 

Page 82:

 

The existence of the physical substance of space, denoted in BSM-SG theory as a CL space, was confirmed by a number of modern light velocity experiments, which detected our absolute motion through space with a velocity vector of magnitude about 360 km/s (see Appendix 1).

 

In the quoted text CL means Cosmic Lattice and BSM-SG means Basic Structures of Matter – Supergravitation Unified Theory.

Edited by rock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...