Urantia Book Forum

Urantia Book Discussion Board : Study Group
It is currently Sun Feb 19, 2017 4:54 am +0000

All times are UTC - 7 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 5 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Exploding dark islands?
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:14 pm +0000
Posts: 28
Urantia Book wrote:
"This process of cooling and contraction may continue to the limiting and critical explosion point of ultimatonic condensation." (458.6, 41:3.6)

The scientific method has revealed lots about the "cooling and contraction" of stars. For example, we now know that after a small to medium star burns through its available fuel, it can puff off an outer layer of gas, then shrink down to something the size of the earth -- a white dwarf. Bigger stars can "cool and contract" further; after some fireworks (core-collapse supernova) they can settle down as neutron stars, something heavier than our Sun, but only 10 km across.

But what happens to bigger stars, or to neutron stars that accumulate extra mass? Here, the plot thickens, and the UB predicts a surprise. First, what does science predict?

When we mix together current ideas about gravity with current ideas about neutrons, logic dictates that the forces holding up a neutron star cannot support more than about 2 or 3 solar masses (astrophysicists call this the TOV limit). So for example, if a stable neutron star steals gas from a binary partner, and its mass sneaks over this TOV limit, then gravity wins. The temperature of the neutrons jumps far beyond a billion degrees (the neutrons literally melt), and gravity starts to crush this once stable neutron star. Or as paper 41:3.6 puts it: "This process of cooling and contraction may continue..."

But only so far. Here's where the UB story differs from consensus science. Current physics has no mechanism to stop the collapse of a collapsing neutron star, so scientists generally assume that a singularity must form -- a so-called "black hole". But the UB adds to this picture a level of structure within leptons and quarks that easily resists this next level of collapse.

To understand how this lowest level of structure first resists -- then totally defeats -- gravity, we'll need some fresh ideas about space and mass and time. In the following graphics-heavy pdfs, I sketch out my current attempt to describe the UB story about such things (links to first 3 of 4 parts):

Notes_P4_A, Foundations (2.55MB)
Notes_P4_B, Mass and matter (2.44MB)
Notes_P4_C, Dark islands (2.16MB)

Plan is to record these animated slides for YouTube, to help break the ice. Eventually, like-minded readers might begin to have a real discussion about these as yet unexplored aspects of the fifth epochal revelation. But before I go further, I need someone familiar with current standard models to peer-review, and to help adjust the ideas and presentation.

If you can, please help!
Nigel

PS: for an easy intro to the necessary background, try these two documentaries: (1) How small is the universe (2) Demystifying Higgs / Leonard Susskind


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2012 2:07 am +0000
Posts: 626
Hi Nigel,

I'll probably come up with a few comments. Here is one from page 4 of the B document.

Quote:
One prediction of Einstein’s theory was that the mass of a star should bend (the path through space) of light. This means that during a solar eclipse, the position of stars near the sun should seem to shift. In 1919, this shift was measured, and found to match. This apparent confirmation made scientists take seriously Einstein’s idea.


This might be far more detailed than you would like to publish to a broad audience. I assume that you're referring to the Solar Eclipse measurements taken and analyzed by Arthur Eddington. Actually the measurements did not match Einstein's predictions. Their was very little consistency between individual measurements so when they were taken as a whole and analyzed with modern techniques, the huge error bars completely ruled out the possibility of verifying General Relativity. They did indicate though, as we all know, that the Sun does curve the path of light rays.

Maybe a change of wording from "this shift was measured, and found to match" to "this shift was measured, and found to be somewhat compatible" would be fairer or more accurate.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2012 2:07 am +0000
Posts: 626
Quote:
And sure enough, when crossing through open space, “particles of light” are said to “proceed in direct lines”. But when ploughing through this “force blanket” of segregata, these tiny bullets start to wiggle, and we measure them as waves. (475.10, 42:5.14)


Here I don't think I would say "these tiny bullets start to wiggle" - the revelators seem to say that they still proceed in direct lines. But the repercussive effects in the force blanket, the perturbations "start to wiggle". Because of the difficulty of simultaneously or near simultaneously detecting the particle and measuring the wave many Physicists confuse the particle with the wave. Louis de Broglie was maybe the one who had the clearest concept of their separation.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:14 pm +0000
Posts: 28
Riktare - perfect! Exactly the sort of help I need :D

Please think of my current attempt as place-holders for concepts and explanations. There must be many places where my description falls short, or misses the point, or misses the opportunity to surprise. If you have time, any more suggestions will be warmly appreciated!

with thanks,
Nigel


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2016 2:30 pm +0000
Posts: 185
Riktare wrote:
Here I don't think I would say "these tiny bullets start to wiggle" - the revelators seem to say that they still proceed in direct lines. But the repercussive effects in the force blanket, the perturbations "start to wiggle". Because of the difficulty of simultaneously or near simultaneously detecting the particle and measuring the wave many Physicists confuse the particle with the wave. Louis de Broglie was maybe the one who had the clearest concept of their separation.


Just a reminder, de Broglie used the equivalence of the mechanical principle of least action in his 1924 thesis. This is the same as a particle taking the path of least time. This I had mentioned elsewhere and suggested a helical trajectory (a path of least time and a minimal surface) for particles of light. Fermat's principle applied to phase waves is identical to Maupertuis's principle applied to moving bodies. These trajectories of a helicoid are identical to the possible rays of the wave.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 5 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 7 hours


Who is online

Registered users: Yahoo [Bot]


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You can post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group