Relativity and TUB
Thu Jul 12, 2012 6:39 pm +0000
From my reading of TUB I must conclude that Relativity as it concerns motion is not compatible with The Papers.
TUB states that every thing in the universe of universes is in motion except for stationary Paradise.
All motion is rotational, from the spin of the ultimaton around its Paradise nucleus to the Master Universe's rotation about the Eternal Isle of Paradise.
Rotational motion IS ABSOLUTE! Therefore, all motion in the Universe is absolute. Therefore, no motion can be said to be relative.
Notice what Paper 42 says and what it does not say. It validates our concept about the 'quanta' and the equivalency of matter and energy, but does not go on to mention the most obvious scientific revolution of the first third of the last century. No mention of Einstein's Relativity theories.
Perhaps, in their wisdom, if there was not something nice to say, it is best to say nothing at all.
I would enjoy feedback on these observations and comments from fellow Urantians. On Physics blogs these sort of thing would be a double heresy. To attack the sacred cow of Relativity and use the idea of Paradise to back it up is a scientific capital offense.
Regards, Louis.
oops! My bad. I'm new and did not notice this is a video site. Sorry.
TUB states that every thing in the universe of universes is in motion except for stationary Paradise.
All motion is rotational, from the spin of the ultimaton around its Paradise nucleus to the Master Universe's rotation about the Eternal Isle of Paradise.
Rotational motion IS ABSOLUTE! Therefore, all motion in the Universe is absolute. Therefore, no motion can be said to be relative.
Notice what Paper 42 says and what it does not say. It validates our concept about the 'quanta' and the equivalency of matter and energy, but does not go on to mention the most obvious scientific revolution of the first third of the last century. No mention of Einstein's Relativity theories.
Perhaps, in their wisdom, if there was not something nice to say, it is best to say nothing at all.
I would enjoy feedback on these observations and comments from fellow Urantians. On Physics blogs these sort of thing would be a double heresy. To attack the sacred cow of Relativity and use the idea of Paradise to back it up is a scientific capital offense.
Regards, Louis.
oops! My bad. I'm new and did not notice this is a video site. Sorry.
Re: Relativity and TUB
Fri Jul 13, 2012 1:43 am +0000
There is this loucol, from 195:7:
...And let not your dabblings with the faintly glimpsed findings of "relativity" disturb your concepts of the eternity and infinity of God. And in all your solicitation concerning the necessity for self-expression do not make the mistake of failing to provide for Adjuster-expression, the manifestation of your real and better self.... P.2078 - §8
...And let not your dabblings with the faintly glimpsed findings of "relativity" disturb your concepts of the eternity and infinity of God. And in all your solicitation concerning the necessity for self-expression do not make the mistake of failing to provide for Adjuster-expression, the manifestation of your real and better self.... P.2078 - §8
Re: Relativity and TUB
Fri Jul 13, 2012 8:35 am +0000
Yes Rick, this passage by the Midwayers is somewhat baffling. Words like 'dabblings' and 'faintly glimpsed' have negative connotations but I have often wondered why the authors of TUB are vague about so many things. Are they trying to be kind and gently point out some of our errors? Do we need to find out for ourselves? Perhaps they want to encourage this kind of discourse among the readers for the benefit of fellowship.
We are told that science also dogmatizes and this is certainly evident in fields such as physics and biology.
I enjoy thinking about the science in TUB, but it boils down to the fact that we as a human are so far from understanding the first micrometers of the scratch in the surface that it can be frustrating. When even Beings of high origin admit to having to scratch there heads over some of the supposed doing of the Unqualified Absolute, how are we poor Agondonters supposed to feel.
I then find comfort in knowing that it is OK to live as fully as possible as a tadpole, acknowledging the gospel, "Our Father Who Is in Heaven", and devoting myself to loving service in the Kingdom thru inspiration in the life of Jeseus.
Thanks for your response.
Regards, Louis
We are told that science also dogmatizes and this is certainly evident in fields such as physics and biology.
I enjoy thinking about the science in TUB, but it boils down to the fact that we as a human are so far from understanding the first micrometers of the scratch in the surface that it can be frustrating. When even Beings of high origin admit to having to scratch there heads over some of the supposed doing of the Unqualified Absolute, how are we poor Agondonters supposed to feel.
I then find comfort in knowing that it is OK to live as fully as possible as a tadpole, acknowledging the gospel, "Our Father Who Is in Heaven", and devoting myself to loving service in the Kingdom thru inspiration in the life of Jeseus.
Thanks for your response.
Regards, Louis
Re: Relativity and TUB
Fri Jul 13, 2012 10:41 am +0000
Louis – I don’t see that at all. And you can save yourself the trouble searching for a single passage in TUB that is incompatible with relativity theory. I assure you that there are none. According to TUB, every thing is in relative motion; ultimately, relative to the central Isle of Paradise; the source and center of all gravity.loucol wrote:From my reading of TUB I must conclude that Relativity as it concerns motion is not compatible with The Papers. …
And relativity theory very well stands on its own. It doesn’t need TUB’s explicit support. At this moment general relativity theory continuously proves to be a very accurate description of important aspects of (all) large scale space-time phenomena.
I guess the revelators didn’t bother to explain relativity theory primarily because it’s self-explanatory. It is what it is: a mathematical model or metaphor of space, time, energy, and mass; no more no less. Obviously it is incomplete and it has no further spiritual value.
Any thing that rotates, rotates relative to something else. Where in TUB is it stated that "rotational motion is absolute"loucol wrote:… TUB states that every thing in the universe of universes is in motion except for stationary Paradise.
All motion is rotational, from the spin of the ultimaton around its Paradise nucleus to the Master Universe's rotation about the Eternal Isle of Paradise.
Rotational motion IS ABSOLUTE! Therefore, all motion in the Universe is absolute. Therefore, no motion can be said to be relative. …
I will not repeat all the arguments here. For a detailed discussion of how (general) relativity theory may actually support The Urantia Book, I suggest you read this thread: The universe is slowing. It contains most relevant quotes from TUB..
Re: Relativity and TUB
Fri Jul 13, 2012 4:59 pm +0000
Louis wrote:
Not all motion in the universe of universes is rotational. In fact, the primary motion which is space respiration is not rotational but inward and outward from Paradise. The rotational motion of ultimaton and the Master universe around Paradise is only secondary motion. But both primary and secondary motions are absolute. Any motion not evaluated against Paradise is relative motion.
TUB states that every thing in the universe of universes is in motion except for stationary Paradise.
All motion is rotational, from the spin of the ultimaton around its Paradise nucleus to the Master Universe's rotation about the Eternal Isle of Paradise.
Rotational motion IS ABSOLUTE! Therefore, all motion in the Universe is absolute. Therefore, no motion can be said to be relative.
Not all motion in the universe of universes is rotational. In fact, the primary motion which is space respiration is not rotational but inward and outward from Paradise. The rotational motion of ultimaton and the Master universe around Paradise is only secondary motion. But both primary and secondary motions are absolute. Any motion not evaluated against Paradise is relative motion.
12:4.7 Space is, from the human viewpoint, nothing—negative; it exists only as related to something positive and nonspatial. Space is, however, real. It contains and conditions motion. It even moves. Space motions may be roughly classified as follows:
1. Primary motion—space respiration, the motion of space itself.
2. Secondary motion—the alternate directional swings of the successive space levels.
3. Relative motions—relative in the sense that they are not evaluated with Paradise as a base point. Primary and secondary motions are absolute, motion in relation to unmoving Paradise.
Re: Relativity and TUB
Fri Jul 13, 2012 8:27 pm +0000
Hi Bart and YSMAEL: Thanks for your reply. First of all I have to agree essentially with all that you have stated but I want to explain some finer points.
When you say that ultimately, all motion is relative to Paradise, I say yes, this is true. When I am speaking of relative motion, I mean motion relative to other motion. Relativity does not recognize a center of motion, therefore it has to arbitrarily choose a reference frame. All rotational motion must be absolute because it is motion in relation to something that does not move, that being Paradise. Paradise eliminates the need for other reference frames of any kind because it is absolutely still. It is more than the ultimate reference frame, it is the absolute reference frame.
When TUB states that the ultimaton has Paradise as its nucleus, it is stating the absoluteness of its motion.
When YSMAEL correctly points out what is stated in Paper 12.4 about relative motion, the author quickly qualifies, "relative in the sense that they are not evaluated with Paradise as a base point." This I take to mean motions that are absolute in and of themselves but relative to each other. The prime example of these relative motion are the clockwise and counterclockwise rotations of the various space levels. These are absolute rotational motions about Paradise yet relative to each other.
Now let me point out that although it is correct to say that the motions of space respiration are obviously not rotational, we must acknowledge that this same space is simultaneously in rotation around Paradise. So, space motion is rotational but also 'respirational'. This complex motion takes on the characteristics rotating, expanding, contracting torus.
Therefore, in stating what I originally said in more careful wording, all motions in the universe are in rotation about Paradise. Paradise being at the center of all things as well in the center of everything is the absolute reference for all motion. My conclusion merely follows this train of logic in order to repeat my original statement; all motion is absolute in the absolute.
I really don't know where this leaves relativity theory so I will refrain from making any further comments.
Regards, Louis.
When you say that ultimately, all motion is relative to Paradise, I say yes, this is true. When I am speaking of relative motion, I mean motion relative to other motion. Relativity does not recognize a center of motion, therefore it has to arbitrarily choose a reference frame. All rotational motion must be absolute because it is motion in relation to something that does not move, that being Paradise. Paradise eliminates the need for other reference frames of any kind because it is absolutely still. It is more than the ultimate reference frame, it is the absolute reference frame.
When TUB states that the ultimaton has Paradise as its nucleus, it is stating the absoluteness of its motion.
When YSMAEL correctly points out what is stated in Paper 12.4 about relative motion, the author quickly qualifies, "relative in the sense that they are not evaluated with Paradise as a base point." This I take to mean motions that are absolute in and of themselves but relative to each other. The prime example of these relative motion are the clockwise and counterclockwise rotations of the various space levels. These are absolute rotational motions about Paradise yet relative to each other.
Now let me point out that although it is correct to say that the motions of space respiration are obviously not rotational, we must acknowledge that this same space is simultaneously in rotation around Paradise. So, space motion is rotational but also 'respirational'. This complex motion takes on the characteristics rotating, expanding, contracting torus.
Therefore, in stating what I originally said in more careful wording, all motions in the universe are in rotation about Paradise. Paradise being at the center of all things as well in the center of everything is the absolute reference for all motion. My conclusion merely follows this train of logic in order to repeat my original statement; all motion is absolute in the absolute.
I really don't know where this leaves relativity theory so I will refrain from making any further comments.
Regards, Louis.
Re: Relativity and TUB
Sat Jul 14, 2012 4:50 am +0000
Hi Bart:
I need to further respond to your admonition not to trouble myself in trying to find where in TUB there appears to be conflicts with relativity theory. Well it is no trouble at all. I will try to be brief.
Relativity theory RT states that light is 'massless'.
TUB states in Paper 15.6, "; it demonstrates that light has weight. Light is a real substance,...".
RT states that as a mass is accelerated to light speed, the mass increases toward infinity!
So, according to RT, light that travels at light speed is either massless or of infinite mass if TUB is correct about light having mass (weight).
RT states that light speed is the absolute speed limit of the universe. If this is true then every author of every paper in TUB is in violation of the universal speed limit!
General RT states that mass distorts the space around it creating 'gravity wells' to explain gravity.
TUB states that gravity is the sole control of energy-matter. This is the inverse of what RT contends in that RT says it is mass that distorts the space-time and thus gives us gravity. These two statements are wholely incompatible. Furthermore, TUB states that mass itself contains space and carries it space with it. If, as RT asserts, mass distorts space, then mass would distort itself, having space as part of its constituents.
I see RT not as 'self-explanator'y but rather as glaringly 'self-contradictory'.
The notion of Paradise itself is contradictory to RT. Einstein himself never envisioned a rotating universe. In fact, his only absolute was the constancy of the speed of light. I can hardly see anybody worshipping light!
Us Urantians know God to be the only constant and his eternal abode, Paradise, to be absolutely stationary, serving as the only reference for motion. Both are Absolutes, why should motion be any different.
There are many more contradictions but for the sake of brevity, I won't trouble you further.
Brother, one has to choose here. It is obvious to me that TUB is the obvious choice.
Regards, Louis
I need to further respond to your admonition not to trouble myself in trying to find where in TUB there appears to be conflicts with relativity theory. Well it is no trouble at all. I will try to be brief.
Relativity theory RT states that light is 'massless'.
TUB states in Paper 15.6, "; it demonstrates that light has weight. Light is a real substance,...".
RT states that as a mass is accelerated to light speed, the mass increases toward infinity!
So, according to RT, light that travels at light speed is either massless or of infinite mass if TUB is correct about light having mass (weight).
RT states that light speed is the absolute speed limit of the universe. If this is true then every author of every paper in TUB is in violation of the universal speed limit!
General RT states that mass distorts the space around it creating 'gravity wells' to explain gravity.
TUB states that gravity is the sole control of energy-matter. This is the inverse of what RT contends in that RT says it is mass that distorts the space-time and thus gives us gravity. These two statements are wholely incompatible. Furthermore, TUB states that mass itself contains space and carries it space with it. If, as RT asserts, mass distorts space, then mass would distort itself, having space as part of its constituents.
I see RT not as 'self-explanator'y but rather as glaringly 'self-contradictory'.
The notion of Paradise itself is contradictory to RT. Einstein himself never envisioned a rotating universe. In fact, his only absolute was the constancy of the speed of light. I can hardly see anybody worshipping light!
Us Urantians know God to be the only constant and his eternal abode, Paradise, to be absolutely stationary, serving as the only reference for motion. Both are Absolutes, why should motion be any different.
There are many more contradictions but for the sake of brevity, I won't trouble you further.
Brother, one has to choose here. It is obvious to me that TUB is the obvious choice.
Regards, Louis
Re: Relativity and TUB
Sat Jul 14, 2012 6:21 pm +0000
Hi Louis.loucal wrote:… Relativity theory RT states that light is 'massless'.
TUB states in Paper 15.6, "; it demonstrates that light has weight. Light is a real substance,...".
Whether or not photons have mass, is purely a matter of semantic convension or interpretation of relativity theory. You can interpret E=mc^2 to mean energy is equivalent to mass (except for a conversion factor equal to the square of the speed of light); and a photon has momentum and momentum is related to mass (p = mv); and light is affected by gravity as demonstrated by gravitational lensing and other effects. Thus, a photon has (relativistic) mass.
Another way to use Einstein's equation is to keep mass and energy separate and only apply it when mass is converted into energy or energy is converted into mass as in nuclear reactions. This is a kind of compromise where mass is invariant and always has energy (so total energy is conserved). In this view kinetic energy and radiation and light do not have mass.
It is basically a matter of 'taste' whether or not you think photons have mass or only energy. Energy and mass are two ways of describing the same thing. TUB states that photons are real and have weight. So be it. But this is not incompatible with relativity theory.
Well, obviously photons travel at the speed of light. And RT (obviously) does not state that the mass of a photon (or any massive particle accelerated to light speed) increases toward infinity. It only increases by a factor 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2). So, even at the speed of light the mass of a photon may be very, very minute. This is not disputed anywhere in TUB.loucal wrote:… RT states that as a mass is accelerated to light speed, the mass increases toward infinity!
So, according to RT, light that travels at light speed is either massless or of infinite mass if TUB is correct about light having mass (weight). …
RT states that the speed of light is the speed limit of any massive particle or object. I think our physical notion of mass may not apply to the authors of TUB or even morontia reality. As far as we can observe, RT may only apply to what we human mortals perceive as matter. So, again, I don’t see any incompatibility with TUB.loucal wrote:… RT states that light speed is the absolute speed limit of the universe. If this is true then every author of every paper in TUB is in violation of the universal speed limit! …
I don’t see how this is incompatible with TUB. Again, RT is just a (very accurate) mathematical theory or model of reality. It is not reality itself!loucal wrote:General RT states that mass distorts the space around it creating 'gravity wells' to explain gravity.
Again, I don’t see a problem. Mass distorts space-time thus producing gravity which controls mass, which distorts space-time, et cetera. And remember that TUB states that ultimately everything is one. Possibly a Grand Unified Theory (not RT) will unambiguously solve this…loucal wrote:TUB states that gravity is the sole control of energy-matter. This is the inverse of what RT contends in that RT says it is mass that distorts the space-time and thus gives us gravity. These two statements are wholely incompatible. Furthermore, TUB states that mass itself contains space and carries it space with it. If, as RT asserts, mass distorts space, then mass would distort itself, having space as part of its constituents.
As I said, RT is what it is: a mathematical model or metaphor of physical reality that works; no more no less. That’s what I mean by RT is 'self-explanatory'. I don't see how RT is 'self-contradictory'.loucal wrote:I see RT not as 'self-explanator'y but rather as glaringly 'self-contradictory'.
The notion of Paradise doesn’t imply a rotating universe. And the assumption of a constant speed of light seems to work very well in physics. And TUB doesn’t dispute the constancy of the speed of light.loucal wrote:The notion of Paradise itself is contradictory to RT. Einstein himself never envisioned a rotating universe. In fact, his only absolute was the constancy of the speed of light. I can hardly see anybody worshipping light!
According to TUB God is unchanging and God is all, including all (relative) motion. So, God must be dynamic in some sense; like photons (and ultimatons) may be unchanging but very dynamic (massive) particles.loucal wrote:Us Urantians know God to be the only constant and his eternal abode, Paradise, to be absolutely stationary, serving as the only reference for motion. Both are Absolutes, why should motion be any different.
The First Source and Center is the absolute source of every (relatively moving) thing, and the ultimaton has Paradise as its nucleus. And paradise is stationary.. I’m still puzzled by these TUB statements. I suspect we need some radically different (outside-in and/or inside-out) perspective to make sense of it. But anyway, I don’t see how such TUB statements present any problem for RT..
Re: Relativity and TUB
Sat Jul 14, 2012 6:38 pm +0000
Hi Bart: Thanks for the clarification. I will certainly give it more thought.
Regards, Louis.
Regards, Louis.
Re: Relativity and TUB
Sun Jul 15, 2012 5:54 am +0000
Okay Louis. Note that like relativity theory, the theory of quantum mechanics also isn’t explicitly supported by TUB. And like relativity theory quantum mechanics is a very accurate but incomplete theory.
Any (new) theory that unifies relativity theory and quantum mechanics must fully account for the results of both RT and QM; but it seems highly unlikely that such a unifying theory can be expressed in terms of ether RT or QM.
The Urantia Book describes (absolute) reality using terms as an eternal cycle (or oscillation) and infinite diversification and the projection of material reality in space and time, which seem more akin to complexity theories. And the ultimaton has Paradise as its nucleus. This notion may be compatible with a complex oscillation of a single point in (absolute) space which produces all of material reality as a so called phase-projection in time and space..
Anyhow, with or without a grand unifying theory, I doubt that RT and QM will be replaced by a (much) more accurate mathematical framework. Any GUT will most likely remain in the realm of philosophy and metaphysics..
Any (new) theory that unifies relativity theory and quantum mechanics must fully account for the results of both RT and QM; but it seems highly unlikely that such a unifying theory can be expressed in terms of ether RT or QM.
The Urantia Book describes (absolute) reality using terms as an eternal cycle (or oscillation) and infinite diversification and the projection of material reality in space and time, which seem more akin to complexity theories. And the ultimaton has Paradise as its nucleus. This notion may be compatible with a complex oscillation of a single point in (absolute) space which produces all of material reality as a so called phase-projection in time and space..
Anyhow, with or without a grand unifying theory, I doubt that RT and QM will be replaced by a (much) more accurate mathematical framework. Any GUT will most likely remain in the realm of philosophy and metaphysics..
Re: Relativity and TUB
Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:24 am +0000
Any GUT will most likely remain in the realm of philosophy and metaphysics..
Absolutely! Absolute reality will never be discovered by science as it only deals with physical reality which is only a shadow of spirit reality.
Re: Relativity and TUB
Sun Jul 15, 2012 9:39 am +0000
Greetings Bart and YSMAEL:
I am in full agreement. I am not a scientist but enjoy following the popular science in books and in the media. I now have a question on some very interesting points both of you brought up.
Are we living in a divinely constructed holographic universe?
I have to agree, Bart , that RT and QM are supremely accurate and works quite well, but at what cost. QM requires pushing the data at every turn in order to 'fit' the equations Richard Feynman named his trick 'renormalization'.
What I have realized in reading TUB is that human science is extremely handy capped for two main reasons. One being the actions of the Unqualified Absolute, and the other is our inability to grasp the Infinite.
I remember way back in my college physics class asking the professor why QM equations solve to infinities (that pesky zero in the denominator). He gave me the same look and almost the same response as my Sunday school teacher at age ten did after asking why Jesus had to die on the croos for my sins.
Accuracy is a relative term. How many decimal places before you round off. To keep the physical universe as an ongoing concern I believe the answer would have be Infinite. science and mathematics abhors infinities. God creates with them.
As an aside, in these economic times, Philosophy and metaphysics are a lot less expensive to pursue than are the science of supercolliders (CERN) that consume the equivalent of the GDPs of small nations.
Thanks for the lively discussion.
Regards, Louis
I am in full agreement. I am not a scientist but enjoy following the popular science in books and in the media. I now have a question on some very interesting points both of you brought up.
Are we living in a divinely constructed holographic universe?
I have to agree, Bart , that RT and QM are supremely accurate and works quite well, but at what cost. QM requires pushing the data at every turn in order to 'fit' the equations Richard Feynman named his trick 'renormalization'.
What I have realized in reading TUB is that human science is extremely handy capped for two main reasons. One being the actions of the Unqualified Absolute, and the other is our inability to grasp the Infinite.
I remember way back in my college physics class asking the professor why QM equations solve to infinities (that pesky zero in the denominator). He gave me the same look and almost the same response as my Sunday school teacher at age ten did after asking why Jesus had to die on the croos for my sins.
Accuracy is a relative term. How many decimal places before you round off. To keep the physical universe as an ongoing concern I believe the answer would have be Infinite. science and mathematics abhors infinities. God creates with them.
As an aside, in these economic times, Philosophy and metaphysics are a lot less expensive to pursue than are the science of supercolliders (CERN) that consume the equivalent of the GDPs of small nations.
Thanks for the lively discussion.
Regards, Louis
Re: Relativity and TUB
Sun Jul 15, 2012 12:30 pm +0000
Are we living in a divinely constructed holographic universe?
I imagine we are living in a universe beyond our mind could imagine.
Re: Relativity and TUB
Sun Jul 15, 2012 1:50 pm +0000
Hi YSMAEL:
I absolutely agree and I did not expect any better answer than the one you gave. None the less, it is fun to imagine and God gave us this wonderful universe to discover, even though all of eternity cannot penetrate the infinite.
I have some other imponderables to whet the curiosities of us Mortals.
You had previously pointed out the motions of space, that being space breathing and space circling about Paradise. Think about this question. What kind of motion can both expand and contract while simultaneously rotate around a center? That motion is illustrated by a SPIRAL motion.
A question now for Bart. Was it you that made a connection between radioactive decay and space expansion?
Well, let me toss this one out there for your consideration. The Phi spiral is a natural logorhythm spiral that spirals out (and in ) while it rotates and is governed by e, Euler's, number. This e has been termed a constant of the universe. This logorhythm also governs the rates of radioactive decay. Any coincidence? This e is also related to Pi and Phi, the other two Transcendental numbers. This relationship is demonstrated in the equation: Phi = 7/5 * Pi/e.
So you see, Bart, this at least is a strong suggestion that you were correct in making this connection.
The Phi spiral has many fascinating aspects to it because it also illustrates the connection between the quantum world and the continuous world of RT. The spiral's radius makes quantum changes as the spiral turns at every 90 deg. Yet, the spiral itself is continuous. So, the discrete borns the continuous! God unified them for us only to discover it for ourselves in the simple spiral.
Look at all the things in the phenomenal world that are illustrative of God's handy work. The motions of space, the spiral galaxies, tornados and hurricanes, the nautilus shell. All fractal creations of the Divine Ratio, Phi.
As an aside, take note that the word ratio has its origin in the Greek logos. "In the beginning was the Word ( logos) and the Word was with God, and the Word was God". Any coincidence ? Tigran, are you listening; Please chime in, this is your corner.
Please, I invite any and all to comment, criticize, or even to call me crazy. As YSMAEL rightly states, it is beyond anything we can ever imagine, but it is fun trying.
Regards, Louis.
I absolutely agree and I did not expect any better answer than the one you gave. None the less, it is fun to imagine and God gave us this wonderful universe to discover, even though all of eternity cannot penetrate the infinite.
I have some other imponderables to whet the curiosities of us Mortals.
You had previously pointed out the motions of space, that being space breathing and space circling about Paradise. Think about this question. What kind of motion can both expand and contract while simultaneously rotate around a center? That motion is illustrated by a SPIRAL motion.
A question now for Bart. Was it you that made a connection between radioactive decay and space expansion?
Well, let me toss this one out there for your consideration. The Phi spiral is a natural logorhythm spiral that spirals out (and in ) while it rotates and is governed by e, Euler's, number. This e has been termed a constant of the universe. This logorhythm also governs the rates of radioactive decay. Any coincidence? This e is also related to Pi and Phi, the other two Transcendental numbers. This relationship is demonstrated in the equation: Phi = 7/5 * Pi/e.
So you see, Bart, this at least is a strong suggestion that you were correct in making this connection.
The Phi spiral has many fascinating aspects to it because it also illustrates the connection between the quantum world and the continuous world of RT. The spiral's radius makes quantum changes as the spiral turns at every 90 deg. Yet, the spiral itself is continuous. So, the discrete borns the continuous! God unified them for us only to discover it for ourselves in the simple spiral.
Look at all the things in the phenomenal world that are illustrative of God's handy work. The motions of space, the spiral galaxies, tornados and hurricanes, the nautilus shell. All fractal creations of the Divine Ratio, Phi.
As an aside, take note that the word ratio has its origin in the Greek logos. "In the beginning was the Word ( logos) and the Word was with God, and the Word was God". Any coincidence ? Tigran, are you listening; Please chime in, this is your corner.
Please, I invite any and all to comment, criticize, or even to call me crazy. As YSMAEL rightly states, it is beyond anything we can ever imagine, but it is fun trying.
Regards, Louis.
Last edited by loucol on Mon Jul 16, 2012 4:47 am +0000, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Relativity and TUB
Sun Jul 15, 2012 2:57 pm +0000
The possible relation between space respiration and radioactive decay rates which may explain the discrepancies between dates in TUB and in the so-called geological column, is discussed here: Proving the existence of God
Here is another/related idea.
According to TUB God is all and in all. And in him we all live and have our being. What we consciously perceive as the material world is a shadowy projection of absolute reality or God. Whatever God or reality is, it can create some sort of shadowy, fragmentary projection of itself which constitutes our physical world in space and time.
The term hologram (whole image) is used to refer to (2 dimensional) projections of a (3 dimensional) image in which every part contains the whole. If absolute reality is a continuous complex oscillation of a single point, then physical reality may be a complex sequence of discrete (quantum) events, coinciding with positions of the point at a particular phase of the oscillation in each cycle of the oscillaton. Then it can be said that any part of the projection contains the whole.
Indeed, a single complex oscillation may produce so-called fractal structures in its phase-projections. Fractals are structures or images that are self-similar; i.e., structures similar to the whole existing within structures similar to the whole, et cetera, ad infinitum.
So, a holographic projection may be called a fractal. And if reality is a complex oscillation, then I guess if you really have to you could say we live in a "holographic universe"..
Flash
Note that the Mandelbrot fractal visualized above, contains infinite spiral structures within spiral structures, et cetera..
Here is another/related idea.
According to TUB God is all and in all. And in him we all live and have our being. What we consciously perceive as the material world is a shadowy projection of absolute reality or God. Whatever God or reality is, it can create some sort of shadowy, fragmentary projection of itself which constitutes our physical world in space and time.
The term hologram (whole image) is used to refer to (2 dimensional) projections of a (3 dimensional) image in which every part contains the whole. If absolute reality is a continuous complex oscillation of a single point, then physical reality may be a complex sequence of discrete (quantum) events, coinciding with positions of the point at a particular phase of the oscillation in each cycle of the oscillaton. Then it can be said that any part of the projection contains the whole.
Indeed, a single complex oscillation may produce so-called fractal structures in its phase-projections. Fractals are structures or images that are self-similar; i.e., structures similar to the whole existing within structures similar to the whole, et cetera, ad infinitum.
So, a holographic projection may be called a fractal. And if reality is a complex oscillation, then I guess if you really have to you could say we live in a "holographic universe"..
Flash
Note that the Mandelbrot fractal visualized above, contains infinite spiral structures within spiral structures, et cetera..