Urantia Book Forum

Urantia Book Discussion Board : Study Group
It is currently Sat Apr 17, 2021 5:24 am +0000

All times are UTC - 7 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 490 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Relativity and TUB
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 6:10 am +0000
Posts: 1945
Riktare wrote:
I seem to be missing something important about 11:8.9. When the authors refer to gravity always acts preferentially in the plane perpendicular to the mass, what mass do they mean? …
Hi Riktare - I think the authors mean that all mass (down to the level of individual ultimatons) inherently has direction. Finite (material) gravity acts preferentially in the plane perpendicular to this direction.

The authors also indicate that mass (Paradise) and gravity (creation) have differential dimensions. So, if our finite reality is a 3-dimensional cross-section of (e.g.) 4-dimensional absolute reality, then the direction of mass might be motion in a 4th space-like dimension, which is per definition orthogonal (perpendicular) to a 3D world.

Ultimately, material gravity is regulated by the all pervading Unqualified Absolute who resides on Paradise; the absolute source and the eternal focal point of all energy-matter in our world ..
Quote:
11:8.9 Paradise is the absolute source and the eternal focal point of all energy-matter in the universe of universes. The Unqualified Absolute is the revealer, regulator, and repository of that which has Paradise as its source and origin. The universal presence of the Unqualified Absolute seems to be equivalent to the concept of a potential infinity of gravity extension, an elastic tension of Paradise presence. This concept aids us in grasping the fact that everything is drawn inward towards Paradise. The illustration is crude but nonetheless helpful. It also explains why gravity always acts preferentially in the plane perpendicular to the mass, a phenomenon indicative of the differential dimensions of Paradise and the surrounding creations.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Relativity and TUB
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2012 2:03 pm +0000
Posts: 528
Riktare wrote:
By the way Louis, E = m c^2 for an isolated or non-moving particle (and more generally E = lambda m c^2 for a pair of moving particles) is most easily derived as a consequence of the exchange of EM energy between moving or rotating charged particles. That is, dispersion of energy into the fields of nearby space as the EM energy of the emitting particle affects the motion of the absorbing particle which thereby generates an additional field affecting its own motion recursively.

The c^2 factor comes from the dispersion relation c^2 = phase velocity * group velocity. Where phase velocity and group velocity pertain to the EM wave.


Show me a non-moving particle and I'll show you non-reality. Velocity is a line. All lines are infinite, all lines are one. A line that is squared is an infinite plane. These are in the realm of the ideal not the finite. The infinite is the source of all reality and finite reality is a projection of the infinite. Energy is the linear equivalent of mass. The plane pulls energy into time-space thereby condensing (curving) it into mass. c^2 is plane which is the source of that gravity which controls matter-energy.

Think of energy as the line of the earth's axis and c^2 as the equatorial plane from which gravity pulls perpendicularly. What you have said above makes no sense at all. And if you got that from your physics class I can see why. There are not two velocities because there is only one line. There are no EM fields, there are only particles with mass. And that mass is not an acceleration but an accelerated acceleration. Gravity is the only field that controls energy-matter. Light, magnetism, electricity, heat, energy-matter,chemism are one and the same in origin, nature, and destiny. They are all motions. Motions cannot generate fields, they can only interact with other motions. Motions cannot act or control other motions, only gravity.

Gravity controls them all with a perpendicular pull.

TUB states that time and space cannot be separated, therefore, Length^3/Time^2 is not a reality. Mass must be Length^3/Time^3.

Can't you see that Newton led us astray. F = MA according the science becomes F = A^2 if mass is an acceleration. The Circle is dynamically a representation of an acceleration. Then F = A Circle^2. A squared circle is an infinity. Force is an infinity!

QM and its cousins, QED and QCD are suspect, to say the least. Renormalization is a way to hide the infinities. What is a point mass, or a point particle anyway. Certainly nothing physically measurable.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Relativity and TUB
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2012 2:07 am +0000
Posts: 981
Hi Louis,

When I say "non-moving particle" I mean of course: not moving substantially with respect to the other particle it is exchanging energy with. Of course all particles continuously move with respect to each other at least on a microscopic level but often only back and forth a tiny amount. Zitterbewegung is the term often used to describe that "trembling" sub-microscopic movement. It does not itself cause macroscopic relativistic effects.

The lambda variable I mentioned is the standard "boost" variable in Lorentz Theory or Relativity Theory. I'm not saying that either of those is quite right, but they do describe the effects of motion on momentum exchange acceptably well for many purposes.

To a very important point: motion of a charged particle does cause field fluctuations! That is the single most important part of our inherited physics of electrodynamic processes from Faraday through Maxwell on up to the present day. Obviously fields are abstract concepts, but they do describe, through translation, both the movement of energy through space and the force that results from the compression or rarification of the energy at any particular point in space.

It's really too simple too ignore and there is no indication that the revelators criticize us for that.

41:5:6 The next step in the slowing down of the electron yields various forms of solar X rays together with artificially generated X rays. The electronic charge creates an electric field; movement gives rise to an electric current; the current produces a magnetic field. When an electron is suddenly stopped, the resultant electromagnetic commotion produces the X ray; the X ray is that disturbance.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Relativity and TUB
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2012 2:03 pm +0000
Posts: 528
Riktare wrote:
Hi Louis,

When I say "non-moving particle" I mean of course: not moving substantially with respect to the other particle it is exchanging energy with. Of course all particles continuously move with respect to each other at least on a microscopic level but often only back and forth a tiny amount. Zitterbewegung is the term often used to describe that "trembling" sub-microscopic movement. It does not itself cause macroscopic relativistic effects.

The lambda variable I mentioned is the standard "boost" variable in Lorentz Theory or Relativity Theory. I'm not saying that either of those is quite right, but they do describe the effects of motion on momentum exchange acceptably well for many purposes.

To a very important point: motion of a charged particle does cause field fluctuations! That is the single most important part of our inherited physics of electrodynamic processes from Faraday through Maxwell on up to the present day. Obviously fields are abstract concepts, but they do describe, through translation, both the movement of energy through space and the force that results from the compression or rarification of the energy at any particular point in space.

It's really too simple too ignore and there is no indication that the revelators criticize us for that.

41:5:6 The next step in the slowing down of the electron yields various forms of solar X rays together with artificially generated X rays. The electronic charge creates an electric field; movement gives rise to an electric current; the current produces a magnetic field. When an electron is suddenly stopped, the resultant electromagnetic commotion produces the X ray; the X ray is that disturbance.


Hi Steve: I do sincerely respect your knowledge of mainstream physics and the Standard Model (SM), however, this forum must relate to TUB and what it says directly or indirectly about our science. This must take into account that our metaphysics has failed.

Particles in the SM are Newton's point masses. Point particles are virtual because they can only have virtual spins. Therefore, they have virtual masses. TUB tells us that even the ultimaton is a measurable particle with spin. It must, therefore, have an equator and an axis of rotation. Because of this, the ultimaton has poles and can take on charge. These and all particle that are real can interact. This interaction is called collision. The trembling is spin and spinning particles that are real can and do collide with one another. That indeed causes transfer of motion, not energy per say, especially when collisions are off center. Explain to me how the SM can describe how virtual particles interact. Point particles have no extensions in space. They cannot be mechanical.

Fields are an abstract concept the same way virtual particles are abstract concept. They are virtual because the SM has no mechanics to explain them. Energy does not move through space, motion moves through space. Motion is spiral and energy is linear. Gravity curls energy into mass, the ultimaton. A real particle. Momentum exchange is not possible between virtual particles or real particles. Momentum has a linear term, velocity, and a curved term, mass. One is physical and the other is not. Velocity is not real, it cannot be measured. It has no physicality. Only motion can be exchanged between any real spinning particle.

Spinning particles can exhibit charge because they have polarity. But that charge belongs to the particle itself and is a surface phenomenon. It does not produce a field, it is caused by motion. Gravity is a field and not a motion. Faraday and Maxwell were wrong. There are no physical points in space, points are absolute and cannot reside in space, less they focalize space around them. Your quote of TUB does nothing to help your argument. They are trying to explain how Faraday and Maxwell got it wrong. TUB attribute charge to a single particle, and all effects are extremely local to that particle, the electron. The electron charge is created by differential motion between hemispheres of the spinning electron. Motion of the electron causes a current of charge. Current, motion, produces magnetism (motion) which is required to balance the motion of current perpendicularly. This magnetic field is motion. Nothing abstract about that. When the electron is stopped, for an instant in a collision, motion is transferred. Tell me how a virtual particle with virtual spin can do that. Faraday and Maxwell were wrong because they used point charge, in a virtual particle with virtual spin and point mass. Thank you so much, Newton :cry: Charge is distributed over the entire surface of a real particle. This is not a point charge! What in the blazes is field [/i[i]]fluctuations and how can a virtual particle produce them? The disturbance is a commotion in the force blanket of space.

I am Cuban-American and I say that the SM has "some splaining to do, Lucy". :lol:


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Relativity and TUB
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 6:10 am +0000
Posts: 1945
If gravity acts preferentially in the plane perpendicular (orthogonal) to the direction of mass (11:8.9), then all mass in our world must have (almost) equal direction, since all mass basically attracts all other mass at any (3D) relative location. This might be understood by assuming that the direction of mass is a 4D property of the ultimaton; orthogonal (perpendicular) to our 3D reality..


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Relativity and TUB
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2012 2:07 am +0000
Posts: 981
Thanks Bart. I'll still at a loss for figuring out just what the revelators mean by that passage but I'll keep mulling it over.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Relativity and TUB
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2012 2:07 am +0000
Posts: 981
I agree with you Louis that the Physics of our day is one gigantic mess. But I'd say that Faraday and Maxwell actually got it right even if what remains of their observations has been very badly mauled and mutated. Neither of them advocated "point charges" or point particles. In fact molecules were not yet discovered in their time but Maxwell realized they probably existed and were extended in space. Maxwell died relatively young and didn't get the chance to further develop his already incredibly extensive ideas (which were in many ways more than a hundred years ahead of their time).

Maxwell dealt with space as a continuum or ocean or reservoir of energy that could be compressed or rarified. Charge was defined as a discontinuity of polarization (a place where the continuum no longer exists). Any physical realization of charge would require spatial extension. You could liken charge to a sail which allows wind (electromagnetic wind so to speak) to be intercepted in way that propels the boat in some direction.

On the other hand, today's Physics probably contains most everything we need to put a basic picture together, even though very much is buried under many levels of intense confusion, heavy distractions and misinterpretation. You've probably been taught a very superficial version of the SM. Point particles are really not involved. The topologies that are used are based on SU(2) and SU(3). SU(2) mathematics, i.e., Quaterions, shows how fields are affected when a particle rotates. SU(3) mathematics shows how 3 different rotating sub-particles interact to produce a charge.

I think that echos in a slightly more technical way what you are saying about rotating particles. If you dumb all of that down to U(1) topology which Heaviside, Lorentz and Einstein were responsible for fostering (even though there were good reasons for doing so at the time) then you arrive at the butchered Physics that is still being taught without ever mentioning how incomplete it is.

By the way, Spinors, which are essentially one half of a Quaternion, have been explained as the parameters or values of the vectors used in Stereographic Projections from the Riemann Sphere. I don't particularly like that interpretation (for technical reasons) and think there are better and more intuitive interpretations and uses. But all of that in any interpretation does fit into your interest in spinning particles.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Relativity and TUB
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2012 2:03 pm +0000
Posts: 528
Riktare wrote:
I agree with you Louis that the Physics of our day is one gigantic mess. But I'd say that Faraday and Maxwell actually got it right even if what remains of their observations has been very badly mauled and mutated. Neither of them advocated "point charges" or point particles. In fact molecules were not yet discovered in their time but Maxwell realized they probably existed and were extended in space.

Maxwell dealt with space as a continuum or ocean or reservoir of energy that could be compressed or rarified. Charge was defined as a discontinuity of polarization. Any physical realization of charge would require spatial extension. You could liken charge to a sail which allows wind (electromagnetic wind so to speak) to be intercepted in way that propels the boat in some direction.

On the other hand, today's Physics probably contains most everything we need to put a basic picture together, even though very much is buried under many levels of intense confusion, heavy distractions and misinterpretation. You've probably been taught a very superficial version of the SM. Point particles are really not involved. The topologies that are used are based on SU(2) and SU(3). SU(2) mathematics, i.e., Quaterions, shows how fields are affected when a particle rotates. SU(3) mathematics shows how 3 different rotating sub-particles interact to produce a charge. I think that echos in a slightly more technical way what you are saying about rotating particles.

By the way, Spinors, which are essentially one half of a Quaternion, have been explained as the parameters or values of the vectors used in Stereographic Projections from the Rieman Sphere. I don't particularly like that interpretation (for technical reasons) and think there are better and more intuitive interpretations and uses. But all of that in any interpretation does fit into your interest in spinning particles.


Hi Steve:
I'll admit that I cannot speak in your language of physics, I'm a medical doctor with an undergrad degree in engineering. But I am speaking to the fundamentals, the principles that are at the heart of the errors.

Faraday came up with 'the field' as an idea, not a kind of matter. Only a useful tool. The 'field is not real, however. Faraday wanted something to explain action at a distance. He drew a 'field line', gave it no physical reality and no mechanical definition. This heuristic devise has worked as a mental misdirection.

The concept of point mass was an invention of Newton and it is in his gravity equation. Coulomb's point charge takes it right into the his equation. Can't you see that these two equations are analogous. Gravity and charge are meant to seem the same. This is a colossal error!

TUB states that gravity is the sole control of matter-energy. Gravity and mass or gravity and matter cannot be equivalent. Charge is not analogous to gravity. Only gravity controls. Only gravity can create a field. Charge is a result of motion and can create nothing of the sort. Sorry.

Point particles are involved because the math can only deal with point particles. There is a fundamental confusion between a mathematical point and a physical point. One is a location in the cartesian system and the other is an absolute.

Motion in space and of space must interact with these absolutes in its actions and reactions. The mathematics cannot deal with infinities. Physics fudges and renormalizes. You cannot tell me with a straight face that mathematics can show anything real, and that is all that physics has become, unfortunately.

Now the Reimann sphere is but a glimpse into how the Infinite projects the finite. If you can grasp this you can better understand what TUB is saying about gravity and its perpendicular relation to mass.

Picture the complex plane of Gauss as the Infinite plane of Light. Perpendicular to that is the Infinite line of Energy. The Reimann sphere is but one point at infinity projecting. Now imagine infinite points on that infinite line projecting onto the plane. Now imagine gravity as sourced from that infinite plane. Gravity pulls energy from the infinite line and curves it into mass as it leaves the infinite line and is moved into finite space. Motion is now established as spiral. I will now give you a more concrete conception.

Take the Earth as an example. The equator is the infinite plane and gravity pulls perpendicular to to that plane. The Earth's axis is the infinite line. Neither one exhibits any motion. That is consistent with their Infinity. The Earth's mass is in rotation and that rotation is reflected at the equator where clockwise motion is inverted to counter motion across the equator. Motion is spiral because of the rotation and the geometrical relations between mass and gravity. Because of rotation, the Earth has polarity. Motion across the equator is unequal because the Earth is a spheroid and non-uniform and the motions are counter. This creates an imbalance in motion across the equator which creates a potential between the poles. This potential is charge, and charge is distributes along the surface of the hemispheres. This imbalance of motion seeks balance. This counter motion is satisfied by the motion of particles from the surface of one hemisphere to the other. These particles move in the space surrounding the Earth in a configuration of least action. This configuration is the Van Allen belt. This so called magnetic field is not a field. It is motion, real motion, of real matter and real particles. It characteristically bows out at the plane of the equator because this is the plane where gravity is orthogonal and has least pull.

This explanation may help you understand what TUB is saying. Why would electrons or photons or ultimatons be governed in any different fashion than the Earth. Just extrapolate.

Maxwell may have suspected that atoms extended into space but the mathematics would not allow this. And mathematics is all of physics.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Relativity and TUB
PostPosted:  
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2004 12:40 pm +0000
Posts: 2565
Quote ; loucol

'' TUB states that gravity is the sole control of matter-energy.''

Hello My Brothers , Much Of Your Posts Are Way Above My Personal
IQ Level . Yet I Grok an Absorb What I Can From IT .

Forgive Me For Asking A Simple Question From The Peanut Gallery.

Yet ITs Something Ive Been Pondering an Wondering For Many Years .

Would or IS IT Correct To Assume or State
That GRAVITY IS The Most Powerful Source/ Force In The Universes :?:

Sorry For The Interruption

Yet Im Seriously Curious About Your Thoughts About This .

Thank you for your Opinions .


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Relativity and TUB
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2012 2:03 pm +0000
Posts: 528
coop wrote:
Quote ; loucol

'' TUB states that gravity is the sole control of matter-energy.''

Hello My Brothers , Much Of Your Posts Are Way Above My Personal
IQ Level . Yet I Grok an Absorb What I Can From IT .

Forgive Me For Asking A Simple Question From The Peanut Gallery.

Yet ITs Something Ive Been Pondering an Wondering For Many Years .





Would or IS IT Correct To Assume or State
That GRAVITY IS The Most Powerful Source/ Force In The Universes :?:

Sorry For The Interruption

Yet Im Seriously Curious About Your Thoughts About This .

Thank you for your Opinions .


No problem coop and thanks for the question. I can do my best at answering it with my humble opinion.

In short, I would say no. For although physical gravity controls energy-matter, gravity has a higher source. In absolute, the "I Am" is the source of all reality, The Infinite.

And recall, there are gravities of different varieties.

Spirit Gravity of the Son.
Personality Gravity of the Father
Mind Gravity of the Conjoint Actor
Paradise Gravity of the Eternal Isle
Local gravity pull

All may act individually and synergistically in concert.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Relativity and TUB
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2012 2:07 am +0000
Posts: 981
Well Louis, I think what you are driving at can best be balanced by the recognition that you ought to be able to trust your brothers, in the long run, who are honestly searching for the truth (the answers to difficult physical questions where sometimes simplification is necessary in order for our limited minds to begin understanding how it all works). Trust, in the sense that eventually each mathematical and non-mathematical concept and usage will take its place in the hierarchy of tools and models that lead to an ever increasing mastery of understanding.

The geometric concept of the point is a simplification and a very useful one. Any intelligent person realizes it is an abstraction which reproduces some features of reality, but not all. We don't all want to become like Abner who could not compromise for the sake of actually making things work now, do we? We never want to be in the situation of throwing the baby out with the bath water, do we? In any technical field you must realize and accept that you do not know it all and must engage in a give and take relationship with other practitioners. If you want to be in the game you must listen to and seriously consider what others are saying. Surely the revelators are intimately cognizant of that and would not advise otherwise.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Relativity and TUB
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2012 2:07 am +0000
Posts: 981
Hi Coop,

That's a difficult question to answer because it depends on what scope or concept of locality you are interested in. The famous physicist Richard Feyman once calculated three times (because he didn't believe it could be correct) that if every electron in your body suddenly jumped a meter to the right, that that force would be enough to move the Earth such a distance.

The electromagnetic force is immensely stronger than the force we understand as gravity when compared side-by-side. But since in the macroscopic realm positive and negative charges are so nearly balanced in space in general, gravity very quickly becomes the dominant force in the macroscopic realm.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Relativity and TUB
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 6:10 am +0000
Posts: 1945
coop wrote:
… Would or IS IT Correct To Assume or State
That GRAVITY IS The Most Powerful Source/ Force In The Universes :?:
Hi brother Coop 8) - Gravity is said to be the sole control of matter-energy. So gravity is the only material force in the universe. Material gravity in TUB may not just refer to so-called local linear gravity, it may include the (strong) nuclear force and electromagnetic force. Material gravity then organizes basic matter into atoms and molecules and things and organisms. It seems there are 3 fundamentals that make up time-space reality: fundamental matter (ultimatons), fundamental sequence (time), and fundamental material gravity (regulated by the all pervading Unqualified Absolute).

In this sense, material gravity underlies all microscopic and macroscopic organisation and coordination of matter in space. On the other hand, I think that our personal conscious perception of reality produces time (fundamental sequence) and concepts and meanings and values. This inward pull of mind/spirit/personality gravity ultimately is more powerful than material gravity ..
Quote:
5:6.11 As all gravity is circuited in the Isle of Paradise, as all mind is circuited in the Conjoint Actor and all spirit in the Eternal Son, so is all personality circuited in the personal presence of the Universal Father, and this circuit unerringly transmits the worship of all personalities to the Original and Eternal Personality.

7:3.2 The spiritual-gravity pull of the Eternal Son constitutes the inherent secret of the Paradise ascension of surviving human souls. All genuine spirit values and all bona fide spiritualized individuals are held within the unfailing grasp of the spiritual gravity of the Eternal Son. The mortal mind, for example, initiates its career as a material mechanism and is eventually mustered into the Corps of the Finality as a well-nigh perfected spirit existence, becoming progressively less subject to material gravity and correspondingly more responsive to the inward pulling urge of spirit gravity during this entire experience. The spirit-gravity circuit literally pulls the soul of man Paradiseward.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Relativity and TUB
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2012 2:03 pm +0000
Posts: 528
Riktare wrote:
Well Louis, I think what you are driving at can best be balanced by the recognition that you ought to be able to trust your brothers, in the long run, who are honestly searching for the truth (the answers to difficult physical questions where sometimes simplification is necessary in order for our limited minds to begin understanding how it all works). Trust, in the sense that eventually each mathematical and non-mathematical concept and usage will take its place in the hierarchy of tools and models that lead to an ever increasing mastery of understanding.

The geometric concept of the point is a simplification and a very useful one. Any intelligent person realizes it is an abstraction which reproduces some features of reality, but not all. We don't all want to become like Abner who could not compromise for the sake of actually making things work now, do we? We never want to be in the situation of throwing the baby out with the bath water, do we? In any technical field you must realize and accept that you do not know it all and must engage in a give and take relationship with other practitioners. If you want to be in the game you must listen to and seriously consider what others are saying. Surely the revelators are intimately cognizant of that and would not advise otherwise.


Steve, it is not my intention for you to have taken anything I have posted personally. Why would feel the need to defend the physics establishment so vociferously?

Honestly, I have difficulty trusting a brother who repeatedly steels from me, tells me lies and has no remorse or shame in doing so. I cannot trust a that brother to honestly seek Truth. The brother that is cheating and misdirecting and misleading everyone around them leaves me short on trust. Now, that does not mean that I don't love that brother. However, one cannot compromise with such brothers, only pray for them. A give and take is fine, but not a take take take. These are the brothers that listen to no one. They are self satisfied and cannot be bothered. Those are brothers not worthy of trust, sorry.

An intelligent person cannot entertain the idea that an abstraction represents or reproduces any reality whatsoever. That is pure sophism. I, at least, am cognizant of what I do not know and hope to gain something from the revelation of TUB.

BTW, I must agree with Bart on his answer to coop's question.

Electro magnetism is not a force. It is a motion.

42:4.1 Light, heat, electricity, magnetism, chemism, energy, and matter are — in origin, nature, and destiny — one and the same thing, together with other material realities as yet undiscovered on Urantia.

Note that energy and matter are lumped in together with all the others.

Bart has restated one of the most ignored quote in TUB. Gravity is the sole control of energy-matter. (and all the others mentioned above)

The only field is the gravitational field. It is the only one with action at a distance. All other are motions and must interact by collision, they must touch.

Seems to me that you have a decision to make, at least on this one. Which do you choose, TUB or mainstream science? :?:


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Relativity and TUB
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2012 2:07 am +0000
Posts: 981
Hi Louis,

It doesn't feel to me that I'm defending established science voraciously :smile: Please look at all the criticisms I've expressed. But despite its imperfections, many phases of Physics are really quite successful - no small feat when we can't even begin to see most of the natural processes directly with our eyes.

And there is, in my opinion, a lot of overlap between what the revelators express and the very best Physics. It sounds like all your life you've probably been exposed to much more of the very worst 8)

Our problem now is: where do we go from here? The more difficult (abstract if you will) concepts in the UB need some kind of connection to something we can see or test or at least think about that inserts them into our psyche in a real and usable way.

By the way, Faraday was very much a hands-on guy. He didn't write equations. He wrote only verbal descriptions and drew pictures that illustrated the results of experiments. He thought deeply about each situation then devised an experiment to test his hypothesis. Everything was done empirically. Reality testing. Isn't that the best way to realize and verify what the authors are telling us?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 490 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours


Who is online

Registered users: No registered users


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:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group