Urantia Book Forum

Urantia Book Discussion Board : Study Group
It is currently Sun Apr 11, 2021 5:18 am +0000

All times are UTC - 7 hours




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

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


Perhaps you are correct Steve. I must not throw the baby out with the bath water. All that I am saying, or trying to say, is that the bath water is getting pretty dirty and TUB, in my estimation is some clean water to replace it. Let's keep the baby but we need to know what to throw out. We must start with fundamentals. TUB gives plenty of clues as to where we went wrong. :smile:

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?


Perhaps you are correct Steve. I must not throw the baby out with the bath water. All that I am trying to say is that the bath water is getting pretty dirty and is in need of replacement. TUB gives us plenty of clues as to where we went wrong in our metaphysics and illustrates how the physics establishment kicked the philosophy department out. Feynman and the philosophy department at Cal Tech had a heady relationship. :smile:


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
I Wish to make A Sincere Thank You To ALL 8)
For The Helping Hand On The Ladder To Enlightenment . Aka ~ Mota

'' Fascinating ''
Spock


102:3.5 Science, knowledge, leads to fact consciousness; religion, experience, leads to value consciousness; philosophy, wisdom, leads to co-ordinate consciousness; revelation (the substitute for morontia mota) leads to the consciousness of true reality; while the co-ordination of the consciousness of fact, value, and true reality constitutes awareness of personality reality, maximum of being, together with the belief in the possibility of the survival of that very personality.


103:6.7 Your difficulty in arriving at a more harmonious co-ordination between science and religion is due to your utter ignorance of the intervening domain of the morontia world of things and beings. The local universe consists of three degrees, or stages, of reality manifestation: matter, morontia, and spirit. The morontia angle of approach erases all divergence between the findings of the physical sciences and the functioning of the spirit of religion. Reason is the understanding technique of the sciences; faith is the insight technique of religion; mota is the technique of the morontia level. Mota is a supermaterial reality sensitivity which is beginning to compensate incomplete growth, having for its substance knowledge-reason and for its essence faith-insight. Mota is a superphilosophical reconciliation of divergent reality perception which is nonattainable by material personalities; it is predicated, in part, on the experience of having survived the material life of the flesh. But many mortals have recognized the desirability of having some method of reconciling the interplay between the widely separated domains of science and religion; and metaphysics is the result of man’s unavailing attempt to span this well-recognized chasm. But human metaphysics has proved more confusing than illuminating. Metaphysics stands for man’s well-meant but futile effort to compensate for the absence of the mota of morontia.


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
Thanks coop! Love those quotes. :smile:


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
Hi Steve:

It is unfortunate that physics is the science of motion and there isn't even a decent theory of Gravity or an explanation of the forces causing elliptical orbits. Is this not a sad state of affairs?

And please don't present me models of curved space and tensors and Space-time with time in the imaginary line. This a forum about TUB and this revelation has blown all of that out of the water in 1934. Physics has not progressed on this beyond Einstein in almost 100 years.

The Copenhagen Interpretation has crystalized quantum mechanics in 1927, and Big Bang is still around. String theory promises nothing but unfathomable mathematics just so they can cheat and mislead and theorize and they won't get caught.

Billions in Tax dollars are wasted on Super colliding money pits while third world countries wish they had the equivalent in gross national product.

The PR campaign has been in full swing since 1919. I find this just down right evil.

Science is ignorant of the Source, Infinity. It is a cause and effect disconnect. In all of their math, and it is all math, they have ignored the infinities and renormalized. Feynman is famous for say, "Shut up and calculate!".

Meanwhile, I have provided a plausible theory of gravity based on what TUB has clearly stated. And based on that, I have been able to explain how the one gravitational field causes elliptical orbits. TUB has also clarified the matter of charge and EM and showed how they are motions and not fields of force.

I for one am quite grateful for this revelation, so that maybe, just maybe, there will be some brave soul on the inside that can begin to change things at a foundational level. Could you be the one? O:)


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
Yes, it is a sad state of affairs, especially concerning gravity. But gravity may continue to be a mystery for some time...

It seems you could liken the state of science (after removing the deeply political element) to what has been mentioned where men generate an enormous amount of ideas but are poverty stricken concerning ideals. The usefulness of ideals in science may not be at all recognized. If I could choose one scientist who measures up pretty well to UB standards, in my opinion, it would have to be Sir J. J. Thomson, discoverer of the electron and successor to Maxwell. Louis de Broglie also deserves a lot of credit and who, in his own way, fought it out with the entire early QM cadre led by Niels Bohr and very early developed one of the most amazing and comprehensive paradigms in modern physics. Both stressed the need for reality testing.


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
Hi Steve,

What is your take on TUB saying light has weight? Does the SM still hold that a photon has no resting mass?

In atomic theory of mainstream science are electrons and protons of similar dimensions, as in TUB?

If a photon would have mass and spin, would its mass go to infinity instantly?

Where is the force to impulse in General Relativity?

Does astrophysics have even any explanation of forces involved in elliptical orbits? Does the orbital have 'innate' motion?

In SM atomic theory what keeps the nucleus intact? what keeps electrons from collapsing into the nucleus?.

In GR, why does not the space within matter not warp matter in a positive feedback loop sending matter to infinity, creating a black hole of the entire universe.?

If one assumes a cycling universe such as TUB suggest, what do you think happens to the laws of thermodynamic, the Hamiltonian, the Lagrangian?

I really mean these questions to be food for thought but I would be interested if you have any comment.

Thanks.


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'll answer a few of these to start with and we'll take it from there.

loucol wrote:
What is your take on TUB saying light has weight? Does the SM still hold that a photon has no resting mass?


That makes perfect sense. It's well known that light and EM waves exhibit pressure on any object they impinge on. It can also be calculated what momentum a wave carries. It may even make sense to say that a photon has no rest mass because if it weren't moving it would no longer have or be energy and without energy it would cease to exist.

On the other hand, de Broglie started building his theory of Wave Mechanics on the idea that the photon might have a very tiny rest mass and that would effect the dispersion relations for energy waves. His theory has been verified many times over to yield the correct relations. So there is something deeper to think about there.

Quote:
In atomic theory of mainstream science are electrons and protons of similar dimensions, as in TUB?
More or less. I believe the "classical" radius is fairly close. But the mysterious thing is that no strongly physical radius can be measured for either particle. Every particle that is used to bombard an electron doesn't reflect off a hard surface. It almost appears that the electron has no radius at all.

Quote:
In SM atomic theory what keeps the nucleus intact? what keeps electrons from collapsing into the nucleus?

The party line is that the Uncertainty Principle keeps that from happening. Which is admittedly at bit of convoluted reasoning though probably self-consistent. Essentially, in modern thinking, the electron has too much energy to do so. It travels faster than the nucleus has a chance to grab it. Some more forward-thinking theorists are publishing more detailed and interesting ideas.


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
Thanks Steve: Best answers I have ever gotten. I usually get a run around without much sincerity.

Now, allow me to give you an addendum on my take on TUB line that gravity act perpendicularly to mass. This suggest that mass has direction but I think this is wrong as well. This, rather, suggests a relationship between gravity and mass. This relationship illustrated mathematically in

E = mc^2

I suggested before that the gravity term is hidden in the C^2 term. Einstein proposed that light speed is a constant. This actually means that its radius of curvature is infinite. Infinite flatness is an infinite line. An Infinite line squared is an infinite plane. I strongly believe that the source of gravity is this infinite plane of squared light.

Perpendicularity here would suggest that mass is an infinite line perpendicular to this infinite plane. Energy would be the very same infinite line, in keeping with energy mass equivalency but not mass gravity equivalence.

Physically, this would be gravity having its source at the equatorial plane of the spheroid (Earth, Sun, particle etc.). Gravity pulls the hemispheres towards the equatorial plane, perpendicularly. All of the inertial mass of the spinning sphere lies along the infinite line of the axis of rotation. You can easily demonstrate this in the gyroscope, which resists tilt changes but offers inertial resistance along the plane of spin.

Rotating matter is the shadowy projected finite reality that constitutes The Reimann sphere. Matter and mass are not equivalent terms. Mass is linear and matter is shadowy volume of moving curled energy. The gravity pull from the equators separates energy from the axis of mass/energy and energy is forced to curl (condense) spirally becoming visible as matter, but shadowy as compared to Higher Spirit realities. These higher spirit realities are the infinite line and the infinite plane. The plane comes via the orthogonal planes of the Trinity and the infinite line is the intersection of the planes. The three dimensional space conditioned by time is the lower finite shadowy reality.

Regarding Atomic theory, I theorize that electron, proton and neutron are one and the same particle. The spinning particle spins and has expansion and contraction cycles with cycling radius, just like the motions of space. The charging particle is contracting and is the proton phase of the cycle. The neutron is the maximally contracted particle and is neutral of charge. The electron phase is the expanding radiating particle and is of negative charge, it is discharging. Many many particles may exist in between these phases. Would this explain anything in your opinion?


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
loucol wrote:
Now, allow me to give you an addendum on my take on TUB line that gravity act perpendicularly to mass. This suggest that mass has direction but I think this is wrong as well. This, rather, suggests a relationship between gravity and mass. This relationship illustrated mathematically in

E = mc^2


Let's take just this for now as we could probably go on for weeks, months or years discussing everything you've last posted.

As I've said before, assuming you're dealing with a particle of mass m, then the c^2 term comes entirely from the transfer of energy with another particle that the first particle might happen to encounter. Or else the juggling of energy between different components of a solitary particle which is not interacting with another particle. Now, that doesn't mean we're dispensing with your idea of how gravity plays into this, but rather that, in my opinion, gravity must take effect in the m term.

Inherent in the m term is a bit of a mystery as to how gravity contributes. In yesterday's discussion we juggled the opposing ideas that the photon has rest mass and that it doesn't. One very basic fact is that the energy ocean, i.e., space or the vacuum, tries extremely hard to equalize any departures from energy equilibrium. It will react sending just the right amount of energy at the speed of light into other nearby areas of space as needed to nullify any departures from equilibrium. One word for the result of that process is polarization.

But the result of that process means that the energy of a photon would extremely rapidly be dispersed into nearby space. So how could the photon possibly survive as a particle whose energy is still focused into a tiny region of space? One reasonable answer is gravity. Gravity would then be the magic dust that keeps the energy contained in an extremely focused region of space. Gravity counteracts the apparent desperate yearning of space to disperse energy to so arrive at an equilibrium.


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
Hi Steve;

If my assumption is correct by extrpolating from TUB then mass is length, length on axis. Velocity is linear motion, length/time.

So E = L x L^2/T^2

E = L^3 x T^2 or E = Acceleration. Controlling force gravity must then be Accelerated Acceleration, or L^3/ T^3

matter then becomes Energy accelerated by gravity, curved by gravity. Does this not make more sense? I cannot see gravity in the m, but as a force of attraction from a plane surface. Gravity must be above it all for it to be a field that controls energy-matter.

The second paragraph of yours I like more, but I don't like mysteries nor assumptions based on suppositions. After that I concur, although I like the term re-polarization better.

Space acts as an equilibrant of gravity to avoid energy dispersal according to TUB. It must have bounding properties. I seriously doubt there is any pixy dust at work, the properties of space is, I think, where the answer lies. I also think both photons and electron are involved.

Another phrase for the process is balanced rhythmic interchange.

Thanks. Return you thoughts.


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,

If you don't like mysteries then what explains your interest in Science? :razz: It's good that you mentioned space as a gravity equilibrium agent. That sounds like the inverse side of the relationship I mentioned.

Your idea of matter being the result of a continually curved energy flow in such a way that in confines the energy to a compact region echoes very closely my concept of matter also. We usually measure curving energy or rotating objects a bit differently than with linear motion, using angular velocity and angular acceleration. I think angular acceleration is what you might mean by accelerated acceleration.

I'll try to find some time to do a rigorous breakdown of how each dimension applies to each concept such as energy to follow up on what you wrote.


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
Hi Steve,

My interest in science is the thrill of discovery! Discovering God's handiwork. Not the pixy dust explanations we are offered. God is not mysterious, he leaves everything in plain site, we just can't see planely(pun intended). I think most wrong conceptions are a problem of inverses. Like mass creating gravity wells rather than gravity controlling energy-matter.

The problem I see with angular velocity and angular acceleration is that it ignores the infinitesimal of motion. The elliptical is the model of motion and it is spiral. A circle is acceleration but an elliptical is an accelerated acceleration. Mathematics cannot deal with the infinitesimal so equations can be only approximations at best. Hence the need for fudging to fit data (renormalization is the fancy term).

Till next time Steve.


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
loucal wrote:
… I suggested before that the gravity term is hidden in the C^2 term. Einstein proposed that light speed is a constant. This actually means that its radius of curvature is infinite. Infinite flatness is an infinite line. An Infinite line squared is an infinite plane. I strongly believe that the source of gravity is this infinite plane of squared light.

Perpendicularity here would suggest that mass is an infinite line perpendicular to this infinite plane. Energy would be the very same infinite line, in keeping with energy mass equivalency but not mass gravity equivalence.

Physically, this would be gravity having its source at the equatorial plane of the spheroid (Earth, Sun, particle etc.). Gravity pulls the hemispheres towards the equatorial plane, perpendicularly. All of the inertial mass of the spinning sphere lies along the infinite line of the axis of rotation. You can easily demonstrate this in the gyroscope, which resists tilt changes but offers inertial resistance along the plane of spin. …
Hi Louis, Can you relate what you say to this:
Quote:
42:11.5 Linear-gravity response is a quantitative measure of nonspirit energy. All mass — organized energy — is subject to this grasp except as motion and mind act upon it. Linear gravity is the short-range cohesive force of the macrocosmos somewhat as the forces of intra-atomic cohesion are the short-range forces of the microcosmos. Physical materialized energy, organized as so-called matter, cannot traverse space without affecting linear-gravity response. Although such gravity response is directly proportional to mass, it is so modified by intervening space that the final result is no more than roughly approximated when expressed as inversely according to the square of the distance. Space eventually conquers linear gravitation because of the presence therein of the antigravity influences of numerous supermaterial forces which operate to neutralize gravity action and all responses thereto.
And keep it simple :) ..
Quote:
48:7.30 28. The argumentative defense of any proposition is inversely proportional to the truth contained.


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
Hi Bart:

Like both quotes. My thinking is consistent with both. :smile:


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
Sorry Bart and Steve, Realized I got something kick ass backwards.

In short, I now think that the source of energy is the infinite plane and not the Infinite line.

Just the opposite of my earlier thinking.

Energy from equatorial plane is injected into space-time, acted upon by gravity sourced from the infinite line (axis of rotation), curled into mass and spiraled to the to the infinite line (axis). Gravity act perpendicularly to mass in this scenario as well but makes more sense. Motion from equator to pole and along axis of rotation

This explains rain falling more perpendicularly at the equator than nearer the poles.

Has implication for unit analysis, Steve but too tired now. i will get bak to you.


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 ... 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours


Who is online

Registered users: fanofVan


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