Urantia Book Forum

Urantia Book Discussion Board : Study Group
It is currently Mon May 25, 2020 12:38 pm +0000

All times are UTC - 7 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 236 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 ... 16  Next
Author Message
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2016 2:30 pm +0000
Posts: 304
MidiChlorian wrote:
I'm just curious "toto", in where your statement above, which has multiple claims that the UB indicates, even though assumed, came from "Riktare", but you seem to concur with this? Can you provide specific UB narration, that you have come across, to validate your understanding of these claims? I only mention this because, as I understand your thought process, I may get a different definition based on this text?

"TUB says that space moves and that space is in matter (photons) and that photons move through space and takes the space they contain with them."

" Everything in the Universe must move at the same speed."

If I can see what motivated you to present these statements, I may find some additional context, that can apply?



118:3.5 Space comes the nearest of all nonabsolute things to being absolute. Space is apparently absolutely ultimate. The real difficulty we have in understanding space on the material level is due to the fact that, while material bodies exist in space, space also exists in these same material bodies. While there is much about space that is absolute, that does not mean that space is absolute.

118:3.6 It may help to an understanding of space relationships if you would conjecture that, relatively speaking, space is after all a property of all material bodies. Hence, when a body moves through space, it also takes all its properties with it, even the space which is in and of such a moving body.



MidiChlorian wrote:
I'm just curious "toto", in where your statement above, which has multiple claims that the UB indicates[i], even though assumed,
came from "Riktare", but you seem to concur with this? [/i]

I assumed nothing. Riktare asked why I believe that space moves. I simply gave him the quote from TUB. I did not assume but I concluded that Riktare did not know that TUB stated this.


Riktare wrote:
Toto, what leads you to believe that space moves? We know that the pervadedness of space changes according to the respiration cycles. Space might expand with those cycles too. But I don't recall any statements that led me to believe that space moves.


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.
4. Compensatory or correlating movement designed to co-ordinate all other motions.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2016 2:30 pm +0000
Posts: 304
nnunn wrote:
PS: one of my favorite examples of how you turn misconception into dogma was this gem:
toto wrote:
TUB says that time is circular simultaneity and that time is a succession of instants. This tells me that time must be quantized if you are to believe the revelation.

The UB authors do not say any such thing. What they say is this:
Urantia Book wrote:
"That which formerly appeared as a succession of events then will be viewed as a whole and perfectly related cycle; in this way will circular simultaneity increasingly displace the onetime consciousness of the linear sequence of events." (1439.3, 130:7.5)

In other words, the way we perceive time depends on our frame of reference. As I understand the idea, while stuck on our 3-manifold moving through the 7d bestowal of Paradise, a side-effect of this motion is an apparent sequence that allows sequential ("timely") choice and change. But as we un-dock from this membrane of creation, we start to glimpse the relation of such finite sequence to the larger domain, a domain in which the training wheels of time are no longer available, a domain in which non-finite folk engage bigger adventures.



P.S. I forgot to respond to your accusation of me turning a misconception into dogma.

The authors of TUB also say this:

118:3.1 Only by ubiquity could Deity unify time-space manifestations to the finite conception, for time is a succession of instants while space is a system of associated points. You do, after all, perceive time by analysis and space by synthesis. You co-ordinate and associate these two dissimilar conceptions by the integrating insight of personality. Of all the animal world only man possesses this time-space perceptibility. To an animal, motion has a meaning, but motion exhibits value only to a creature of personality status.

In my, "in other words" this means that time is discrete. I said "quantized" because so as to argue against CPT theory. But the word discrete is just as good and is consistent with the phrase, "a succession of instants". MidiChlorian would like this next characterization. How about time being "arcs" from instant to instant?

nnunn wrote:
Urantia Book wrote:
"That which formerly appeared as a succession of events then will be viewed as a whole and perfectly related cycle; in this way will circular simultaneity increasingly displace the onetime consciousness of the linear sequence of events." (1439.3, 130:7.5)


TUB hints at time as circular rather than linear. Can you square a circle? Well, if time is circular then acceleration as meters/sec^2 is invalid. And remember that gravity, what we are discussing here, is viewed by science as an acceleration of this form.

Unless things have changed and I missed another announcement, time is considered to be orthogonal to a 3-manifold, a cubic. Show me a line (linear time) that is perpendicular to a cubic without resorting to cheating by using an imaginary plane.

Now I can tell you that a hyperbolic space (4-manifold, a bounded cubic) can be orthogonal to a circular time. Circular time is a spherical shell (3-manifold). This is a 7d bestowal of Paradise. Hint: in case you did not get the announcement, only hyperbolas can be orthogonal to circles. You can put a ball in a perfectly fitted cubic box where all sides of the box touch the ball. The ball always touches the cubic box at a point that is perpendicular to the line that is drawn from their shared center.


nnunn wrote:
Glad to see you're still well, and keen about these fascinating things,
Nigel


Thanks Nigel, you're a real gem.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2012 2:07 am +0000
Posts: 971
MidiChlorian wrote:
should you wish to update your information you should read the following book: "THE UNIVERSAL ONE" by "Walter Russell" -- The original manuscript was published in 1927, but was available prior to that date, around 1910.


Walter Russell's book sounds quite interesting. The "860" reference comes from a book by physicist James Jeans "The Universe Around Us" published in 1929. I have a copy.

Hasn't the copyright to Russell's book expired? I think the longest they can run is 30 years, possibly 50, after the death of the author. That may explain why the PDF is different. Whoever created the PDF document couldn't copyright it unless something in it's contents is original.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2016 2:32 pm +0000
Posts: 121
toto wrote:
In my, "in other words" this means that time is discrete. I said "quantized" because so as to argue against CPT theory. But the word discrete is just as good and is consistent with the phrase, "a succession of instants". MidiChlorian would like this next characterization. How about time being "arcs" from instant to instant?

"toto" - I'm not sure of what you where attempting to say above, specifically when you state that "time is discrete." Where the meaning of "discrete" indicates "apart or detached from others; separate; distinct" or "consisting of or characterized by distinct or individual parts; discontinuous."
You may consider time as "arcs" but this would indicate that being an "arc" as part of a whole, then time would not be changeable? But, if time has discrete parts or instants, and unchangeable, because there are no dimensions within time, only singularities, then even thought from the past could not be changed in the present or future? In other words, even one's mind-set could not be changed because a previous instant was set in the past, and if changed in the future or present, would also change the past instant. Also, if they were individual instants, even memory would be constant, and knowable? One would never forget an instant unless the capacity was exceeded but, could not be true if time is circular, and being circular, would repeat itself over and over again?
If time were a spiral and made up of discrete parts, then there would be no way to retrieve any parts from the past after a certain point within the succession, unless the spiral overlaps at some point? Would this cause a problem, like a short circuit, if the spiral overlaps somewhere, because if they are successive parts, it might cause a loop in time?

Where in the entire narrative that you have sited: "118:3.1 Only by ubiquity could Deity unify time-space manifestations to the finite conception, for time is a succession of instants while space is a system of associated points. ...", where this expression is a "manifestation" or concept presented when one understands that it is "Deity" through "ubiquity" or being everywhere, does one conceive that there is an association of time and space as "time-space" in that the points in space may be unified as instants? Many assumptions are made when only a portion of text is used outside of their pragmatical context.

_________________
The Reality of knowing what Wisdom is, is in the Experiencing of the Philosophy of using Knowledge.


Last edited by MidiChlorian on Tue Nov 15, 2016 1:30 pm +0000, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2016 2:32 pm +0000
Posts: 121
Riktare wrote:
MidiChlorian wrote:
should you wish to update your information you should read the following book: "THE UNIVERSAL ONE" by "Walter Russell" -- The original manuscript was published in 1927, but was available prior to that date, around 1910.


Walter Russell's book sounds quite interesting. The "860" reference comes from a book by physicist James Jeans "The Universe Around Us" published in 1929. I have a copy.

Hasn't the copyright to Russell's book expired? I think the longest they can run is 30 years, possibly 50, after the death of the author. That may explain why the PDF is different. Whoever created the PDF document couldn't copyright it unless something in it's contents is original.

The copyright was reissued in 1974, by The University of Science and Philosophy, and in its Fourth printing in 2013. (http://www.philosophy.org)

I purchased eBook versions before I found a PDF version which was a scanning of the original book, which I believe was from a version prior to the 1974 copyright. This was a difficult transition because the original was in two column format which caused deviations which I had to compare to the current version and make corrections. If you PM me, I might be able to send you my copy which I have in Word and PDF format but is rather large.

_________________
The Reality of knowing what Wisdom is, is in the Experiencing of the Philosophy of using Knowledge.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2016 2:30 pm +0000
Posts: 304
Attachment:
PHI SPIRAL.rtfd.zip [39.57 KiB]
Downloaded 76 times
MidiChlorian wrote:
"toto" - I'm not sure of what you where attempting to say above, specifically when you state that "time is discrete."


I am so glad you challenged me to explain. Definitions are your forte I can see and you and everyone deserve an explanation. I will attach a phi spiral to illustrate my explanation of the words "discrete" and "arc". The spiral that I show you spirals inwards, clockwise, but in keeping with balanced motion, we must agree that a counterclockwise spiral is in simultaneous motion, imbedded in that spiral and superimposed. The evolute of the logarithmic spiral is the mirror image, or counter spiraling motion.

Each box that you see in the attachment contains an arc of a circle that is ¼ turn or 90 degrees. As this spiral proceeds clockwise, an instantaneous change in the radius of the next arc is apparent. This change in radius occurs at an instant, is a quantum jump, and the arcs are discrete as the spiral proceeds clockwise. From these chopped arcs that are joined, a perfectly smooth curve is produced. The discrete changes in radius of the discrete arcs produces the smoothness we see in nature. The discrete thus borns the continuous!

The instant is the point at orthogonality where the radius changes. At this point it can be said that time is absolute. That is what an instant is, a point of timelessness where time reflects in eternity. This is also potential infinity for this is the same as saying eternity.

MidiChlorian wrote:
If time were a spiral and made up of discrete parts, then there would be no way to retrieve any parts from the past after a certain point within the succession, unless the spiral overlaps at some point? Would this cause a problem, like a short circuit, if the spiral overlaps somewhere, because if they are successive parts, it might cause a loop in time?


Time as circular simultaneity, is made up of discrete part of circles, arcs, that expand and contract as in changes in radius. These arcs can indeed overlap and they do. Because of the orthogonally of the structure, a 90 degree phase shift would allow these waves to wind around each other without interference. They are sinusoids and are sinuous, as they slither past each other. Same for the counter rotating spiral. They can all superinpose without bumping into each other. This is balance of motion as the alternating counter rotating motions of space levels in the plan of the Master Universe.

Please notice that this spiral model also allows for respiration. The spiral never spirals to a point but can reflect and begin to spiral out without changing direction. You can perform a spiral on a piece of paper in and out without lifting the pen off of the paper or change the rotational direction. The counter rotation spiral must reflect at expansion to maintain balance in motion.


MidiChlorian wrote:
...it might cause a loop in time?


YES!!! The Universe of Universes is a loop in time! Galaxies are a loop in time! A particle of light is a loop in time!

Have you come to the realization that time is the moving image of eternity?

189:1.3 Mankind is slow to perceive that, in all that is personal, matter is the skeleton of morontia, and that both are the reflected shadow of enduring spirit reality. How long before you will regard time as the moving image of eternity and space as the fleeting shadow of Paradise realities?

Not long now.

MidiChlorian wrote:
Where in the entire narrative that you have sited: "118:3.1 Only by ubiquity could Deity unify time-space manifestations to the finite conception, for time is a succession of instants while space is a system of associated points. ...", where this expression is a "manifestation" or concept presented when one understands that it is "Deity" through "ubiquity" or being everywhere, does one conceive that there is an association of time and space as "time-space" in that the points in space may be unified as instants? Many assumptions are made when only a portion of text is used outside of their pragmatical context.


I do believe that you have come to this realization, MidiChlorian. The system of associated points means that they are all one point. The points are ONE. Remember that personality is the unifier and brings context to bear.

nnunn wrote:
Urantia Book wrote:
"That which formerly appeared as a succession of events then will be viewed as a whole and perfectly related cycle; in this way will circular simultaneity increasingly displace the onetime consciousness of the linear sequence of events." (1439.3, 130:7.5)


And so this quote makes more sense to all because of what you have pointed to.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2016 2:32 pm +0000
Posts: 121
toto wrote:
I am so glad you challenged me to explain. Definitions are your forte I can see and you and everyone deserve an explanation. I will attach a phi spiral to illustrate my explanation of the words "discrete" and "arc". The spiral that I show you spirals inwards, clockwise, but in keeping with balanced motion, we must agree that a counterclockwise spiral is in simultaneous motion, imbedded in that spiral and superimposed. The evolute of the logarithmic spiral is the mirror image, or counter spiraling motion.


There is an issue with what you said above which I feel that may be a contradiction with your last statement below:

toto wrote:
... The system of associated points means that they are all one point. The points are ONE. ...


Where you have presented a diagram of a phi spiral:
Image
Then you state above that one must assume a mirror image of this as in reference to motion but either way, clockwise or counterclockwise there would need to be two points; one in either direction as the beginning and ending points, because regardless of motion or direction there is no way on a flat plane that they will meet.

Here is a logarithmic spiral:
Image
I'm not sure how the "evolute of the logarithmic spiral is the mirror image, or counter spiraling motion"?

There are many application that can use different type of spirals but the issue that I have is, how does what you presented as a response to my earlier post, can it apply to reality as can be experienced to describe "time", "space", "matter" etc., or this subject "Investigating gravitational anomalies"?
The main issue as I see it, is that you may understand what you are presenting as a theoretical application, or even as a viable solution to something that you are convinced works or in some cases does not work but, as I have read much of your presentations, have I not seen what it is that you are attempting to prove, or disprove?
As I have mentioned before, the UB states many things that have their own specific definitions and then there are combinations of words which must be defined before some of its presentations actually make sense.

toto wrote:
The instant is the point at orthogonality where the radius changes. At this point it can be said that time is absolute. That is what an instant is, a point of timelessness where time reflects in eternity. This is also potential infinity for this is the same as saying eternity.

Your statement above which describes your interpretation of "instant" may work with only one point or instant, but the UB states "instants", plural, where if one applies the above to each of these instants, when applied in "succession" would indicate timelessness in succession, and even if applied to motion, would be nothing?

I found that following image that intrigued me because it reminded me of something you said but was having difficulty presenting so as I could understand it but maybe it can be applied to something that might be inside a nucleus?
Image

Its called a belt trick. It can be inside a cube, and uses curves and to some degree spirals?

_________________
The Reality of knowing what Wisdom is, is in the Experiencing of the Philosophy of using Knowledge.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:14 pm +0000
Posts: 107
Hi toto,

That 2012 signal at the LHC was called "Higgs-like" because it was consistent with a longitudinal compression of the (proposed) condensate of weak hypercharge (Higgs-type field) which Peter Higgs predicted. (Note, this is different to the so-called "Higgs mechanism" (Nobel, 2013); see from time 53:28 in this video. What I propose in those pdfs is a simple connection between (a) this necessary condensate, and (b) what the UB calls segregata. If you can point out where this idea goes wrong, or could be improved, please help!

Regarding gravity, have you thought through the details of exactly how gravity might serve as "the sole control of energy-matter"? (10.3, 0:6.11). Here are some of my current thoughts:

First, let's zoom in to the Planck scale, and watch as a few ultimatons start to do their famous huddle (478.4, 42:7.10). If we think of those ultimatons as tiny tornados (tiny, frictionless vortices in segregata, spinning at extreme angular velocity), then notice what happens: their mutual attraction (476.5, 42:6.3) draws them together, while their mutually tangential spin (angular momentum) nudges them apart. A robust balance between this simultaneous attraction and repulsion causes them to get locked together in that famous "huddle". Now, what else are ultimatons famous for? Their response to Paradise. That is to say, what we might call their "absolute mass". Now, if their mutual attraction is a function of their absolute mass, then notice what just happened: the most primitive substructure of energy-matter, a tiny huddle of a few ultimatons -- the literal foundation of all materialized energy -- is literally locked together by what the UB calls absolute gravity.

Ok, so absolute gravity calls the shots in the Planck domain. What about the large scale? If so-called linear gravity can be neutralized by space (482.3, 42:11.5), then on the intergalactic scale, apart from the primary and secondary motions of space itself (see 133.10-11, 12:4.8-9) the only real effect left in play would be the absolute gravity of the halos of galactic ultimata (plus the ultimatonic content of their sprinkling of gravita).

Thus at both the very smallest and very largest scales, the "sole control" actually in play is this "absolute gravity". In this picture, what our standard model tries to model reduces to secondary (but nonetheless still remarkable!) interactive effects. Of course for us students of the UB, the fun really begins when we notice that the Brout-Englert-Higgs mechanism serves nicely as a bridge between these "absolute" and "interactive" effects.

What do you think? Have I missed the point somewhere?

* * *

PS: How strong is the "mutual attraction" between huddling ultimatons? If we think of gravitational attraction as a function of energy density, then apart from Paradise monota, the most dense manifestation of "pure energy" (a.k.a. segregata, see 11:8.5, 42:2.9) must be the relatively stationary tips of these tiny tornadoes. When I picture this, I imagine triplets of dark gravitators, locked in non-linear embrace. It's this robust balance, between extreme repulsion and extreme attraction, that I try to indicate in the graphs repeated on page 6 in part B and page 18 in part C of those notes.

What does this imply about the connection between ultimatons and space? Let's assume that by "huddling", the author means "jiggling about in close proximity", but not superimposed, and not concentric. So if we think of ultimatons as relatively stationary, extremely spinning, and absolutely gravitating tornado tips, then there's "space" for a tiny bit of space to get tangled up among their (space-separated) huddling.

As these primitive huddles start to cluster, at least three interesting things happen: (1) weak hypercharge appears between the spinning clusters and the surrounding segregata, (2) once the power directors arrange the right degree of structural complexity, electric charge (and magnetic effects) begin, and (3) those little bits of contained space accumulate in a truly weird tangle... which hints at how space might be "frame-dragged" by such tiny cores of energy density.

Is even this apparent grip on space mediated by ultimatons?
Urantia Book wrote:
It may help to an understanding of space relationships if you would conjecture that, relatively speaking, space is after all a property of all material bodies. Hence, when a body moves through space, it also takes all its properties with it, even the space which is in and of such a moving body.(1297.7, 118:3.6)

Nigel


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2016 2:32 pm +0000
Posts: 121
toto wrote:
I am so glad you challenged me to explain. Definitions are your forte I can see and you and everyone deserve an explanation. I will attach a phi spiral to illustrate my explanation of the words "discrete" and "arc". The spiral that I show you spirals inwards, clockwise, but in keeping with balanced motion, we must agree that a counterclockwise spiral is in simultaneous motion, imbedded in that spiral and superimposed. The evolute of the logarithmic spiral is the mirror image, or counter spiraling motion.

"toto" - I noticed that you haven't responded to my previous post but I did want to add one important observation that I had and one of the reasons why I mentioned Walter Russell's book "The Universal One", where in what you have mentioned above, and in other of your presentations, which were attributed to the book that you are writing, is the following diagram located on page 17, in the aforementioned book by Russell, which seems to compare to your attempt at verbal description.
As you will see, that from this page Russell uses spirals that have arrows moving in alternate direction, and the notations are similar to what you have indicated, being: "All direction is curved" and "All motion is spiral".
Can I assume that you may already have read this book authored by Russell, or do you think that you believe you are in connection with the "cosmic mind" which allowed you to perceive these ideas as your own? Either way, I suggest you read the book, where Russell has done a better job in describing his work?


Attachments:
Electro-magnetic process.png
Electro-magnetic process.png [ 234.48 KiB | Viewed 3167 times ]

_________________
The Reality of knowing what Wisdom is, is in the Experiencing of the Philosophy of using Knowledge.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2016 2:30 pm +0000
Posts: 304
Sorry I am late to respond. I've been ill.

MidiChlorian wrote:
There is an issue with what you said above which I feel that may be a contradiction with your last statement below:

toto wrote:
... The system of associated points means that they are all one point. The points are ONE. ...


There can only be ONE point, because origin and destiny are the same. There is only one Paradise. Associated points implies a matrix of sorts. Moving in space requires moving from point to point. This means moving from origin to destiny. Then the destiny becomes the origin.


MidiChlorian wrote:
Where you have presented a diagram of a phi spiral:

Then you state above that one must assume a mirror image of this as in reference to motion but either way, clockwise or counterclockwise there would need to be two points; one in either direction as the beginning and ending points, because regardless of motion or direction there is no way on a flat plane that they will meet.


But this is only a two dimensional diagram. Assume the squares are cubes and the circles are spheres. Then extrapolate to the Earth, where there is simultaneous counter rotation across the equator. The spirals are then centered around the two points of the poles. In a non-rotating sphere such as the perfect spheres of Havona, there is no axis. In other words, those perfect sphere have infinite axes, every point on the sphere having a corresponding point a line going through the center of the sphere. This is Triata.

When there is rotation, the one center point divides into two polar points (dual creation). This tension creates a mass effect. The equator is the plane that bisects the original center of the sphere and is perpendicular to mass, the axis of rotation. One hemisphere is the mirror image of the other in terms of motion.

It is important to realize that the Earth rotates but it must also respire. This may not be readily apparent but also note that the Earth is not merely the land and sea, but also the atmosphere and extends way out into space. This respiration of the Earth is responsible for weather currents, sea currents, crustal upheavals (earthquakes) and tidal fluctuations, not predictable by moon and Sun gravitational influences.

Because the Earth and any rotating body has an equator, gravity (linear) act preferentially in the plane perpendicular to mass, the axis. Because of the word, preferentially, gravity fluctuations can occur relative to two mass such as the Earth and Sun because their equatorial planes are at each succession of instants, because their axis, and therefore, their equatorial planes, are angled in a continuously differentiating manner. This means that their mutual gravitational attraction changes at every instant as they revolve around each other. This explains the elliptical orbits where nothing else can.


Instants, plural, is a concession to the limits of English. An instant is a point where nothing happens or occurs because there is no time in an instant. There cannot be two points where there is no time because eternity is the absolute of time, and absoluteness is unity. Unity is not plural yet the Trinity is One. Duality is plural yet is One in finite creation.

MidiChlorian wrote:
Its called a belt trick. It can be inside a cube, and uses curves and to some degree spirals?


If you could make the cube expand and contract as it rotates, and put a spherical shell inside the cube that does likewise, you have a spiral motion.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2016 2:30 pm +0000
Posts: 304
nnunn wrote:
That 2012 signal at the LHC was called "Higgs-like" because it was consistent with a longitudinal compression of the (proposed) condensate of weak hypercharge (Higgs-type field) which Peter Higgs predicted. (Note, this is different to the so-called "Higgs mechanism" (Nobel, 2013); see from time 53:28 in this video. What I propose in those pdfs is a simple connection between (a) this necessary condensate, and (b) what the UB calls segregata. If you can point out where this idea goes wrong, or could be improved, please help!


In Physical Review, Frandson et al. showed that no conclusive evidence was provided that the Higgs had been found. Which means that the committee rushed the Nobel Prize to Peter Higgs in 2013, based on nothing. This is why the used to wait several years before they gave Nobel Prizes in physics based on experimental findings. It usually takes years to repeat and confirm this complex data, and to ride out the period of political horn tooting.

The Higgs Mechanism requires spontaneous symmetry breaking. Particles that spin AND breath do not do this. Nature remains perfectly symmetrical at all times. They have particles that do not respire! That they call a scalar field is a particle that spirals and is moving in infinite directions. Only linear gravitational field can produce this apparent field, which is but motion that moves in infinite direction at every successive instant. I cannot help you until you take into account that a particle moves as a spiral, with rotation and respiration. Your profession fails to recognize this and stick with only spin. Your profession fails to see that mass is created by polarity and the rapid and continuous, yet discrete, flipping of polar charges. One pole is origin and flips to destiny in an instant and in another instant, destiny flips back to origin. Mass is created in a succession of instants.

nnunn wrote:
Regarding gravity, have you thought through the details of exactly how gravity might serve as "the sole control of energy-matter"? (10.3, 0:6.11). Here are some of my current thoughts:


Yes. First of all you must take into account absolute gravity and linear gravity. Absolute gravity has a spherical field and one center, one focus. Linear gravity has a toroidal field and has two foci, as does an ellipse. The two foci of the ellipse equates to the two foci of a rotating and respiring spheroid or toroid. These are called the poles. Huddling is various tori imbedded inside other tori as they spiral around each other sinusoidally. There is counter rotation due to an equator. The two poles or foci of linear gravity are tension extensions of a center of pull (absolute gravity) at the very center of the nucleus of the particle.

The field of linear gravity is the same as what you would call the "magnetic field" and looks like a torus. Absolute gravity pull and controls from the center and linear gravity pulls and controls from a differential geometry of two foci. Huddling Ultimatons must be concentric and superimposed. This is what keeps them together; they share a nucleus.

nnunn wrote:
What do you think? Have I missed the point somewhere?


I think that is is a mistake to try and reconcile TUB facts to SM particle theories. In TUB, there is respiration, the SM particle is breathless.

nnunn wrote:
Is even this apparent grip on space mediated by ultimatons?


No. Gravity is the sole control of ultimatons and space is unresponsive to gravity.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2016 2:30 pm +0000
Posts: 304
MidiChlorian wrote:
Can I assume that you may already have read this book authored by Russell, or do you think that you believe you are in connection with the "cosmic mind" which allowed you to perceive these ideas as your own? Either way, I suggest you read the book, where Russell has done a better job in describing his work?


I did read some of Russellian science but not this particular book you mentioned, The Universal One. This was back in the early 90s and way before I had read TUB, starting in 2001. Although I found much truth in Russell's work, he never had any formal math or science training and I frankly had much trouble understanding his vision completely. His concepts are much in line with what TUB has revealed but there was much correlation that I had to make in my mind. AS far as the cosmic mind, I do not know. And I do not deny that anyone can do a better job in describing these things. Perhaps if I had a blackboard and a powerpoint presentation, I could better express myself. I apologize for my shortcomings.

I am not in full agreement with the Spiral of Russell you pictured. All motion is spiral, but he does not say that the spiral is a logarithmic spiral and I do. There are many spirals and his definition of a spiral is too general. In addition, all direction is not curved. All motion is in infinite directions simultaneously, and not in any specific direction. Russell's curve does not expand and and contract logarithmically . His definition of mass I do not believe is consistent with TUB. He sys that mass is an accumulation of universal constant energy into higher potential. I would characterize mass as a fliping of charge as the foci of polar points separate and come closer together in a rhythmic fashion.

Also, his definition of integration and disintegration indifferent from mine and how I think TUB implies. Integration and disintegration is a timeless and simultaneous "instant" function. It is not a 'happening' or 'process' or and 'occurrence' because it is an out of time, eternity function.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2016 2:32 pm +0000
Posts: 121
toto wrote:
Sorry I am late to respond. I've been ill.
[. . .]
There can only be ONE point, because origin and destiny are the same. There is only one Paradise. Associated points implies a matrix of sorts. Moving in space requires moving from point to point. This means moving from origin to destiny. Then the destiny becomes the origin.
[. . .]
But this is only a two dimensional diagram. Assume the squares are cubes and the circles are spheres. Then extrapolate to the Earth, where there is simultaneous counter rotation across the equator. The spirals are then centered around the two points of the poles. In a non-rotating sphere such as the perfect spheres of Havona, there is no axis. In other words, those perfect sphere have infinite axes, every point on the sphere having a corresponding point a line going through the center of the sphere. This is Triata.

When there is rotation, the one center point divides into two polar points (dual creation). This tension creates a mass effect. The equator is the plane that bisects the original center of the sphere and is perpendicular to mass, the axis of rotation. One hemisphere is the mirror image of the other in terms of motion.
[. . .]

For the moment "toto" I must address your first paragraph segregated above, regarding: "There can only be ONE point, because origin and destiny are the same." At this point, paradise is nothing, only a descriptive word used in the UB, for many viewpoints and in this case a process which contains many substances, but not necessarily what you are able to describe, but if you have the time, you should read "The Universal One."
Russell, mentions in this book, something which I surmise is what the UB calls "ultimaton", where he calls it "One substance". Among many descriptive words and phrases he uses, he mentions one key factor, and that it is "dimensionless". This would indicate that it resides in an non-existent dimension where this would fit into your topology.

Zero-dimensional space -- "In mathematics, a zero-dimensional topological space (or nildimensional) is a topological space that has dimension zero with respect to one of several inequivalent notions of assigning a dimension to a given topological space. An illustration of a nildimensional space is a point."
Quote:
Specifically:
- A topological space is zero-dimensional with respect to the Lebesgue covering dimension if every open cover of the space has a refinement which is a cover of the space by open sets such that any point in the space is contained in exactly one open set of this refinement.
- A topological space is zero-dimensional with respect to the finite-to-finite covering dimension if every finite open cover of the space has a refinement which is a finite open cover such that any point in the space is contained in exactly one open set of this refinement.
- A topological space is zero-dimensional with respect to the small inductive dimension if it has a base consisting of clopen sets.

Now, this is describing topological aspect but it will also apply to the UB when it references "dimensions" outside of three-dimensional space. But because it cannot be seen, just like "paradise", or like in a nucleus of an atom, the descriptions used of the substance and process that is contained within is so large, or in this case so small, that it may never really be able to be seen but, if one knows how it works and what the components are, and how the process changes the substance from "One substance" to another, we should be able to manipulate matter?

In the quote above it mentions "cover" and "Lebesgue covering dimension", where this may apply to what the UB mentions in the follow narrative as "blanket"?
Quote:
(475.10) 42:5.14 The so-called ether is merely a collective name to designate a group of force and energy activities occurring in space. Ultimatons, electrons, and other mass aggregations of energy are uniform particles of matter, and in their transit through space they really proceed in direct lines. Light and all other forms of recognizable energy manifestations consist of a succession of definite energy particles which proceed in direct lines except as modified by gravity and other intervening forces. That these processions of energy particles appear as wave phenomena when subjected to certain observations is due to the resistance of the undifferentiated force blanket of all space, the hypothetical ether, and to the intergravity tension of the associated aggregations of matter. The spacing of the particle-intervals of matter, together with the initial velocity of the energy beams, establishes the undulatory appearance of many forms of energy-matter.

So, unless you assume that space has substance and that inner-space is a part of this substance, you can go round and round, and not get anywhere.

All of the other stuff that you mentioned above, will make more sense after you read Russell's book and look at all of the images that he uses to describe what he is attempting to say, much is exactly what others have described and created images of (including yours) that I would say that much of the context of the UB comes from his work? There may even be a connection between Russell and Sadler, but that goes into more detail?

_________________
The Reality of knowing what Wisdom is, is in the Experiencing of the Philosophy of using Knowledge.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2016 2:30 pm +0000
Posts: 304
MidiChlorian wrote:
For the moment "toto" I must address your first paragraph segregated above, regarding: "There can only be ONE point, because origin and destiny are the same." At this point, paradise is nothing, only a descriptive word used in the UB, for many viewpoints and in this case a process which contains many substances, but not necessarily what you are able to describe, but if you have the time, you should read "The Universal One."


Paradise is no-thing in the sense that it is not a space-time object. Paradise is exclusive of space-time. And this one exclusive existence resides at the center of all things, things that move. This includes the Ultimaton and the Master Universe. Nether Paradise is the focus of the Unqualified Absolute and this Unqualified Absolute pervades all of space, but that does not mean that it is a part of space-time. The points of space in association are ONE because they pervade space but never are invasive of space. English fails us at this "point".

MidiChlorian wrote:
Russell, mentions in this book, something which I surmise is what the UB calls "ultimaton", where he calls it "One substance". Among many descriptive words and phrases he uses, he mentions one key factor, and that it is "dimensionless". This would indicate that it resides in an non-existent dimension where this would fit into your topology.


Not really. The Ultimaton is the first measurable form of energy, and as such, must have dimension; it is an objective thing and it moves. The center of the Ultimaton is certainly dimensionless. All centers are motionless and there is but ONE center.

The way I describe this is the donut hole. The donut is space-time, toroidal and moving in rotation and respiration. The very center of the donut hole is motionless and exclusive of space-time. This motion is controlled by the absolute gravity of this center and absolute gravity is a spherical field. Simultaneously, the moving toroid has an axis, two foci (poles) of linear gravity pull and an equator.

Because of the motions of the toroid, the axis is variable, inversely related to the diameter of the equator of the particle. Mass is proportional to the length of the axis of (distance between poles) and inversely proportional to the equatorial diameter of the particle.

In example, a particle can be flat as a pancake and have a large diameter equatorially but a very short axis. The would more correspond to an electron. A nearly spherical particle at full inspiration and full charge would have an axis very nearly equal to its diameter at the equator. This would correspond to a proton which is 2000 times more massive than an electron. When these two are perfectly equal, the particle losses its charge, becomes what is known as a neutron. At this instant , the particle is unstable in that it cannot hold any more charge yet continues to spin. This neutron must explode and radiate its charge. It must dissipate its mass.

MidiChlorian wrote:
A topological space is zero-dimensional with respect to the Lebesgue covering dimension if every open cover of the space has a refinement which is a cover of the space by open sets such that any point in the space is contained in exactly one open set of this refinement.


There is no topological space of zero-dimension. Space is dimensional. This is a contradiction in terms and I cannot entertain this definition.


MidiChlorian wrote:
Now, this is describing topological aspect but it will also apply to the UB when it references "dimensions" outside of three-dimensional space.


I must stop you right here. There is no three-dimensional space. 3-D space is absolute and cannot move so lets get that straight at the start. Space must be hyperbolic in order to move. This means that there is only 4-D space.

MidiChlorian wrote:
But because it cannot be seen, just like "paradise", or like in a nucleus of an atom, the descriptions used of the substance and process that is contained within is so large, or in this case so small, that it may never really be able to be seen but, if one knows how it works and what the components are, and how the process changes the substance from "One substance" to another, we should be able to manipulate matter?


Paradise is the focus of space. Paradise has no components. It is made up of Absolutum, a homogeneous substance. Recall that Euclid described a "point" as that which has no parts. Absolutum is devoid of time and space. Therefore, it does not move and its density is infinite. It can be said that it vibrates at an infinite rate and is still. And we manipulate matter all of the time. If we would only realize that the magnetic field is linear gravity, then we can control matter as linear gravity controls matter. And we do this all of the time. A prime example is an electric motor. An extreme example is the LHC at Cern. Very powerful magnets that tell these particles exactly where to go to collide head on.


MidiChlorian wrote:
So, unless you assume that space has substance and that inner-space is a part of this substance, you can go round and round, and not get anywhere.


I would agree that space contains substance but is not substantial. I have no clue as to what you mean by "inner-space", so I cannot comment. But space cannot be part of substance, it can only be contained by substance. If space were a part of substance then it would be gravity responsive, and space is NOT gravity responsive.


MidiChlorian wrote:
All of the other stuff that you mentioned above, will make more sense after you read Russell's book and look at all of the images that he uses to describe what he is attempting to say, much is exactly what others have described and created images of (including yours) that I would say that much of the context of the UB comes from his work? There may even be a connection between Russell and Sadler, but that goes into more detail?


But what I am saying makes sense to me already. Just because I am not understood does not mean that I do not know what I am saying. And who is anyone to say otherwise? I am curious about Russell's book and will surly read it when my vision returns to 100%. I am most familiar with his spiritual writings.


BTW, What do you think? You stand aloof in a safe space away from criticism and controversy because you have not put out a theory or explanation of your own. I want you to tell all of us what are your thoughts that can contribute to investigating gravitational anomalies.

I respectfully disagree with Nigel and I assume he disagrees with me, but I respect him for working hard at a theory and for asking me what I think. Nigel sticks his neck out and unabashedly asks for help. I appreciate that he has very nicely organized and visual presentations.

I want to here from you, MidiChlorian.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2016 2:32 pm +0000
Posts: 121
toto wrote:
But what I am saying makes sense to me already. Just because I am not understood does not mean that I do not know what I am saying. And who is anyone to say otherwise? I am curious about Russell's book and will surly read it when my vision returns to 100%. I am most familiar with his spiritual writings.

BTW, What do you think? You stand aloof in a safe space away from criticism and controversy because you have not put out a theory or explanation of your own. I want you to tell all of us what are your thoughts that can contribute to investigating gravitational anomalies.

First of all it would be difficult to present thoughts on "investigating gravitational anomalies" until one presents one. In this case anti-gravity or the ability to overcome gravity would be an anomaly but, even if this were to be investigated here, I'm sure you would present something that would not be comprehensible because my attempt to understand what it is that you have presented here is only understood by you.

This has been my attempt to get you to present what you are saying, which makes sense to you, in a way that might make sense to others and myself. When I ask a question or ask for a description as you see it, or something, you present it back in a way that uses, in some cases, UB words or terms, that have no specific definition, but you use them as if you understand their meaning and that by their use, everyone should understand that your response is valid. In many ways it is like answering a question with a question, but that response question does not relate to the primary question?

Therefore, there is no need to continue here, because it appears evident that you cannot express yourself in a way that can clearly be understood by others, which implies to me that you only wish to inflict your inability to express yourself to confuse what other contributors wish to present. Based on this, it would seem that your intentions are mostly antagonistic, and possibly only presented as an interrupter, to various topics.

That being said, I propose that this topic examine anti-gravity, and how it might be understood, and described as noted in the UB, because to better understand anti-gravity, would allow a better understand of gravity, in general.

_________________
The Reality of knowing what Wisdom is, is in the Experiencing of the Philosophy of using Knowledge.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 236 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 ... 16  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours


Who is online

Registered users: Google Feedfetcher, Majestic-12 [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:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group