Urantia Book Forum

Urantia Book Discussion Board : Study Group
It is currently Wed Aug 21, 2019 8:58 pm +0000

All times are UTC - 7 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 236 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 16  Next
Author Message
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2016 2:30 pm +0000
Posts: 304
Riktare wrote:
The discontinuity is where the polarization no longer applies. That must be the case otherwise electrons could not congregate together to build a composite charge like that on the terminal of a battery. Likewise the charged region of an electron cannot be polarized. In your bipolar visualization each foci would be a charge, not the equator.


There is the north pole and the south pole of a rotating particle or planet. There are two terminal of a battery. One is a positive terminal and the other is a negative terminal. The equator of a battery is where the internal charges reflect. Electrons congregate but they are still spinning. They are themselves participating in charge dispersal. Why can't an electron be polarized? Because it is negatively charged? This is where atomic theory fails miserably.

First I need an explanation as to why like charged protons do not repel each other and disrupt the nucleus. Then I need an explanation as to why negatively charged electrons do not collapse into the positively charged protons of the nucleus. The current atomic model cannot explain itself with current definitions of charge.

Riktare wrote:
toto wrote:
Time conditions space, not the other way around.


Are you sure about that? I believe the revelators clearly state that is not the case: either case you mention.


130:7.6 There are seven different conceptions of space as it is conditioned by time. Space is measured by time, not time by space. The confusion of the scientist grows out of failure to recognize the reality of space.


Riktare wrote:
toto wrote:
Space and time is an orthogonally related. Einstein and Minkowski were correct about that.


So you are incorporating the metric of time into the metric of space as Einstein and Minkowski did? Again, the relevators clearly tell us that that is not reality. At least it is not their way of perceiving Physics.


12:5.3 Time and space are inseparable only in the time-space creations, the seven super universes.

Time and space are inseparable and must have a relationship. That relationship must be orthogonal.

I just mentioned Minkowski because of how he depicted space and time in his "Light Cone" figure. He and Einstein most definitely joined space and time. They have time depicted as a line perpendicular to a plane of space they call a hyper surface, and a future and past light cone. Both depictions of space and time are absolute. Therefore, there can be no motion in Einsteinian space-time.

I will attach a figure of the light cone that is still peddled today by those like Stephen Hawking.


Attachments:
light cone.rtfd.zip [58.93 KiB]
Downloaded 98 times
Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2012 2:07 am +0000
Posts: 920
toto wrote:
There is the north pole and the south pole of a rotating particle or planet. There are two terminal of a battery. One is a positive terminal and the other is a negative terminal. The equator of a battery is where the internal charges reflect. Electrons congregate but they are still spinning. They are themselves participating in charge dispersal. Why can't an electron be polarized? Because it is negatively charged? This is where atomic theory fails miserably.


I'm not sure there is a connection between the rotation of the charged object and the charge. It seems to be the combined placement of each rotating ultimaton that generates a single charge. Remember too that a battery doesn't need to have a polar axis. One example is a 9 volt battery or a 12 volt car battery.

42:6.6 (476.8) Ultimatons do not describe orbits or whirl about in circuits within the electrons, but they do spread or cluster in accordance with their axial revolutionary velocities, thus determining the differential electronic dimensions. This same ultimatonic velocity of axial revolution also determines the negative or positive reactions of the several types of electronic units. The entire segregation and grouping of electronic matter, together with the electric differentiation of negative and positive bodies of energy-matter, result from these various functions of the component ultimatonic interassociation.

I don't think atomic theory fails miserably. But I do think that most educators fail miserably in both understanding and teaching the essentials. There seem to be very, very few who really understand the crucial details that J. C. Maxwell spelled out. Without Maxwell I claim you cannot really make sense of either electro-magnetism or atomic theory. And unfortunately, most everyone ignored what Maxwell spelled out after he and J. J. Thompson departed the planet. So there exists enormous confusion even among so-called experts.

toto wrote:
First I need an explanation as to why like charged protons do not repel each other and disrupt the nucleus. Then I need an explanation as to why negatively charged electrons do not collapse into the positively charged protons of the nucleus. The current atomic model cannot explain itself with current definitions of charge.


Simply put, the electric field forces charged particles together because they have nowhere else to go, such as those of the plates of a capacitor. They are bound to the conducting plates. But if you mention nuclear forces then are are talking about another series of forces.

As I was hinting earlier, ultimatons can resist the tension caused by gravity or other forces such as the electric field. So they apparently can stop the ability of larger objects to polarize in response to an electric field. That is what creates or defines charge.

42:6.4 (476.6) The ultimatons, unknown on Urantia, slow down through many phases of physical activity before they attain the revolutionary-energy prerequisites to electronic organization. Ultimatons have three varieties of motion: mutual resistance to cosmic force, individual revolutions of antigravity potential, and the intraelectronic positions of the one hundred mutually interassociated ultimatons.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:14 pm +0000
Posts: 93
Interesting discussion! Regarding relationships between space and matter and gravity, toto reminded us: "remember also that matter is in space but there is also space in matter." Indeed! And thereby hangs a tale.

Notice that space potency is called absoluta, while absolutum is a name for the material of Paradise itself.

  1. "... and the Melchizedeks of Nebadon long since named it absolutum. This Paradise source material... " (120.1, 11:2.9)
  2. "On Uversa, space potency is spoken of as ABSOLUTA." (469.6, 42:2.6)

At first glance, this may be due simply to the "paucity of language" (9.4, 0:6.2), (469.1, 42:2.1). But then again,

  1. "Paradise is the actually motionless nucleus of the relatively quiescent zones existing between pervaded and unpervaded space. Geographically these zones appear to be a relative extension of Paradise, [...]. (124.3, 11:7.2)

Does this weird statement imply that both pervaded and non-pervaded space are excavations (located womb-like) within the actual stuff of original Paradise? Could absoluta (space potency) be what you get when you mix space into absolutum? If the horizontal and vertical extrusions of space are actually excavations within a "relative extension of Paradise", that "potential infinity of gravity extension, an elastic tension of Paradise presence" (126.5, 11:8.9) makes surprising sense.

If so, we'd have a transcendental vapor of monota serving as the space potency which can be condensed as segregata, which in turn can be quantized as ultimata. Thus the ultimaton becomes a quantized vortex in a superfluid condensate of a transcendental mix of (space + absolutum). All of which puts a fresh spin on that old "nucleus" double entendre!

Ricktare wrote:
The "unexplained huddling proclivity" of ultimatons may be important in the transition from free ultimatons to aggregations as a charged particle.

For a glimpse of how we might build standard model matter on a hierarchy of organized clusters of "huddling ultimatons", see Notes_P4_B below.

Ricktare wrote:
If we're going to speculate my small mind requires some real evidence and a follow through and analysis of any potential working model.

To get the ball rolling, given ultimatonic foundations for leptons and quarks, something interesting happens as a neutron star collapses. I sketch outlines on pages 15-18 of Notes_P4_C.

Links to first three (of four) parts:

Notes_P4_A, Foundations
Notes_P4_B, Mass and Matter
Notes_P4_C, Dark Islands

If anyone has time to review, I'd love some criticism of this current draft :?:
thanks - Nigel


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2012 2:07 am +0000
Posts: 920
Thanks for this Nigel. It looks very interesting. So far I'm only up to page 17 of the first presentation. It sounds like the keyword "segregate" might be analogous to "polarize" in some way while "activate" might be analogous to "charge". Bringing in the concepts of Angular Momentum and Super-Fluid definitely ties in 19th, 20th and 21st century Physics and makes things interesting as you say.

I'll continue reading and pondering.

Steve


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2012 2:07 am +0000
Posts: 920
I've read the first 2 papers. Intriguing. The Dirac equation is certainly worth taking a hard look at. As you say, it gets some physical values right to an extremely high degree of accuracy. But it isn't perfect. De Broglie identified a very major lack of spatial symmetry to it. And of course it assumes Poincare/Minkowski/Einstein "spacetime" structure (of which it is easily shown to be totally incompatible with the CPT parity expression of elementary particles).

I think a maximum degrees of freedom approach to interpreting the Dirac equation structure, including using quaternions that also decompose the Maxwell equations as well as form a basis for QM, is the most promising.

This book contains quite a few potential models of an electron sub-structure and considerations for those models:
https://www.scribd.com/document/9737119 ... e-Electron

I haven't read this paper at the same web site but it may be worth reading also:
https://www.scribd.com/document/7219378 ... e-Particle

P.S. You can think of the Dirac equation as a 4 dimensional Excel sheet. It uses (3) 2 by 2 matrices each of which records a rotation angle across 2 spatial dimensions. Each of those matrices is a quaternion. The fourth value is a representation of current time (with respect to some unspecified earlier time). Every combination of those 4 matrices or values which is allowed by Poincare/Minkowski/Einstein "spacetime" is embedded in the equation.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 5:21 am +0000
Posts: 912
interesting stuff thanks...some of it is above my pay scale and not clear to me though. but anyway, if "zilch" was put in UB terms would it be ultimata or space potency in general or what? would it correlate in any fashion with the virtual particles of vacuum energy?

it occurred to me that the theory of an infinitely dense black hole would be at odds with space as defined in the UB too?(prolly already at odds with the planck scale though so whatever)...its not clear to me if space is even compressible at all?

on a side note: it would be nice to have the links to the videos working


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2016 2:30 pm +0000
Posts: 304
Riktare wrote:
I'm not sure there is a connection between the rotation of the charged object and the charge. It seems to be the combined placement of each rotating ultimaton that generates a single charge. Remember too that a battery doesn't need to have a polar axis. One example is a 9 volt battery or a 12 volt car battery.


I don't see why not. There is no polarity without rotation and no positive charge without a corresponding negative charge. As far as a battery is concerned, please remember that there must exist a reflective equator where the poles of a battery flips from positive to negative and visa versa. The battery need not be spherical, where an equator is obvious. But the battery is made up of the sum of its components which are particles that rotate and breath, just like space. Space must do what space does everywhere, including the space within matter, and they move with primary and secondary space motions.


Riktare wrote:
I don't think atomic theory fails miserably. But I do think that most educators fail miserably in both understanding and teaching the essentials. There seem to be very, very few who really understand the crucial details that J. C. Maxwell spelled out. Without Maxwell I claim you cannot really make sense of either electro-magnetism or atomic theory. And unfortunately, most everyone ignored what Maxwell spelled out after he and J. J. Thompson departed the planet. So there exists enormous confusion even among so-called experts.


Perhaps you are correct here but it does not help to clear up the confusion. Why does TUB tell us that although the proton is about 2000 times more massive than the electron, they are about the same size? Is it not curious that the angular momentum of the electron, proton and neutron are the same?


Riktare wrote:
Simply put, the electric field forces charged particles together because they have nowhere else to go, such as those of the plates of a capacitor. They are bound to the conducting plates. But if you mention nuclear forces then are are talking about another series of forces.



What is an electric field? Are you saying that there is a field that controls matter-energy? Who can prove that particles are bound to the conducting plate? A capacitor is a battery, no different. There is always a current of particles moving between poles, either in small amounts though space or in large amounts through a wire. All motion seeks rest.

0:6.11   ...Pattern may configure energy, but it does not control it. Gravity is the sole control of energy-matter.

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....

11:8.9   ... 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....

I see is these quotes from TUB as intimating that there is but one field, and that one field is gravity, absolute and linear. It is for us to determine the geometry of each field and how they apply their control. Gravity is always a "pulling" force. Science has no explanation for repulsive forces because they ignore the collisional reactions and interactions between particle. If I strike a pool ball with my cue ball, they repel after the collision. A bar magnet is polarized and is creates a field of linear gravity. Particles move from pole to pole of the magnet that bow out at the equator of the magnet. These particles of matter align iron shavings and reveal the geometry of the field of linear gravity.

Also, control, of energy-matter is always from the center. This means that control is always a "pull" at 90 degrees. That is why TUB mentions perpendicularity as the greatest control or linear gravity pull in the plane perpendicular to mass (axis of rotation). This is the sling-shot effect. When rotation and polarity is established, this one center becomes dual. This is then becomes linear gravity and controls the motions of the planets in elliptical orbits. In the example of our solar system, the force from the host foci in the elliptical orbit is accounted for by one of the poles of the Sun. The relative alignments of the various axes of the planets and the Sun is the reason for the gravitational anomalies. Of course, all of the planets interact with their linear gravity pull with each other and the Sun. Axes of rotation are relatively fixed with each celestial orb and so their orientations to each other changes at every instant of rotation about the Sun. I leave out precession(axial rotational wobble) lessen the confusion.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2016 2:30 pm +0000
Posts: 304
Riktare wrote:
The Dirac equation is certainly worth taking a hard look at.


The equation to the logarithmic spiral (Jakob Bernoulli) is of the form;

r = e^aθ

This spiral motion has rotational and counter rotating mirrored rotation.

Please take a hard look at the Dirac Spinor. See how the Dirac spinor is of the same form as a logarithmic spiral. Also remember from mathematics that the derivative of y=e^x is e^x. It is its own derivative. It is a self similar function with infinite degrees of freedom. If your were to design an perfect pattern, would this not be the one you would choose?

Logarithmic spirals have infinite degrees of freedom.

Also, QED and the SM does not subscribe to the concept of time quantization. These theories and models still function on the concept of linear time which is potentially reversible.

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.

In QED time is asymmetric in order to preserve CPT symmetry. If time is symmetric, as in circular, then CPT must be false. Your thoughts please.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2012 2:07 am +0000
Posts: 920
toto wrote:
Perhaps you are correct here but it does not help to clear up the confusion. Why does TUB tell us that although the proton is about 2000 times more massive than the electron, they are about the same size? Is it not curious that the angular momentum of the electron, proton and neutron are the same?


I don't see any confusion in that the mass of the electron, proton or neutron is decoupled from the angular momentum. Mass is almost certainly a product of the configuration of the different components of each of those particles. Angular momentum is related to quantization. Mass is not quantized in the same way that angular momentum and charge are. Nigel's presentation describes part of that in a high level way.

toto wrote:
What is an electric field? Are you saying that there is a field that controls matter-energy? Who can prove that particles are bound to the conducting plate? A capacitor is a battery, no different. There is always a current of particles moving between poles, either in small amounts though space or in large amounts through a wire. All motion seeks rest.


A field is really only a measurement or modeling tool. It tracks the amount and direction of force or other quantity everywhere in space. It says nothing about the force or energy that sponsors the force effects. That's why it's so very useful.

There is a reason and physical rationale behind the development of Maxwell's equations. Maxwell probed and at least partly understood the different components of what together provides the ether-like characteristics of space and how space acts as a medium, forces that arise as well as tensions and stresses that develop from that.

toto wrote:
I see is these quotes from TUB as intimating that there is but one field, and that one field is gravity, absolute and linear. It is for us to determine the geometry of each field and how they apply their control. Gravity is always a "pulling" force. Science has no explanation for repulsive forces because they ignore the collisional reactions and interactions between particle. If I strike a pool ball with my cue ball, they repel after the collision. A bar magnet is polarized and is creates a field of linear gravity. Particles move from pole to pole of the magnet that bow out at the equator of the magnet. These particles of matter align iron shavings and reveal the geometry of the field of linear gravity.


Gravity may be the one source of EM forces. Nigel presented a very interesting model for how linear gravity can develop from small congregations of ultimatons. The sponsor of gravitational attraction also sponsors the repulsive force which might further develop into EM repulsion.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2016 2:30 pm +0000
Posts: 304
Hello Mr Riktare, thank you for indulging me with all of these questions. You and nnunn are obviously trained scientists. I rarely get the chance to pick the brains of those such as yourselves.

Will you consider the Dirac Spinor? It represents infinite degress of freedom and cyclic motion due to "e", the base of the natural logarithms.

Riktare wrote:
I don't see any confusion in that the mass of the electron, proton or neutron is decoupled from the angular momentum.


What is the source of mass? And why to you suppose that TUB dismissed mass as "point mass" when it states that gravity acts preferentially in the plane perpendicular to mass? The Higgs Mechanism does not explain mass. Particles cannot flip end over end. This requires a tremendous amount of energy. If, as the revelation suggests, mass is along the axis of particle rotation, a better explanation would be a flipping of the poles, North to south and visa versa. Please consider this explanation a a particle rapidly flipping charges along its axis.

When TUB stated that there is space in matter, can you see the implications of this in light of how TUB clearly states how space moves? Space moves and it moves in simultaneous primary and secondary motion, both of which are absolute and in infinite directions at every instant. In review, these motions are rotation and respiration. This is a spiral governed by e, the base of the natural logarithm. (Direct Spinor)

Electrons, protons and neutrons are matter and contain space. The space within these particles of matter must move with the space which they contain. This leads to the natural conclusion that these particles of matter rotate (spin) and respire. Science recognizes spin but are completely blind to respiration. Can to see the big WOW here in what TUB has revealed!?

Now consider the possibility that Deity has design the Universe of Universes as one huge self similar object.

Why can't the electron, proton and neutron be one particle at various phases of expansion and contraction as they spin? The electron in the expanding particle, the proton the contracting particle and the neurtron the fully contracted and nearly perfectly spherical neutral particle. Then the neutron 'explodes' (little tiny tiny bang) into the electron and the particle is negatively charged as it discharges energy (light). The proton is the contracting particle that absorbes energy and is positively charged.

Layers upon layers of these shells of energy can spin and weave around each other without interference because of the sinusoidal nature of the motion. Like two slinkys that can screw into each other. Also note that motion like a fusillade is cork screw and not a straight line.

That would make our Master Universe presently a huge electron, expanding and discharging and negatively charged. I about half a billion years the Master Universe would be one huge proton, charging up and positively charged. When completely contracted, the Master Universe would explode (Big Bang kind of) and then it would be a "let there be light' moment. An electron that gives up its light as it discharges.


Riktare wrote:
Angular momentum is related to quantization. Mass is not quantized in the same way that angular momentum and charge are. Nigel's presentation describes part of that in a high level way.


This does not make sense to me. First of all, do you agree that time is quantized and circular? You did not refute this when I wrote it prior.

toto wrote:
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....


How can you say that mass is not quantized in the same way that angular momentum and charge are in light of 42:4.1 in TUB?

When you talk about angular momentum, is the time component linear or circular as TUB states? Is spin the only consideration or in respiration of the particle taken into account? I cannot see any of this making sense if we are discussing the science in TUB. And aren't all of these vectors related to a center of mass? How can there be a center of mass if a plane can be perpendicular to it? These questions must be considered in light of our discussion with the context of TUB.

Riktare wrote:
A field is really only a measurement or modeling tool. It tracks the amount and direction of force or other quantity everywhere in space. It says nothing about the force or energy that sponsors the force effects. That's why it's so very useful.


A field cannot be a measurement because one can only measure matter (motion). A field as a modeling tool is only useful if the geometry is known. You cannot track a field, only matter moving in a field (a baseball hit to right field). If there is nothing said about what caused the ball to fly to right field you have motion without cause (batter, batter , batter, yea Cubs!). Saying that it's so very useful is mechanistic.

Riktare wrote:
There is a reason and physical rationale behind the development of Maxwell's equations. Maxwell probed and at least partly understood the different components of what together provides the ether-like characteristics of space and how space acts as a medium, forces that arise as well as tensions and stresses that develop from that.


Did Maxwell know that space moved? Did Maxwell know that matter contains space? What is the background for Maxwell's equations? I know that it is the absolute space of the cartesian coordinate system. TUB says that space is not absolute. So where does that leave us? We have these beautiful equations on a background that is in perpetual motion.


Riktare wrote:
Gravity may be the one source of EM forces. Nigel presented a very interesting model for how linear gravity can develop from small congregations of ultimatons. The sponsor of gravitational attraction also sponsors the repulsive force which might further develop into EM repulsion.


Gravity is the sole control of energy-matter. Ultimatums cannot "congregate" because they are spinning and breathing. You can pack a dozen people in a VW bug but not if they are all doing the Cha Cha. The huddling proclivity of ultimatons is not the huddle of an NFL offensive team. The ultimatons associate by sharing the same center. Do not the concentric circles logo of this book we are reading share a center? Show me a model where the 100 ultimatons share the same center and we can make some real progress. Perhaps embedded tori of energy shells. The source of all matter in the Universe is elliptical Paradise. Have you ever investigated the geometric relation between the ellipse and the torus? How about a torus (donut) with hourglass (p-orbital?) above and below its vacuous center? Now this would grab my attention.

I remain perplexed how EM repulsion is ignored by science. Why exactly do the North poles of a bar magnet repel each other? No one has ever given me a rational answer to this, starting with my High School physics teacher. This is so sad really. I blame it on the physics of the late 19th century and Maxwell, in particular . He valiantly tried to give the world an explanation for observed phenomena that did not fit the gravitational theories of the time.

I would humbly suggest a very simple explanation. The bar magnet is polarized in that there are is more motion (moving particles) on one end of the bar than the other. This polarity creates two centers of gravity, one at the North and on at the South and an equator in between where the motions reflect. The fields of these two spherical fields join geometrically to form a field whose geometry is that of the circles of Apollonius. This is the same field that we recognize as the Earths magnetic field. (it appears toroidal!)

Since all motion seeks the rest of its Source, Paradise, the unequal motion of the bar magnet cannot cross the 'equator' of bar ( analogous to the Coriolis effect). The consequence of this urge to equalize causes particle from the North pole to jump out of the bar and travel to the South pole of the bar by lines of flux which is this linear gravity field. This is the path of least time( see Fermat). To join two North poles of a bar magnet would be akin to trying to join two exhaust ends of two rockets. They repel because there are actual collisions of particles.

Thank you for your time.

P.S. Any thoughts on my comment on CPT?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Thu May 28, 2015 5:02 am +0000
Posts: 1368
This is certainly a fascinating discussion. I am doing my best to follow, but being completely uneducated in the field of physics it would help if you could expand the acronyms for us laymen. For example, I'm sure EM is electromagnetic and not extramarital, which includes the effect of repulsion by the way but when I look up CPT Google tells me it's "Current Procedural Terminology" and I know that's not it.

I think the repelling of the like poles of magnets puts the whole concept of the primary effect of gravity pulling and not pushing into question.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2016 2:30 pm +0000
Posts: 304
nodAmanaV wrote:
This is certainly a fascinating discussion. I am doing my best to follow, but being completely uneducated in the field of physics it would help if you could expand the acronyms for us laymen. For example, I'm sure EM is electromagnetic and not extramarital, which includes the effect of repulsion by the way but when I look up CPT Google tells me it's "Current Procedural Terminology" and I know that's not it.

I think the repelling of the like poles of magnets puts the whole concept of the primary effect of gravity pulling and not pushing into question.


I am very glad that you have inquired because specialists have an irresistible way of inventing their own language, its only natural.

CPT stands for Charge, Parity, and Time reversal symmetry. The scientists that study the nature of physical phenomena love symmetry, as they should. Symmetry is a very beautiful thing and God's creations are things of beauty.

In the 1950s spinning particles needed to conform to statistics or else science was not explaining anything. The problem is that they came up with a theorem that required the acceptance of axiomatic quantum field theory. This is a slippery slope because it is science by consensus. Just as Euclid assumed that parallel lines actually existed in reality. Violations were then found and ad hoc transformations of CPT were devised by some very brilliant physicists. We can now, with these new transformations, have a universe that has its mirror image. CPT symmetry gives us anti-matter and the reversal of time. This is great for sci-fi fiction writers that write scripts about time traveler and parallel universes, but what does it tell us about the fundamental properties of physical laws?

Where in TUB have you read about the reversal of time? Has anyone read about universes in parallel? Parallel Universes implies that they are unrelated and never join, existing separate as if created by a separate god. All of the universes we read about in TUB share the same center, Paradise.

The great and insurmountable problem with the spin-staistics theorem in quantum mechanics is that physicist accept particle spin in isolation. TUB unambiguously reveals that spin (rotation) is never in isolation. There is simultaneous respiration motion with the spin that includes reflections at the two extremes of inspiration and expiration. This is super-dooper symmetry! Every particle of matter moves exactly like the Master Universe. All motions are perfectly absolute and perfectly symmetrical, perfectly balanced and rhythmic.

The never ending confusion of the states of matter (particles) lies simply in the ignorance of particle dynamics. TUB comes to the rescue but how long will it take physicists to discover that a particle like so called bosons and fermions can breathe as well as spin. God breathed life into Adam in the creation myth; He also breathed motion into particles of matter. Would this not explain a lot Mr. Riktare and Mr Nigel?

The "particle zoo" can be replaced by a single particle that can do it all. This motion explicitly described for the motions of space applies to all matter simply because matter contains space. This PERFECT motion moves in infinite directions at every instant simultaneously. Because of equators in spinning particles the 'anti-motions' are simultaneously occurring in the anti-hemisphere. Counter revolving space levels resolves these 'anti-motions' in the Master Universe.

You may ask how a motion can be in infinite directions, simultaneously. Let us use the Master Universe as an example. If you expand a circle by increasing its radius, in what direction is the circle expanding? The answer is; in all directions out because there are infinite radii in a circle. On the contrary, if a circle is contracting by diminishing its radius, from how many directions is it coming from toward its center? The answer is from all directions. Now let us use a sphere which is analogous to a circle with a center and radius. Take these respiration motions and couple them with rotation of the sphere. Imagine that any one point on the surface of the sphere is moving in infinite directions and the corresponding point in the counter hemisphere is doing the same motion (counter-motion). Take a complete breathing cycle/rotations and the motions across the hemispheres, and the motions sum to zero, the stillness of the source, Paradise, the center of it all. It is perfect rhythmic, balanced, interchange of motion. Motion that is, at every instant, a reflection of the stillness of its Source.

As I have mentioned before, CPT symmetry requires that time be asymmetric in order to preserve its symmetry. This is not possible if we are to believe TUB that time is circular simultaneity. Circles are perfectly symmetrical, time is perfectly symmetrical. God is perfectly symmetrical, He does not take sides.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2012 2:07 am +0000
Posts: 920
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.

In QED time is asymmetric in order to preserve CPT symmetry. If time is symmetric, as in circular, then CPT must be false. Your thoughts please.


The revelators do say that about time. But they don't provide the context to help with an interpretation. I tend to think they were describing how a person experiences time, not necessarily how physical effects unwind during the passage of time. That a human's experience may be limited to certain windows within a small lapse of time could explain how angels and midway beings are able "in a blink of an eye" to perform apparently miraculous physically real phenomena. It may also explain the origin of "brain waves" and why inducing a modification of our brain waves can induce profound changes in consciousness. Through Yoga, for example, one may develop the ability to systematically modify one's own brain wave's pattern and frequency.

You could be right that time is in some sense quantized. As we known circularity is why things are quantized. The overlap of one instance of the circle on another instance provides feedback that create a phase locked system. Or time may be the agent under which quantization of other physical characteristics is accomplished.

I don't agree with your statement about CPT. If time is symmetric then presumably backwards running time is as valid as forward running time even if we as personalities are wired to only experience forward running time. But I don't feel that backwards running time is actually needed to fulfill CPT. An apparent observation of backwards running time may simply be the reverse running configuration of another physical characteristic in its dimension. As I've mentioned, I believe Poincare/Minkowski/Einstein "spacetime" is both more constrictive than a proper spacetime and yet lacks certain restrictions or repercussions that a proper spacetime would give. In essence, modern physicists are stumbling in the dark with regard to these issues in my opinion, even if the concept and observation of CPT is more than valid in essence.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Thu May 28, 2015 5:02 am +0000
Posts: 1368
Riktare wrote:
If time is symmetric then presumably backwards running time is as valid as forward running time even if we as personalities are wired to only experience forward running time.

That's an interesting statement. To me, that describes the essence of what eternal existence is, when (if) we achieve it.

It reminds me of what the Urantia Book says about what happens if we fuse with an Adjuster who's had previous indwelling experience with non-surviving mortals. At that moment all the past experiences of a non-surviver becomes a part of the one who succeeds to fuse.

'Take away this one talent from this unprofitable servant and give it to him who has the ten talents.'


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2016 2:30 pm +0000
Posts: 304
Riktare wrote:
The revelators do say that about time. But they don't provide the context to help with an interpretation. I tend to think they were describing how a person experiences time, not necessarily how physical effects unwind during the passage of time.


I think that TUB indeed does provide the context to help with an interpretation about time. In fact, the revelatory are quite explicit on the subject.

12:5.3   ...Time and space are inseparable only in the time-space creations, the seven superuniverses. Nontemporal space (space without time) theoretically exists, but the only truly nontemporal place is Paradise area. Nonspatial time (time without space...

130:7.6   ...There are seven different conceptions of space as it is conditioned by time. Space is measured by time, not time by space. The confusion of the scientist grows out of failure to recognize the reality of space. Space is not merely an intellectual...



Riktare wrote:
You could be right that time is in some sense quantized. As we known circularity is why things are quantized. The overlap of one instance of the circle on another instance provides feedback that create a phase locked system. Or time may be the agent under which quantization of other physical characteristics is accomplished.


Time is quantized in every sense because it is inseparable from space. There cannot be overlap of instances because an instant cannot be simultaneous with another instant. An instant is the absolute of time (eternity) and an instant incorporates all of time. As far a time being "the agent" which quantization of other physical characteristics is accomplished, I would say this. TUB clearly states that matter contains space. It also says that time and space are inseparable in our seven super universes. Therefore, time is the agent in all physical matter.


Riktare wrote:
I don't agree with your statement about CPT. If time is symmetric then presumably backwards running time is as valid as forward running time even if we as personalities are wired to only experience forward running time. But I don't feel that backwards running time is actually needed to fulfill CPT.


Remember that conceptually and mathematically, physics treats time as linear, not circular. A line is an ideal contract with only one dimension. A line can not have movement because it lacks the dimensionality. A line is infinite in both directions. It cannot be symmetrical because it cannot be divided into two equal parts. You may disagree by saying that there is infinity in both directions if you chop up a line in half. But then you have two infinite lines and there can only be one line. A separate line would invite the erroneous notion of parallel lines. This is an unreality because everything in the Universe must have relation. For those that need further proof that parallel lines cannot exist, consider that two lines in parallel must have distance between them. The notion of distance requires space-time. A line has only one dimension and cannot support this notion. More proof can be found in TUB. The definition of parallel lines are two lines that never meet in infinity. This necessarily requires space to be absolute, and this is in contrary to TUB's assertion.

I believe that you are correct to assert that backward running time is actually necessary to fulfill CPT, but time asymmetry most definitely is necessary. If one conceptualizes time as circular, time can "travel" clockwise and counter-clockwise. But these two motion are also symmetric. Consider the counter rotation space levels in the depiction of the Master Universe. One level is not traveling backwards in time while another level travels forwards.

The Earth rotates counter clockwise in the northern hemisphere and clockwise in the southern hemisphere. We "clock" the same time, however.


Riktare wrote:
In essence, modern physicists are stumbling in the dark with regard to these issues in my opinion, even if the concept and observation of CPT is more than valid in essence.


I whole heartedly agree with the first part of your sentence, however, I urge you to rethink CPT. It is a cornerstone to the foundation of modern physics, and particle physic in particular.


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, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 16  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours


Who is online

Registered users: Google [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