Urantia Book Forum

Urantia Book Discussion Board : Study Group
It is currently Tue Jul 23, 2019 6:20 pm +0000

All times are UTC - 7 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 236 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16  Next
Author Message
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2016 2:30 pm +0000
Posts: 304
This post has been reported to, "people for the ethical treatment of animals" (PETA)! :lol:


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:14 pm +0000
Posts: 92
Makalu, absolutely fabulous. Thanks for putting recent discussion into perspective.
Nigel


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2016 2:30 pm +0000
Posts: 304
Where the master has failed
What hope for the student
Had he obeyed him in all?

-Richard Wagner, Siegfried


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 5:21 am +0000
Posts: 905
Quote:
Science is a wonderful thing if one does not have to earn one's living at it. ~Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2016 2:30 pm +0000
Posts: 304
"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain;

and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."

-Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 5:21 am +0000
Posts: 905
right...and you dont see the futility of trying to reduce the cosmos to perfect mortal geometry when it cant even be done with the trees in your yard.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2016 2:30 pm +0000
Posts: 304
Makalu wrote:
right...and you dont see the futility of trying to reduce the cosmos to perfect mortal geometry when it cant even be done with the trees in your yard.


I presume that this is a statement and not a question.


93:2.5 In personal appearance, Melchizedek resembled the then blended Nodite and Sumerian peoples, being almost six feet in height and possessing a commanding presence. He spoke Chaldean and a half dozen other languages. He dressed much as did the Canaanite priests except that on his breast he wore an emblem of three concentric circles, the Satania symbol of the Paradise Trinity. In the course of his ministry this insignia of three concentric circles became regarded as so sacred by his followers that they never dared to use it, and it was soon forgotten with the passing of a few generations.


93:3.3 The symbol of the three concentric circles, which Melchizedek adopted as the insignia of his bestowal, a majority of the people interpreted as standing for the three kingdoms of men, angels, and God. And they were allowed to continue in that belief; very few of his followers ever knew that these three circles were emblematic of the infinity, eternity, and universality of the Paradise Trinity of divine maintenance and direction; even Abraham rather regarded this symbol as standing for the three Most Highs of Edentia, as he had been instructed that the three Most Highs functioned as one. To the extent that Melchizedek taught the Trinity concept symbolized in his insignia, he usually associated it with the three Vorondadek rulers of the constellation of Norlatiadek.


It is not futile to symbolize the cosmos. Was it futile for Melchezidek to symbolize the Paradise Trinity with three concentric circles? BTW, circles are perfect mortal geometry. Why do have problems with geometric symbols? You are guilty of reducing your thoughts to word symbols on this forum. Why the hypocrisy?


130:4.2 The source of universe reality is the Infinite[/i]. The material things of finite creation are the time-space repercussions of the Paradise Pattern and the Universal Mind of the eternal God. Causation in the physical world, self-consciousness in the intellectual world, and progressing selfhood in the spirit world—these realities, projected on a universal scale, combined in eternal relatedness, and[i] experienced with perfection of quality and divinity of value—constitute the reality of the Supreme.


The trees in my back yard are material things of finite creation. The trees are projected. Although they are not perfect trees, they can be experienced with perfection of quality and divinity of value.


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?

Resistance is futile, Makalu. You will someday regard time as the moving shadow of eternity and space as the fleeting shadow of Paradise realities. When will you see that finite realities are but symbols of the Infinite? You project your thoughts into the word symbols you have used here in an attempt to discredit me. And you, hypocritically, begrudge me the use of geometric symbols to reduce the cosmos into a bit sized, digestible experience. This is rich indeed!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 5:21 am +0000
Posts: 905
your ideas about words being less than thoughts are just a stage in your embryonic self-awareness...when you're more balanced and unified you'll see why the UB says that "language is man’s greatest and most serviceable thinking tool".

you aren't trying to symbolize the cosmos...you're trying to model it (in a limited concept of totality) and none of your geometric models come particularly close to the simplified model of the major zones of space/motion described in the UB.

and you have odd ideas regarding what the papers say on the nature of space respiration, energy/matter, paradise and the ultimaton, antigravity and gyroscopes and i forget what else...its like english is your second language and you have difficulty with adverbs maybe?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2016 2:30 pm +0000
Posts: 304
Makalu wrote:
your ideas about words being less than thoughts are just a stage in your embryonic self-awareness...when you're more balanced and unified you'll see why the UB says that "language is man’s greatest and most serviceable thinking tool".


Your logic is very flawed. Are you suggesting that words are equal or greater than the thoughts they symbolize? A thinking tool is not the thinking itself. Mathematics is also the language of science. Logic is the tool of philosophy. A picture paints a thousand words. A zygote should not be calling the kettle black. I suggest you go to the shed and sharpen your tools before questioning my balance and unification.


Makalu wrote:
you aren't trying to symbolize the cosmos...you're trying to model it (in a limited concept of totality) and none of your geometric models come particularly close to the simplified model of the major zones of space/motion described in the UB.


As far as language is concerned, Noam Chomsky in his seminal work, "Syntactic Structures", made an argument for words serving as models for formal symbols. Brush up on your cognitive linguistics and make an argument for symbols being autonomous from models. And again, you are critical of my attempt at modeling but praise the simplified model described in TUB. You cannot be critical of me and, at the same time, celebrate TUB for doing the same thing and think that this is logical thinking.


Makalu wrote:
and you have odd ideas regarding what the papers say on the nature of space respiration, energy/matter, paradise and the ultimaton, antigravity and gyroscopes and i forget what else...its like english is your second language and you have difficulty with adverbs maybe?


Here I think that you are correct to some extent. English is my second language and perhaps that has made me more careful in my use of it. English is perhaps your first language yet your grammatical logic is quite lacking.

"Quite"; adverb that modifies or qualifies an adjective. "Lacking"; adjective, meaning in short supply, absent or missing.

You may say that I have "odd ideas" regarding what the papers say, and perhaps I do. But you have not presented an argument that logically contradicts what I have presented. I would not shy away or cower from a strong rebuttal, but please come at me with a sharp object, not a swizzle stick.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 5:21 am +0000
Posts: 905
your attempts to set values on words vs. thoughts is just a meaningless, pointless and useless logjam in your consciousness. and the focus on the difference between them is itself proof of your relative lack of unified mind. not to mention the unbalanced stream of consciousness in your first paragraph there.

the UB model is nothing like your geometries...what part of that don't you get? if you cant understand the text you can look at some of the artistic representations and know geometry will never model the master universe in a number of areas.

actually i and others have challenged your pet notions a number of times and you usually just ignore/divert


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2016 2:30 pm +0000
Posts: 304
Makalu wrote:
ctually i and others have challenged your pet notions a number of times and you usually just ignore/divert


Ok Makalu, lets put aside the bickering and get back to discussing something relevant to the thread.

It has been since the early part of the 17th century that Johannes Kepler discovered that Mars orbited the Sun in an elliptical rather than a circular path by closely analyzing the astronomical observations of Tyco Brahe. To this day we have no gravitational theory that can explain the force that creates these elliptical orbits. We have very accurate equations of these elliptical orbits but the problem remains that a no gravity that we know can explain why planets move faster around the Sun at certain times of the year as compared to others. Science provided equations and theories of gravity but only gave us 'empty' equations without an explicable force. This is called heuristics.

Newton gave the force of gravity as a function of the inverse square law.

Force of Gravity = G x (M1 x M2)/D^2 TUB addresses this in this next quote.

42:11.5 Linear-gravity response is a quantitative measure of nonspirit energy. All mass—organized energy—is subject to this grasp except as motion and mind act upon it. Linear gravity is the short-range cohesive force of the macrocosmos somewhat as the forces of intra-atomic cohesion are the short-range forces of the microcosmos. Physical materialized energy, organized as so-called matter, cannot traverse space without affecting linear-gravity response. Although such gravity response is directly proportional to mass, it is so modified by intervening space that the final result is no more than roughly approximated when expressed as inversely according to the square of the distance. Space eventually conquers linear gravitation because of the presence therein of the antigravity influences of numerous supermaterial forces which operate to neutralize gravity action and all responses thereto.


Please note the word "roughly", the adverb. So, TUB says that this force is now to be called linear gravity.

But Newton's equation is very precise and not rough at all. It also contains a constant, called the gravitational constant. This constant must change sometimes to explain things better, but scientist don't seem to care that it's called a constant.

Also Newton's D is the distance between the centers of mass of M1 and M2. I point this out because Newton, and current science, use centers of mass as point mass.

The biggest clue to linear gravity that TUB gives us is this next quote.

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


I place that phrase in bold for a very good reason. Science works with the concept of point mass, and center of gravity. But the phrase about linear gravity is quite (adverb) clear. It states that gravity always acts preferentially in the plane perpendicular to mass. That brings up a terrific problem with how we look at mass and gravity. Geometrically, a plane cannot be perpendicular to a point. And therein lies the clue. We have it wrong but we have to figure it our for ourselves.

Einstein gave us a theory of gravity which was purely geometrical. Space was to be warped by matter/mass. This would do well to describe the motion but did nothing to describe the force. A geometry exerts no force.

And TUB specifically contradicts Einstein's theory in the following quote.

0:6.11 Pattern may configure energy, but it does not control it. Gravity is the sole control of energy-matter. Neither space nor pattern are gravity responsive, but there is no relationship between space and pattern; space is neither pattern nor potential pattern. Pattern is a configuration of reality which has already paid all gravity debt; the reality of any pattern consists of its energies, its mind, spirit, or material components.

By saying that gravity controls matter and space is not gravity responsive, TUB is saying that matter/mass cannot warp space. TUB specifically and pointedly addresses General Relativity and dismisses it in just two sentences.

The ellipse has two foci. In an orbital path around the Sun, classically, the Sun is placed in one focus and the Earth is pulled around it in an elliptical trajectory. The second focus is 'empty'. There is not mass there. If we were to adhere to Newton's gravitational law, the inverse square law would be in effect. That means that when the Earth is furthest away from the Sun in its orbit, their attraction to each other is least. What force brings the Earth back from its farthest reaches? If you say gravity, I would say that this is where gravity is at its weakest and cannot bring the Earth back from escaping into open space. When the Earth is at its closest distance to the Sun, the force of gravity, according to Newton, is greatest because of the inverse square law. What force pushes the Earth back out and keeps it from crashing into the Sun? We have no known gravity that pushes. Ask any astrophysicist to explain the sling-shot effect and demand that the forces be described. They cannot do this because we have no theory that will do this.

It is as if gravity fluctuates at every instant along the path of the elliptical orbit. That is were the word, preferentially, becomes important in the quote above (11:8.9) That word tells us that linear gravity does fluctuate. But how?

I have an explanation and I have presented it before. If anyone wants me to continue, I will. But if this sounds like a bunch of malarkey, then turn away. I will try include an 11 page attachment. If the content will not fit, I can email to whoever wants it.

File is to big, sorry. Any suggestions? There is a lot of color graphics.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 5:21 am +0000
Posts: 905
well i'm not seeing the mysteries in the orbits that you do. the orbital speed varies for the same reason a ball rolls faster downhill and gains momentum and loses it uphill, working with or against the pull of gravity. a planet furthest from the sun at its least gravitational attraction is also at its slowest speed and so not able to escape it's orbit...rolls back downhill in the analogy. the planets are crashing into the sun (eventually) but they just keep missing it for now due to their forward momentum and speed which is greatest at perihelion.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2016 2:30 pm +0000
Posts: 304
Makalu wrote:
well i'm not seeing the mysteries in the orbits that you do. the orbital speed varies for the same reason a ball rolls faster downhill and gains momentum and loses it uphill, working with or against the pull of gravity. a planet furthest from the sun at its least gravitational attraction is also at its slowest speed and so not able to escape it's orbit...rolls back downhill in the analogy. the planets are crashing into the sun (eventually) but they just keep missing it for now due to their forward momentum and speed which is greatest at perihelion.



There is a big problem with your reasoning above. The orbital has no "innate" motion. The orbital (Earth) is not affixed with thruster or rocket engines. Gravity cannot impart tangential motion. Gravity's pull is from the Sun, and the pull is exactly perpendicular at perihelion and aphelion. The motion of the orbital (Earth) is precisely 90 degrees to this pull of gravity (tangential) at these two points. There is no forward momentum when the orbit is a curve. Newton made the same error and nobody questioned him. Everybody just assumes innate motion of the orbital and Newton claimed as much.


Last edited by toto on Wed Dec 14, 2016 3:21 pm +0000, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2016 2:30 pm +0000
Posts: 304
https://www.dropbox.com/s/6k6m6faqgig36 ... 6.pdf?dl=0

Please go to the above link to read an essay that I wrote in 2014 about "Gravity and Mass". This chapter six is my theory of the gravitational field and how elliptical motions are brought about. Thanks.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 5:21 am +0000
Posts: 905
they acquired their initial forward motion and elliptical orbits from being yanked out of the sun by the gravity of a passing nebula


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 ... 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours


Who is online

Registered users: maryjo606


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