Urantia Book Forum

Urantia Book Discussion Board : Study Group
It is currently Thu Sep 19, 2019 8:50 am +0000

All times are UTC - 7 hours




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

Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 5:29 am +0000
Posts: 3667
Makalu wrote:
they acquired their initial forward motion and elliptical orbits from being yanked out of the sun by the gravity of a passing nebula


See Paper 57, Section 5 for confirmation.

Makalu....I have watched that paradox video so many times and just laugh and laugh. Combine two inexplicables and get a third!!! What a hoot...thank you!!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2016 2:30 pm +0000
Posts: 304
Makalu wrote:
they acquired their initial forward motion and elliptical orbits from being yanked out of the sun by the gravity of a passing nebula


This is fine and good but it does not explain the elliptical orbit force. Gravity alone must control the orbit and initial conditions do not explain this. It is speculated that the Third Source and Center is responsible for initiating motion in space but gravity controls it.

The elliptical orbit must be understood as an acceleration and deceleration. As the orbital (Earth) approaches aphelion, it must be decelerating. At the point of aphelion, its farthest distance from the Sun, there is a reflection. This reflection is from a deceleration to an acceleration back to the Sun.

When the Earth approaches perihelion, it is in acceleration. At the very instant of the point of perihelion, there is another reflection from acceleration to a deceleration. What force is responsible for these turn around points of alternating acceleration and decelerations? At the instants of perihelion and aphelion, gravity, pulls perpendicularly on the orbital.

There is no mechanism by which to impart tangential forces on the Earth by any known gravitational field. Newton and Einstein were aware of this fact. Tensor calculus does not show that there is any force tangential to the field. The force field generated from the center of the field in Newton's equation cannot generate a tangential force from the center of a spherical or elliptical gravitational field.

The Earth clearly accelerates and decelerates in it trek around the Sun yet we see no evidence that the Sun or Earth fluctuate there gravity attraction innately. Perihelion and aphelion are vertices of the elliptical orbit where the orbital reflect from acceleration and deceleration, respectively. How does this happen?

An analogy is the motion of the pendulum. At the bottom of the swing, the bob reflects from an acceleration to a deceleration (perihelion), at an instant. At the top of the pendulum swing, the bob reflects from a deceleration to an acceleration (aphelion), at an instant.

I provide a plausible explanation to this yet unexplained phenomena in the link I provided.


https://www.dropbox.com/s/ecnilzgu6hzep ... y.pdf?dl=0

Correction to the link: gravity is a perpendicular force pull, it cannot impart a "tangential force" to the orbital. This is an error in the manuscript that I just noticed. It is corrected in the new link above. Sorry.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 5:21 am +0000
Posts: 940
gravity is the sole control energy/matter not motion...the angular momentum and potential energy of the orbiting material is initiated when formed:

Quote:
57:5.5 (656.1) As Angona more closely approached the sun, at moments of maximum expansion during solar pulsations, streams of gaseous material were shot out into space as gigantic solar tongues. At first these flaming gas tongues would invariably fall back into the sun, but as Angona drew nearer and nearer, the gravity pull of the gigantic visitor became so great that these tongues of gas would break off at certain points, the roots falling back into the sun while the outer sections would become detached to form independent bodies of matter, solar meteorites, which immediately started to revolve about the sun in elliptical orbits of their own.


don't forget that the order of all matter is on the order of the solar system.

the variations in orbital speed aren't caused by fluctuations in gravity, they're caused by the conservation of momentum. (keplers 2nd law of planetary motion)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2012 11:16 pm +0000
Posts: 965
Location: Nanticoke NY
The Urantia Book offers that torn matter from Angona, existing in the Monmatia gravitational system has ever tilted their axial revolution into perpenticular alignment with their former Angona star. What kind of force is this? What kind of difference is there between the matter of Angona star system and Monmatia matter?

_________________
to the Underlaying Unity of All Life so that the Voice of Intuition may guide Us closer to Our Common Keeper


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2016 2:30 pm +0000
Posts: 304
Makalu wrote:
the variations in orbital speed aren't caused by fluctuations in gravity, they're caused by the conservation of momentum. (keplers 2nd law of planetary motion)


Kepler's second law of planetary motion does not help your reasoning one bit. It states that; "A line segment joining a planet and the Sun sweeps out equal areas during equal intervals of time". And you cannot calculate areas of circular arcs over time because an ellipse is a curve.

There is no mention of forces, only a hint about angular velocity which is tied to so called angular momentum. Newton was wrong here and nobody noticed.

To begin with, we are given an angular velocity ω, which is a velocity expressed in radians by the equation

ω = 2π/t


Then, we want an equation to go from linear velocity v to angular velocity ω. Since v = 2πr/t, the equation must be

v = rω

Seems very simple, but it is wrong. In the equation v = 2πr/t, the velocity is not a linear velocity. Linear velocity is linear, by the equation x/t. It is a straight-line vector. But 2πr/t curves; it is not linear. The value 2πr is the circumference of the circle, which is a curve. You cannot have a curve over a time, and then claim that the velocity is linear. The value 2πr/t is an orbital velocity, not a linear velocity.

You cannot express any kind of velocity with a curve over a time. A curve is an acceleration, by definition. An orbital velocity is not a velocity at all. It cannot be created by a single vector. It is an acceleration.

And where a circle is an acceleration, an ellipse is a continuous change in acceleration that is cyclical.

But we don't even need to get that far into the problem here. All we have to do is notice that when we go from 2π/t to 2πr/t, we are not going from an angular velocity to a linear velocity. No, we are going from an angular velocity expressed in radians to an angular velocity expressed in meters. There is no linear element in that transform. The same goes for momentum, because whatever momentum you talk about must be what Newton called angular momentum. This was falsely derived because it was falsely conceived.


Now, back to TUB and the revealing statement about linear gravity.


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.

If, as the statement above holds, gravity acts preferentially, then there must be a differential in gravity pull depending on an angle relative to mass. Therefore, mass cannot be a "point mass", because a plane cannot be perpendicular to a point. Mass must be a line or another plane for that statement from TUB to be true.

Makalu wrote:
57:5.5 (656.1) As Angona more closely approached the sun, at moments of maximum expansion during solar pulsations, streams of gaseous material were shot out into space as gigantic solar tongues. At first these flaming gas tongues would invariably fall back into the sun, but as Angona drew nearer and nearer, the gravity pull of the gigantic visitor became so great that these tongues of gas would break off at certain points, the roots falling back into the sun while the outer sections would become detached to form independent bodies of matter, solar meteorites, which immediately started to revolve about the sun in elliptical orbits of their own.



What is the gravitational field that immediately gets these bodies to revolve about the Sun in elliptical orbits? That is the question that needs to be answered. Please refer to my link for my answer that does not rely on Newtonian errors of angular momentum.

You have claimed that all that is needed for motion is an initial momentum, which is conserved. By saying that, you have completely dismissed gravity as a cause of motion. Why would gravity pull or control anything at all if momentum told the true and complete story? In an elliptical orbit motion is accelerated and decelerated. What is conserved in that observation? The orbit as a whole is conserved but only because it is controlled by gravity.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2016 2:30 pm +0000
Posts: 304
SEla_Kelly wrote:
The Urantia Book offers that torn matter from Angona, existing in the Monmatia gravitational system has ever tilted their axial revolution into perpenticular alignment with their former Angona star. What kind of force is this? What kind of difference is there between the matter of Angona star system and Monmatia matter?


Linear gravity is greatest when alignment of axial revolution of rotating spheres are parallel and least when they are perpendicularly oriented. There is no difference in the kind of matter. Gravity is the sole control of all matter.

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 5:21 am +0000
Posts: 940
you can calculate orbital mechanics in a number of different ways using newtons, keplers or einsteins laws. the fact that none of the math perfectly reflects the reality doesn't concern me...that's the nature of math

the "gravitational field" that instantly controls matter is gravity itself

dunno why you cant wrap your head around gravity and momentum working together...

good luck solving all these problems that don't exist


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2016 2:30 pm +0000
Posts: 304
Makalu wrote:
the "gravitational field" that instantly controls matter is gravity itself


Gravity is a force and must control matter at every "succession of instants", not instantly. In an ellipse, there is a change in radius of curvature at each "succession of instants".

Remember that time is a "succession of instants", but gravity is unresponsive to space.

Makalu wrote:
the fact that none of the math perfectly reflects the reality doesn't concern me...that's the nature of math


Does the nature of reality concern you? But you have given the conservation of momentum as a reason orbitals move. And now you are not concerned if your math has been shown not reflect reality at all. Mathematic is the science of patterns. Show me the pattern of momentum.


Makalu wrote:
good luck solving all these problems that don't exist


Thanks, I am already beginning to solve problems that you are denying.

toto wrote:
toto wrote:
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.


You still have not even attempted to explain the quote above. Discerning the meaning of this quote does not concern you?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 5:21 am +0000
Posts: 940
gravity is a primordial presence and acts instantly:
Quote:
Prior to this hypothetical
eternity moment the space-energies
inherent in Paradise are existent and potentially
operative, but they have no actuality of
being; neither can physical gravity be measured
except by the reaction of material realities
to its incessant pull. There is no material
universe at this (assumed) eternally distant
moment, but the very instant that one billion
worlds materialize, there is in evidence gravity
sufficient and adequate to hold them in the
everlasting grasp of Paradise.


the math is fine for all practical purposes. i can show you the momentum of false premises in your posts.

there's nothing to "explain" in the quote about gravity acting preferentially in the plane perpendicular to mass...its how the world around us works and its patterned on paradise. have you been watching the faucet drip and pondering this mystery? maybe santa will thrill you with a bubble level at christmas!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2016 2:30 pm +0000
Posts: 304
It is obvious that you are not interested and that is OK. But you did not read what I offered in the link. That would have been the courteous thing to do before continuing to comment.


What I meant about "not instantly" when referring to gravity acting, I meant not just instantly, but at every succession of instants. I apologize for not being clear on this. This is what Einstein meant by "spooky action at a distance".


If anyone else is curious we can discuss the subject further.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2016 2:30 pm +0000
Posts: 304
I thought that it would be a good idea to link another chapter of my manuscript about the ellipse. This is such a central geometry figure in TUB that I felt it would be helpful to take an in-depth look at its geometry and analyze it in terms of how it fits into TUB statements about linear gravity.


https://www.dropbox.com/s/xsanklodo9zi1 ... 2.pdf?dl=0


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2012 2:07 am +0000
Posts: 924
It's not a force, but momentum plays a rather important role in Physics. Thank you Mr. Isaac Newton.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2016 2:30 pm +0000
Posts: 304
Riktare wrote:
It's not a force, but momentum plays a rather important role in Physics. Thank you Mr. Isaac Newton.



I knew that I would be sent back to the Principia, where Newton derives the equation
a = v2/r. There we find the velocity assigned to an arc. True, but a page earlier, he assigned the straight line AB to the tangential velocity: "let the body by its innate force describe the right line AB". A right line is a straight line, and if Newton's motion is circular, it is at a tangent to the circle. So Newton has assigned two different velocities: a tangential velocity and an orbital velocity. According to Newton's own equations, we are given a tangential velocity, and then we seek an orbital velocity. So the two cannot be the same. We are GIVEN the tangential velocity. If the tangential velocity is already the orbital velocity, then we don’t need a derivation: we have nothing to seek! If you study Newton's derivation, you will see that the orbital velocity is always smaller than the tangential velocity. One number is smaller than the other. So they can't be the same.

The problem is that those who came after Newton notated them the same. He himself understood the difference between tangential velocity and orbital velocity, but he did not express this clearly with his variables. The Principia is notorious for its lack of numbers and variables. He did not create subscripts to differentiate the two, so history has conflated them. Physicists now think that v in the equation v = 2πr/t is the tangential velocity. And they think that they are going from a linear expression to an angular expression when they go from v to ω. But they aren't.

This problem has nothing to do with calculus or going to a limit. Yes, we now use calculus to derive the orbital velocity and the centripetal acceleration equation from the tangential velocity. But Newton used a versine solution in the Principia. And going to a limit does not make the orbital velocity equal to the tangential velocity. They have different values in Newton's own equations, and different values in the modern calculus derivation. They must have different values, or the derivation would be circular. As I said before, if the tangential velocity is the orbital velocity, there is no need for a derivation. You already have the number you seek. They aren't the same over any interval, including an infinitesimal interval or the ultimate interval.

This false equation vt = rω then infects angular momentum, and this is where it has done the most damage in QED. We use it to derive a moment of inertia and an angular momentum, but both are compromised.

To start with, look again at the basic equations

p = mv
L = rmv

Where L is the angular momentum. This equation tells us we can multiply a linear momentum by a radius and achieve an angular momentum. Is that sensible? No. It implies a big problem of scaling, for example. If r is greater than 1, the effective angular velocity is greater than the effective linear velocity. If r is less than 1, the effective angular velocity is less than the effective linear velocity. How is that logical?

To gloss over this mathematical error, the history of physics has created a moment of inertia. It develops it this way. We compare linear and angular energy, with these equations:

K = (1/2) mv2 = (1/2) m(rω)2 = (1/2) (mr2)ω2 = (1/2) Iω2

The variable "I" is the moment of inertia, and is called "rotational mass." It "plays the role of mass in the equation."

All of this is false, because vt = rω is false. That first substitution is not allowed. Everything after that substitution is compromised. Once again, the substitution is compromised because the v in K = (1/2)mv2 is linear. But if we allow the substitution, it is because we think v = 2πr/t. The v in K = (1/2)mv2 CANNOT be 2πr/t, because K is linear and 2πr/t is curved. You cannot put an orbital velocity into a linear kinetic energy equation. If you have an orbit and want to use the linear kinetic energy equation, you must use a tangential velocity.

The derivation of angular momentum does the same thing

L = Iω = (mr2)(v/r) = rmv

Same substitution of v for rω. Because v = rω is false, L = rmv is false.

But this angular momentum equation is used all over the place and also by Bohr for his derivation of the Bohr radius. This compromises all his equations.

Because Bohr's math is compromised, Schrodinger's is too. This simple error infects all of QED. It also infects general relativity. It is one of the causes of the failure of unification. It is one of the root causes of the need for renormalization. It is a universal virus.


And now add TUB into the mix where v, velocity, is compromised because of space motions and t is compromised beause of circular rather then linear time. As you say Riktare, momentum plays a rather important role in Physics. But what is momentum? What is angular momentum? This is is the question because gravity appears to be a logarithmic acceleration not just a simple acceleration. And nothing in finite reality is linear, including time.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2016 2:30 pm +0000
Posts: 304
Makalu wrote:
gravity is the sole control energy/matter not motion...the angular momentum and potential energy of the orbiting material is initiated when formed:


I missed this one from Makalu. Riktare, do you agree with Makalu in this statement? You seem to agree with him on momentum.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2016 2:30 pm +0000
Posts: 304
In the news today, Sir Isaac Newton's "Philosophiae Naturalis Principita Mathematica" sold at auction for a record $3.7 million dollars. The bible of Godless mechanistic science must be very important to its new owner. Let us examine the legacy of this materialistic science.

Firstly, the concept of inertia. This is specifically the concept of conservation of momentum mentioned prior here on this thread.

Momentum is mass times velocity. Velocity is change in position over time.

In Newton's world, mass was dealt with mathematically as a point. TUB says otherwise.

A change in position over an interval of linear time is an utterly nonsensical notion since TUB tells us that there cannot be a position in space because space is a fleeting shadow of Paradise realities. Space actually moves! Therefore, a position in a space that moves is nonsensical.

It stands to reason and logic that momentum suffers that same fate and is also nonsensical. If momentum is nonsensical, then the Inertia Law of Newton falls by the wayside. This makes sense to any UB reader because otherwise why have a Father that is an upholder.


4:1.6 The Universal Father has not withdrawn from the management of the universes; he is not an inactive Deity. If God should retire as the present upholder of all creation, there would immediately occur a universal collapse. Except for God, there would be no such thing as reality. At this very moment, as during the remote ages of the past and in the eternal future, God continues to uphold. The divine reach extends around the circle of eternity. The universe is not wound up like a clock to run just so long and then cease to function; all things are constantly being renewed. The Father unceasingly pours forth energy, light, and life. The work of God is literal as well as spiritual. "He stretches out the north over the empty space and hangs the earth upon nothing."

Next comes this Newtonian notion that force is mass times acceleration (F=MA).

This concept is false because:
1. Mass is not a point
2. Acceleration is change in velocity over time or a change in position over time squared.

Since I have shown that TUB reveals velocity as an unreality, then acceleration must also be an unreality. Newtons's time is linear and UB time is circular. You cannot square circles of time. This notion of acceleration is, therefore, false. All motion is spiral and all acceleration is logarithmic. Leibniz tied gravity to the natural logarithm when he analyzed the catenary, or hanging chain. He found it to be governed by e, the base of the natural logarithm. This is a unique type of accelerated acceleration that is not "jerk", as in over time cubed. It is unique, discrete and quantized yet its effect is continuous. Therefore, gravity must also be quantized.

The third major concept of Newton in Principia that of action and equal and opposite reaction. This came about from his observations with collisions. Where he failed in his mechanistic thinking was that the very action already had the opposing equal motion in it before the collision. All objects have counter rotational motion across their equators of spin. In a collision, the two colliding objects simply flip their counter motions. There is an inversion of their motions.


195:6.4 At the time of this writing the worst of the materialistic age is over; the day of a better understanding is already beginning to dawn. The higher minds of the scientific world are no longer wholly materialistic in their philosophy, but the rank and file of the people still lean in that direction as a result of former teachings. But this age of physical realism is only a passing episode in man's life on earth. Modern science has left true religion—the teachings of Jesus as translated in the lives of his believers—untouched. All science has done is to destroy the childlike illusions of the misinterpretations of life.

The time of this writing was circa 1934. Although we were told that Part IV of TUB was given one year later. The beginning of the end of the materialistic age may be a reference to what happened in physics in the prior decade. By this I mean the development of "the Copenhagen interpretation", which is still the preferred interpretation of quantum mechanics by contemporary physicists.

This notion was promulgated by Heisenberg and Bohr and it assured everyone that the mysteries of quantum physics are unsolvable and impossible to solve. They introduced the element of the observer in the past of measurement. This meant that a real person with a real mind could influence matter. Mind over matter was born! This is the basis of the "collapse of the wave function". TUB refers to this as superimposition rather than superposition.

42:4.14 The quantity of energy taken in or given out when electronic or other positions are shifted is always a “quantum” or some multiple thereof, but the vibratory or wavelike behavior of such units of energy is wholly determined by the dimensions of the material structures concerned. Such wavelike energy ripples are 860 times the diameters of the ultimatons, electrons, atoms, or other units thus performing. The never-ending confusion attending the observation of the wave mechanics of quantum behavior is due to the superimposition of energy waves: Two crests can combine to make a double-height crest, while a crest and a trough may combine, thus producing mutual cancellation.

Only a person can conduct observations. Mind influences time we know from TUB.

There is never-ending confusion in the mechanics of quantum behavior because of superimposition.

And Heisenberg stated the stupidly obvious when he proposed his principle of uncertainty. It state that the position of a moving particle and its momentum cannot be simultaneously determined. Because the inertia of false Newtonian thinking, this idea seemed novel. But let us examine this principle more closely.

First there is position. This is an unreal notion according to TUB simply because space moves and there simply cannot be a position in space or of space. Then momentum is also unreal because velocity is a change in position over a time interval. It does not take a scholar to see that one cannot even speak of position and change in position occurring simultaneously, at an instant and sound cogent. A change in position requires a time interval. Simultaneous mean at the same time. The whole thing is simply ridiculous. Is this not obvious to everyone on the planet?

Unwittingly, Heisenberg tore down all of the work of Newton, including the calculus, and the work of Einstein. The Uncerainty Principle tells us that nothing can be determined at a tangent point. A tangent line is therefore, nonsense. A curve cannot be rectified. The infinitesimal is not possible. The calculus cannot calculate. The calculus cannot offer any solutions in physics. Tensor calculus of General Relatively is caput. No wonder Einstein could not accept the quantum mechanics of Bohr and Heisenberg. The notion that velocity dilates time must be replace with the non-mechanistic notion that it is mind that dilates time.

The observer finally takes center stage. The Human mind that in indwell with a fragment of the Father is preeminent.


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 ... 12, 13, 14, 15, 16  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours


Who is online

Registered users: No registered users


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You can post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group