Urantia Book Forum

Urantia Book Discussion Board : Study Group
It is currently Sat Dec 07, 2019 9:41 am +0000

All times are UTC - 7 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 236 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 16  Next
Author Message
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2016 2:30 pm +0000
Posts: 304
Riktare wrote:
I would say no. Motion in space may sponsor energy repercussions that appear to be waves or ripples. But that is a fluctuation of the energy or force that is contained in space. It would really be worth looking at Nigel's presentation. He postulates that photons actually travel in straight lines in space where its content is undifferentiated, as the revelators say. But once a photon enters space containing a differentiated energy or charge, such as segregata, waves or ripples are created in that energy ocean.


I have a disagreement with this paragraph and the following quotes from TUB is the reason.

41:5.6 Energy, whether as light or in other forms, in its flight through space moves straight forward. The actual particles of material existence traverse space like a fusillade. They go in a straight and unbroken line or procession except as they are acted on by superior forces, and except as they ever obey the linear-gravity pull inherent in material mass and the circular-gravity presence of the Isle of Paradise.

42:5.14 The so-called ether is merely a collective name to designate a group of force and energy activities occurring in space. Ultimatons, electrons, and other mass aggregations of energy are uniform particles of matter, and in their transit through space they really proceed in direct lines. Light and all other forms of recognizable energy manifestations consist of a succession of definite energy particles which proceed in direct lines except as modified by gravity and other intervening forces. That these processions of energy particles appear as wave phenomena when subjected to certain observations is due to the resistance of the undifferentiated force blanket of all space, the hypothetical ether, and to the intergravity tension of the associated aggregations of matter. The spacing of the particle-intervals of matter, together with the initial velocity of the energy beams, establishes the undulatory appearance of many forms of energy-matter.

Nowhere does TUB state that the undifferentiated force blanket of all space ever becomes differentiated. I disagree with Nigel's postulate because it misleading as to what TUB actually says. A fusillade actually must travel in a helical trajectory because of the nature and geometry of space. This is the path of least time, and what is called the direct route from point A to point B. But in considering that space is hyperbolic, the helix is a straight line in this curved space. Waves and ripples are observed because of this helical trajectory and the fact that the light particle is breathing as it spins. This is called a spiral or vortex.

Now please talk about Maxwell and his vortex model, as this will get us closer to how he was on the right path and where he went wrong.

Going to Maxwell's paper of March, 1861 On Physical Lines of Force, early in that paper we find him explaining the magnetic field as function of stress (p. 164)

"We must therefore represent the magnetic force at a point by a stress having a single axis of greatest or least pressure, and all the pressure at right angles to the axis equal. It may be objected that it is inconsistent to a represent a line of force, which is essentially dipolar, by an axis of stress which is necessarily isotropic; but we know that every phenomenon of action and reaction is isotropic in its results, because the effects of the force of the bodies between which it acts are equal and opposite, while the nature and origin of the force may be dipolar, as in the attraction between north and a south pole."

We see Maxwell's first problem on page 283, just before eq. 27, where he sees that he needs all of his vortices spinning the same way, so he is forced to propose a row of middle wheels in between each row of vortices. He has fallen into the paradox of the plenum. He uses vortices, which I agree with, but he has them existing cog to cog. He was trying to create a pinwheel universe and he was later mocked for it. He did not seem to realize that he did not need his vortices spinning one another. He thought he needed this because what he really needed was to explain why the jostling does not de-spin them.

What he did not know and TUB reveals is that the ultimaton is a vortex and has Paradise as its nucleus. A vortex is a spin but it is also a respiration cycle. Hurricanes and tornados are vortices and they spiral, not just spin. Particles of matter are vortices with axes of rotation, dipolar, with a tension stress between polar points. Linear gravity is the superposition of two spherical gravity fields originating at the polar points and forming a gravitation field that is precisely what we now consider a magnetic field. Maxwell did not realize that every spinning particle with an axis of spin is already rotating in opposite direction within one particle, clockwise and counter-clockwise across equators. Maxwell mention axes and poles but never does he mention where motions reflect, the equator. In the motions of a seesaw, the one plank is moving in opposite directions at any instant because of the reflection of motion at the fulcrum. Without a fulcrum there is no motion. Paradise is the fulcrum of the particles of matter. Motion proceeds from absolute stillness.

Each and every ultimaton has Paradise as its nucleus and its vortical motion is sustained by its fulcrum and not by any other force external to it. And the next quote may have been the revelatory addressing Maxwell directly when they use the words, nature and origin, as in the the excerpt I quoted from his paper.

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....


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2012 2:07 am +0000
Posts: 949
Of course I wasn't talking about the exceptions. But there some interesting points in those exceptions:

1. "they ever obey the linear-gravity pull inherent in material mass" - It appears that the revelators are referring to photons being deflecting by large masses as witnessed by the famous solar eclipse measurements made by Eddington that were used as evidence for General Relativity. Actually the experiment and measurements were an entire mess. In no way did they quantitatively support General Relativity. But they did clearly show that the photon's path was profoundly affected by the mass of the Sun.

2. That humans have so far not detected any general curvature to the paths of photons or other particles traveling through space probably indicates that the straight line path deviation due to Paradise gravity pull is so miniscule over the arc in our vicinity that it would be extremely difficult to measure and substantiate.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2012 2:07 am +0000
Posts: 949
toto wrote:
Nowhere does TUB state that the undifferentiated force blanket of all space ever becomes differentiated. I disagree with Nigel's postulate because it misleading as to what TUB actually says. A fusillade actually must travel in a helical trajectory because of the nature and geometry of space. This is the path of least time, and what is called the direct route from point A to point B. But in considering that space is hyperbolic, the helix is a straight line in this curved space. Waves and ripples are observed because of this helical trajectory and the fact that the light particle is breathing as it spins. This is called a spiral or vortex.


I was using the words "undifferentiated" and "differentiated" for other reasons than the authors. As you point out, when the force blanket is undisturbed, even if it is segregata it is an undifferentiated ocean. But that doesn't mean that there aren't a series of different energies and forces embedded therein. The paragraph you post does mention a "group" of forces after all. The revelators use the word "undifferentiated" to denote that there is no quantitive change in the space charge, energy or force from one point in space to another. It is effectively at rest and equilibrium. But remember the Power Directors and other beings can modify certain of the energies and forces within space, i.e. one but not necessary the other. That is what I mean by the term differentiated.

toto wrote:
Now please talk about Maxwell and his vortex model, as this will get us closer to how he was on the right path and where he went wrong.


On Physical Lines of Force was a fairly early work. He started his research under the mentorship of Lord Kelvin, William Thompson. Thompson was a champion of the vortex model. Maxwell deemphasized their usage in later work which was much more fully developed. His conception of "the hypothetical ether" and the various effects of its perturbation was far more complete by the time of his massive treatise.

Maxwell did conceive of a hyper miniscule "molecule" (there was no term such as atom or electron in his time) which we might call the ultimaton. But obviously no equipment of his time could probe such small scales. His cog and wheel models were not a description of his paradigm. They were made to easily visualize and prove that mechanically his paradigm worked. Have you contemplated such a thing with your paradigm?

toto wrote:
Particles of matter are vortices with axes of rotation, dipolar, with a tension stress between polar points. Linear gravity is the superposition of two spherical gravity fields originating at the polar points and forming a gravitation field that is precisely what we now consider a magnetic field.


Though I admire your creativity, claiming a thing does not make it so. I think you first need to demonstrate exactly how your proposal would work. There are software tools to work with, pen and paper to sketch things out, mathematical equations, even Legos or drone parts to play with...


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 5:21 am +0000
Posts: 966
ya'll got me confused enough that i'm not sure this is being missed or not but i think the "undifferentiated force blanket of all space" could have been written as just "space itself" and they're just elaborating on the unvariable cushioning/interference effects of space. space isn't energy, force, or power so this wouldnt be segregata (pure energy)...and waves aren't space moving since waves are measurable energy (and the ub says they're produced by an excitation of the content of space...which does vary)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2012 2:07 am +0000
Posts: 949
I don't think the "undifferentiated force blanket of all space" could have been written as just "space itself". There is a clear difference, if I understand the revelators. The "force blanket" is something that is contained in space. Space could theoretically be empty with no "force blanket". But that would probably serve no purpose in the Master Universe.

Space allows everything else to be "spread out" so that time is used in transporting something across space. It apparently has no other properties, right?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 5:21 am +0000
Posts: 966
well i don't know...the content of space would be covered by the next bit,"the hypothetical ether", and it's not clear to me if that's additive or redundant.

other properties of space mentioned in the UB:

11:8.3 (125.6) Space is nonresponsive to gravity, but it acts as an equilibrant on gravity. Without the space cushion, explosive action would jerk surrounding space bodies. Pervaded space also exerts an antigravity influence upon physical or linear gravity; space can actually neutralize such gravity action even though it cannot delay it.


and the related balancing effect of counterrotating space levels w/quiescent zones that keeps everything in orbit around paradise instead of flying off into midspace


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2016 2:32 pm +0000
Posts: 121
Riktare wrote:
I don't think the "undifferentiated force blanket of all space" could have been written as just "space itself". There is a clear difference, if I understand the revelators. The "force blanket" is something that is contained in space. Space could theoretically be empty with no "force blanket".

From what I have been noticing about the way the authors seem to construct the UB narration, the bolded quotation above indicates or implies that “force blanket” could indicate that a cloaking force or shielding from view, based on the use of “blanket” (verb) – “to obscure or obstruct; interfere with; overpower”, where the use of “all space” may indicate that “space”, which we know from the UB has substance or parts, based on the use of “hypothetical ether” and other aggregates.
If we look as the UB narration where this phrase is used, it should present additional information as to what or how the authors define or use “undifferentiated” as it relates to “resistance” and “force blanket”.
Quote:
(475.10) 42:5.14 The so-called ether is merely a collective name to designate a group of force and energy activities occurring in space. Ultimatons, electrons, and other mass aggregations of energy are uniform particles of matter, and in their transit through space they really proceed in direct lines. Light and all other forms of recognizable energy manifestations consist of a succession of definite energy particles which proceed in direct lines except as modified by gravity and other intervening forces. That these processions of energy particles appear as wave phenomena when subjected to certain observations is due to the resistance of the undifferentiated force blanket of all space, the hypothetical ether, and to the intergravity tension of the associated aggregations of matter. The spacing of the particle-intervals of matter, together with the initial velocity of the energy beams, establishes the undulatory appearance of many forms of energy-matter.

(476.1) 42:5.15 The excitation of the content of space produces a wavelike reaction to the passage of rapidly moving particles of matter, just as the passage of a ship through water initiates waves of varying amplitude and interval.


I have added the UB narration that follows the paragraph in question because in its use of “content of space” indicates that “space” has “content” whereas having desegregate-able parts, can be “differentiated”.

To “differentiate
Quote:
1. to form or mark differently from other such things; distinguish.

2. to change; alter.

3. to perceive the difference in or between.

4. to make different by modification, as a biological species.

5. Mathematics. to obtain the differential or the derivative of.

6. to become unlike or dissimilar; change in character.

7. to make a distinction.

8. Biology. (of cells or tissues) to change from relatively generalized to specialized kinds, during development.


In definition number “5. Mathematics.” a “differential” can also mean “derivative”, having the following definitions:

Quote:
1. derived.

2. not original; secondary.

3. something that has been derived.

4. Also called derived form. Grammar. a form that has undergone derivation from another, as atomic from atom.

5. Chemistry. a substance or compound obtained from, or regarded as derived from, another substance or compound.

6. Also called differential quotient; especially British, differential coefficient. Mathematics. the limit of the ratio of the increment of a function to the increment of a variable in it, as the latter tends to 0; the instantaneous change of one quantity with respect to another, as velocity, which is the instantaneous change of distance with respect to time. Compare first derivative, second derivative.

7. a financial contract whose value derives from the value of underlying stocks, bonds, currencies, commodities, etc.


So, in this case when “undifferentiated” is used it has multiple meanings, and as a reference to space, can indicate that “space” has components that can be “differentiated”, more specifically it is in reference to “the resistance of” (the object in question) “when subjected to certain observations” whereas defined by the object-phrase.

One must also note, as inserted in “42:5.14”, above, mentions that the “so-called ether is merely a collective name to designate a group of force and energy activities occurring in space. Ultimatons, electrons, and other mass aggregations of energy are uniform particles of matter, and in their transit through space”, would when performing a search, in the UB, for “undifferentiated,” would find an associated narration that applies to the previous one, related to “succession of definite energy particles”. But what I find interesting in the wording used here, “in their transit through space”, is that if this was to mean that “transit” outside of “space” as a substance, it might better be written as ‘transit of space’, where in this case, the “through” might indicate, through space as a force-barrier?

Quote:
6. Ultimatons, Electrons, and Atoms

(476.3) 42:6.1 While the space charge of universal force is homogeneous and undifferentiated, the organization of evolved energy into matter entails the concentration of energy into discrete masses of definite dimensions and established weight — precise gravity reaction.

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2012 2:07 am +0000
Posts: 949
MidiChlorian wrote:
(476.3) 42:6.1 While the space charge of universal force is homogeneous and undifferentiated, the organization of evolved energy into matter entails the concentration of energy into discrete masses of definite dimensions and established weight — precise gravity reaction.


Yes! This, I believe, is exactly what Nigel describes using the term "quantization". It's very interesting that the revelators paraphrase that activity as "precise gravity reaction".


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2016 2:30 pm +0000
Posts: 304
Riktare wrote:
1. "they ever obey the linear-gravity pull inherent in material mass" - It appears that the revelators are referring to photons being deflecting by large masses as witnessed by the famous solar eclipse measurements made by Eddington that were used as evidence for General Relativity. Actually the experiment and measurements were an entire mess. In no way did they quantitatively support General Relativity. But they did clearly show that the photon's path was profoundly affected by the mass of the Sun.


Please note that TUB never uses the term "photon" for "light particle", even though it was around by 1934. But TUB does clearly state that light is real, its has weight. The Sun and the light particles from a distant star have a "precise gravity reaction".

Riktare wrote:
2. That humans have so far not detected any general curvature to the paths of photons or other particles traveling through space probably indicates that the straight line path deviation due to Paradise gravity pull is so miniscule over the arc in our vicinity that it would be extremely difficult to measure and substantiate.


I agree that it is difficult to detect very large radii of curvature but also realize and the ultimaton has Paradise as its nucleus. This difficult fact to digest from TUB, and demands that Paradise lie at the center of all motions that are vortical. Which is all motion. You do not have to go far to interact with Paradise gravity and linear gravity from other spinning vortical matter. We can detect this helical trajectory using bullets or rockets or any projectile you choose. All matter must move in the same manner, not matter its size. We just have to know what to look for and want to detect it.


Riktare wrote:
I was using the words "undifferentiated" and "differentiated" for other reasons than the authors. As you point out, when the force blanket is undisturbed, even if it is segregata it is an undifferentiated ocean. But that doesn't mean that there aren't a series of different energies and forces embedded therein. The paragraph you post does mention a "group" of forces after all. The revelators use the word "undifferentiated" to denote that there is no quantitive change in the space charge, energy or force from one point in space to another. It is effectively at rest and equilibrium. But remember the Power Directors and other beings can modify certain of the energies and forces within space, i.e. one but not necessary the other. That is what I mean by the term differentiated.


We must be careful with wording and the word undifferentiated in TUB should be taken very literally. I think it refers simply the opposite of being different. TUB is stressing unity.

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....


What ever 'group of forces' are mentioned, these forces are of the same nature, origin and destiny.

Riktare wrote:
On Physical Lines of Force was a fairly early work. He started his research under the mentorship of Lord Kelvin, William Thompson. Thompson was a champion of the vortex model. Maxwell deemphasized their usage in later work which was much more fully developed. His conception of "the hypothetical ether" and the various effects of its perturbation was far more complete by the time of his massive treatise.


I think Maxwell made a great mistake in essentially abandoning this vortex model. He was on the right tract , in my opinion, but ridicule is a powerful bullet to resist.

Riktare wrote:
Though I admire your creativity, claiming a thing does not make it so. I think you first need to demonstrate exactly how your proposal would work. There are software tools to work with, pen and paper to sketch things out, mathematical equations, even Legos or drone parts to play with...


If you PM me with an email address, I would be glad to send you a paper that I wrote with some details for your critique. I would welcome it.

Riktare wrote:
Yes! This, I believe, is exactly what Nigel describes using the term "quantization". It's very interesting that the revelators paraphrase that activity as "precise gravity reaction".


Again, we must be careful here. "Quantization" is not a word in TUB. Nigel must define this term using TUB terminology or references . TUB uses the term "quanta", which is not the same thing.

42:6.1 While the space charge of universal force is homogeneous and undifferentiated, the organization of evolved energy into matter entails the concentration of energy into discrete masses of definite dimensions and established weight — precise gravity reaction.

In this quote, "discrete" means individual and separate. "Quanta" as used in TUB, refers to precise energy amounts in radiation and absorption.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2016 2:30 pm +0000
Posts: 304
Mr. Riktare, can you substitute the electromagnetic wave equations of Maxwell's with a helical surface manifold?

If so, please let me know how you can find a mathematical model for a logarithmic helix. I have not seen any mathematics in physics that can deal with logarithmic functions, save the Dirac Spinor. This is a much better model for the effects of light than the orthogonally arranged electric and magnetic sinusoidal propagation. The spiral logarithmic helix incorporates and unifies the E and the M not one manifold structure of least time and minimal surface in seven dimensions.

An inconvenient truth is that the proof given by Leibniz in the integral of the inverse function is false. The inverse function, as you know, its the common operation in physics since it is the function in reflection. The integral of 1/X is not log x. And conversely, the derivative of nlog x is not 1/X. This is a crucial stumbling block in mathematical physics that must be realized. The task of Light has simple tasks. It is the currency of energy. It is emitted from its origin, it interacts with other matter by absorption, and reflects at its destiny of a absorption only to be re-emitted. These are the packets of energy, quanta, that are the currency of energy exchange. The spectrum of this light is merely determined by the radius of the particle that emits this quanta.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2012 2:07 am +0000
Posts: 949
toto wrote:
can you substitute the electromagnetic wave equations of Maxwell's with a helical surface manifold?


No doubt you can, but the main question is how complicated both the mathematical expression of the constraints, and then the solution would be.

As you know, sinusoids have extremely mathematically beneficial features. They partition the solution space very, very nicely and conveniently because every frequency is orthogonal or independent from every other. And every possible phase of a sinusoid can be further partitioned into orthogonal sine and cosine components (real and imaginary components). Plus the fact that either the derivative or integral of either a sine or cosine function is the converse: a cosine function or a sine function of the same frequency.

So what you need to do is to partition your solution space somehow. If your generating function has a derivative that is exactly the same as the generating function, then you've kind of killed your chances of finding a simple partitioning.

One very general way to partition a solution space is to use the Wavelet concept. That doesn't require orthogonal generating functions. Instead the partitioning may be based on scale (which is analogous to frequency of sinusoidals). But using Wavelets normally requires a computer algorithm.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2016 2:30 pm +0000
Posts: 304
Riktare wrote:
toto wrote:
can you substitute the electromagnetic wave equations of Maxwell's with a helical surface manifold?


No doubt you can, but the main question is how complicated both the mathematical expression of the constraints, and then the solution would be.


I would say impossibly complicated because a helicoid is a minimal surface that is infinite in extension in all dimensions. Then any solutions would explode and implode to the two infinities, the infinitely large and the infinitely small (zero). Feynman would then come along and "renormalize", other words, push the equation to to fit the data.


Riktare wrote:
As you know, sinusoids have extremely mathematically beneficial features. They partition the solution space very, very nicely and conveniently because every frequency is orthogonal or independent from every other. And every possible phase of a sinusoid can be further partitioned into orthogonal sine and cosine components (real and imaginary components). Plus the fact that either the derivative or integral of either a sine or cosine function is the converse: a cosine function or a sine function of the same frequency.


YES!!! Please don't leave these thoughts.


Riktare wrote:
So what you need to do is to partition your solution space somehow. If your generating function has a derivative that is exactly the same as the generating function, then you've kind of killed your chances of finding a simple partitioning.


This is what has been done but it fails to uncover the truth. The truth is there is no way to partition space if space itself moves. Your "parts" are never what they were a microsecond ago. And it is true that the generating function (motion) has a derivative that is exactly the same as the generating function. Motion is existential and not subject to The Calculus because it has no initial conditions. There was never a first 3 seconds.


Riktare wrote:
One very general way to partition a solution space is to use the Wavelet concept. That doesn't require orthogonal generating functions. Instead the partitioning may be based on scale (which is analogous to frequency of sinusoidals). But using Wavelets normally requires a computer algorithm.


OK, but then you are not using an equation. An algorithm can simulate a recursive function but an algorithm is a pattern of sorts. Do you know the proper pattern or algorithm of motion? Do you know the initial conditions? One hint; it contains the three transcendental numbers, e (Euler's number), pi, and phi (the divine ratio). Where does y=e^x start and where does it end? You may use the two dimensional cartesian graph to answer that one if you like.

There is not a computer that will ever exist that can generate digits of pi to infinity. So, we can only approximate to greater accuracies with more powerful computers and more digits of pi, e, and phi.


Please study the relationship of the helicoid and its transformation into the catenoid. Both are locally isometric surfaces. The helicoid is a Ruled Surface, meaning that it is a trace of a line. This is so important in realizing that when TUB says that light particles proceed in a line, that this does not preclude them from moving in a helicoid fashion through space and their statement about a line remains true.


Because you now know that space moves and is moving in a spiral manner based on TUB descriptions of its primary and secondary motions, and that this same moving space is in matter and in every light particle, light particles must also be spiraling (spinning AND breathing) as they they follow a helical trajectory through moving hyperbolic space. Complicated indeed! Read about the "never ending confusion" in the next quote.


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.

Please consider the notion that a breathing particle of matter has a varying radius.


42:6.7 Each atom is a trifle over 1/100,000,000th of an inch in diameter, while an electron weighs a little more than 1/2,000th of the smallest atom, hydrogen. The positive proton, characteristic of the atomic nucleus, while it may be no larger than a negative electron, weighs almost two thousand times more. *


Now please consider the round about riddles found in TUB quote above (42:6.7). The positive protons is characteristic of the atomic nucleus. By whose characterization? But the 100 ultimatons that constitute the electron must be concentrically arranged and each of those have Paradise as its nucleus. And now the proton may be no larger than the negative electron even though it is 2000 times heavier.

This is certainly a riddle and I think that the answer is that the proton and the electron are the same particle at different phases of breathing. The proton is the fully contracted version of the fully expanded electron, but it is one particle. They are about the same size because they are one but the one that is contracted (proton) and is much denser (fully charged) and heavier. This is a riddle that must be answered with insight into the other facts presented in TUB. All relationships in the Universe of Universes must be orthogonal as are the sine and cosine components. Complex numbers and imaginary planes are but a tool to get around that lack of understanding of the relationship of the toroid and the helicoid. Lets look at the catenary and the catenoid more closely in the next post. Need to go right now, sorry.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Thu May 28, 2015 5:02 am +0000
Posts: 1369
Thank you for expanding the meaning of the terms you use. This helps tremendously to follow your posts.

When one becomes convinced of the authenticity of the Urantia Book what immediately becomes clear is the great significance of the reason for including the revelations of the material universe in it. Although the main draw to the book has to do with the Urantia Book's spiritual revelations, they would be shallow without the inclusion of the truth about the physical realm.

The fact that so many people who are immersed in the sciences take the Urantia Book serious is a testament to it and says very much about you. It's so very interesting to see what you're all saying about this and to know that through you a trail is being blazed that will eventually lead to finding those "other material realities as yet undiscovered on Urantia"


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2012 2:07 am +0000
Posts: 949
toto wrote:
The proton is the fully contracted version of the fully expanded electron, but it is one particle. They are about the same size because they are one but the one that is contracted (proton) and is much denser (fully charged) and heavier.


I don't see how that could possibly be the case. A proton becomes a neutron after it has exchanged a pi meson (a mesotron it was orginally called). Electrons have very different properties and don't have any similiar capability. The electron's counterpart is the positron which has the same charge as a proton.

I feel as though I am wasting my time. I need to be straight to the point and say that my interest has expired 100%. I will not discuss these theories any more. But I will thank you very much for the information about Allais.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2016 2:30 pm +0000
Posts: 304
Riktare wrote:
I don't see how that could possibly be the case. A proton becomes a neutron after it has exchanged a pi meson (a mesotron it was orginally called). Electrons have very different properties and don't have any similiar capability. The electron's counterpart is the positron which has the same charge as a proton.


Yes, I agree that the proton becomes a neutron after fully charging and becomes perfectly spherical in geometric terms. This is the contraction "crunch" and must reflect back to expanding. In that instant of full charge, the poles flip but there is an intermediate mesotron to sustain the spin of the particle. When a minimal surface is achieved, no further charging is possible and the particle explodes into an expanding particle that no longer absorbs photons but now radiates them. Axes of spin must flip their poles at reflection. Science has no good explanation for the positron. It is a virtual particle. Talk to me about the realities of virtual particles. They are treated as "points". What is the physical reality of a point? What information can be obtained at a point? Perhaps a slope? Not really, but the calculus would have you think so. To think that you could determine a line slope at a point is the same thinking that tells you that a curve can be rectified. Projection from the spiritual to the finite is a one way street. It cannot go in reverse.


Riktare wrote:
I feel as though I am wasting my time. I need to be straight to the point and say that my interest has expired 100%. I will not discuss these theories any more. But I will thank you very much for the information about Allais.


I am very disappointed at hearing this coming from you. I was hoping to be further challenged by your ideas because I think better when questioned by a well trained mind. I would like if you can tolerate me for a tiny bit longer to consider what I have to say on gravity and the subject that I left hanging in my last post.

Please allow me to present the particulars of the catenary. The catenary is a curve that is known to everyone as a hanging chain with very short links. It is the shape that a chain assumes under its own weight in the Earth's gravitational field. Supported only at its ends, the chain exhibits a curve similar in appearance to a parabola, but it is not a parabola as Galileo once suggested. The mathematical properties of the catenary curve were first studied by Robert Hooke in the 1670s, but its precise equations were exhaustively derived by Leibniz, Johann Bernoulli and Huygens, and turns out to be a hyperbolic cosine function.

In cartesian coordinates the equation for the catenary reads:

Y = (e^ax + e^-ax) / 2a

At the time, e, Euler's number, the inverse logarithmic function, was not in use. On the graph this equation is obviously the arithmetic mean of two logarithmic curves. Why is this important? The significance is that it establishes a relationship between the circular functions, which are periodic, and the hyperbolic functions, and, in particular, with the anti-derivative of 1/X. The function 1/X is a curve called a 'rectangular hyperbola'. The area under the curve of this hyperbola (the integral 1/X) is indeed infinite. This relates hyperbolic space with circular time! Gravity controls energy-matter, pattern configures it, space-time contains it and is contained by it. (TUB)

Another important feature of the curve (motion) of the the catenary is that the surface of revolution of the catenoid is a minimal surface of revolution. This means that a surface of revolution from two points in a half-plane, who boundary is the axis of of revolution of the surface is the curve which minimizes the surface area. The catenoid minimal surface area of revolution is best illustrated by a soap film between two parallel circular wire loops. The soap film naturally takes on the shape of least surface area. This is central to the notion that nature is absolutely efficient and finds the path or curve of least resistance or distance, or better yet, a path of least time. As I have mentioned before, the shortest distance between two points is not a straight, but a curve because space-time is hyperbolic-circular. Space-time is not responsive to gravity but is configured by pattern because pattern configures energy-matter and matter contains space-time. A minimal surface is defined, not as a surface of minimal area, but a surface with a mean curvature of zero.

Now the obvious; the ellipse is a symmetrical structure with a two-fold symmetry. At every ¼ orbit, the curve of the ellipse either spirals in to zero radius, or out to infinite radius of curvature. When standing at the frontier between two infinitie, you see infinity in both directions. Infinite radius of curvature as shown in two opposite directions gives a mean curvature of zero, a minimal surface! The ellipse is also a minimal surface

We must now conclude that the elliptical curve and the catenary curve are intimately related. Do a simple demonstration where you take the graph of a true ellipse and tape it to a wall. Then take a fine link chain and match it up to the curve of the ellipse. It is the same curve. This can be done with any ellipse because all that is needed is to separate the hanging points of the chain to fit the curve of any of infinite ellipses.

These simple visual demonstrations have literally linked gravity with the functions of the natural logarithms, and these same functions with the ellipse and all of them as they are interrelated to hyperbolic space and circular time. And it is all in TUB!!!


One last thing... Why can't physics explain how a particle of light (photon), a finite unit, can light up a room with one source? Let is assume that the room in a perfect sphere. Put a light source in the very center of the spherical room and light fills the entire space. That means that the light particle must be infinite in number and proceed from this light source in infinite directions (radii). The inner surface of a spherical room is made up of infinite points. In order to cover the inside surface with light you require infinite points of light, the targets of the photons. There is no conventional explanation for a particle to be able to do this.

I will attempt to provide a viable explanation for this property of light that has it going in infinite directions, simultaneously, in particle form.

Consider that a particle moves with the space it contains and must move as space moves (TUB). This is a spiraling particle. This motion is necessarily in infinite directions, simultaneously. Combine this motion with the trajectory motion of this same particle as a helicoid (minimal surface). These two combined motions sets up ripples in the force blanket of space and creates bubbles of space-time at every succession of instants. These spherical bubbles (also a minimal surface) expand at the speed of light in all directions and can fill a room with what science calls E/M waves.

Remember that space is in a particle of light so they both must move at the same speed. Light speed must always equal the speed of expanding space. And we know that expanding space is accelerating (Perlmutter, et al). This acceleration must be logarithmic and not a simple acceleration. And gravity must also be a logarithmic acceleration and not a simple acceleration.

Light speed is not constant! It must be logarithmically accelerated!

I hope you do not give up on me, Mr Riktare. I know that most all that I have written goes contrary to conventional science but I am trying to be faithful to what is written in the revelation.


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, 6, 7, 8 ... 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