Urantia Book Forum

Urantia Book Discussion Board : Study Group
It is currently Mon May 25, 2020 12:59 pm +0000

All times are UTC - 7 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 236 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ... 16  Next
Author Message
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2016 2:30 pm +0000
Posts: 304
Makalu wrote:
well the UB does discuss electric and magnetic fields in a number of places...along with the classic description here:

Quote:
The electronic charge creates an electric field; movement gives rise to an electric current; the current produces a magnetic field. When an electron is suddenly stopped, the resultant electromagnetic commotion produces the X ray; the X ray is that disturbance.


Yes, thanks for the correction. But that brings me to another point. TUB also says that gravity is the sole control of energy-matter. Control here implies a field of control, in other words, a gravity field. An electric current is motion and gravity is a field that controls motion. The current produces a field that TUB calls a magnetic field. Is not TUB hinting that what we call a magnetic field is actually a gravitational field (linear gravity) and is trying to correct an error? I am simply suggesting that what we consider a magnetic field is in reality the gravity field of linear gravity which is dipolar. This field cause particles to move, create a current, that moves from pole to opposite pole to balance out the unequal motions across the hemisphere of a spinning particle or spinning Earth, etc.


Makalu wrote:
i dont read the "light, heat, chemism etc". passage as saying that energy and matter are the same....to be one and the same in origin, nature and destiny is not saying that they are the same...humans are the same in origin, nature and destiny too but we are not all the same. I only see it as a restatement of the conservation of energy and mass-energy equivalence...i think the only dispute physics would have there is light having mass.


We are all one and the same to God since God is no respecter of persons. So, I disagree. They mean one and the same as in one and the same. And the thing about light having weight is HUGE, with HUGE implications.


Makalu wrote:
another clue regarding the undiscovered form of energy is given in the section on short gamma rays..."Accompanying these diverse radiations is a form of space-energy unknown on Urantia."


This could very well be describing the Cosmic microwave background radiation that is nearly isotropic, discovered in 1964. This is way after TUB was conceived of in 1934. In 1934, this was a space energy unknown on Urantia.


nodAmanaV wrote:
Could it be that the source of these undiscovered energies that accompany the particles of light-energy be contained when light travels through space as "light without heat" before it explodes in reflection releasing its energy in the less efficient form of heat?

In other words, can we harness this greater form of energy (light without heat) somehow before it reflects in an explosion?


Heat is the measure of electronic activity. The answer is to capture this particle energy before it becomes coalesces into electronic activity.


MidiChlorian wrote:
Have you translated and associated these word symbols in the UB? If not, then your presentation of errors may be invalid?


Yes. I translate in my mind, and you know who resides there with me, don't you?


MidiChlorian wrote:
I have highlighted the word "arc" above, because if one were to replace it with its meaning would indicate "curve", which would be more analogous to its use here, would it not?


No. The science writers of The Guardian are not scientists, they are writers. This word "arc" is a literary term and not a geometric one.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 5:21 am +0000
Posts: 978
naw i dont think they're trying to say that the magnetic field is linear-gravity or any other form of the electronic organization of matter/energy..magnetic fields can repulse and linear gravity adheres. the sun doesnt eject gravity from magnetic storms does it?

i think your missing the "origin nature and destiny" qualification but whatever...

doesnt matter that they found a new source of microwaves in the CMB...it still wasnt a newly discovered form of energy


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2016 2:32 pm +0000
Posts: 121
toto wrote:
MidiChlorian wrote:
Have you translated and associated these word symbols in the UB? If not, then your presentation of errors may be invalid?


Yes. I translate in my mind, and you know who resides there with me, don't you?

MidiChlorian wrote:
I have highlighted the word "arc" above, because if one were to replace it with its meaning would indicate "curve", which would be more analogous to its use here, would it not?


No. The science writers of The Guardian are not scientists, they are writers. This word "arc" is a literary term and not a geometric one.


As to the answer to my first question above, the UB also indicates that as time progresses, one should look up words or their root base in the dictionary, because these meaning will change over time. This also goes for the word symbols, that the UB uses, where some of the explanations given are also, not always that descriptive based on the times presented.
In order for you to think that your thought adjuster, has presented you with intelligence which has been unearned by your own work, I would not whole rely on your thinking alone.
What would the following word symbols actually refer too, as wave-energy, but keep in mind that they are a part of the Electromagnetic Spectrum, all a part of physical-light?

"Infraultimatonic rays"
"Ultimatonic rays"
"short space rays"
"electronic stage"

Do not assume that what the UB presents as their description is or can be associated to today's science terms, where which there are equivalents meanings, but the UB narrations are additional descriptive functionalities that will help.

Regarding the word "arc" --
Quote:
1. Geometry. any unbroken part of the circumference of a circle or other curved line.
2. Also called electric arc. Electricity. a luminous bridge formed in a gap between two electrodes. Compare spark1 (def 2).
3. Astronomy. the part of a circle representing the apparent course of a heavenly body.
4. anything bow-shaped.
5. to form an electric arc.
6. to move in a curve suggestive of an arc.

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2016 2:30 pm +0000
Posts: 304
Makalu wrote:
naw i dont think they're trying to say that the magnetic field is linear-gravity or any other form of the electronic organization of matter/energy..magnetic fields can repulse and linear gravity adheres. the sun doesnt eject gravity from magnetic storms does it?


A field cannot be repulsive. The so called magnetic field is actually moving particles in a gravitational field that move from pole to opposite pole. Particles that undergo collisions with particles traveling in the opposite direction rebound and repulse . Two billiard balls repel after collision. This is not the action of a field, but an actual physical touching. Fields are spooky actions at a distance.


Makalu wrote:
i think your missing the "origin nature and destiny" qualification but whatever...


OK, I can certainly agree to disagree.


Makalu wrote:
doesnt matter that they found a new source of microwaves in the CMB...it still wasnt a newly discovered form of energy


What do you think it was then? Do you any ideas?


MidiChlorian wrote:
In order for you to think that your thought adjuster, has presented you with intelligence which has been unearned by your own work, I would not whole rely on your thinking alone.


I cannot rely on your thinking, only my own. And I do not think alone. BTW, thanks for the advise, but it was not solicited.


MidiChlorian wrote:
What would the following word symbols actually refer too, as wave-energy, but keep in mind that they are a part of the Electromagnetic Spectrum, all a part of physical-light?


A light particle can move in infinite directions, simultaneously, as it spirals. It respires with the space it contains and this respiration allow for a spectrum of radius (diameters) that can radiate wave-energy in multiple octaves (100).

42:4.14 ... 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...

Remember that these units thus performing are breathing in and out and each have a spectrum of diameters.



MidiChlorian wrote:
Regarding the word "arc" --
Quote:
1. Geometry. any unbroken part of the circumference of a circle or other curved line.
2. Also called electric arc. Electricity. a luminous bridge formed in a gap between two electrodes. Compare spark1 (def 2).
3. Astronomy. the part of a circle representing the apparent course of a heavenly body.
4. anything bow-shaped.
5. to form an electric arc.
6. to move in a curve suggestive of an arc.


You may want to include a "bridge" that may be in the curve of an "arc", as in, "arc over troubled waters". Oh, you may also want to look up the definition of: "literary metaphor"


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2016 2:32 pm +0000
Posts: 121
toto wrote:
MidiChlorian wrote:
What would the following word symbols actually refer too, as wave-energy, but keep in mind that they are a part of the Electromagnetic Spectrum, all a part of physical-light?


A light particle can move in infinite directions, simultaneously, as it spirals. It respires with the space it contains and this respiration allow for a spectrum of radius (diameters) that can radiate wave-energy in multiple octaves (100).

42:4.14 ... 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...

Remember that these units thus performing are breathing in and out and each have a spectrum of diameters.


Not the answer that I was looking for, however should you wish to update your information you should read the following book: "THE UNIVERSAL ONE" by "Walter Russell" -- The original manuscript was published in 1927, but was available prior to that date, around 1910. It is my opinion that the so called 100 octaves came from the understanding of this work, and it would seem that to better understand what "light" is, and also matter, this book would make for very good reading. I have the hard copy but have also a PDF version that I needed to edit because it did not match the hard-copy. The PDF version makes for better searching, but is not readily available because of copyright issues, where my copies are legal.

_________________
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 Apr 13, 2011 5:21 am +0000
Posts: 978
yeah it doesnt matter if you want to make up your own definitions of a field...it doesnt change the fact that magnetic fields as the rest of the universe knows them repulse and magnetic fields in motion can push and linear gravity cant do either one

i think they found just another spectrum in the cosmic background radiation....and made a big deal out of it because it was one of the few observations that fit the big bang cosmic inflation bs


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2016 2:32 pm +0000
Posts: 121
1. “Infraultimatonic rays” = “infra-ultim-atonic”
2. “Ultimatonic rays” = “ultim-atonic”
3. “short space rays”
4. “electronic stage”
5. “Gamma rays”

The UB lists 4 groups of “wave-energy” above “gamma rays”, where in today’s “scientific enlightenment” that which may be considered above “gamma rays” might be noted, in part, as “Very-high-energy gamma ray (VHEGR) denotes gamma radiation with photon energies of 100 GeV to 100 TeV, i.e., 1011 to 1014 electronvolts”, and/or “Ultra-high-energy gamma rays are gamma rays with photon energies higher than 100 TeV (0.1 PeV)” – putting these above “5. Gamma Rays,” as listed in the UB. Therefore, would just be a different classification based on word symbols.

In the “4. The electronic stage” group we can see that the word symbol “light-energy” is used twice, as underlined in the UB narration below.

Quote:
(475.2) 42:5.6 4. The electronic stage. This stage of energy is the basis of all materialization in the seven superuniverses. When electrons pass from higher to lower energy levels of orbital revolution, quanta are always given off. Orbital shifting of electrons results in the ejection or the absorption of very definite and uniform measurable particles of light-energy, while the individual electron always gives up a particle of light-energy when subjected to collision. Wavelike energy manifestations also attend upon the performances of the positive bodies and the other members of the electronic stage.


It is most obvious that “light-energy” can be translated, as “Photon energy”, and when one compares the context of the UB narration above with the following information presented for “Photon energy” below, there are more specific context above, which can be taken into consideration, with what is presented below, in its entirety, being that what is presented is only a partial segment.

Quote:
The photon energy is the energy carried by a single photon with a certain electromagnetic wavelength and frequency. The higher the photon's frequency, the higher its energy. Equally, the longer the photon's wavelength, the lower its energy.

Photon energy is solely a function of the photon's wavelength. Other factors, such as the intensity of the radiation, do not affect photon energy. In other words, two photons of light with the same color (and, therefore, same frequency) will have the same photon energy, even if one was emitted from a wax candle and the other from the Sun.

The photon energy can be represented by any unit of energy. Among the units commonly used to denote photon energy are the electronvolt (eV) and the joule (as well as its multiples, such as the microjoule). As one joule equals 6.24 × 1018 eV, the larger units may be more useful in denoting the energy of photons with higher frequency and higher energy, such as gamma rays, as opposed to lower energy photons, such as those in the radiofrequency region of the electromagnetic spectrum.


When one looks at the word symbol as for “Infraultimatonic”, it can be broken down as follows: “infra-ultim-atonic”, where “infra” can have various meanings as – "below, underneath, beneath; later than, smaller, inferior to; under, among", and “ultim” can be represented as an abbreviation for “ultimately” and/or “ultimate”, then “atonic” – “1. Phonetics – (a) unaccented, (b) Obsolete – voiceless” – “2. Pathology - characterized by atony” – “3. Grammar - an unaccented word, syllable, or sound.” In that “atonic” may refer to non-vibration or more as tension-like as in elasticity.
So when applied to wave-energy, might imply, an inverted wave, or the tension potential of light-energy frequency is so high that it goes over a threshold and becomes underneath or below the highest frequency, like “Zero-point energy (ZPE) or ground state energy”.
Also, some of the UB symbols may fall under "Cosmic rays", which may encompass several types of groups?
Another way of looking at word-symbols, and their possible associations to the UB?

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2016 2:30 pm +0000
Posts: 304
Makalu wrote:
yeah it doesnt matter if you want to make up your own definitions of a field...it doesnt change the fact that magnetic fields as the rest of the universe knows them repulse and magnetic fields in motion can push and linear gravity cant do either one


Can you explain how the Earth repels away from the Sun at its nearest approach. According to Newtonian gravitation and the inverse square law, gravity is at its greatest at this shorter distance from the Sun. How does the Earth escape this certain plunge into the Sun? Does gravity act as a repellent, or is there a magnetic field in the Sun that pushes the Earth away? Then as the Earth reaches it greatest distance away from the Sun, does the Sun turn of the repulsive push of its magnetic field and turn on its gravitational attraction?

This is an interesting theory. Can you elaborate on this alternating push / pull that explains the elliptical orbits of the planets?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2016 2:32 pm +0000
Posts: 121
toto wrote:
This is an interesting theory. Can you elaborate on this alternating push / pull that explains the elliptical orbits of the planets?

You may wish to look at the following article called "Gravitoelectromagnetism".

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:14 pm +0000
Posts: 107
Hi toto,
toto wrote:
What if the Higgs particle is discovered?

Are you saying (seriously) that you missed the most widely reported science story of 2012, that the LHC data reveals precisely the sort of "Higgs-type" disturbance predicted by Peter Higgs? Did you also miss the follow-up, that the 2013 Nobel for physics was given to Francois Englert and Peter Higgs for predicting the mechanism that underlies this discovery? The discovery of such a boson (consistent with a longitudinal disturbance to the predicted condensate of weak hypercharge) implies that the standard model is on the right track, at least with regard to the Brout-Englert-Higgs mechanism.

Note that while "on the right track" is encouraging, on pages 13-18 of this pdf I propose a way to connect such a "Higgs mechanism" (interaction with weak hypercharge) with the UB's ultimatonic foundations.

* * *

[Toto, a more general comment]: to a mathematician, your infinitely orthogonal elliptical logarithmic helix may be a pretty thing. But in the context of physics, the idea is to discover and describe what nature actually does.

However, with regard to the way science tries to discover what nature actually does, you claim -- with sublime innocence and arrogance -- that all professional scientists are devoted to protecting the status quo. But surely you know that the most exciting thing for a young scientist is to prove that some dusty old theory is wrong? Of course, presenting its replacement is even better!

Toto, have you noticed you have a tendency, like a Muslim mullah, to turn misconceptions into dogma, then to argue with passion in defense of your misconception? This attitude is not appropriate for a student of the fifth epochal revelation, let alone a scientist. I mention this in the hope that you can adjust this tendency.

* * *

Regarding protons and neutrons, when physicists run collider experiments, the data indicates that the way nature builds both protons and neutrons involves three very small (and very robust) nuggets, that somehow get locked together (see link, quark confinement. For want of a better name, these nuggets are still called "quarks". To match this data with a UB-based, ultimatonic scheme, seems logical that we try to build these hard nuggets (up and down quarks, etc.) from some (unrevealed) sub-structure of clustered and huddling ultimatons.

Regarding electric charge and magnetic effects, recall that these phenomena are related to the motion and interaction of electrons and protons. In the UB scheme, both the electron and the proton are unimaginably complex structures built up from clusters of huddling ultimatons. As I understand it, what we call "electric charge" can only appear after power directors and physical controllers arrange ultimatons into gravita (e.g., electrons and protons). That is to say, individual, mature ultimatons do not have "electric charge"; they have something more interesting...

Recall that in the 1970's, the so-called "standard model" of particle physics was built, in which electric charge is combined with something a bit mysterious, "weak hypercharge". The resulting electroweak theory is our current best attempt to unify the description of both electric and weak interactions. Where this gets interesting is if we allow the cause of weak hypercharge to be linked with the spin of some primitive huddle of ultimatons. The more familiar (electric and magnetic) interactions can only appear once ultimata is arranged as gravita.

Regarding "100 octaves of wave energy", recall the statement that wavelike phenomena are related to the diameter of the object involved (ultimaton, electron, atom, molecule),
Urantia Book wrote:
"... Such wavelike energy ripples are 860 times the diameters of the ultimatons, electrons, atoms, or other units thus performing." (474.4, 42:4.14)

In the UB scheme, while the individual, mature ultimaton may well be connected with weak hypercharge, it has no electric charge. To me, this implies the so-called "upper octaves" of wave energy phenomena are ultimatonic, not electronic.

What do you think?

* * *

PS: one of my favorite examples of how you turn misconception into dogma was this gem:
toto wrote:
TUB says that time is circular simultaneity and that time is a succession of instants. This tells me that time must be quantized if you are to believe the revelation.

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

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

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2012 2:07 am +0000
Posts: 971
toto wrote:
And the thing about light having weight is HUGE, with HUGE implications.


Yes and no. Louis de Broglie built his entire extremely successful paradigm on the observation that a photon may actually have mass and therefore travel at slightly less than a theoretical "speed of light". The main point is that the particle velocity is decoupled from the reaction speed of the medium. There is a relationship between the two but it it not linear. Remember, he was the one who predicted that all particles cause ripples or waves in the energy ocean as they move. He, similarly as Maxwell, developed the equations that very accurately describe those waves.

If he was correct about that there may exist particles lighter than a photon. Possibly ultimatons or sub-electronic congregations of ultimatons that sponsor the higher octaves of energy waves. Some aspects of wave propagation from those particles might exhibit "faster than the speed of light" characteristics.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2011 4:24 am +0000
Posts: 171
[quote="toto] TUB also says that gravity is the sole control of energy-matter.[/quote]


42:8.4 As atoms are constituted, neither electric nor gravitational forces could hold the nucleus together. The integrity of the nucleus is maintained by the reciprocal cohering function of the mesotron, which is able to hold charged and uncharged particles together because of superior force-mass power and by the further function of causing protons and neutrons constantly to change places. The mesotron causes the electric charge of the nuclear particles to be incessantly tossed back and forth between protons and neutrons. At one infinitesimal part of a second a given nuclear particle is a charged proton and the next an uncharged neutron. And these alternations of energy status are so unbelievably rapid that the electric charge is deprived of all opportunity to function as a disruptive influence. Thus does the mesotron function as an “energy-carrier” particle which mightily contributes to the nuclear stability of the atom.

The mesotron is the "strong force" that science is so desperately trying to understand i.e. 10 billion dollar collider (LHC) that failed to explain what holds an atom together.

In my view a simple linear gravity generator is a vortex. In the atmosphere, a tornado is a simple linear gravity generator. All of the energy-matter that we measure, begins with a collapsing cloud of ultimatons interacting with another collapsing cloud of ultimatons in such a way that produces the yet to be discovered force of the mesotron. This force, solely controlled by gravity, possesses the power to create atomic ignition. Charge is simply... Negative equals implosion, and positive equals explosion of ultimtons.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2016 2:30 pm +0000
Posts: 304
MidiChlorian wrote:
You may wish to look at the following article called "Gravitoelectromagnetism".


Thank you for this reference. This is familiar to me, but I must say that it merely attempts at an amalgamation of two fields. Einstein's field equations are "gravity by geometry". No forces are implied, just a distortion of an otherwise rigid and absolute space. Again, TUB says that gravity is the sole control of matter-energy.


nnunn wrote:
Are you saying (seriously) that you missed the most widely reported science story of 2012, that the LHC data reveals precisely the sort of "Higgs-type" disturbance predicted by Peter Higgs? Did you also miss the follow-up, that the 2013 Nobel for physics was given to Francois Englert and Peter Higgs for predicting the mechanism that underlies this discovery? The discovery of such a boson (consistent with a longitudinal disturbance to the predicted condensate of weak hypercharge) implies that the standard model is on the right track, at least with regard to the Brout-Englert-Higgs mechanism.


I did not miss it at all. It was unforgettable. On December 3, 2012, the LHC folks admitted the have at least two new Higgs masses very near to one another. They are calling one a di-photon Higgs and the other a 4-lepton Higgs, but that was just speculation. The reported masses are 123.5 and 126.6 GeV. Also curious is that they are now calling their particles "Higgs-like". How many Higgs are there? And are they twins or half brothers?

Another announcement in ScienceWorldReport.com reported on the Stephen Hawking's FPP prize and said, "An identical cash prize of $3 million was shared between the seven scientists who led the effort to discover a Higgs-like particle at CERN's Large Hadron Collider."

It appears that they have backpedaled from the Higgs claim. There was also another smaller peak at 135GeV that they chose to ignore prior to this in September 2012. There is certainly a lot of money in propagating a "never ending confusion", particularly among an unsuspecting public.


nnunn wrote:
[Toto, a more general comment]: to a mathematician, your infinitely orthogonal elliptical logarithmic helix may be a pretty thing. But in the context of physics, the idea is to discover and describe what nature actually does.

However, with regard to the way science tries to discover what nature actually does, you claim -- with sublime innocence and arrogance -- that all professional scientists are devoted to protecting the status quo. But surely you know that the most exciting thing for a young scientist is to prove that some dusty old theory is wrong? Of course, presenting its replacement is even better!


Yes, the helix is a pretty thing. DNA is very pretty and useful to life. A young scientist should be devoted to truth and the telling of it. What you say about sublime innocence and arrogance is an effort to silence critics. This is but one tactic that the professional scientist use in protecting their craft. They protect the truth of their "never ending confusion"(TUB). Who are the arrogant ones? In this regard innocence and arrogance are antithetical.

92:3.1   ... present a true picture of the racial religions of the past. Always remember, the cults are formed, not to discover truth, but rather to promulgate their creeds....


nnunn wrote:
Toto, have you noticed you have a tendency, like a Muslim mullah, to turn misconceptions into dogma, then to argue with passion in defense of your misconception? This attitude is not appropriate for a student of the fifth epochal revelation, let alone a scientist. I mention this in the hope that you can adjust this tendency.


Are you calling me a Jihadist terrier? Not an ad hominem attack but certainly an 'ad canine' attack.


nnunn wrote:
Recall that in the 1970's, the so-called "standard model" of particle physics was built, in which electric charge is combined with something a bit mysterious, "weak hypercharge". The resulting electroweak theory is our current best attempt to unify the description of both electric and weak interactions. Where this gets interesting is if we allow the cause of weak hypercharge to be linked with the spin of some primitive huddle of ultimatons. The more familiar (electric and magnetic) interactions can only appear once ultimata is arranged as gravita.


Do you not realize that this model is not consistent with TUB? Space is in particles, and these particles carry this space with them as they move through space. Space and matter must move as one within particles. Space is not responsive to gravity but matter is responsive to gravity. Gravity is the sole control of matter-energy. Interactions between particles is called linear gravity by TUB. And you call me a dogmatic dog! Did you miss the announcement in 1955?


nnunn wrote:
To match this data with a UB-based, ultimatonic scheme, seems logical that we try to build these hard nuggets (up and down quarks, etc.) from some (unrevealed) sub-structure of clustered and huddling ultimatons.



Ultimatums just can't huddle as you say, in a triad. These little guys are spinning (and breathing). If they are interacting in a huddle, in a triad, they could not spin at all! Have you tried to place three gears in this configuration? They are locked!


nnunn wrote:
What do you think?


"Lucy, I think you got some splaining to do."


Riktare wrote:
Yes and no. Louis de Broglie built his entire extremely successful paradigm on the observation that a photon may actually have mass and therefore travel at slightly less than a theoretical "speed of light".


You recently discovered that TUB says that space moves and that space is in matter (photons) and that photons move through space and takes the space they contain with them. Everything in the Universe must move at the same speed. What other conclusion is there? Logic demands consistency.


Last edited by toto on Mon Nov 14, 2016 5:39 pm +0000, edited 4 times in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2016 2:30 pm +0000
Posts: 304
graybear13 wrote:
In my view a simple linear gravity generator is a vortex. In the atmosphere, a tornado is a simple linear gravity generator. All of the energy-matter that we measure, begins with a collapsing cloud of ultimatons interacting with another collapsing cloud of ultimatons in such a way that produces the yet to be discovered force of the mesotron. This force, solely controlled by gravity, possesses the power to create atomic ignition. Charge is simply... Negative equals implosion, and positive equals explosion of ultimtons.



YES!!! Thank you Mr graybear13. Although implosion is absorption and explosion is radiating. The positive and negative would be just a matter of convention as to what they are designated.

Another thing, space is unresponsive to gravity. Since the primary motion of space, respiration, appears to be repelled by Paradise as space expands and then attracted to Paradise as it contracts, there is confusion about pulling and pushing . Absolute gravity has no effect on this motion of space.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2016 2:32 pm +0000
Posts: 121
toto wrote:
Riktare wrote:
Yes and no. Louis de Broglie built his entire extremely successful paradigm on the observation that a photon may actually have mass and therefore travel at slightly less than a theoretical "speed of light".

You recently discovered that TUB says that space moves and that space is in matter (photons) and that photons move through space and takes the space they contain with them. Everything in the Universe must move at the same speed. What other conclusion is there? Logic demands consistency.

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

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

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

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

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 236 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ... 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