Urantia Book Forum

Urantia Book Discussion Board : Study Group
It is currently Tue Oct 15, 2019 6:16 pm +0000

All times are UTC - 7 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 70 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: The Space Between
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2016 2:30 pm +0000
Posts: 304
Though Walter Russell had some very good ideas and agreed that all motion is spiral he was wrong on just what kind of spiral natural motion was. His spiral motion was geometric but was based on the progression of perfect squares. Finite creation is motion governed by the natural logarithm. It is called the phi spiral after phi, the Golden Ratio.

None of the Russell quotes or diagrams presented mention gravity. Gravity is the sole control of matter-energy and is responsible for the elliptical orbits. Gravity is related to the natural logarithm by a simple demonstration of the catenary, or hanging chain. Its curve matches the curve of the ellipse and Leibniz gave its mathematical formula as the arithmetic mean of two logarithmic curves. Thus gravity is tied to the ellipse, which its tied to the logarithmic spiral. The gravity field I have proposed in a previous link show clearly where the natural logarithm applies. I have also tied together Euler's Formula to the family of infinite ellipses. This formula relates Pi to phi, and both to e, the base of the natural logarithm.


MidiChlorian wrote:
A perfect circle represented in a cone, on an angle can be represented as an ellipse.
Yet still a perfect circle, it is viewed and acts as an ellipses.


And so you show the Conic Sections of Apollonius, but in those family of conics is also the parabola, the hyperbola and the point. But a circle is not an ellipse because a circle has but one focus, its center, and the ellipse has two foci. These two foci correspond to the two points of the poles of a rotating spheroid.


MidiChlorian wrote:
Quote:
By a study of the accompanying dimension parts one can readily see that any change in the expansion or contraction dimension of any effect of motion is in either direct ratio or inverse ratio to the square of the distance, area or plane dimensions, or to the cube of the volume dimension.

All dimensions are pressure dimensions.

All dimensions simultaneously expand and contract in opposite directions of the same ratio.

All effects of motion are measurable either in distance, area or volume ratios. Also all are measurable in both the ratios of contraction and of expansion pressure.

The ratios of contraction and of expansion pressure shall herein be termed "The universal ratios."

Expansion pressure is in direct ratio to the square of the distance, area, plane, orbit or time unit, and to the cube of the volume.

Contraction pressure is in inverse ratio to the square of the distance, area, plane, orbit or time unit, and to the cube of the volume.

Every mass in the universe occupies a measurable potential position.

With distance, plane and area dimensions given, any planet or satellite in the solar system can be measured in all of its dimensions by contracting or expanding the standard units of this planet in universal ratios as a comparison.


You will have to explain how pressure is a real dimension. The most commonly relatable use of pressure is psi, or pounds per square inch. In cubic terms one must speak of volume. You must know explain how this has meaning in an expanding space. Pressure in the universe is continuously diminishing due to space respirations, currently expanding.

11:6.1 We do not know the actual mechanism of space respiration; we merely observe that all space alternately contracts and expands. This respiration affects both the horizontal extension of pervaded space and the vertical extensions of unpervaded space which exist in the vast space reservoirs above and below Paradise.

Those quotes from Russell do not acknowledge a presently expanding Universe volume. Distance is not even a measurable quantity when your background is always moving. For another half billion years the entire Universe of Universes is in entropy.


MidiChlorian wrote:
Every mass in the universe occupies a measurable potential position.



42:1.2 Matter—energy—for they are but diverse manifestations of the same cosmic reality, as a universe phenomenon is inherent in the Universal Father. “In him all things consist.” Matter may appear to manifest inherent energy and to exhibit self-contained powers, but the lines of gravity involved in the energies concerned in all these physical phenomena are derived from, and are dependent on, Paradise, The ultimaton, the first measurable form of energy, has Paradise as its nucleus.


The Ultimaton has no potential position because its nucleus has no position in space.


0:4.12 The Isle of Paradise—Paradise not otherwise qualified—is the Absolute of the material-gravity control of the First Source and Center. Paradise is motionless, being the only stationary thing in the universe of universes. The Isle of Paradise has a universe location but no position in space. This eternal Isle is the actual source of the physical universes— past, present, and future. The nuclear Isle of Light is a Deity derivative, but it is hardly Deity; neither are the material creations a part of Deity; they are a consequence.


MidiChlorian wrote:
Contraction pressure is in inverse ratio to the square of the distance, area, plane, orbit or time unit, and to the cube of the volume.


What time unit is Russell writing about?

12:5.1 Like space, time is a bestowal of Paradise, but not in the same sense, only indirectly. Time comes by virtue of motion and because mind is inherently aware of sequentiality. From a practical viewpoint, motion is essential to time, but there is no universal time unit based on motion except in so far as the Paradise-Havona standard day is arbitrarily so recognized. The totality of space respiration destroys its local value as a time source.


And everything is local because The Unqualified Absolute pervades all space.

12:6.13 The Unqualified Absolute pervades all space. We are not altogether clear as to the exact status of the Deity and Universal Absolutes, but we know the latter functions wherever the Deity and Unqualified Absolutes function. The Deity Absolute may be universally present but hardly space present. The Ultimate is, or sometime will be, space present to the outer margins of the fourth space level. We doubt that the Ultimate will ever have a space presence beyond the periphery of the master universe, but within this limit the Ultimate is progressively integrating the creative organization of the potentials of the three Absolutes.


MidiChlorian wrote:
Quote:
centrifugal force
An effect that seems to cause an object moving in a curve to be pushed away from the curve's center. Centrifugal force is not a true force but is actually the effect of inertia, in that the moving object's natural tendency is to move in a straight line.


It is not natural for motion to move in a straight line when all motion is spiral. Even Russell agrees that all motion is spiral so why do you now try to confuse by stating the above?


MidiChlorian wrote:
Quote:
centripetal force
A force acting on a moving body at an angle to the direction of motion, tending to make the body follow a circular or curved path. The force of gravity acting on a satellite in orbit is an example of a centripetal force; the friction of the tires of a car making a turn similarly provides centripetal force on the car.


But the car is already moving in a curve. It is the curve of the Earth under the wheels. Unless you think we live on a flat Earth. When you turn the wheel of a car to turn the car's direction you are working against gravity. This is no different than using work (thrust) to launch a rocket.

Turning a car is overcoming gravity, nothing more. No other contrived forces are involved. Centripetal and centrifugal forces are a denial of the the Earth's gravity and its curvature. It is a flat Earther theory.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: The Space Between
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2016 2:32 pm +0000
Posts: 121
toto wrote:
MidiChlorian wrote:
Contraction pressure is in inverse ratio to the square of the distance, area, plane, orbit or time unit, and to the cube of the volume.

What time unit is Russell writing about?

12:5.1 Like space, time is a bestowal of Paradise, but not in the same sense, only indirectly. Time comes by virtue of motion and because mind is inherently aware of sequentiality. From a practical viewpoint, motion is essential to time, but there is no universal time unit based on motion except in so far as the Paradise-Havona standard day is arbitrarily so recognized. The totality of space respiration destroys its local value as a time source.


"toto" - I'm surprised that you asked this question because you provided the UB narration that I would have used to answer your question. But, you failed to read this correctly in that it states "orbit or time unit" where based on the UB quote above, where I highlighted the area which states that "there is no universal time unit", therefore based on motion or in this case "orbit" which can represent many things, but in Russell's case it is associated to a sequential unit dependent on, in this case "Contraction pressure".

Russell presents another example which might help:
Quote:
Consider for example the relative power-time dimension of a light unit circling in its atomic orbit probably thirty million times per second as compared with the eleven years consumed by Jupiter in making one revolution in the atom which we call our solar system.

The light unit may cover more than one hundred thousand miles per second against Jupiter's eight miles, but the area of the orbit covered by each is exactly equal for equal intervals of time.

More than this, the very difference in speed of revolution of a light unit or of a planet, due to the eccentricity of their orbits, is also balanced in the areas covered.


I chose to answer this question because it seemed that you misread the quote, and that's all I have time for right now. But I have invited you to read Russell's book, where much of what you say is located there but presented in just a little different context.

_________________
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  
 Post subject: Re: The Space Between
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2016 2:30 pm +0000
Posts: 304
MidiChlorian wrote:
"toto" - I'm surprised that you asked this question because you provided the UB narration that I would have used to answer your question. But, you failed to read this correctly in that it states "orbit or time unit" where based on the UB quote above, where I highlighted the area which states that "there is no universal time unit", therefore based on motion or in this case "orbit" which can represent many things, but in Russell's case it is associated to a sequential unit dependent on, in this case "Contraction pressure".


You should not be surprised at all. Russell had a remarkable vision but where he falls short has to do with how he defines his terms. If you know Russell's history, you know that he came to his "enlightenment" after 50 and he never had any formal science training that would help him relate easily to mainstream scientific definitions. This is similar to how John's visions in revelations were difficult of description because what he saw was so unfamiliar to him.

You well know that TUB confirms that orbits are continually changing their eccentricities and gives the moon as an example. The moon's orbit is increasing in eccentricity and is moving away from the Earth at present. In the distant future the moon will approach the Earth to the point of tidal disruption and we will have a ringed planet such as Saturn. Russell is simply rehashing Kepler's second law of planetary motion.

What I am surprised about is how you tried to introduce the mechanistic thinking of centripetal and centrifugal force. Everyone always resorts to the turning of a car to illustrate these so called forces, as if they are divorced from gravity. Turning direction in a car requires free-will choice; it requires mind. A moving car is locomotion. A car is an extension of mind because it is mind designed and mind controlled. As I have said before, turning the wheel of the car is not different, in essence, from jumping up in the air, or going into space with a rocket. Both involved forces that oppose gravity. All locomotion involves human mind. All motion in the Universe involves the Cosmic Mind. To excluded mind is to endorse a mechanistic order.

Russell's motion is spiral and is accelerated for this reason, but it is not a logarithmic acceleration. This logarithmic acceleration is the only acceleration that is cyclic. And Russell only recognized motions in space and never acknowledges the motions of space. He never takes into account that matter is in space but that there is also space in matter. This is one of the great revelations of TUB.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: The Space Between
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2016 2:32 pm +0000
Posts: 121
toto wrote:
You will have to explain how pressure is a real dimension. The most commonly relatable use of pressure is psi, or pounds per square inch. In cubic terms one must speak of volume. You must know explain how this has meaning in an expanding space. Pressure in the universe is continuously diminishing due to space respirations, currently expanding.

11:6.1 We do not know the actual mechanism of space respiration; we merely observe that all space alternately contracts and expands. This respiration affects both the horizontal extension of pervaded space and the vertical extensions of unpervaded space which exist in the vast space reservoirs above and below Paradise.

Those quotes from Russell do not acknowledge a presently expanding Universe volume. Distance is not even a measurable quantity when your background is always moving. For another half billion years the entire Universe of Universes is in entropy.

I'm even more puzzled, "toto" at your comprehension of terms, where did you not say that you had an "engineering degree" or studied "engineering"?
Therefore I ask, what type of engineering did you study?
Since there are many groups within the general engineering field, like -- "Chemical engineering", "Civil engineering", "Electrical engineering", "Mechanical engineering", "Systems engineering", and "Software (computer) engineering", where each one of these has sub-groups of engineering study.

So, I,m surprised that you do not understand the variations to the words presented like "dimension" and "pressure", where each has multiple references and meanings?

Not to mention that by your insertion of the UB quote above, where it states that, the authors "do not know the actual mechanism of space respiration", yet you seem to understand what they do not? Yet you fail to be able to present an explanation but, then again the word "respiration" has many meanings and/or definitions?

Also, you previously indicated that you had not read the book in question where I have presented segments and illustrations by Walter Russell, and stated that you only read some of his spiritual narrations, which there are several, yet now you seem to indicate that you know what Russell presents, or does not present? How is this possible if you have not read the book in question? Or, have you since then read this text?

So, you may see why I find you replies as argumentative without substance, and possibly without knowledge thereof, and only meant to possibly confuse anything someone has to say on any subject that you may really not have an understanding of?

P.S.: I'm curious as to your understanding of "entropy" as you have used it above: "For another half billion years the entire Universe of Universes is in entropy." Where there are several definitions of the word "entropy", which one do you interpret being as you used it above? If you need help you may start by choosing from the following list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(disambiguation)

_________________
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  
 Post subject: Re: The Space Between
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2016 2:30 pm +0000
Posts: 304
MidiChlorian wrote:
I'm even more puzzled, "toto" at your comprehension of terms, where did you not say that you had an "engineering degree" or studied "engineering"?
Therefore I ask, what type of engineering did you study?
Since there are many groups within the general engineering field, like -- "Chemical engineering", "Civil engineering", "Electrical engineering", "Mechanical engineering", "Systems engineering", and "Software (computer) engineering", where each one of these has sub-groups of engineering study.


You are easily puzzled and surprised, Midi, so I will indulge you and answer your questions. My undergraduate degree is in Biomedical Engineering. It is an interdisciplinary subject so I took courses in 'signals and systems", 'thermodynamics', 'computer programming', 'continuum mechanics', 'biofluid mechanics', 'biosolid mechanics', 'neural augmentation', 'biomaterials', 'static and dynamics', 'physics', 'mathematics' at the graduate level, 'chemistry', 'molecular biology', 'physiology', 'biochemistry', and many other courses in science and engineering. I also have an MD degree so I have completed the course requirements for that discipline.


MidiChlorian wrote:
So, I,m surprised that you do not understand the variations to the words presented like "dimension" and "pressure", where each has multiple references and meanings?


You must define your terms and not assume that you can communicate effectively through obfuscation.


MidiChlorian wrote:
Not to mention that by your insertion of the UB quote above, where it states that, the authors "do not know the actual mechanism of space respiration", yet you seem to understand what they do not? Yet you fail to be able to present an explanation but, then again the word "respiration" has many meanings and/or definitions?


I never said that I knew the mechanism of space respiration. Space respirations are well presented in TUB. Where TUB stands clear on this you would want to add confusion. Why is this?


MidiChlorian wrote:
Also, you previously indicated that you had not read the book in question where I have presented segments and illustrations by Walter Russell, and stated that you only read some of his spiritual narrations, which there are several, yet now you seem to indicate that you know what Russell presents, or does not present? How is this possible if you have not read the book in question? Or, have you since then read this text?


No, I have not read the book you site by Walter Russell. But I have taken a course that has many references to that book. It is, "A Course in Cosmic Consciousness", first presented by Walter and Lao Russell in 1950, and later updated by Yasuhiko Genku Kimura and Laara Lindo.

MidiChlorian wrote:
So, you may see why I find you replies as argumentative without substance, and possibly without knowledge thereof, and only meant to possibly confuse anything someone has to say on any subject that you may really not have an understanding of?


How would you know that I don't know?


MidiChlorian wrote:
P.S.: I'm curious as to your understanding of "entropy" as you have used it above: "For another half billion years the entire Universe of Universes is in entropy." Where there are several definitions of the word "entropy", which one do you interpret being as you used it above? If you need help you may start by choosing from the following list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(disambiguation)


While you may want to quote Wikipedia, I will quote TUB on this topic. My mainstream science understanding of entropy comes from laboratory work and the solving of many entropy problems in engineering thermodynamics and heat transfer situations in mechanical engineering.

42:4.11 The increase of mass in matter is equal to the increase of energy divided by the square of the velocity of light. In a dynamic sense the work which resting matter can perform is equal to the energy expended in bringing its parts together from Paradise minus the resistance of the forces overcome in transit and the attraction exerted by the parts of matter on one another.


Your "cute" reference to Wikipedia begs the question. Did Wikipedia take Paradise into consideration when defining entropy?

The above quote refers to what we more commonly refer to as Einstein's equation, E =MC^2.

This equation, most notably associated with Albert Einstein, is recognizable by more non-specialists and non scientists than any other. But how many know what it really means? Energy is equal to mass times the velocity of light squared. In physics it is the concept of mass-energy equivalence developed by Einstein who proposed this equivalence in 1905 in one of his Annus Mirabillis papers. Unfortunately, it also introduced the concept of rest energy and rest mass (invariant mass). This is not a useful concept because, as we have previously recognized, absolutely nothing in the Universe is at rest except the center of motion and the plane of infinity.

The equation has also been used to illustrate the enormous amount of energy that is potentially stored in matter simply because of the obviously large number ‘given’ to the speed of light. One problem with this assumption is that velocity is a calculated value defined as that slope of a tangent line of a curve determined at an instant. Obviously an instant is a point of no time. The other associated problem is that the curve in question is the motion of light. If, as Einstein proposed, the velocity of light is a constant, then it is not a curve, but rather a line on the graph. If light is a motion then it must have a center of motion. Having a center of motion means that light must have a radius of curvature. That radius of curvature may be so large that light may appear to be linear and constant in a limited frame. Does anyone see a the huge error in postulating that light speed is a constant?

The proportionality of this equation has been used to convert units of mass to units of energy, no matter what system of measurement is used. Suppose that I wish to use the speed of light as 1 unit of distance per second. Well, then mass and energy must be either equal to each other or the inverse of one another. We are still assuming that light speed is constant. If mass and energy are equal, then they are equally unchanging. This is known not to be true, so they must be the inverse of one another. In this scenario, the relationship of mass and energy must be the same and the rectangular hyperbola where y = 1/x. This seems wrong in that that the area under this curve is infinite and we know that neither mass nor energy are neither infinite nor zero.

Let us now make a better assumption and treat light as a particle with mass, momentum and radius of curvature. This would then make a lot more sense. We can see this much more clearly if we transform the equation E = MC^2 to a more understandable form. In consideration of this new assumption, if both sides of the equation are squared, the equation would read⎯

E^2 = M^2 (C^2)^2 or,

E^2 / M^2 = (C^2)^2

E^2 / M^2 = [(distance per time) ^2] ^2

Since time is circular and cannot be squared, then, (nor can a spherical shell be cubed) the equation becomes⎯

E^2 / M^2 = [(area per time)] ^2


The equation can then be transformed to⎯

[∆E / ∆M]^2 ∼ ∆(Hyper-cubic) space-(circular)time

This is not the space-time of Einstein.


If we give time its true circular dimensions orthogonal to space with its hyperbolic topology, we can clearly see the relationship between the velocity of light and 7 dimensional space-time. The velocity at which light travels is directly correlated with the expansion of space at any instant. This is not calculable because space expansion and contraction, and simultaneous time dilation and constriction, are logarithmic functions. I have demonstrated that these functions are undefined in the calculus.

Recall that I had previously shown how space is 4 dimensional as a hyper-cube that expands and contracts and time as a 3 dimensional spherical shell that orthogonally relates to space and are inseparable as they are always in touch at six tangent points.


The point is the center of motion and is the focus of space while having no position in space (Paradise). When space-time expands-dilates, mass radiates (decay-entropy) its mass in the form of what we call electromagnetism or light energy (in quanta). When space-time contracts-constricts about its focus, light energy is absorbed (growth-enthalpy) by matter (in quanta) and this is the mass in matter increased. And this is continuous process at each and every point in space. These points exist at the nucleus of every speck of matter and they are all one and the same point. This is a metaphysical reality because one must concede that what is outside of motion is also devoid of space-time. Having no position in space, the ‘point’ is everywhere all at once. Being a ubiquitous existence it can be said that the point is both everywhere and nowhere simultaneously, and this existence is existential and unity. The point is the source of simultaneity and superposition and supersymmetry.

The point (Paradise) is the source of gravity pull, which can be referred to as absolute gravity, as contrasted to linear gravity. Linear gravity is the attractive force between the condensed energy in electronic materialization. Absolute gravity is the sole control of energy-matter. Einstein’s equation, therefore, says that the increase of mass in matter is equal to the increase of energy divided by the rate of change in space-time, as I have redefined space-time.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: The Space Between
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2012 2:07 am +0000
Posts: 931
Hi Toto,

We should remember that c is a wave mechanics parameter. It is the transport velocity of the wave medium.

Remember also that c^2 = group velocity times phase velocity. So the relativistic energy formula comes directly from wave mechanics:
∆E = ∆mc^2 = ∆(mass)(group velocity)(phase velocity)

Group velocity or particle speed is the primary variable. The medium determines phase velocity depending on the speed of the particle. That is de Broglie's contribution to understanding both relativity and wave mechanics. It it the beginning of moving from "dabblings" towards a proper Physics.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: The Space Between
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2016 2:30 pm +0000
Posts: 304
Riktare wrote:
We should remember that c is a wave mechanics parameter. It is the transport velocity of the wave medium.


TUB has the equation saying, "the square of the velocity of light".

15:6.13 Many comets are unestablished wild offspring of the solar mother wheels, which are being gradually brought under control of the central governing sun. Comets also have numerous other origins. A comet's tail points away from the attracting body or sun because of the electrical reaction of its highly expanded gases and because of the actual pressure of light and other energies emanating from the sun. This phenomenon constitutes one of the positive proofs of the reality of light and its associated energies; it demonstrates that light has weight. Light is a real substance, not simply waves of hypothetical ether.


Riktare wrote:
Remember also that c^2 = group velocity times phase velocity. So the relativistic energy formula comes directly from wave mechanics:
∆E = ∆mc^2 = ∆(mass)(group velocity)(phase velocity)


TUB corrects this incorrect notion.

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.

42:4.2 We do not fully comprehend the almost endless changes to which physical energy may be subject. In one universe it appears as light, in another as light plus heat, in another as forms of energy unknown on Urantia; in untold millions of years it may reappear as some form of restless, surging electrical energy or magnetic power; and still later on it may again appear in a subsequent universe as some form of variable matter going through a series of metamorphoses, to be followed by its outward physical disappearance in some great cataclysm of the realms. And then, after countless ages and almost endless wandering through numberless universes, again may this same energy re-emerge and many times change its form and potential; and so do these transformations continue through successive ages and throughout countless realms. Thus matter sweeps on, undergoing the transmutations of time but swinging ever true to the circle of eternity; even if long prevented from returning to its source, it is ever responsive thereto, and it ever proceeds in the path ordained by the Infinite Personality who sent it forth.


Riktare wrote:
Group velocity or particle speed is the primary variable.


How can you state this when the particle speed of light is treated as a constant? Now it's the primary variable? Are you now admitting that mainstream physics considers light speed to be a variable velocity? If so, then the whole of Special Relativity has no background reference; it has no fulcrum for motion. Einstein never acknowledged motionless Paradise.

If the authors of Paper 42 admit to, "We do not fully comprehend the almost endless changes to which physical energy may be subject", do you think that deBroglie does?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: The Space Between
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2012 2:07 am +0000
Posts: 931
Quote:
15:6.13 Light is a real substance, not simply waves of hypothetical ether.


Yes, but the waves or energy ripples in the "hypothetical ether" or energy ocean are real and a crucial factor in how light behaves. They are the counterbalance to the repositioning of the energy and weight of the light particle. It doesn't pay to skip both the lessons of the last hundred and fifty years of human physicists in addition to the revelators who drawn heavily on the findings of human physicists.

Honestly Toto, this tirade is becoming extremely tiresome. I think you really need to develop a website of your own if you cannot work with bonafide Physics.

Riktare wrote:
Remember also that c^2 = group velocity times phase velocity. So the relativistic energy formula comes directly from wave mechanics:
∆E = ∆mc^2 = ∆(mass)(group velocity)(phase velocity)


Quote:
TUB corrects this incorrect notion.


Corrects what incorrect notion? The relevators imply that relativity is incorrectly understood. The statement I made above corrects that deficiency. The revelators heartily endorse wave mechanics. You yourself quoted that endorsement in the last couple of days. C^2 is a very terse scalar summation of the entire reaction effect of the medium, i.e. the energy ocean.

Quote:
How can you state this when the particle speed of light is treated as a constant? Now it's the primary variable? Are you now admitting that mainstream physics considers light speed to be a variable velocity? If so, then the whole of Special Relativity has no background reference; it has no fulcrum for motion. Einstein never acknowledged motionless Paradise.


Only Einstein claimed that the particle speed of light is a constant. De Broglie rescinded that notion and let the light particle have weight. Where have you been the last 50 years? Isn't it time to do some real research and get some real facts under your belt?

What does appear to be constant is the reaction speed of the energy ocean. That is c. But that also acts as a brake on the speed of the light particle.

Quote:
If the authors of Paper 42 admit to, "We do not fully comprehend the almost endless changes to which physical energy may be subject", do you think that deBroglie does?


It doesn't matter at all what form the energy takes. If it is electromagnetic in principle, it's movement is subject to the braking/counterbalancing reaction of the energy ocean. De Broglie clearly understood that and his predictions were verified experimentally.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: The Space Between
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2016 2:30 pm +0000
Posts: 304
Riktare wrote:
Quote:
15:6.13 Light is a real substance, not simply waves of hypothetical ether.


Yes, but the waves or energy ripples in the "hypothetical ether" or energy ocean are real and a crucial factor in how light behaves.


The energy ripples are effects and not the cause. Particles of matter (light) cause the ripples.


Riktare wrote:
They are the counterbalance to the repositioning of the energy and weight of the light particle.


They are not the counterbalance, the light particle is already counterbalanced in its motion. The particle is a spinning object with counter balanced across hemispheres.


Riktare wrote:
It doesn't pay to skip both the lessons of the last hundred and fifty years of human physicists in addition to the revelators who drawn heavily on the findings of human physicists.


I'm not looking to get paid. And TUB does not draw heavily on the findings of human physicists. Please tell us where human physicists have theorized about absolute gravity and linear gravity.

Special Relativity, you claim, has been corrected by deBroglie. What is the background for deBroglie's motion? For Einstein it was the constant speed of light. Has that notion changed? Is light now accelerated? If so, what is it accelerated against? Paradise perhaps. Show me where anyone in physics describes a motionless center to the universe.

Does the human physicist claim that gravity is the sole control of energy-matter? Gravity is still a theory to physicists and it is a force that cannot even explain the prototypical motion of the universe, elliptical orbits. So much for General Relativity. It is a gravitational theory without a force, only a geometry.

Einstein wants us to believe that mass/matter distorts the geometry of space. TUB states that space is not gravity responsive and yet gravity controls energy-matter. TUB states that there is space in matter and you want us to still believe in Einstein and the last 100 plus years of Einstein's legacy? Would not the space in matter be warped by this matter? Would not this warping create more matter and mass? You can either believe TUB or Einstein.

On other words, matter is controlled by gravity (TUB), which warps space (Einstein) and then warped space effects gravity (Einstein), and then the warped space is unresponsive to the gravity it affects (TUB). Cant you see how illogical this is?


Riktare wrote:
Honestly Toto, this tirade is becoming extremely tiresome. I think you really need to develop a website of your own if you cannot work with bonafide Physics.


Honestly Riktare, why are taking this so personally? Need I remind you that this is not a bonafide physics blog, it is a forum for the discussion of TUB. I think that your fatigue may stem from the strain of attempting to justify your bonafide physics and ignoring what TUB says, and what it don't say (Brad).


Riktare wrote:
Riktare wrote:
Remember also that c^2 = group velocity times phase velocity. So the relativistic energy formula comes directly from wave mechanics:
∆E = ∆mc^2 = ∆(mass)(group velocity)(phase velocity)

Quote:
TUB corrects this incorrect notion.

Corrects what incorrect notion? The relevators imply that relativity is incorrectly understood. The statement I made above corrects that deficiency. The revelators heartily endorse wave mechanics. You yourself quoted that endorsement in the last couple of days. C^2 is a very terse scalar summation of the entire reaction effect of the medium, i.e. the energy ocean.


The statement you made corrects nothing. (group velocity) x (phase velocity) is an area. An area is a bounded plane. You have no dimensionality to depict space, much less moving, respiring space. How can you divorce an energy equation from space-time?

The statement you have made leaves out space altogether. And then you talk of the energy ocean. Where is this energy ocean? Is it in space? But you have separated time from space and ignored space in the equation. None of your bonafide physics friends have ever bothered to figure that one out in more than 150 years. I did it for you and you ignored it.

toto wrote:
[∆E / ∆M]^2 ∼ ∆(Hyper-cubic) space-(circular)time


I have not ignored space-time in my reformulation of the energy equation. And I even give you a 7-dimensional space-time.


Riktare wrote:
Only Einstein claimed that the particle speed of light is a constant. De Broglie rescinded that notion and let the light particle have weight. Where have you been the last 50 years? Isn't it time to do some real research and get some real facts under your belt?


Well that is nice of deBorglie to grant light weight and release it from constancy, but he forgot about space. You cannot have weight and acceleration without space. And remember, space actually moves. A fact you missed till just last month when I brought it to your attention. Perhaps you should research TUB a bit more and get your facts straight.

Riktare wrote:
What does appear to be constant is the reaction speed of the energy ocean. That is c. But that also acts as a brake on the speed of the light particle.


Wrong again. The appearance of a constant speed is that light moves in space which is also in motion and is also accelerated. Again, is the energy ocean in space? Only gravity can act on the light particle because gravity is the sole control of energy-matter. And gravity can act on the energy of space but not on space itself because space is not gravity responsive.


Riktare wrote:
It doesn't matter at all what form the energy takes. If it is electromagnetic in principle, it's movement is subject to the braking/counterbalancing reaction of the energy ocean. De Broglie clearly understood that and his predictions were verified experimentally.


I can predict that the Sun will come out tomorrow and I would be proved to be experimentally correct. That is not saying anything. TUB tells us that the wavelength associated with a particle of matter is a multiple of the diameter of that particle.


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.


You must come to grips with the fact that particles of matter spin and breath. The breathing is the cause of wave formation in the space force blanket of space. Particles are not waves, their motion cause the waves.

Show me where deBroglie acknowledged that particles contain space and that that very space moves with the primary motion of space. A breathing particle has a variable diameter in time. Figure that one out.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: The Space Between
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2012 2:07 am +0000
Posts: 931
toto wrote:
The energy ripples are effects and not the cause. Particles of matter (light) cause the ripples.


Yes, of course, in that situation. But the ripples also become causes in that they toss charged particles around. And when those charged particles start moving more energy ripples arise. It is that kind of recursive interplay between the particles and the medium that generates a lot of interesting effects, including relativity.

toto wrote:
They are not the counterbalance, the light particle is already counterbalanced in its motion. The particle is a spinning object with counter balanced across hemispheres.


You're talking about very local, axial equalibrium. Maybe you're not aware of a global equalibrium of energy distribution across space that is the basis of Maxwell's theory? That is part and parcel of what the revelators call the force-reaction of space if I recall correctly.

toto wrote:
Special Relativity, you claim, has been corrected by deBroglie. What is the background for deBroglie's motion? For Einstein it was the constant speed of light. Has that notion changed? Is light now accelerated? If so, what is it accelerated against? Paradise perhaps. Show me where anyone in physics describes a motionless center to the universe.


Not exactly. De Broglie lead the way towards a correction. The relationship between Paradise and matter and motion may be important. The revelators do not even start to tell us what that is. A listener can hear wild guesses and speculations with no connection to anything that has a bearing on reality from someone. Possibly those wild guesses are motivated from taking certain statements by the revelators that are meant to be hints or inspiration and elevating those statements to the status of absolute and all encompassing truth.

We need to keep in mind that the cosmology presented is not intended to ever be absolute and all encompassing truth.

toto wrote:
Einstein wants us to believe that mass/matter distorts the geometry of space. TUB states that space is not gravity responsive and yet gravity controls energy-matter. TUB states that there is space in matter and you want us to still believe in Einstein and the last 100 plus years of Einstein's legacy? Would not the space in matter be warped by this matter? Would not this warping create more matter and mass? You can either believe TUB or Einstein.


Please take that up with someone who has an interest in defending his conceptions.

toto wrote:
The statement you made corrects nothing. (group velocity) x (phase velocity) is an area. An area is a bounded plane. You have no dimensionality to depict space, much less moving, respiring space. How can you divorce an energy equation from space-time?


Okay, I give up on you regarding this. I guess it takes imagination and working through problems to begin to understand that physical processes change things and that the final results of those changes can be encapsulated in a smaller number of dimensions or variables than the working out of the complete problem requires. If you really have an interest in understanding and moving forward you need to look at why a quaternion contains both a scalar (non-spatial variable) and a vector (spatial variable). If you do not believe that then you are squarely in the camp of Einstein and millions of his fans who have also not succeeded in making real progress.

Since you will not do that I see no point in discussing these things further.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: The Space Between
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2016 2:30 pm +0000
Posts: 304
Riktare wrote:
toto wrote:
The energy ripples are effects and not the cause. Particles of matter (light) cause the ripples.


Yes, of course, in that situation. But the ripples also become causes in that they toss charged particles around.


How can that be if gravity is the sole control of energy-matter?


Riktare wrote:
toto wrote:
They are not the counterbalance, the light particle is already counterbalanced in its motion. The particle is a spinning object with counter balanced across hemispheres.

You're talking about very local, axial equalibrium. Maybe you're not aware of a global equalibrium of energy distribution across space that is the basis of Maxwell's theory? That is part and parcel of what the revelators call the force-reaction of space if I recall correctly.


Was Maxwell aware of the motions of space? The answer is no. So how can Maxwell make any determinations of energy distribution when working with an absolute space. What follows about the revelators is a non sequitur because their space is not the same space that Maxwell knew.


Riktare wrote:
toto wrote:
Special Relativity, you claim, has been corrected by deBroglie. What is the background for deBroglie's motion? For Einstein it was the constant speed of light. Has that notion changed? Is light now accelerated? If so, what is it accelerated against? Paradise perhaps. Show me where anyone in physics describes a motionless center to the universe.


Riktare wrote:
Not exactly. De Broglie lead the way towards a correction.


You mentioned that correction but the correction separated time from space. The correction mistakenly kept time linear. It did not treat time as a circular dimension (TUB).

Riktare wrote:
The relationship between Paradise and matter and motion may be important.


Wow, do you really think Paradise may be important?


Riktare wrote:
A listener can hear wild guesses and speculations with no connection to anything that has a bearing on reality from someone. Possibly those wild guesses are motivated from taking certain statements by the revelators that are meant to be hints or inspiration and elevating those statements to the status of absolute and all encompassing truth.


If you want evidence of wild guesses unrelated to reality, just look at theoretical physics today. Lets start with virtual particles. Not very inspiriting and yet they are elevated to the status of absolute and all encompassing truth.


Riktare wrote:
We need to keep in mind that the cosmology presented is not intended to ever be absolute and all encompassing truth.


But the exception is Louis deBroglie's correction, right?


Riktare wrote:
toto wrote:
Einstein wants us to believe that mass/matter distorts the geometry of space. TUB states that space is not gravity responsive and yet gravity controls energy-matter. TUB states that there is space in matter and you want us to still believe in Einstein and the last 100 plus years of Einstein's legacy? Would not the space in matter be warped by this matter? Would not this warping create more matter and mass? You can either believe TUB or Einstein.

Please take that up with someone who has an interest in defending his conceptions.


Perhaps you would prefer the picture of deBroglie with his tongue sticking out all over the covers of popular science magazines. I am glad you are not an Einstein apologist.


Riktare wrote:
toto wrote:
The statement you made corrects nothing. (group velocity) x (phase velocity) is an area. An area is a bounded plane. You have no dimensionality to depict space, much less moving, respiring space. How can you divorce an energy equation from space-time?


Okay, I give up on you regarding this. I guess it takes imagination and working through problems to begin to understand that physical processes change things and that the final results of those changes can be encapsulated in a smaller number of dimensions or variables than the working out of the complete problem requires. If you really have an interest in understanding and moving forward you need to look at why a quaternion contains both a scalar (non-spatial variable) and a vector (spatial variable). If you do not believe that then you are squarely in the camp of Einstein and millions of his fans who have also not succeeded in making real progress.


Then you might as well give up on TUB. Mainstream physics demands a magical imagination. I have already told you that the complex number and quaternions were devise as a cleaver way around the impenetrable problem of calculating rotational motion on the cartesian coordinate system. Spinning particles can be dealt with in this fashion, but not spiraling particles. A spiraling particle breathes in addition to spinning and is governed by e, the base of the natural logarithm. Logarithms are not calculable even in the complex (imaginary) plane.

In our space-time universe we cannot separate time and space. Physics does this exclusively because Einstein placed time in the imaginary plane and no one corrected that little matter. The reason for this is clear to the junior high school student who plainly knows that one cannot draw a perpendicular line to an absolute, unbounded cubic. In other words, a linear time line cannot be drawn perpendicular to the lines of the mutually perpendicular x, y, z axes of the cartesian absolute space. BTW, be aware that TUB states that Space is not absolute.

You very well know that Einstein's space-time must relate space and time orthogonally (perpendicularly). Did anyone correct that one? Minkowski's light cone clearly shows this. And it was reproduced by none other that Dr. Hawking himself in his book, "A Brief History of Time". Note how space is depicted as a plane in order to draw a perpendicular time line through it. Since when is space two dimensional? Only in the imagination of the magical physicist.


Riktare wrote:
Since you will not do that I see no point in discussing these things further.


As you wish. The house of cards that is modern physics would do better with doing magic card tricks.


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


105:3.4 3. The Paradise Source and Center. Second nondeity pattern, the eternal Isle of Paradise; the basis for the realization-revelation of “I AM force” and the foundation for the establishment of gravity control throughout the universes. Regarding all actualized, nonspiritual, impersonal, and nonvolitional reality, Paradise is the absolute of patterns. Just as spirit energy is related to the Universal Father through the absolute personality of the Mother-Son, so is all cosmic energy grasped in the gravity control of the First Source and Center through the absolute pattern of the Paradise Isle. Paradise is not in space; space exists relative to Paradise, and the chronicity of motion is determined through Paradise relationship. The eternal Isle is absolutely at rest; all other organized and organizing energy is in eternal motion; in all space, only the presence of the Unqualified Absolute is quiescent, and the Unqualified is co-ordinate with Paradise. Paradise exists at the focus of space, the Unqualified pervades it, and all relative existence has its being within this domain.



Perhaps this will prove to you that Paradise has something to do with matter and motion since it exists at the focus of space.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: The Space Between
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2016 2:30 pm +0000
Posts: 304
A warning for the scientist.


130:7.6 There are seven different conceptions of space as it is conditioned by time. Space is measured by time, not time by space. The confusion of the scientist grows out of failure to recognize the reality of space. Space is not merely an intellectual concept of the variation in relatedness of universe objects. Space is not empty, and the only thing man knows which can even partially transcend space is mind. Mind can function independently of the concept of the space-relatedness of material objects. Space is relatively and comparatively finite to all beings of creature status. The nearer consciousness approaches the awareness of seven cosmic dimensions, the more does the concept of potential space approach ultimacy. But the space potential is truly ultimate only on the absolute level.

toto wrote:
toto wrote:
[∆E / ∆M]^2 ∼ ∆(Hyper-cubic) space-(circular)time

I have not ignored space-time in my reformulation of the energy equation. And I even give you a 7-dimensional space-time.



Hyper cubic space is 4 dimensional and can move (expand/contract). Circular time (spherical shell) is 3 dimensional. This is gives us the seven conceptions of space as it is conditioned by time.


133:5.4 Scientists may some day measure the energy, or force manifestations, of gravitation, light, and electricity, but these same scientists can never (scientifically) tell you what these universe phenomena are. Science deals with physical-energy activities; religion deals with eternal values. True philosophy grows out of the wisdom which does its best to correlate these quantitative and qualitative observations. There always exists the danger that the purely physical scientist may become afflicted with mathematical pride and statistical egotism, not to mention spiritual blindness.

To these potential afflictions I would add political ambitions of the last 50 years. Scientific funding requires convincing those controlling the government's purse strings to fork it up. This is all too easy because it is not the government's money, it is yours.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: The Space Between
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 5:21 am +0000
Posts: 951
seven dimensions of space as it is conditioned by time means just that...not your four dimensions of space and three dimensions of time nor any other finite geometries you cling to. the space dimensions (ways of conceptualizing) are the three finite we know, three transcendental "absonite" ways and one timespaceless eternal way that we can also partially grasp Now.

i expect you to not agree and not understand...only posting this for those who might mistakenly come here and think you know what the UB says when most of your favorite "scientific" theories are based around a misunderstanding the text.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: The Space Between
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Thu May 28, 2015 5:02 am +0000
Posts: 1369
I know what toto is saying.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: The Space Between
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2016 2:30 pm +0000
Posts: 304
Makalu wrote:
seven dimensions of space as it is conditioned by time means just that.


NOT seven dimensions of space, seven different conceptions of space. How can you comment on interpretations of TUB when you cannot even quote it correctly?


Makalu wrote:
not your four dimensions of space and three dimensions of time nor any other finite geometries you cling to.


Space and time are inseparable only in finite creations. Show me how three dimension of space (cubic power function) can be orthogonal to the current scientific conception of linear time. You cannot, but you can try. I can show how and expanding and contracting cubic (hyperbolic 4 dimensional space) can expand and contract with an expanding and contracting spherical shell (3 dimensional) and remain orthogonally related throughout this respiratory motion. They can even rotate while they do this. What do you cling to?

toto wrote:
12:5.3 Time and space are inseparable only in the time-space creations, the seven superuniverses.



Makalu wrote:
the space dimensions (ways of conceptualizing) are the three finite we know, three transcendental "absonite" ways and one timespaceless eternal way that we can also partially grasp Now.


This has no basis in reality. Since when is a dimension a 'way of conceptualizing'? This is ridiculous! Do you not even realize that dimensions are depicted in science as a power function? Present your Urantia book quotes to support this. You having nothing to support this notion of absonite realities in the Superuniverses. All relations in the Universe of Universes is orthogonal. I give you The Holy Trinity as an example, where on Paradise they are concentric. This means orthogonally related for those geometrically challenged.

Show me how a box (three dimensional space) relates orthogonally to absonite realities. You carelessly mix realities where time and space are only inseparable in finite creation.


Makalu wrote:
i expect you to not agree and not understand...only posting this for those who might mistakenly come here and think you know what the UB says when most of your favorite "scientific" theories are based around a misunderstanding the text.


I welcome a decent rebuttal but you will need do provide quotes from TUB followed by your interpretation. If I am misunderstanding the text then show me where I am wrong and back it up. Get going. I am eagerly and breathlessly waiting.


Last edited by toto on Sat Jan 07, 2017 8:50 am +0000, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 70 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours


Who is online

Registered users: nnunn


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