Urantia Book Forum

Urantia Book Discussion Board : Study Group
It is currently Tue Jun 25, 2019 2:01 am +0000

All times are UTC - 7 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:14 pm +0000
Posts: 90
Links to updated versions of two sets of videos:

(1) On matters cosmological:

This first set concerns matters cosmological. The idea is to describe (predict) ultimatonic foundations, sufficient to explain current standard models in both cosmology and particle physics.

Videos:
Part 4A - Foundations (v2)
Part 4B1 - Mass and Matter (part 1)
Part 4B2 - Mass and Matter (part 2)
Part 4C - Exploding Dark Islands (v2)

Playlist: Urantia Book Cosmology

Scripts:
Part 4A: Foundations (PDF)
Part 4B: Mass and Matter (PDF)
Part 4C: Exploding Dark Islands (PDF)

Part 4 D (upcoming) will focus on what the above implies for gravitational action on the evolution of material structures, both large and small.


(2) On matters personal:

This 2nd set explores the more personal side of the 5th epochal revelation,

Videos:
Part 1 - Universe Frames (v3)
Part 2 - the Personal Universe (v3)
Part 3 - a Family Affair (v3)

Playlist: The Urantia Book and Personality

Scripts:
P1: Universe Frames (PDF)
P2: the Personal Universe (PDF)
P3: a Family Affair (PDF)


Regarding possible connections between ultimatons and current scientific work, the idea of "ghostly axions" -- appearing mysteriously within a "primordial condensate of charge" -- is becoming a favored contender for explaining two types of invisible mass that seem to be shaping (a) galaxies and (b) large scale structure.

And in his 2005 book, "A Different Universe: Reinventing Physics from the Bottom Down", Robert Laughlin (Nobel/Physics 1998) hinted that electrons might emerge from "hundreds of such little ghosts, linking arms". He (and others) seem to be one small step from the UB idea: that the quantized complexity of fermion properties might emerge from "clusters of clusters of huddling ultimatons".

Using current terminology, we might think of ultimatons as "axionic preons".

Given the preliminary stage of this work, I can easily adjust stuff. So if anyone has ideas on what to change, improve or delete, or just general criticism, please let me know!

with thanks,
Nigel


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:14 pm +0000
Posts: 90
Hi All,

Here's a link to (May 17) draft script for next video in the Cosmology series:

Part 4D: Ancient Orvonton

If anyone has time and strength review it, I'd love any feedback. In particular, please point out errors, and important things I may have left out. Also, if there's stuff I should leave out, please let me know!

For the astrogeeks, please criticise pages 58-66 (on cosmological redshifting of spectral lines).

For reference, here are links to the first three parts:

Cosmology part 4A - Foundations (v2)

Cosmology part 4B1 - Mass & Matter (part 1)

Cosmology part 4B2 - Mass & Matter (part 2)

Cosmology part C - Exploding Dark Islands (v2)

Playlist to play all: Urantia Book Cosmology

Here are the pdf scripts: for the above videos:

Part 4 A: Foundations (PDF)

Part 4 B: Mass and Matter (PDF)

Part 4 C: Exploding Dark Islands (PDF)

with thanks!

Nigel


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2012 2:07 am +0000
Posts: 844
Thanks for posting this Nigel. I haven't had the time to watch the entire series again yet but pondered something yesterday.

In thinking about how stars could be thrown off a maternal nebula at great velocities we need to account for the very considerable amount of rotational or angular momentum either parts of the nebula or the entire aggregation must contain. But how can that arise?

If nebulae are essentially gas clouds, how can a cloud develop such high angular momentum? What holds the aggregate together when centrifugal force should hurl it apart? This mystery is probably closely related to the phenomenon being interpreted as Dark Matter.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:14 pm +0000
Posts: 90
Riktare wrote:
"... we need to account for the very considerable amount of rotational or angular momentum either parts of the nebula or the entire aggregation must contain. But how can that arise? ...

Hi Riktare -- I have a go at "angular momentum" in video Part 4C, from time 12:30, or from page 17 in the pdf script.

Two things of interest:

(1) The presence of an "associate" master force organizer is sufficient to inject angular momentum into a halo of segregata ("inaugurate the energy whirl", 57:1.6). This gets the ball rolling.

(2) angular momentum acting in a frictionless medium (superfluid) tends to quantize. In various places in those videos I suggest that the quantum of angular momentum (and the quantum of gravitational response) sits on the mature ultimaton. If true, this simple fact would kick-start a fresh phase in native physics.

Nigel


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:14 pm +0000
Posts: 90
Here's something I'd love a second opinion on:

This link to an ESO video (European Southern Observatory) shows a 56 second zoom through the Milky Way, to lensed quasar PKS 1830-211:
ESO wrote:

This clip indicates the current capacity of telescopes (and thus astronomers) to see through the Milky Way's so-called "zone of avoidance". Notice at around time index t=26 seconds and t=47 seconds the change of telescopes and filters. Best watched at hi-res/720p, boosting screen gamma and brightness to see the detail.

Point of this clip is to indicate the sort of stellar density astronomers find along the midplane of the Milky Way.

Currently, astronomers estimate that most of the Milky Way's main sequence stars are found in a so-called "thin disk", about 1,000 light years thick. So for telescopes at our location in space (26,000 light years from the Sgr A* center of the Milky Way), this "dense diameter of the Milky Way (32:2.11)" would subtend an angle of about 2 degrees.

But PKS 1830-211 has a galactic latitude of about -5.7 degrees. So this zoom through the Milky Way actually zooms well below that "dense diameter".

So here's the question: if our trillion-star neighbor M31 were gravitationally compacted to be the same size and shape as the Milky Way, and re-located 200,000 light years behind the Milky Way, at galactic coordinates (0 degrees latitude, 35 degrees longitude), aligned so it's thin disk were in the same galactic plane as ours, would astronomers be able to detect it?

The issue for me is that, at any available wavelength (x-ray, optical, infrared, microwave, radio), the electromagnetic profile of that hypothetical near-neighbor spiral would be a faint echo of the foreground Milky Way. Does this make sense?

Over the next few months, I'll make slides and movies to illustrate more clearly what I mean. Meanwhile, any thoughts about this?

Nigel


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:14 pm +0000
Posts: 90
Meanwhile, getting back to the script for video Part 4 D, "Ancient Orvonton, and a young cosmic web",

If anyone is familiar with current issues in astronomy and cosmology, and if they have the time, could they please review and criticise my notes (available here), especially regarding these two points:

Speculations wrote:
1. the idea that McCall's so-called "Council of Giants" marks the inner margin of the first outer space level; and that this first outer space level might correspond to what astronomers have identified as the "Local Sheet" (see slides 6 and 7).

2. the proposed explanation for large, systematic cosmological redshifts (see slides 59-66).

These ideas are easier to see in the animated PowerPoint file, rather than the (possibly confusing, static, overlaid) elements seen in the PDF (both files available here).

To those who know enough to understand the problem, here's an example of an issue that has been in the mainstream and pop.sci news for the last few years:

Explaining the expansion rate of the universe:

Extrapolating from nearby supernova (out to z<1), the current value of the Hubble parameter was thought to be around "72". New data (2019), from local recalibration, have raised this estimate to over "74".

But extrapolating from distant supernova (z>4), and from an assumed redshifted surface of last scattering (CMB), this value would have to be around "68". The difference in these predictions is thought to be due to variation in the rate of expansion over the last 13 or 14 billion years.

Last week a team adjusted their 2018 paper to include that 2019 analysis of HST data, showing how a slight perturbation of current theory could resolve the discrepancy between these two core predictions of big bang cosmology... They add a third change in the rate of acceleration in the expansion history of the universe (review article here).

Which brings to mind that idea from 2015 by Ringermarcher and Mead (arxiv pre-print here, slides here), that the rate of change of acceleration has "jerked" (3rd derivative of position) 6 or 7 times over the last 14 billion years.

At the same time, precision cosmology is making it clear just how improbable the inflationary lambda-CDM-Hot Big Bang model is. To get around this "statistical impossibility", some heavy hitters in the field of cosmology have subscribed to belief in a multiverse. In such a multiverse, nature naturally runs every permutation of every possible universe. Given the facts (e.g., that humans exist to reflect on such things), this sort of multiverse is seen as the last great hope for explaining the universe, without giving up all respectability and allowing room in their scheme for a sentient Causer.

That's a quick hint about uncertainties and confusions in the core of mainstream cosmology. And there are more! So before the next decade of high-precision surveys reveal too many inconvenient facts, this is the perfect time to plant new models.

Anyone able to assist?

Nigel


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2012 2:07 am +0000
Posts: 844
Hi Nigel,

I'll take a look over the long weekend. Spontaneously it seems to me that significant "jerks" in the rate of acceleration would be extremely difficult to rationalize as enormous amounts of energy or structure would seem to be necessary to accomplish that. That's quite counter to the "Give me one free miracle and I'll explain everything" principle behind paradigms like the Big Bang Theory (to take a conceptual cue from a well known biologist).


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 7 hours


Who is online

Registered users: Google [Bot]


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