Orvonton and the Milky Way

106 posts · 10 participants · started May 31, 2015, 6:07 PM

1. NN

   Nigel NunnParticipant
   May 31, 2015, 6:07 PM

   Hi all,

   Over at another forum I’ve been trying to describe the relationship between what the UB calls Orvonton and what our astronomers regard as the Milky Way spiral galaxy.  Trouble is, the way I’ve been describing this appears not to be making much sense to other UB cosmologists!  So I’d like to try and clean up both (1) my understanding and (2) my presentation of this matter.

   As a starting point, let’s imagine the Milky Way spiral as one of the ten well-defined major sectors of Orvonton:

   (167.20, 15:3.4) “If you could look upon the superuniverse of Orvonton from a position far-distant in space, you would immediately recognize the ten major sectors… “

   First problem is what, if anything, the Milky Way blocks from our (optical and infrared) view.  Let’s see if we can work this out, in a UB compatible model:

   In the old (optical-only) days, the famous Zone Of Avoidance  was effectively the entire 360 degrees span (galactic longitude) of the disc of the Milky Way, out to say 10 degrees above and below the mid-plane (galactic latitude).  With only optical telescopes, cosmologists “avoided” this entire band across the sky because they could not see through the dust and gas.  The recent (1994) discovery of Dwingeloo 1 illustrates the problem optical astronomers faced:  even though this galaxy lies 140 degrees away from the galactic center, it was still dead smack in the middle of the (optical) “zone of avoidance”.

   Ok.  More recently, our dust-cutting infrared telescopes (e.g. Spitzer ) “cut through” the dust, reducing this huge “zone of avoidance” to a mere “line of avoidance“, defined by that wall of infrared sources across the galactic midplane (0 degrees latitude, +/- 45 degrees longitude).

   Here’s a view that should help explain this “line of avoidance”:  Line of avoidance

   

   Now, here’s a first look at how I envisage the “outer half” of Orvonton.  Imagine the right-hand side of the following picture extending off towards the Source & Center of material gravity ( Isle of Paradise ):

   (168.12, 15:3.16) “The local universes are in closer proximity as they approach Havona; the circuits are greater in number, and there is increased superimposition, layer upon layer.”

   (167.20, 15:3.4) “If you could look upon the superuniverse of Orvonton from a position far-distant in space, you would immediately recognize the ten major sectors… “

   (359.8, 32:2.11) “From Jerusem, the headquarters of Satania, it is over two hundred thousand light-years to the physical center of the superuniverse of Orvonton, far, far away in the dense diameter of the Milky Way.”

    

   Region obsured by Milky Way
   

   To help put this in perspective, let’s zoom out a bit to where we start to see a hint of the inner fringe of the first outer space level:

   Milky Way, Orvonton and Andromeda

   

   Notice how neatly Andromeda (M31 – galactic longitude 121) fits into this picture,

   (170.1, 15:4.7) “though Andromeda, which is outside the inhabited superuniverse, …”

   In that last sketch, I imply the presence of other “darkish” superuniverses.  My feeling about these grand universe neighbors is that we’ll only ever be able to detect them as gravitational anomalies.  But that’s another story!

   If anyone is interested and has the time to help me adjust and clean all this up, please do! I really do need some feedback about what my fellow UB students make of such a model.  And if the above simply makes no sense at all, please say so, and I’ll try again 

   Nigel

2. M

   MaraParticipant
   Jun 1, 2015, 3:10 PM

   Nigel Nunn wrote:. . .to help me. . . .

   You have helped me Nigel.  Many, many thanks.  In your “outer half” of Orvonton graphic, I think it would help if you were to identify those swirly things as Major Sectors of Orvonton.  And the same on the next graphic where those teardrop shaped objects indicate Major Sectors.  As an aside, I wondered about your reasons for selecting the teardrop shape for the sectors.  But I am puzzled by this reference to Orvonton and the Milky Way in that they say the Milky Way represents the central nucleus of Orvonton.

   P.167 – §17 Practically all of the starry realms visible to the naked eye on Urantia belong to the seventh section of the grand universe, the superuniverse of Orvonton. The vast Milky Way starry system represents the central nucleus of Orvonton, being largely beyond the borders of your local universe. This great aggregation of suns, dark islands of space, double stars, globular clusters, star clouds, spiral and other nebulae, together with myriads of individual planets, forms a watchlike, elongated-circular grouping of about one seventh of the inhabited evolutionary universes.

   This is where I got confused:

   Nigel Nunn wrote:. . . let’s imagine the Milky Way spiral as one of the ten well-defined major sectors of Orvonton. . . .
3. NN

   Nigel NunnParticipant
   Jun 1, 2015, 8:44 PM

   Thanks Mara – I’ve added a few extra labels.

   Regarding that third picture, the two shadowy tear drops are meant to indicate two neighboring superuniverses in the grand universe (not two major sectors of Orvonton). New label should clarify.

   Regarding the Milky Way “representing the central nucleus of Orvonton”, from our position in space, Uversa (the capital of Orvonton) lies along a line directly through (and 170,000 light years beyond) the rotational centre of our major sector (the “Milky Way” spiral):

   (359.8, 32:2.11) “From Jerusem, the headquarters of Satania, it is over two hundred thousand light-years to the physical center of the superuniverse of Orvonton, far, far away in the dense diameter of the Milky Way.”

   (167.19) 15:3.3 “When the angle of observation is propitious, gazing through the main body of this realm of maximum density, you are looking toward the residential universe and the center of all things.”

   To a 1930’s audience, best simply to say “far, far away in the dense diameter of the Milky Way.” 

   This may be one of those things that “… will stand in need of revision.” (1109.3, 101:4.2) ?

   Please keep comments and criticisms coming!

   Nigel

4. NN

   Nigel NunnParticipant
   Jun 1, 2015, 9:51 PM

   Some more background.  In the above diagrams I’m attempting simply to put side by side some of the ideas the UB authors felt free to give.  My starting point is an assumption, that the so-called “grand universe” (7 superuniverses + Paradise-Havona) is unlike anything we’ll find in the outer space levels:  it is (1) truly ancient, (2) highly artificial and (3) deeply embedded in the gravitational well of the Paradise-Havona system.

   Now, if we’re to take seriously the idea that the absolute material gravity of the Isle of Paradise somehow controls the entire master universe (think about that, the entire master universe), think what this implies about the metric imposed on grand universe space.  My reason for “extruding” the superuniverses into those tear-drop shapes is to hint at a perturbation of the metric caused by our proximity to Paradise.  Also this:

   (164.1, 15:0.1) “The Seven Master Spirits radiate their influence out from the central Isle, thus constituting the vast creation one gigantic wheel, the hub being the eternal Isle of Paradise, the seven spokes the radiations of the Seven Master Spirits, the rim the outer regions of the grand universe.”

   It was this image, of the influence of the Master Spirits being “spoke-like”, that got me started.

   The reason for the scale of the extrusion, and the elongated tear drop shape, is to fit as simply as possible that “200,000 light years to Uversa” comment (359.8, 32:2.11).  So assuming that Uversa really is at the physical centre of Orvonton, and that Orvonton’s length really is “far greater than its breadth“, this should explain why I’ve gone down this route.

   (167.18, 15:3.2) “… a vast elongated plane, the breadth being far greater than the thickness and the length far greater than the breadth.”

   (359.8, 32:2.11) “From Jerusem, the headquarters of Satania, it is over two hundred thousand light-years to the physical center of the superuniverse of Orvonton, far, far away in the dense diameter of the Milky Way.”

   Regarding the “zone of avoidance”, another reader asked:

   “How can the obscuration as you call it be the almost 90 degrees indicated in your diagram? My sketch has it at 20 degrees, about the limit of visible light. Infrared light decreases this obscuration to about 10 degrees. Check it out at Wikipedia.”

   Wikipedia link Zone of Avoidance says:

   “The attenuation, interstellar dust and stars in the plane of the Milky Way (the galactic plane) obstruct our view of around 20% of the extragalactic sky at visible wavelengths.”

   My friend had thought that “only 10 or 20 degrees is blocked from view”.  He had in mind a thin cone of shadow extending from the Milky Way’s center.  But those “10 or 20 degrees” actually mean “above and below the galactic midplane, extending across the entire span of the mid-plane.”  This is why the wiki explanation claims that “20% of the extragalactic sky” is obscured.  As mentioned above, infrared telescopes narrow this obscured zone to a few degrees above and below that midplane, but it still extends along the midplane.

   This “line of avoidance” is a literal wall of infrared sources, extending more than 40 degrees of longitude in each direction along the midplane.  That’s what I attempt to indicate in that second sketch.

   The reason for putting Urantia all the way out near “the bottom of the tear drop” is this:

   (167.19) 15:3.3 “When the angle of observation is propitious, gazing through the main body of this realm of maximum density, you are looking toward the residential universe and the center of all things.”

   Thanks for reading, and please, continue to point out things I’ve got wrong, or not made clear!

   Nigel

5. M

   MaraParticipant
   Jun 2, 2015, 3:13 AM

   Nigel Nunn wrote:. . . or not made clear!

   I guess I asked a dumb question about the Milky Way being Orvonton.  I had to figure this out before I could profit from your remarks, Nigel.  I found what I was looking for on a framed map hanging on my own wall!  It’s a map of The Universe put out by National Geographic Magazine.  The Universe  The Milky Way is a tiny speck at an outer region of a bunch of globs.  For people like me who have less knowledge of astronomy, a graphic of where Orvonton is located relative to the geography of the other physical organizations would be helpful in order to get a perspective on the grandness of the universe.

   Thanks for the link to the ZOA.

   Nigel Nunn wrote:  So assuming that Uversa really is at the physical centre of Orvonton. . .

   They tell us, “. . . physical center of the superuniverse of Orvonton [is], far, far away in the dense diameter of the Milky Way.”  How can the astronomic center of the 7th superuniverse be. . . in the dense diameter of the Milky Way?  It says in the dense diameter, not beyond the dense diameter.  So which is it: in or beyond the dense diameter of the Milky Way?

   .
6. NN

   Nigel NunnParticipant
   Jun 2, 2015, 6:32 AM

   Hi Mara,

   “So which is it: in or beyond the dense diameter of the Milky Way?”

   Good question!  Current telescopes easily identify a rotational center 26,000 light years away “in the dense diameter of the Milky Way”.  This is the famous Sagittarius A*.  So, if Uversa is 200,000 light years in that same direction, it must be beyond (“the dense diameter of the Milky Way”).  When astronomers say something is “in Sagittarius”, they mean “in the direction of…”.

   Nigel

    

7. V

   VernParticipant
   Jun 2, 2015, 6:51 AM

   Hi Nigel 

   Once the human viewpoint placed our planet at the centre of creation and the stars revolved about us. Now we know we are on the outer periphery of our local universe Nebadon, thanks to The Urantia Book.

   Though our astronomers no longer adhere to the earth-centric viewpoint, they are, we are, still earthbound as we look out at the cosmos. We look out through that slit of visibility termed the “line of avoidance.” How are our astronomers going to locate those 3, 840,101 inhabited planets in our local “friendly” universe?

   Good to see your inquisitive mind at work my friend.

8. GP

   George ParkParticipant
   Jun 2, 2015, 1:28 PM

   Hi Nigel,

   I think you must be right in your idea that the Milky Way is one of ten major sectors in Orvonton. The authors give us three facts about Orvonton which support this.

   1. Uversa is between 200,000 and 250,000 light-years distant.

   “From Jerusem, the headquarters of Satania, it is over two hundred thousand light-years to the physical center of the superuniverse of Orvonton…. From the outermost system of inhabited worlds to the center of the superuniverse is a trifle less than two hundred and fifty thousand light-years.” (32:2.11)

   2. The galaxies of Orvonton are in gravitational revolution about Uversa at its center of rotation.

   “The Sagittarius sector and all other sectors and divisions of Orvonton are in rotation around Uversa.” (15:3.7)

   “The whirl of the ten major sectors, the so-called star drifts, about the Uversa headquarters of Orvonton.” (15:3.13)

   3. There are 10 trillion suns in Orvonton.

   “The superuniverse of Orvonton is illuminated and warmed by more than ten trillion blazing suns. These suns are the stars of your observable astronomic system. More than two trillion are too distant and too small ever to be seen from Urantia.” (15:6.10)

   These facts describe a planar structure of roughly 10 trillion solar masses in gravitational revolution about a center roughly 225,000 light-years distant. The only astronomic structure consistent with these facts is the Local Group of galaxies, first identified in 1936 by Edwin Hubble in his The Realm of the Nebulae.

   The Local Group is a relatively isolated structure that is bound together by gravity. This is demonstrated by the fact that space does not expand within the Local Group. Gravity holds its parts together with enough force to prevent space from expanding within its borders, which are about 4 million light-years away from us. Hubble guessed as much, and this lack of space expansion has now been confirmed. Beyond this distance the universal expansion of space is measureable. The revolution of Orvonton’s galaxies about Uversa is caused by gravity, and the Local Group is the only gravitationally bound cosmic structure which could potentially be in revolution about this location.

   Over the last decade there have been at least 8 scientific papers containing estimates of the mass of the Local Group. The average estimate from these independent studies is approximately 5 trillion solar masses. This is comparable in scale with the statement that Orvonton contains 8 trillion observable suns.

   These fairly straightforward and unambiguous facts clearly identify the superuniverse of Orvonton as the Local Group. This conclusion is supported by something the Universal Censor says:

   “Of the ten major divisions of Orvonton, eight have been roughly identified by Urantian astronomers. The other two are difficult of separate recognition because you are obliged to view these phenomena from the inside.” (15:3.4)

   This 1934 statement appears to refer to Hubble’s work. In 1936 Hubble published his identification of the Local Group, which included the Milky Way and seven extragalactic nebulae as members.

   George

    

    

    

9. M

   MaraParticipant
   Jun 2, 2015, 3:22 PM

   Nigel Nunn wrote:  Current telescopes easily identify a rotational center 26,000 light years away “in the dense diameter of the Milky Way”. This is the famous Sagittarius A*.

   Another question Nigel. The authors first mention the dense star cloud of Sagittarius in connection with the rotational center of our minor sector.  (Later, they talk about the confusion of Urantian star observers [c. 1934] arising out of the illusions and relative distortions produced by the multiple revolutionary movements of the numerous sectors and systems.)

   ( 15:3:5 ) The rotational center of your minor sector is situated far away in the enormous and dense star cloud of Sagittarius, around which your local universe and its associated creations all move, and from opposite sides of the vast Sagittarius subgalactic system you may observe two great streams of star clouds emerging in stupendous stellar coils.

   Why do the authors name the dense star cloud  Sagittarius?  Could it be they use this word designation to help us locate a direction for observation in the night sky, as we look up, and hoping to imagine were to find Ensa? (15:14:7)
10. T

    tasParticipant
    Jun 2, 2015, 4:27 PM

    Hi George,

    I’ve read others who have had similar thoughts as yours about a superuniverse being considered the Local Group, and the Milky Way a major sector.  Many of them have overlooked one piece of information you do bring up however:

    “From the outermost system of inhabited worlds to the center of the superuniverse is a trifle less than two hundred and fifty thousand light-years.”

    For me, it’s hard to see that as anything but a serious constraint on the size that can be considered for speculating about what is a superuniverse, astronomically speaking.  It indicates that the physical size of a superuniverse is about 250 kly in radius or 500 kly in diameter.  I’d be curious to hear though whether you have a different interpretation of it.

    There is also another piece of information to consider that isn’t included on your list, but which Nigel mentions up above:

    (170.1, 15:4.7) “though Andromeda, which is outside the inhabited superuniverse…”

    Since Andromeda is over 2 million light years away and is the closest other full-sized galaxy to the Milky Way, but the book is describing it as outside the inhabited superuniverse, this along with 250 kly information about the radius to me really means that the superuniverse only can be considered to encompass the Milky Way and its nearby dwarf galaxies (Magellenic clouds, etc).

    The Local Group by comparison is ginormous and far beyond that in scale (x20 the size).

    There’s also this other statement to consider:

    “Practically all of the starry realms visible to the naked eye on Urantia belong to the seventh section of the grand universe, the superuniverse of Orvonton.” (15:3.1)

    “Practically all” — that statement is saying that with the naked eye you can perceive parts of the cosmos that are outside of the superuniverse of Orvonton.  If the Local Group were to be considered the superuniverse though this statement wouldn’t be accurate.

    The Andromeda galaxy is visible to the naked eye and if I remember right there are one or two other galaxies 3-4 million light years away also that can be seen if you know where to look and conditions are ideal.

    tas

11. GP

    George ParkParticipant
    Jun 2, 2015, 5:27 PM

    Hi tas,

    Your bring up some good points.

    First, about the 4 million light-year radius of Orvonton:

    Nigel referred to the statement that the ten major sectors of Orvonton would be immediately recognizable from afar. (15:3.4) Since the Milky Way is a single coherent structure in Orvonton, there must be nine other major sectors which are separate from but comparable to it. In this same paper we’re told that Orvonton contains extragalactic nebulae in addition to the Milky Way. (15:4.9) In 1934 the term extragalactic nebulae meant galaxy in modern terminology. Finally, we are told,

    “In the not-distant future, new telescopes will reveal to the wondering gaze of Urantian astronomers no less than 375 million new galaxies in the remote stretches of outer space. At the same time these more powerful telescopes will disclose that many island universes formerly believed to be in outer space are really a part of the galactic system of Orvonton. (12:2.3)

    The term island universe originated with a theory put forward by Immanuel Kant. This was an archaic term in 1934 which meant a Milky-Way-like galaxy, after Kant’s 1755 theory of island universes. By using this archaic term, the authors unambiguously tell us that there are many Milky-Way-like galaxies in Orvonton.

    “There are not many sun-forming nebulae active in Orvonton at the present time, though Andromeda, which is outside the inhabited superuniverse, is very active.” (15:4.7)

    This statement implies that Andromeda is part of Orvonton, but is currently uninhabited; that is, the Universal Censor makes a distinction between the inhabited (within 250,000 light-years) and the uninhabited (beyond this) regions of Orvonton.  This seems to be the only interpretation which is consistent with the several other statements which describe multiple galaxies within Orvonton. This is further supported by recent estimates of about one trillion solar masses for the Milky Way and also for Andromeda. These are the two largest galaxies in the Local Group, and they only account for about 1/5 of the 10 trillion suns in Orvonton.

    Second, the observability of Orvonton to the naked eye.

    “Practically all of the starry realms visible to the naked eye” is made much more specific in paper 12:

    “The unaided human eye can see only two or three nebulae outside the borders of the Superuniverse of Orvonton.” (12:2.2)

    Everything that can be seen with the naked eye is in Orvonton, except for two or three extragalactic nebulae. Beyond the borders of the Milky Way, which has a radius of about 50,000 light-years, only large aggregations of stars are bright enough to be visible to the naked eye. The brightness of objects is measured by their apparent magnitude. Under perfect viewing conditions, someone with excellent vision can see celestial objects with an apparent magnitude approaching a value of +8. Astronomic databases show that there are just 8 extragalactic objects which have apparent magnitudes that are brighter than +8. Five of these are members of the Local Group. In order of their distances in millions of light-years (Mly), they are:

    1. Large Magellanic Cloud, 0.16 Mly (app. mag. +0.90)
    2. Small Magellanic Cloud, 0.20 Mly (app. mag. +2.70)
    3. Sagittarius Dwarf Spheroidal Galaxy, 0.91 Mly (app. mag. +4.50)
    4. Andromeda Galaxy, 2.58 Mly (app. mag. +4.36)
    5. Triangulum Galaxy, 2.87 Mly (app. mag. +6.27)

    The remaining three objects lie at least 8 million light-years beyond the borders of the Local Group:

    1. Sculptor Galaxy (NGC 253), 10.30 Mly (app. mag. +7.09)
    2. Centaurus A Galaxy (NGC 5128), 12.03 Mly (app. mag. +7.84)
    3. Bode’s Galaxy (M 81), 12.09 Mly (app. mag. +7.89)

    George

     

12. T

    tasParticipant
    Jun 2, 2015, 6:25 PM

    It’s funny how two people can read the same words and come to such different conclusions, and there’s nothing wrong with that, it’s great to play around with ideas and see what others think.

    You write:

    George Park wrote:

    Nigel referred to the statement that the ten major sectors of Orvonton would be immediately recognizable from afar. (15:3.4) Since the Milky Way is a single coherent structure in Orvonton, there must be nine other major sectors which are separate from but comparable to it. In this same paper we’re told that Orvonton contains extragalactic nebulae in addition to the Milky Way. (15:4.9) In 1934 the term extragalactic nebulae meant galaxy in modern terminology.

    For reference this is 15:3.4:

    “If you could look upon the superuniverse of Orvonton from a position far-distant in space, you would immediately recognize the ten major sectors of the seventh galaxy.”

    That to me leads to a different conclusion than you describe, seeing as it’s referring to “the seventh galaxy” as having ten major sectors, not that it is one major sector.  To me it’s pretty clearly calling the “superuniverse of Orvonton” the “seventh galaxy”, and that a superuniverse is galaxy-size rather than a multi-galaxy collection, which is also in keeping with the book’s statement that the inhabited superuniverse is contained within approximately a 250,000 light-year radius. (From taking a look at wikipedia, the Local Group has a 5,000,000 light-year radius by comparison.)

    The other reference is for 15:4.9:

    “The vast star clouds of Orvonton should be regarded as individual aggregations of matter comparable to the separate nebulae observable in the space regions external to the Milky Way galaxy.”

    From this second quote, I don’t see that it says Orvonton contains extragalactic nebulae really.  It appears to me to make the point that these “separate nebulae” (separate from Orvonton) which are external to the Milky Way are “comparable” to Orvonton, not that they are a part of Orvonton.  I can see how “aggregations” of “vast star clouds” could be interpreted perhaps as separate spiral galaxies if you’re already minded to think that way but since it isn’t in keeping with other passages I don’t find that interpretation the most likely one personally.

    That’s how I’m reading these passages at least… so far it still seems to me that everything points to Orvonton being described as the Milky Way and its immediately surrounding dwarf galaxies.

13. GP

    George ParkParticipant
    Jun 2, 2015, 7:03 PM

    Hi Tas,

    Thanks for these different interpretations. It is always interesting to learn how others see things. Interpretation can be such a messy and imprecise matter sometimes.

    George

14. NN

    Nigel NunnParticipant
    Jun 3, 2015, 7:32 PM

    Dear George, tas and Mara,

    Thanks all for your thoughts!  Mara, regarding the (168.1, 15:3.5) “rotational center of your minor sector”, “situated far away in the enormous and dense star cloud of Sagittarius”, George does a great job solving this mystery in Chapter 10, “Named Locations in Orvonton” of his book (see http://www.ubcosmology.com).  From his page 210:

    “We are given sufficient information to identify the center of our minor sector of Ensa in the Sagittarius Star Cloud (M24). This star cloud is located in one of the two major spiral arms of the Milky Way, which was not known before the late 1950s. The Sagittarius Star Cloud is about 10,000 ly away.”

    Notice this (confusing!) alignment of centers:  (1) the  rotational center (“in Sagittarius”) of our minor sector Ensa, associated with Messier 24 (10,000 light years away),  (2) the famous rotational centre of our Milky Way major sector, also in Sagittarius (Sgr A*, 26,000 light years away),  and (3) the Uversa center of Orvonton (200,000 light years away) along the same line of sight as Sgr A* (through Sagittarius).

    No wonder the authors alert us to these astronomical confusions.  From (168.3, 15:3.7),

    The Sagittarius sector and all other sectors and divisions of Orvonton are in rotation around Uversa, and some of the confusion of Urantian star observers arises out of the illusions and relative distortions produced by the following multiple revolutionary movements:

     …
    4. The swing of the local star cloud of Nebadon and its associated creations around the Sagittarius center of their minor sector.
    5. The rotation of the one hundred minor sectors, including Sagittarius, about their major sector.
    6. The whirl of the ten major sectors, the so-called star drifts, about the Uversa headquarters of Orvonton.
    7. The …

    Another reader pointed out I should explain galactic coordinates.  Here’s a sketch I find helpful:

    

    Now George, to break the ice and get the ball rolling, what if I could find you “ten trillion blazing suns”, all sitting co-planar with both Havona and the thin disk of the Milky Way?

    PS: ever notice the central universe of Havona is only one world thick ?

    Nigel

15. GP

    George ParkParticipant
    Jun 3, 2015, 8:25 PM

    Hi Nigel,

    I would very much like to hear your thoughts on where this aggregation of “ten trillion blazing suns” is located.

    We know that the Milky Way is part of Orvonton and contains very roughly 1 trillion solar masses. I interpret “blazing suns” as referring to stars like our sun (solar masses), since we are told “your own sun is an average blazing orb.” (41:3.1) Where do you think the other 7-9 trillion solar masses are to be found?

    George

16. W

    wentworthParticipant
    Jun 4, 2015, 4:06 AM

    Hi Nigel,Mara, George and tas  William Wentworth here.    I’m coming in a bit late with a couple of questions.  With regard to the co-planar nature of your discussion, have you taken account of the fact that “space thickens, and it thickens somewhat faster than does the plane of creation, the universes.” P125.0.  This suggests that each space level, including the superuniverse space level gets thicker as it recedes from Paradise–ie that its cross section is pear shaped.  Would this affect what may or may not be discernible from a point near the outer edge, such as Urantia?

    With regard to Nigel’s theory of the position and shape of the superuniverse space level, although it satisfies the description of length, breadth and thickness given on P167.18, nevertheless it would appear that this can never be verified, since there is no way of observing it.  There is something deeply unsatisfying about this state of affairs.  Is there no way around it?

17. M

    MaraParticipant
    Jun 4, 2015, 4:24 PM

    wentworth wrote:  With regard to the co-planar nature of your discussion, have you taken account of the fact that “space thickens, and it thickens somewhat faster than does the plane of creation, the universes.” P125.0.

    In attempting to visualize the overall shape of the grand universe, I am seeing a bow-tie shape where the center (Paradise) is thin so as to be invisible. From this so-called plane of creation emerges the Havona plane of one billion perfect worlds in seven concentric circles (ellipses?), a plane that is one world thick, as suggested by Nigel.  The bows of the bow-tie represent the universes of time and space where space thickens or bulges.  That might explain Nigel’s graphic of the teardrop shape of the superuniverses as they “point” toward Havona and Paradise.
18. NN

    Nigel NunnParticipant
    Jun 4, 2015, 4:56 PM

    Mara wrote:

    “That might explain Nigel’s graphic… “

    Hi Mara – I’ll be explaining those graphics over the next few weeks   

    William wrote:

    “With regard to Nigel’s theory of the position and shape of the superuniverse space level, although it satisfies the description of length, breadth and thickness given on P167.18, nevertheless it would appear that this can never be verified, since there is no way of observing it. There is something deeply unsatisfying about this state of affairs. Is there no way around it?”

    William, this tickles the roots of my motivation: regarding those things the modern mind really needs to know, if something is not discoverable (without help) by humans, do those “limitations of revelation” apply?  If not, this may explain why the authors were free to say so much about the grand universe, and ultimatons.

    PS: Regarding my proposed “line of avoidance”, last year I had a series of emails with the ESO team driving the Paranal telescopes. I asked their outreach folks if there was a kind of “line of avoidance”, a band where stars are so thickly packed they literally block the infrared view (comparable to the optical “zone of avoidance”). They scratched their heads and put me onto one of the guys managing the surveys. He said, “The view is obscured not so much by the stars (which are effectively ‘point sources’), but by a wall of gas glowing at infrared frequencies. So no, there is no real “wall of stars”, but our view just above and below the mid-plane is effectively blocked by that wall of infrared gas.”

    To get a feel for the problem, have a look here: Chromoscope.net

    Once the default (optical) view of the Milky Way downloads, select other views e.g. [far infrared] from menu on the right.

    Nigel

19. M

    MaraParticipant
    Jun 4, 2015, 5:44 PM

    Awesome links, Nigel. Thanks!

20. GP

    George ParkParticipant
    Jun 4, 2015, 9:43 PM

    Hi Nigel,

    What a great link. Chromoscope presents some amazing pictures. A couple of questions, if I might:

    Chromoscope makes your point about a concentration of mass in the region of the plane of the Milky Way. According to the data note for Far-Infrared, IRAS identified 350,000 new objects. Is it possible to calculate the distance to these objects? That is, can we tell how many of the objects along the “line of avoidance” are part of the Milky Way proper and how many, if any, are outside the borders of the Milky Way galaxy?

    In your May 31 post (#15175) your diagram has the Milky Way at the far left of Orvonton, and the other major sectors spread out to the right in a tear drop shape. I’m finding this hard to imagine, since there are several statements which unambiguously place Uversa (and the Milky Way) at (near) the physical center of the “ten trillion blazing suns” in Orvonton. The major sectors rotate around Uversa, which means they are in gravitational revolution about it; that is, Uversa is at the gravitational center of mass for all ten major sectors. I’m having trouble reconciling this simple gravitational dynamic with your diagram, which shows the Milky Way on the periphery of Orvonton, instead of at its center.

    George

     

Reply on the current forum