George wrote:
“1) In post #15175 you place Andromeda in the first outer space level. This…”
George – thanks for alerting me to this potential confusion. I’ve updated that offending sketch to indicate that Andromeda (M31) is in that “relatively quiet zone” between the superuniverse beltway of emergent energies (the “present ragged edge of the grand universe” — 129.11, 12:1.13), and the first outer space level.
“The relatively quiet zones between the space levels, such as the one separating the seven superuniverses from the first outer space level, are enormous elliptical regions of quiescent space activities.” (125.1, 11:7.7)
For reference, here is the updated version (may need to refresh browser): http://www.ubron.org/groupphotos/MW_vs_M31_b.jpg
(PS: to “lessen conceptual confusion” (469.2, 42:2.2) I’ve also removed figure 8, that “place-holder for the Maltese Cross” – see above.)
William, you asked what are we to do about various inconsistencies. Recall that I began this adventure by referring to the comment in (101:4.2): “within a few short years many of our statements regarding the physical sciences will stand in need of revision”.
I wrote:
“I’m keen to get on with this revision. But if we’re going to revise the UB story, first we need to work out what that story is. Below is my attempt to describe what I understand this story to be, at least with regard to the seven superuniverses. Once we get this in place, we’ll have a target at which to start shooting holes.”
What I’ve attempted so far is simply to describe, from a scientific perspective, the physical implications of a superuniverse beltway of emergent energies in motion about Paradise for at least a trillion years. To make contact with 21st century physics, I’ve used the action (“tidal effects”) of Weyl curvature upon an annular disk of ultimata to help partition, shape and ripen the distribution of gravita (“measurable matter”). Given the nature of orbital dynamics, this superuniverse distribution of gravita must be essentially flat. Please note, this says nothing about the shape of space itself, this is merely an observation about the distribution of measurable matter in the relatively tiny central kernel of a vast “master universe”.
With this concept in place, let’s now think about which of those many “statements regarding the physical sciences will stand in need of revision“.
For example, regarding the distance to Andromeda (M31), any modern astronomer reading “almost one million years ago” (170.1, 15:4.7) would simply read that as a quote from Edwin Hubble and move on. So let’s suffer this small revision and allow M31 to be centered at its current estimate of about 2.5 million light years. As to how far its halo extends, that’s a more interesting question!
Regarding the history of human attempts to measure this first cosmological distance, see this link .
George wrote:
“Revelation presents a fairly clear and stable concept of the internal structure of the grand universe. Orvonton’s parts are in gravitational rotation about Uversa at its center.”
George, when you say “gravitational rotation about Uversa”, do you allow for the superfluid flow of an underlying (invisible) foundation of emergent energies, including the (invisible, absolute) mass of moving ultimata?
Regarding the major sectors of Orvonton, and neighbouring superuniverses, you point to the following statements:
“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. 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.” (167.20, 15:3.4)
“Although your spectroscopic estimations of astronomic velocities are fairly reliable when applied to the starry realms belonging to your superuniverse and its associate superuniverses, such reckonings with reference to the realms of outer space are wholly unreliable.” (134.3, 12:4.14)
Are these two of the “many statements” that will stand in need of revision? I don’t know.
George, apart from this single statement (167.20, 15:3.4), do you have any other reason for trying to model Orvonton as the local group? As we know, it’s hard to find “10 trillion blazing suns” among that motley crew. But think about what Andromeda (M31) would look like if it were rotated edge on… My motivation comes from wondering: if M31 were aligned edge on to our line of sight, and if it lay co-planar with, and behind, the line of avoidance, would astronomers notice it?
Continuing along this line of thought, if we model Orvonton as a more-or-less organized set of superfluid spirals, as implied in this sketch,
http://www.ubron.org/groupphotos/Allen_Obscure5.jpg
… then I think I can give you that 10 trillion.
Finally, George asked:
4) Since the four outer space levels are concentrically arranged about Paradise in the same plane – the plane of creation – they are also unobservable in your model. This raises a larger issue. Scientific theories are useful to the extent they are able to explain things we can see and quantify. If the organization of the physical universe (apart from the Milky Way) is not observable, what visible material phenomena does this model explain? How can this theoretical explanation be empirically tested against physical evidence for validity, like other scientific theories? What unique prediction does it make, or explanation does it give, which distinguishes it as a superior scientific model of the universe?
Again, sorry not to have been more clear. So far I’ve intended only to set the stage for modelling the current distribution and motion of emergent energies in the superuniverse beltway of lessened resistance to motion. The “scientific theory” I am attempting to propose has to do only with an unexpected distribution of those “ten trillion blazing suns” 
Nigel
