Preview: a read-only copy of the forum. To post or reply, use the current forum.

Orvonton and the Milky Way

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

George ParkParticipant
Jul 11, 2016, 10:15 PM
Hi Nigel,

It seems you are suggesting that universe spacetime is non-Euclidean. When we observe a planar concentration of concentrically arranged galaxies extending from tens of millions out to tens of billion of light-years, this is not something existing in 3-dimensional space. It is something existing in Randall’s 7-dimensional spacetime, or perhaps the 10-dimensions of string theory or the 11-dimesnions of M-theory. While these highly speculative theories are intriguing, they are not currently considered scientifically credible. Particularly since the final report of the Planck mission in 2013 found that universe spacetime is flat, indistinguishable from Euclidean space. (citation on request)

How can this “apparent” planar concentration of galaxies be explained in terms of 7-dimensional space?

* * *

You appear to propose some version of Fritz Zwicky’s “tired light” hypothesis of the 1930s, with the addition of counter-rotation effects and relativistic traverse time dilation effects. If you are proposing that the redshift-distance is, in general, invalid, then I think you’ve lost me. If this relation is held to be invalid, in general, no one would be able to prove that the immense reaches of outer space even exist.

George
Nigel NunnParticipant
Jul 15, 2016, 1:18 AM
Regarding the geometry of space, George wrote:

[GP] “Particularly since the final report of the Planck mission in 2013 found that universe spacetime is flat, indistinguishable from Euclidean space. (citation on request)”

For those following along, regarding the flatness of space, here’s an easy-to-read summary of the work George is referring to: planck upholds standard cosmology and here’s a 6 minute video that talks us through the idea (see from time = 3 minutes to the end, especially around the 5 minute mark). Tony Darnell explains why the apparent size of the fluctuations measured by the WMAP and Planck missions is used as evidence that the space we can measure is “flat”, rather than positively curved (e.g. spherical) or negatively curved (e.g. hyperbolic). See also my comment at end of this post.

George, the idea I’d like to suggest is that the flat Minkowski (pseudo-Euclidean) manifold favoured in current cosmological models may turn out to be just a slice of something bigger. This was the idea explored in that 2005 paper by Randall and Karch, Relaxing to Three Dimensions:

“[…]. We apply this idea to the question of the number of dimensions of space. We show that under conventional (but higher-dimensional) FRW evolution, a universe filled with equal numbers of branes and antibranes will naturally come to be dominated by 3-branes and 7-branes. We show why this might explain the number of dimensions that are experienced in our visible universe.”

Note that they’re saying this “bigger universe” bestowed by Paradise should have 7-dimensional and 3-dimensional features. The novelty in their scheme is that 3-d spaces like ours can be in motion relative to those 7-d features.

Which brings us to Jesus that day in Carthage on the way to Rome, his [Discourse on Time and Space] ( 130:7.3 ):

(1439.1, 130:7.3) At Carthage Jesus had a long and memorable talk with a Mithraic priest about immortality, about time and eternity. This Persian had been educated at Alexandria, and he really desired to learn from Jesus. Put into the words of today, in substance Jesus said in answer to his many questions:

[…]

(1439.5, 130:7.7) “It must be apparent that universal reality has an expanding and always relative meaning on the ascending and perfecting levels of the cosmos. Ultimately, surviving mortals achieve identity in a seven-dimensional universe.”

In this context, do you have any preferred concept about what Jesus meant by “seven-dimensional universe“?

George wrote:

[GP] How can this “apparent” planar concentration of galaxies be explained in terms of 7-dimensional space?

The idea I’m suggesting (and which is explored mathematically link – by Randall and Karch) is that any such planar concentrations would simply be within, or (technical term) “sequestered onto” our measureable 3-space. Think of such a 3-space as a (flat) membrane in relative motion within that absolutely ultimate (7-d?) bestowal of Paradise — space — designed to accommodate an eternal infinity of transcendental causation.

In other words, think of 3-space as a safe place for baby finaliters.

* * *

Regarding the red-shifting of spectral lines, George wrote:

[GP] You appear to propose some version of Fritz Zwicky’s “tired light” hypothesis of the 1930s, with the addition of counter-rotation effects and relativistic traverse time dilation effects. If you are proposing that the redshift-distance is, in general, invalid, then I think you’ve lost me. If this relation is held to be invalid, in general, no one would be able to prove that the immense reaches of outer space even exist.

What I’m suggesting is that (as UB students) we should reflect on the phenomenon that causes particles of light to switch from bullet-mode to wavicle-mode when passing through the segregated cyclones of segregata spun up by primary master force organizers. Imagine a trajectory that takes a stream of photons through multiple such (invisible) halos. Is it possible that such a radical change of state could affect the apparent wavelength of such a stream of photons? That’s the question I bump into. If so, then a component of cosmological redshift becomes a function of the quantity of segregata passed through.

If this turns out to be the case, then as you imply, we lose the ruler we depend on for mapping the depths of outer space. And all our assumptions based on CMB analysis melt away like so much mist.

Would this be bad news, or the provocation next-gen researchers have been hoping for?

* * *

Getting back to the relationship between Orvonton and the Milky Way, to help set the scene, please take another look at this 3 minute video showing what the Spitzer infrared mission has revealed about our major sector. Especially near the 56 second mark…

More soon, Nigel

* * *

PS: George, regarding the data from the Planck mission, worth noting the comment near the bottom of page 14 of the team’s report on the 2015 release:

“Then, the Planck temperature plus polarization data are compatible with r values as large as 0.19 (95% CL), at the cost of an almost 4-sigma deviation from spatial flatness (which, however, disappears as soon as lensing or BAO data are considered).”

Notice that they need to use assumptions about baryonic acoustic oscillations to restore the consensus model. Are you suggesting we should try to accommodate the Big Bang’s necessary moment of inflation 13.8 billion years ago in our UB models?

NN
George ParkParticipant
Jul 15, 2016, 6:09 PM
Hi Nigel,

Thanks for these very thought-provoking comments. I would like to respond in three parts, since you bring up a number of deep theoretical issues.

* * *

The idea that the “flat” 3-D space-time we are able to observe is just a local component of a much larger 7-D manifold is an interesting idea. Has mathematical physics stumbled upon a model of what Jesus refers to as the “ascending and perfecting levels” of a “seven-dimensional universe?” I honestly don’t know, though I suspect these dimensions may possibly be related to the transcendental Architects of the master universe, who “exist in seven levels of the absonite” (31:9.2), extending from Paradise to the fourth outer space level. Is the geometry of space-time different on each (or some) of these seven levels? I suppose it could be, but how could we go about determining that it is?

Einstein transformed Newton’s metaphysics of absolute 3-D space and 1-D time (reality dimensions which exist independently of one another) into a single relative 4-D space-time manifold. This new metaphysics of space and time only gained scientific acceptance, because it is a falsifiable theory; it made predictions which can be empirically verified or disproven. Without this validation, it would have remained just another speculative metaphysical theory. The emergence of quantum mechanics in the 1930s predicted phenomena which could not be explained in Einstein’s causally deterministic 4-D manifold, such as quantum entanglement. Einstein flatly rejected this idea of “spooky action at a distance,” and proposed a thought experiment in 1935 to refute it. (For those following along, Wikipedia has a decent explanation of this “EPR paradox.”) Einstein was proven wrong by experiments in the 1970s, which demonstrated the reality of superluminal nonlocal interactions between quantum-scale particles (or, more precisely, quantum events). This evidence of faster-than-light interactions proves there is more to reality than Einstein’s 4-D space-time manifold. And this substantially supports the revealed concept of transcendental causation originating in another dimension(s), on which point we both appear to agree.

I’m open to the idea of additional dimensions, but I wonder if Randall’s theory embedding local 4-D space-time realities in a global 7-D space-time reality is another intrinsically unverifiable metaphysical theory, such as string theory or M-theory. Is it a truly scientific theory, one which is potentially falsifiable? Does it make any predictions which can be empirically tested and disproven in ways similar to how Newton’s absolute space and time or Einstein’s space-time manifold were disproven?

* * *

Your supposition that “a component of cosmological redshift becomes a function of the quantity of segregata passed through” seems quite plausible. While I am inclined to think that the cyclones of primordial force initiated by the Force Organizers disperse upon their withdrawal, because segregata are non-responsive to gravity (11:8.5), your idea that these cyclones remain as permanent features of nebulae is also a possibility.

While the space charge of universal force is homogeneous and undifferentiated, the organization of evolved energy into matter entails the concentration of energy into discrete masses of definite dimensions and established weight—precise gravity reaction. (42:6.1)

These local cyclones of concentrated segregata would then exist in the global background of “the force blanket of all space” (42:5.14), which pervades the master universe as a “homogeneous and undifferentiated” field of segregata. But I fail to see how this situation leads to the conclusion that the cosmological redshift-distance relation is fundamentally invalid.

You propose that redshift is “a function of the quantity of segregata passed through.” Since the quantity of segregata systematically varies with the distance between the emitter and the observer, the empirical redshift-distance relation is still valid. This is true whether cosmological redshift is a velocity-induced Doppler shift (now an outmoded theory), caused by the expansion of space during the time of propagation (as current theory supposes), a decrease/increase in the velocity of light, the loss of photonic energy through physical interactions (“tired light”), or some other “change of state” undergone by photons (as you suppose). By itself, cosmological redshift does disclose absolute distances. There are a number of possible causes for this redshifting of light, including the counter rotation effects between different space levels and transverse time dilation effects caused by the orbital velocities of these space levels. But these are all systematic effects, which means the redshift-distance relation is still a valid cosmic ruler of comparative distances, which have relative significance.

But I could be missing something. Why do you suppose the cosmological redshift-distance relation is not a systematic relationship? Why do you think this relationship is apparent and not real?

* * *

The CMB radiation is observable. But its interpretation as empirical evidence for a Big Bang origin about 13.8 billion years ago is no longer credible. The confirmed existence of a planar concentration of galaxies extending over tens of billions of light years (in relative distance measurements) conclusively disproves this theory.

In the abstract for the 2015 report you cite it says the 2015 results are consistent with the 2013 analysis. On page 42 of this 2013 report, at the end of section 6.2.3. on Curvature, they state “In summary, there is no evidence from Planck for any departure from a spatially flat geometry. The results of Eqs. (68a) and (68b) suggest that our Universe is spatially ﬂat to an accuracy of better than a percent.” (http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.5076)

Did the collaborators change this conclusion in the 2015 report?

George
Nigel NunnParticipant
Jul 24, 2016, 6:41 PM
George wrote:

[GP] “I’m open to the idea of additional dimensions, but I wonder if Randall’s theory embedding local 4-D space-time realities in a global 7-D space-time… “

George, notice that if we picture our flat 3-space in motion at constant velocity through an N-dimensional absonite domain, then not only do we get an elegant explanation for the observer-independent velocity of massless particles, but an “arrow of time” is thrown in for free.

In your post above, you raise some crucial points:

(1) dissipation of those cyclones of space,

(2) that statement: “… force blanket of all space“.

I’ll address these before getting back to the Orvonton-Milky Way story.

First, a comment about my approach. Given that we need actual stuff before we can build an atom, a star or a galaxy, my speculations all begin with the connection between a spinning, oriented ultimaton, and the field of segregata in which it exists. For me, the simplest starting point is to model this ultimaton as some tiny motion of some quantum of this segregata. For example, as a tiny vortex. Notice that if we quantize such a vortex, then this simple vortical motion of a quantum of segregata provides both a discrete center (for gravitational action) and a spinning periphery (to mediate mutual interaction).

Now, given our shared assumption about gravita (that all measurable particles are built up from ultimatons), this means that anything astronomers and astrophysicists can measure must depend intimately on the way ultimatons huddle and cluster in their source-field of segregata. An intriguing wrinkle in this picture is found in paper 118:3.6,

“[…]. Hence, when a body moves through space, it also takes all its properties with it, even the space which is in and of such a moving body.” (1297.7, 118:3.6)

Pause to consider. What might it mean, for an ultimaton to take some “quantum of space” along with its other properties, of orientation and spin? Hard to say. Nevertheless, try to imagine a vast collection of such frame-dragging ultimatons, all in relative motion about some paradisiacal center (either a Paradise “force organizer”, or the nether Paradise “organizer-of-force”). Such a “cyclone of space” becomes literally a cyclone of… tiny spinning quanta of space.

Such an organized, local motion of space would clearly complicate Einstein’s simple (faintly glimpsed) idea, about mass curving space. In this context, recall that comment in paper 12:4.7, that absolutely ultimate space is real:

“[…]. Space is, however, real. It contains and conditions motion. It even moves. …” (133.9, 12:4.7)

Is this their hint that space can be relatively (and relativistically) dragged along by the motion of the organized energies it contains? Is this a clarification of Einstein’s (faintly glimpsed) idea of “frame dragging”? See Gravity Probe B experiment.

[Wiki] “The spatial geodetic precession is a measure of the missing “pie-slice” angle. Gravity Probe B was expected to measure this effect to an accuracy of one part in 10,000, the most stringent check on general relativistic predictions to date.

[Wiki] The much smaller frame-dragging effect is an example of gravitomagnetism. It is an analog of magnetism in classical electrodynamics, but caused by rotating masses rather than rotating electric charges.

Regarding this “gravitomagnetic effect of rotating masses”, think of the rotating mass of those dark gravity belts. To me, that’s worth “pausing to consider”.

When we put these considerations alongside the fact that the ancestral unqualified potential of space (“space potency”) is called absoluta, while absolutum is a name for the same stuff when actualized, we start to get a feel for the complexity our fledgling UB models must accommodate.

(continued… 2)
Nigel NunnParticipant
Jul 24, 2016, 6:56 PM
(p2, continued from above)

Regarding the relationship between “space potency” and “the primordial force charge of universe space“, George wrote:

[GP] These local cyclones of concentrated segregata would then exist in the global background of “the force blanket of all space” (42:5.14), which pervades the master universe as a “homogeneous and undifferentiated” field of segregata. But I fail to see how this situation leads to the conclusion that the cosmological redshift-distance relation is fundamentally invalid.

George is referring to statements found in these two paragraphs:

(475.10, 42:5.14) “[…] That these processions of energy particles appear as wave phenomena when subjected to certain observations is due to the resistance of the undifferentiated force blanket of all space, the hypothetical ether, and to the intergravity tension of the associated aggregations of matter. […]”

(476.3, 42:6.1) “While the space charge of universal force is homogeneous and undifferentiated, the organization of evolved energy into matter entails the concentration of energy into discrete masses of definite dimensions and established weight — precise gravity reaction.”

George, here we touch the central idea that defines my cosmological speculations. Let’s take a closer look.

In my (simplistic and sequential) scheme, I picture pervaded space being pervaded by [space potency], not by [primordial force-charge]. Only when some paradisiacal presence acts on some well-defined place in space does the unqualified potential of space potency take on actual (actualized) properties.

Thus whenever the authors mention actual stuff — be it energy, force, charge, or power — their context (by definition) must be some local domain previously activated by some paradisiacal presence. That is to say, when they speak of some “homogeneous and undifferentiated” space charge, by definition, they must be referring either to the “homogeneous and undifferentiated” space charge of grand universe space, or the “homogeneous and undifferentiated” space charge locked into one of those isolated islands of segregata within which astronomers can watch gravita evolve.

This crucial distinction allows for that red-shifting “change-of-state” I propose above, in which photons switch from fusillade mode to wavicle. While travelling through the (unqualified) space potency between halos of segregata, photons “traverse space like a fusillade” (461.2, 41:5.6). But when ploughing through these force-organized halos, these same photons interact with the (actualized) primordial force-charge, and we measure those photons as electromagnetic oscillations.

Please note, this is totally new physics.

* * *

Regarding your assumed dissipation of these ancestral source-halos of segregata, I’m mindful of the comment in paper 15:4.4, where they say of such spatial cyclones of organized energies: “[…] which, when once started, can never be stopped or limited…” (169.4, 15:4.4). Such statements lead me to think of these cyclones (of actualizing space potency) as persistent; that the segregata, once eventuated and held by a Primary paradisiacal presence (see “transcendental causation“), becomes itself held and dragged along by the “mass-movemented” motion of its gravitating modes (both absolute and linear).

Which leads to my current conception of the state of play at this moment of grand universe evolution: a relatively tiny central elliptical superuniverse domain, formed at the dawn of time from a homogenous distribution of segregata, “force-organized” by nether Paradise, surrounded by increasingly countless islands of segregata, frame-dragged by the absolute gravity of their internal ultimata, and by the linear gravity of the evolving systems of gravita they contain.

Such a picture has surprising implications for Orvonton.

* * *

Once again, in preparation for our fresh take on the nature of Orvonton, please take another look from the 56 second mark of this short video made by the NASA Spitzer team (infrared space telescope). When looking at this extraordinary distribution of gravita in our major sector, take a moment to consider what “gravity” might do, given those 1000 billion years.

As a warm-up, think what Saturn has done to her disk of rings.

Now, think what the source and center of material gravity (nether Paradise), together with the gravitomagnetic action of the rotating dark gravity belts, must have done to that (relatively tiny) innermost elliptical “homogeneous and undifferentiated” distribution of (grand universe) ultimata, force-organized at the dawn of time by nether Paradise itself.

Now imagine this original gravitomagnetic endeavor occurring long before the first galaxies appear in outer space.

What I’d like to consider next: given our location (like a bit of peperoni in that breathtakingly thin Milky Way pizza), what would a nearest neighbor major sector look like, if it lies to our north-west or north-east (i.e. slightly south west or south east of Uversa):

(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 [ed. through] the dense diameter of the Milky Way. Satania is on the periphery of the local universe, and Nebadon is now well out towards the edge 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.”

Nigel
George ParkParticipant
Jul 24, 2016, 9:21 PM

Nigel Nunn wrote:

In my (simplistic and sequential) scheme, I picture pervaded space being pervaded by [space potency], not by [primordial force-charge].

Space potency (absoluta) might be considered to pervade the master universe, I suppose, since it is “the unquestioned free space presence of the Unqualified Absolute.” (42:2.3) But “Space potency is a prereality;” (42:2.5) “This primal endowment of Paradise is not an actual level of reality…” (11:8.8) As I conceive of it, it is not an energy reality, either actual or potential, but the presence of the infinite possibility for energy inherent in the Unqualified Absolute.

I now see that we have completely different conceptions of the nature of the “primordial force-charge” (segregata).

Pregravity Stages (Force). This is the first step in the individuation of space potency into the pre-energy forms of cosmic force. This state is analogous to the concept of the primordial force-charge of space, sometimes called pure energy or segregata. (11:8.5)

Primordial force… Passive and potential force becomes active and primordial in response to the resistance afforded by the space presence of the Primary Eventuated Master Force Organizers. Force is now emerging from the exclusive domain of the Unqualified Absolute into the realms of multiple response… (42:2-7-8)

Pure energy (primordial force) and pure spirit are wholly preresponsive to gravity. These primal forces, inhering in the Absolutes, are personally controlled by the Universal Father… (56:1.3)

Pure energy is the ancestor of all relative, nonspirit functional realities… (56:1.4)

All original force-energy proceeds from Paradise, and the matter for the making of untold universes now circulates throughout the master universe in the form of a supergravity presence which constitutes the force-charge of pervaded space. (12:8.2)

But there is something of mystery associated with the universal force-charge of space; we quite understand the organization of the material creations from the ultimatonic stage forward, but we do not fully comprehend the cosmic ancestry of the ultimatons. (15:4.1)

Though nonresponsive to Paradise gravity, this force-charge of space, the ancestor of all materialization, does always respond to the presence of nether Paradise, being apparently circuited in and out of the nether Paradise center. (15:4.1)

From these statements I can only conclude that primordial force – pure energy, the universal force-charge of space, original force-energy, the ancestor of all materialization – does, in fact, pervade the master universe. Since this “homogeneous and undifferentiated” force-charge does not respond to anything but Paradise, there is nothing to contain it in a “halo” about a galaxy, once the primary and associate force organizers depart. It dissipates into the universal “space drift” like unattached ultimatons.

I don’t believe this is the hypothetical dark matter you are looking for, since dark matter must be responsive to linear gravity, in order to save general relativity as a theory which can be applied to the whole universe.
Nigel NunnParticipant
Jul 26, 2016, 6:31 PM
George – thanks for clarifying your perspective.

Given that (as you remind us) space potency is a prereality pervading a possibly 7 dimensional master universe, I have no firm attachments to any of my speculations regarding this aspect of the Unqualified — especially when we consider the complicated relationship between (unqualified) absoluta and (actualized) absolutum.

Getting back to business, since the evolution and distribution of galaxies is so intimately connected with the action of the Paradise force organizers, we should take a close look at what they are said to do. For example, what do you make of these two statements:

“[…]. But regardless of any such possible relationships, the openly recognized transmutation of space potency into primordial force is the primary differentiating function of the tension-presence of the living Paradise force organizers.” (469.7, 42:2.7)

“The passive presence of the primary force organizers is sufficient to transform space potency into primordial force, and it is upon such an activated space field […].” (470.1, 42:2.10)

George, if the substance actualized from space potency by the action of a Primary Force Organizer (segregata) simply dissipates once their Associate Force Organizer “departs at right angles”, I can see why you settle for such compromises in your dilute and disorganized version of a grand universe.

But if we allow for the possibility that these cyclones persist, and (as I explain above) that their persistence involves an actual motion of space, then we can make a much more organized and compact grand universe. In fact, we get a system of superuniverses operating in a plane of materialization only a few thousand light years thick.

But such a scheme depends entirely on my assumption that the “… passive presence of the primary force organizers is sufficient to transform space potency into primordial force, and it is upon such an activated space field that these same force organizers begin their initial and active operations. […]” (470.1, 42:2.10)

If possible, what I’d like you to consider is how we might put some ultimatonic physics into your consensus astronomy. For example, do you have any intuitive feel for how an interactive, Higgs-type mechanism fits in?

* * *

George, thanks for working through all this with me. This is exactly the sort of criticism and discussion I need before unleashing my version on an unsuspecting astrophysical community

PS: did you get a chance to watch this visualization by NASA’s Spitzer team? If we’re going to discuss the Milky Way, we’ll need to keep up with what science is revealing.

Nigel
George ParkParticipant
Jul 26, 2016, 8:05 PM
Nigel; it is stimulating to work through these ideas with you. I have learned several things from your efforts along these lines.

I may not have clearly expressed my concept of primordial force. We are certainly in agreement that the primary force organizers locally transform space potency into primordial force. At the same time, it is also stated that “force-energy … now circulates throughout the master universe in the form of a supergravity presence which constitutes the force-charge of pervaded space.” (12:8.2) This seems like an unambiguous statement that primordial force pervades the master universe. As far as I’m aware, there is no statement or concept in the Book which would prevent the force organizers from eventuating primordial force locally, while at the same time the master universe is pervaded by primordial force, or “cosmic force”, a parallel term used 14 times in the text. Apparently, you interpret this as referring to some other type of “force-charge.” Do you have any thoughts on what this “force-charge of pervaded space” might be, if it is not “primordial force-charge“?

I can’t say I have any feel for how the Higgs mechanism might fit in. I could be wrong, but didn’t you suggest this mechanism might involve a mass interaction between ultimatons and electronic matter? This strikes me as a particularly fruitful idea, since Paper 12 refers to an interaction of some sort between linear gravity and absolute gravity. In fact, I can’t think of a better concept for this oblique reference to a connection between these two types of gravity.

I look forward with great interest to the final unveiling of your revised cosmology.

George
Nigel NunnParticipant
Jul 31, 2016, 9:36 PM
Thanks George, I too look forward to a fruitful collaboration! You wrote:

[GP] Do you have any thoughts on what this “force-charge of pervaded space” might be, if it is not “primordial force-charge”?

How about this:

(469.8, 42:2.8) Passive and potential force becomes active and primordial in response to the resistance afforded by the space presence of the Primary Eventuated Master Force Organizers.

I’m happy to settle for the idea that the “supergravity presence which constitutes the force-charge of pervaded space” (12:8.2) is the “passive and potential force” which can be activated by the (paradisiacal) presence of the primary (paradise) force organizers.

Given our “conceptual poverty associated with so much ideational confusion” (UB 1.1, 0:0.1) regarding transactions involving the ancestral cosmic potencies and forces pervading pervaded space (!), how about for the purposes of discussion, we adopt the following scheme suggested by the author of Paper 42:

(469.2, 42:2.2) I will, however, endeavor to lessen conceptual confusion by suggesting the advisability of adopting the following classification for cosmic force, emergent energy, and universe power — physical energy:
- 42:2.3 – Space potency 42:2.6 – ABSOLUTA
- 42:2.7 – Primordial force 42:2.9 – SEGREGATA
- 42:2.10 – Emergent energies 42:2.13 – ULTIMATA
- 42:2.14 – Universe power 42:2.15 – GRAVITA
As you point out, there’s space for transcendental overlap between absoluta and segregata… maybe relating to transcendental causation? Nevertheless, using these simplified definitions and relationships, all I require is that the presence of a primary force organizer be sufficient to define and transform a region into something that their associate force organizers can then quantize into ultimatons.

Because as we know, these quantized ultimatons have that proclivity to “huddle” (478.4, 42:7.10).

What I’d like to propose is that this “huddling” begins in the simplest possible way — with the huddling of pairs and triplets of ultimatons into tiny dipolar and tripolar units, which might naturally tend to “cluster”. This gives us a starting point from which to build up standard model “particles” — from clusters of huddling ultimatons.

Notice that by allowing ultimatons to be (literally) spinning quanta of segregata, what we now have is clusters of ultimatons (quantized segregata) interacting (A) with each other, and (B) with that “condensate of activated potencies” (segregata) from which the individual ultimatons were evolved.

Now let’s thicken the plot. Let’s propose a “primitive charge” be associated with the interaction between these primitive clusters. If we call this primitive charge “weak hypercharge”, then we’ve just put ultimatonic foundations under the standard model of particle physics.

George, sorry to zoom down to such detail, but as I see it (as physicist not astronomer), before we can have galaxies, we need matter. So if we want to build a peer-reviewable cosmology, a good first step would be sorting out where matter comes from. For us, as students of the UB, this means tracing out the evolution of gravita from quantized ultimata and ancestral segregata.

You wrote:

[GP] I can’t say I have any feel for how the Higgs mechanism might fit in. I could be wrong, but didn’t you suggest this mechanism might involve a mass interaction between ultimatons and electronic matter?

No. My suggestion is that the oscillation of these charged clusters (of dipoles and tripoles of ultimatons) within their ancestral cyclone-blanket of force-charge (segregata) causes a “Higgs-type mechanism”, in which chiral ultimatonic structures emit and absorb quanta of weak hypercharge.

[GP] This strikes me as a particularly fruitful idea, since Paper 12 refers to an interaction of some sort between linear gravity and absolute gravity. In fact, I can’t think of a better concept for this oblique reference to a connection between these two types of gravity.

Precisely! I see the interaction between these tiny clusters inducing an inertial (linear) response, while the individual ultimatons within these clusters provide the absolute (non-linear) response to the source and center of material gravity.

This is the scheme I introduce in this graphics-heavy PDF (see pages 28-32). What I’d really appreciate is for you, or some physicist you know, to go through the document and point out where I go wrong. Since this paper sets up the foundations I’d like to use for modeling major sectors etc., I need to know where these foundations are inconsistent, either with the UB, or with the standard model of particle physics.

* * *

PS: regarding Orvonton, if you’re not truly satisfied with having to locate Nebadon so near the center of some vastly expanded “uninhabited” superuniverse, I think I have a neat fix. But first I need to tighten up my story of how those “force-organized cyclones of space” evolve. In this regard, did you see this report,

Milky Way’s dark twin

A dark disk spinning fast? Is this a young proto-galaxy in its pre-electronic stage?

More soon!

Nigel
George ParkParticipant
Aug 2, 2016, 5:49 PM
I can’t think of any further comments upon your revised cosmology which I haven’t already shared in this thread.
Nigel NunnParticipant
Aug 8, 2016, 5:08 PM
George — thanks for reviewing that paper. Regarding collaborations, do you know of any UB readers who mighty be keeping up with the so-called standard model of particle physics? To move beyond prevailing assumptions (conceptual bondage?) of Einstein’s “faint glimpse”, I expect we’ll need to incorporate the foundations of matter, not just its apparent astronomic distribution.

Getting back to business, regarding the distinction between “pre-organized” potential force (absoluta) and “post-organized” primordial force (segregata), this paragraph seems to be the key:

(469.8, 42:2.8) Passive and potential force becomes active and primordial in response to the resistance afforded by the space presence of the Primary Eventuated Master Force Organizers.

If we think of the “supergravity presence which constitutes the force-charge of pervaded space” (12:8.2) as the “passive and potential force” which can be activated by a paradisiacal presence, then the job of a (Primary Eventuated Master) Paradise Force Organizer is to realize / actualize this potential — as a cyclone of segregata.

Problem is, that’s all a bit abstract. Does the UB give any concrete examples of how this plays out in the real world? Does it offer any examples of this unsuspected (undiscoverable?) evolution of mass and matter, from pre-organized absoluta to highly-organized gravita (via segregata and ultimata)?

Yes it does! In fact it was the following extraordinary example that compelled me to rethink my consensus assumptions about spiral galaxies, and about Orvonton’s major sectors:

(652.5, 57:2.2) “800,000,000,000 years ago the Andronover creation was well established as one of the magnificent primary nebulae of Orvonton. As the astronomers of near-by universes looked out upon this phenomenon of space, they saw very little to attract their attention. Gravity estimates made in adjacent creations indicated that space materializations were taking place in the Andronover regions, but that was all.”

“Gravity estimates indicated…, but that was all.” (652.5, 57:2.2)

As I read that paragraph, by 800 billion years ago, [explorer/inspector/organizer] 811,307 (see 651.5-6, 57:1.3-4) had evolved a region of activated and primordial segregata into something that had measureable gravitational effect. However, as of 800 billion years ago, this ancestral precursor of Nebadon still had no stars: “Gravity estimates indicated…, but that was all.” (652.5, 57:2.2)

Now here’s the surprising bit: even at this stage, this invisible yet gravitating mass is described as “well established“, and as “one of the magnificent primary nebulae of Orvonton“.

A well established and magnificent nebula, whose only measureable property was mass-in-motion.

Pause to consider. Recall that “Inspector 811,307” is actually an associate force organizer (651.5, 57:1.3). As we know, these guys are famous for turning segregata into ultimata; and only after segregata has been condensed as ultimata and quantized as discrete ultimatons can gravity act, allowing Paradise to get a grip on these “emerging energies” (see 470.1, 42:2.10). So the fact that observers in neighboring (local) universes were detecting gravitational action, but as yet no light, implies that 800 billion years ago, only pre-electronic (i.e. ultimatonic) mass had evolved within that “well established” and “magnificent primary nebula“.

(continued, 2)
Nigel NunnParticipant
Aug 8, 2016, 5:21 PM
(2, continued)

Assuming all this (absolute) ultimatonic mass was locked into elliptical motion about the paradisiacal presence of the (Paradise) Force Organizer (serving as “nucleus” for his ultimatonic disk), there’s an awful lot of angular momentum in this (absolutely) massive system. But since we’re still in the pre-electronic stage, there’s no electric charge, hence… no electromagnetic photons. This is why I argue that this massive system, rich in angular momentum, must be dark.

But as the UB story reveals, eventually those ultimatons begin (unexplained) to huddle. Later, under the direction of Power Directors and the control of Physical Controllers, they can be arranged to perform as “electronic matter” (leptons and quarks),

(328.2, 29:4.33) “[…], handling and manipulating atoms, electrons, and ultimatons much as you maneuver adjustable type to make the same alphabetical symbols tell vastly different stories.”

As I see it, the simplest way to build a standard model from these ultimatonic foundations is to allow these ultimatons naturally to “huddle” themselves (478.4, 42:7.10) into primitive di-polar and tri-polar association. From there, all we need is for these primitive dipoles and tripoles to behave like water molecules: given the right conditions, think how water molecules naturally lock themselves into the rigid and stable structures of ice, and how such ice gets carried along by the motion of the water in which it floats.

To get a handle on this concept, think of superuniverse gravita (leptons and quarks) as ultimatonic ice floating in elliptical pools of superuniverse ultimata. Such gravita (and its accumulation as stars and galaxies) would naturally be dragged along by the “mass-movemented (470.2, 42:2.11)” motions within those superuniverse pools.

And now think of the angular momentum locked into such frame-dragging space drifts of ultimata, held in elliptical motion about transcendental anchors of paradise presence. Suddenly we have a very neat explanation for what Fritz Zwicky and Vera Rubin noticed all those decades ago: that the motions within and between spiral galaxies are determined not by the visible electron/baryon content, but by some unseen mass in orbital motion.

In UB terms, a rotating (frame-dragging?) disk of ultimata.

To put this in a larger, cosmological context, we should distinguish between “grand universe” and “master universe” activation. Consider the similarity between what a Paradise Force Organizer can do, and what nether Paradise does:

(169.1, 15:4.1) “[…] But there is something of mystery associated with the universal force-charge of space; […] Though nonresponsive to Paradise gravity, this force-charge of space, the ancestor of all materialization, does always respond to the presence of nether Paradise, […]”

(469.7, 42:2.7) “2. Primordial force. This represents the first basic change in space potency and may be one of the nether Paradise functions of the Unqualified Absolute. […]. But regardless of any such possible relationships, the openly recognized transmutation of space potency into primordial force is the primary differentiating function of the tension-presence of the living Paradise force organizers.”

Notice that either the transcendental presence of nether paradise, or the “tension-presence” of a Paradise Force Organizer, is sufficient to transmute space potency into activated and primordial force. PS: this is why I like to call nether paradise “the mother of all force organizers”

It was these two distinct types of paradisiacal action on space potency that provoked another rethink: that the so-called “grand universe age” is playing out in a pool of superuniverse segregata, “force-organized” by nether Paradise itself; whereas the spirals of outer space are spun up by individual Force Organizers, in anticipation of a so-called “master universe age“.

Which brings us face to face with the problem of untangling what Orvonton really is. If the gravitational center which defines and controls the entire master universe really does lie just on the far side of Uversa, then the far side of Uversa may hold some astronomical surprises. What we need is something like a Webb Space Telescope…

Talk about great timing

Nigel
Nigel NunnParticipant
Sep 27, 2016, 10:20 PM
Over at the UBRON forum, Allen Graycek has written much on the Milky Way, and his “Great Age” version of UB cosmology. In a current discussion, in a reply to my post, he wrote:

[AG] “I think this is why I differ on the appearance of the Grand Universe as Nigel sees it. The central universe is architectural, planned and built to rigid design. Outside of Havona in an evolutionary plan, there are no architectural or designed systems except headquarters worlds. This means that the orbits of the seven superuniverses are not in the same plane with identical orbital paths relative to Havona.”

(Since my reply applies to our current thread here, I’ll include it here too…)

Thanks Allen — the only reason I speculate on (such unlikely!) co-planar thin disks is this: given 1,000 billion years, the action of paradise gravity on the angular momentum of “Grand Universe” segregata must have done something similar to what Saturn has done to her rings: literally forced the orbiting ultimata and gravita (derived from that grand universe cyclone of segregata) into a common orbital plane (i.e. classical physics).

Notice that this implies a “Great Age” (or grand universe age) of superuniverse activation, a vast span of time during which the superuniverses are organized and civilized. It’s this truly Great Age (of the grand universe), that I’d like to distinguish from whatever is happening in the outer space levels.

As far as I can tell, all other UB cosmologists seem happy to ignore the grand universe (and those relatively nearby dark gravity belts), and assume some homogenous activation of the whole master universe plot. This may explain their assumption that the 7 ancient superuniverses must appear just as random and chaotic as the (possibly far younger) distribution of spirals in outer space.

(Regarding the sketch I refer to, I’ve added it below)

PS: in my sketch in msg 197079, what do you think my arrangement of the Milky Way and M31? I have Andromeda “traveling along with us“, and clearly local to the Orvonton extrusion leading spoke-like towards Paradise. For reference, that outer dotted ellipse (inner fringe of the first outer space level?) indicates McCall’s Council of Giants, and everything is drawn to scale. Notice how neatly that distance of “200,000 light years to Uversa” fits into this scheme.

* * *

Another part of my speculation is that the original cyclone of grand universe segregata was force-organized not by mere master force organizers, but by the mother of all force organizers, nether paradise itself. This cyclone of segregata becomes the “primordial force-charge” pervading the superuniverse space level, and may actually define this innermost level of finite activation. Of course Orvonton and the other superuniverses must be embedded within this original cyclone of space, so right from the start, these superuniverses appear to be part of an “architectural, planned and built-to-design system“, and… sharing a common orbital plane.

To help get a feel for this unexpected scheme, take another look at this simulation from (link) the Spitzer infra-red data. From outside the Milky Way, the infrared signature of our home spiral is astonishingly thin (see from the 56 second mark in that video).

So here’s my question to fellow UB astro-geeks: if the Milky Way spiral is one of ten major sectors in Orvonton, and if our two nearest neighboring major sectors lie centered through +/- 35 degrees longitude either side of Sgr A*, at a distance of about 180,000 light years, and have almost identical infrared profiles as the Milky Way, will it be possible for even the James Webb Space Telescope to untangle the necessary Cepheid data to identify such co-planar neighbors?

One person who is passionate about proving this possibility is Sukanya Chakrabarti. She’s team leader of a group who in 2015 claimed to have spotted 3 Cepheids at 300,000 light years behind the MW disk (but more than a full degree below the galactic plane, putting the suspect Cepheids well below the proposed plane of our neighboring major sector spirals). Another group debated these findings, arguing that the target stars were not even Cepheids! This goes to show how hard it will be for astronomers to identify and examine proposed Cepheids along the plane of the Milky Way, which highlights how hard it will be to prove (or disprove) the existence of the truly co-planar spirals which (I propose) the UB implies.

In the meantime, what we need is for at least one other reader to notice what the revelators reveal about segregata, also known as “pure energy” or “primordial force”:

“Passive and potential force becomes active and primordial in response to…” (469.8-9, 42:2.8-9)

“Primordial force is sometimes spoken of as pure energy; on Uversa we refer to it as SEGREGATA.”

“This state is analogous to the concept of the primordial force-charge of space, sometimes called pure energy or segregata.” (126.1, 11:8.5)

sorry for making this so long!

Nigel

PS: here’s the picture referred to above,

NN
George ParkParticipant
Sep 28, 2016, 5:11 PM
Hi Nigel,

You still have not provided any empirical evidence to support your theory that the other major sectors in Orvonton and the other six superuniverses in the grand universe are all hidden behind the plane of the Milky Way, “centered through +/- 35 degrees longitude either side of Sgr A*.” If your theory was correct, then there should be evidence of the plane of the first outer space level on the same plane as the Milky Way, but in the opposite direction from Sgr A*. The fact is there is no evidence of this. The complete lack of substantiating evidence for your theory prevents it from being more than pure speculation.

You have attempted to get around this problem in the past by supposing the Council of Giants (yellow galaxies in the above picture) show the plane of the first outer space level. However, this ring of galaxies is tilted almost perpendicular to the plane of the Milky Way. The Book unambiguously says that all space levels are on the same plane – the plane of creation. If you are orienting the first outer space level perpendicular to the superuniverse space level, then you are no longer talking about the structure of the universe revealed in the Book. If you reject the plane of creation, you reject what the Book has to say about the highest level of universe organization.

You cannot point to the revealed idea of space levels because it supports your theory and then reject the revealed idea of the plane of creation, because it does not support your theory. You can pick and choose only the major ideas you like in the Book, but the cosmology you wind up pursuing is something of your own creation. It is not the cosmology of Light and Life presented in epochal revelation, in which the material plane of creation is in universal revolution about the eternal Isle of Paradise at the absolute center of the universe.
Nigel NunnParticipant
Oct 2, 2016, 11:55 AM
George — thanks for trying to keep me on the straight and narrow!

Regarding relationships in space, I got disorientated by what Jesus said (paper 130 section 7) about time and space. He finished with this statement:

“It must be apparent that universal reality has an expanding and always relative meaning on the ascending and perfecting levels of the cosmos. Ultimately, surviving mortals achieve identity in a seven-dimensional universe.” (1439.5, 130:7.7)

After reading that section, I lost faith in my once comfortable concept, that space is simply a great big three dimensional room. What about you? What do you think Jesus meant (as paraphrased by the authors) that the universe is “seven-dimensional”?

Regarding reservoir (unpervaded) space, do you conceive of this as some excavation of the same 3-space in which pervaded (horizontal) space exists? Or should we think of the pervaded and non-pervaded zones as distinct sub-manifolds, both embedded in that relative geographic extension of paradise (midspace) which the authors call “quiescent” (124.3-4, 11:7.2-3)?

If you can help to clarify this fundamental context for UB cosmology, I’ll have another go at sketching out my ideas about how a trillion year old (organized and inhabited) superuniverse may have evolved. And how a “plane of creation” might appear in a truly absolutely ultimate bestowal of Paradise (i.e. “space”).

Thanks for being patient,

Nigel
George ParkParticipant
Oct 3, 2016, 1:29 PM
If Jesus’ short and mysterious statement about achieving “identity in a seven-dimensional universe” has led you to doubt the universe exists in three-dimensional space, what sort of space-time manifold do you think contains the material universe? If your hypothesis is correct, the galaxies in the universe are not preferentially distributed relative to a simple two-dimensional plane in three-dimensional space. How would you expect a two-dimensional planar concentration of galaxies to appear to us, if the universe exists in seven-dimensional space, as you suppose? If your theory does not provide this expectation, then it is not a scientific one which can be falsified by the evidence; it is a metaphysical one which cannot be either proven or disproven by material facts and observations.

On the other hand, there is now indisputable empirical evidence of a concentration of galaxies forming a planar structure which extends from tens of millions out to tens of billions of light-years. Going forward, every scientific cosmology must account for the verified existence of this plane of creation. Those that do not are falsified by this very fact. So far, only the cosmology of Light and Life revealed in The Urantia Book predicts and explains the existence of this two-dimensional planar structure.

It’s curious that you should characterize this fundamental requirement of the scientific attitude and method with the moralistic phrase “straight and narrow.” There are plenty of metaphysical theories and theologies which contain moral and spiritual truth, even if they fail the rigorous empirical tests of scientific truth.
AnonymousInactive
Oct 5, 2016, 3:01 AM
(1439.4) 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 spacepotential is truly ultimate only on the absolute level.

(1439.5) 130:7.7 It must be apparent that universal reality has an expanding and always relative meaning on the ascending and perfecting levels of the cosmos. Ultimately, surviving mortals achieve identity in a seven-dimensional universe.

(1439.6) 130:7.8 The time-space concept of a mind of material origin is destined to undergo successive enlargements as the conscious and conceiving personality ascends the levels of the universes. When man attains the mind intervening between the material and the spiritual planes of existence, his ideas of timespace will be enormously expanded both as to quality of perception and quantity of experience. The enlarging cosmic conceptions of an advancing spirit personality are due to augmentations of both depth of insight and scope of consciousness. And as personality passes on, upward and inward, to the transcendental levels of Deity-likeness, the time-space concept will increasingly approximate the timeless and spaceless concepts of the Absolutes. Relatively, and in accordance with transcendental attainment, these concepts of the absolute level are to be envisioned by the children of ultimate destiny.

If one thinks of a dimension as a single or one dimensional reflective area projecting itself upon another single or one dimensional area and we assume that they are positioned in a cube like shape or position, then that which is in the middle would be a seventh dimension which would reflect an image based on various points of intersecting angles dependent on position. In other words, how a holographic image may be projected which has three dimensional form. However, time has substance where our understanding is relative to motion but heat-less light (light without heat) contains frequencies which can be focused on a single point from six directions which then when combined creates substance in various vibrational patterns. The UB mentions superuniverses in general but only seems to mention specifically the seventh superuniverse other than in this one section below, where it associates them to Master Spirits and also mentions the superuniverses as first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth, and one, two, three, four, five, six, etc. So, if we assume that the seven dimensions are time (not as we understand time) and three physical dimensions of space we get a decimal dimension where as we know our planet is a decimal planet. If one makes this assumption to be how creation is formed or reflected upon us, we might have a better understanding of how a matrix of dimensions is a creational force.

3. Identity and Diversity of the Master Spirits

(186.5) ^16:3.1 The Seven Master Spirits are indescribable beings, but they are distinctly and definitely personal. They have names, but we elect to introduce them by number. As primary personalizations of the Infinite Spirit, they are akin, but as primary expressions of the seven possible associations of triune Deity, they are essentially diverse in nature, and this diversity of nature determines their differential of superuniverse conduct. These Seven Master Spirits may be described as follows:

(186.6) ^16:3.2 Master Spirit Number One. In a special manner this Spirit is the direct representation of the Paradise Father. He is a peculiar and efficient manifestation of the power, love, and wisdom of the Universal Father. He is the close associate and supernal adviser of the chief of Mystery Monitors, that being who presides over the College of Personalized Adjusters on Divinington. In all associations of the Seven Master Spirits, it is always Master Spirit Number One who speaks for the Universal Father.

(186.7) ^16:3.3 This Spirit presides over the first superuniverse and, while unfailingly exhibiting the divine nature of a primary personalization of the Infinite Spirit, seems more especially to resemble the Universal Father in character. He is always in personal liaison with the seven Reflective Spirits at the headquarters of the first superuniverse.

(187.1) ^16:3.4 Master Spirit Number Two. This Spirit adequately portrays the matchless nature and charming character of the Eternal Son, the first-born of all creation. He is always in close association with all orders of the Sons of God whenever they may happen to be in the residential universe as individuals or in joyous conclave. In all the assemblies of the Seven Master Spirits he always speaks for, and in behalf of, the Eternal Son.

(187.2) ^16:3.5 This Spirit directs the destinies of superuniverse number two and rules this vast domain much as would the Eternal Son. He is always in liaison with the seven Reflective Spirits situated at the capital of the second superuniverse.

(187.3) ^16:3.6 Master Spirit Number Three. This Spirit personality especially resembles the Infinite Spirit, and he directs the movements and work of many of the high personalities of the Infinite Spirit. He presides over their assemblies and is closely associated with all personalities who take exclusive origin in the Third Source and Center. When the Seven Master Spirits are in council, it is Master Spirit Number Three who always speaks for the Infinite Spirit.

(187.4) ^16:3.7 This Spirit is in charge of superuniverse number three, and he administers the affairs of this segment much as would the Infinite Spirit. He is always in liaison with the Reflective Spirits at the headquarters of the third superuniverse.

(187.5) ^16:3.8 Master Spirit Number Four. Partaking of the combined natures of the Father and the Son, this Master Spirit is the determining influence regarding Father-Son policies and procedures in the councils of the Seven Master Spirits. This Spirit is the chief director and adviser of those ascendant beings who have attained the Infinite Spirit and thus have become candidates for seeing the Son and the Father. He fosters that enormous group of personalities taking origin in the Father and the Son. When it becomes necessary to represent the Father and the Son in the association of the Seven Master Spirits, it is always Master Spirit Number Four who speaks.

(187.6) ^16:3.9 This Spirit fosters the fourth segment of the grand universe in accordance with his peculiar association of the attributes of the Universal Father and the Eternal Son. He is always in personal liaison with the Reflective Spirits of the headquarters of the fourth superuniverse.

(187.7) ^16:3.10 Master Spirit Number Five. This divine personality who exquisitely blends the character of the Universal Father and the Infinite Spirit is the adviser of that enormous group of beings known as the power directors, power centers, and physical controllers. This Spirit also fosters all personalities taking origin in the Father and the Conjoint Actor. In the councils of the Seven Master Spirits, when the Father-Spirit attitude is in question, it is always Master Spirit Number Five who speaks.

(187.8) ^16:3.11 This Spirit directs the welfare of the fifth superuniverse in such a way as to suggest the combined action of the Universal Father and the Infinite Spirit. He is always in liaison with the Reflective Spirits at the headquarters of the fifth superuniverse.

(187.9) ^16:3.12 Master Spirit Number Six. This divine being seems to portray the combined character of the Eternal Son and the Infinite Spirit. Whenever the creatures jointly created by the Son and the Spirit forgather in the central universe, it is this Master Spirit who is their adviser; and whenever, in the councils of the Seven Master Spirits, it becomes necessary to speak conjointly for the Eternal Son and the Infinite Spirit, it is Master Spirit Number Six who responds.

(188.1) ^16:3.13 This Spirit directs the affairs of the sixth superuniverse much as would the Eternal Son and the Infinite Spirit. He is always in liaison with the Reflective Spirits at the headquarters of the sixth superuniverse.

(188.2) ^16:3.14 Master Spirit Number Seven. The presiding Spirit of the seventh superuniverse is a uniquely equal portrayal of the Universal Father, the Eternal Son, and the Infinite Spirit. The Seventh Spirit, the fostering adviser of all triune-origin beings, is also the adviser and director of all the ascending pilgrims of Havona, those lowly beings who have attained the courts of glory through the combined ministry of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit.

(188.3) ^16:3.15 The Seventh Master Spirit is not organically representative of the Paradise Trinity; but it is a known fact that his personal and spiritual nature is the Conjoint Actor’s portraiture in equal proportions of the three infinite persons whose Deity union is the Paradise Trinity, and whose function as such is the source of the personal and spiritual nature of God the Supreme. Hence the Seventh Master Spirit discloses a personal and organic relationship to the spirit person of the evolving Supreme. Therefore in the Master Spirit councils on high, when it becomes necessary to cast the ballot for the combined personal attitude of the Father, Son, and Spirit or to depict the spiritual attitude of the Supreme Being, it is Master Spirit Number Seven who functions. He thus inherently becomes the presiding head of the Paradise council of the Seven Master Spirits.

(188.4) ^16:3.16 No one of the Seven Spirits is organically representative of the Paradise Trinity, but when they unite as sevenfold Deity, this union in a deity sense — not in a personal sense — equivalates to a functional level associable with Trinity functions. In this sense the “Sevenfold Spirit” is functionally associable with the Paradise Trinity. It is also in this sense that Master Spirit Number Seven sometimes speaks in confirmation of Trinity attitudes or, rather, acts as spokesman for the attitude of the Sevenfold-Spirit-union regarding the attitude of the Threefold-Deity-union, the attitude of the Paradise Trinity.

(188.5) ^16:3.17 The multiple functions of the Seventh Master Spirit thus range from a combined portraiture of the personal natures of the Father, Son, and Spirit, through a representation of the personal attitude of God the Supreme, to a disclosure of the deity attitude of the Paradise Trinity. And in certain respects this presiding Spirit is similarly expressive of the attitudes of the Ultimate and of the Supreme-Ultimate.

(188.6) ^16:3.18 It is Master Spirit Number Seven who, in his multiple capacities, personally sponsors the progress of the ascension candidates from the worlds of time in their attempts to achieve comprehension of the undivided Deity of Supremacy. Such comprehension involves a grasp of the existential sovereignty of the Trinity of Supremacy so co-ordinated with a concept of the growing experiential sovereignty of the Supreme Being as to constitute the creature grasp of the unity of Supremacy. Creature realization of these three factors equals Havona comprehension of Trinity reality and endows the pilgrims of time with the ability eventually to penetrate the Trinity, to discover the three infinite persons of Deity.

(188.7) ^16:3.19 The inability of the Havona pilgrims fully to find God the Supreme is compensated by the Seventh Master Spirit, whose triune nature in such a peculiar manner is revelatory of the spirit person of the Supreme. During the present universe age of the noncontactability of the person of the Supreme, Master Spirit Number Seven functions in the place of the God of ascendant creatures in the matter of personal relationships. He is the one high spirit being that all ascenders are certain to recognize and somewhat comprehend when they reach the centers of glory.

(189.1) ^16:3.20 This Master Spirit is always in liaison with the Reflective Spirits of Uversa, the headquarters of the seventh superuniverse, our own segment of creation. His administration of Orvonton discloses the marvelous symmetry of the co-ordinate blending of the divine natures of Father, Son, and Spirit.
Nigel NunnParticipant
Oct 12, 2016, 12:45 PM
George wrote:

[GP] If Jesus’ short and mysterious statement about achieving “identity in a seven-dimensional universe” has led you to doubt the universe exists in three-dimensional space, what sort of space-time manifold do you think contains the material universe?

A seven-dimensional (absolutely ultimate) manifold, within which our 3d manifold moves. Part of the idea is that this motion of our 3-space (relative to its embedding space) imposes that (famously mysterious) arrow of time. Such a scheme puts the first part of his “mysterious statement” in a new light: “Space is measured by time,” (1439.4, 130:7.6). Is what we call time actually a measure of our motion relative to more absolutely ultimate realities? Notice how this notion would amplify the implications of their statement in paper 195 about relativity being a “faint glimpse”.

“[…] And let not your dabblings with the faintly glimpsed findings of “relativity” disturb your concepts of the eternity and infinity… (2078.8, 195:7.5)

Was Einstein’s hypothesis in some sense a glimpse (admittedly faint) of certain spacelike and timelike relativities relating finite and absonite realities?

[GP] If your hypothesis is correct, the galaxies in the universe are not preferentially distributed relative to a simple two-dimensional plane in three-dimensional space. How would you expect a two-dimensional planar concentration of galaxies to appear to us, if the universe exists in seven-dimensional space, as you suppose?

I have in mind the “plane of creation” being a 3-plane, not a 2-plane. Thus our 3-dimensional finite becomes “a membrane of creation”.

[GP] If your theory does not provide this expectation, then it is not a scientific one which can be falsified by the evidence; it is a metaphysical one which cannot be either proven or disproven by material facts and observations.

As I’m sure you’ve noticed, this is where science itself is now stuck: cosmologists seriously discuss finely-tuned permutations of an unprovable multiverse, and a generation of physicists got tangled up with seriously unprovable N-dimensional strings. Anything which is easy to measure has been measured. The hard things, like Planck-scale interactions, or the global shape of space, remain unobtainium. So my motivation is simply that my evolving unprovable may prove to be a better (predictive) model in which to place the measureable universe.

[GP] On the other hand, there is now indisputable empirical evidence of a concentration of galaxies forming a planar structure which extends from tens of millions out to tens of billions of light-years. Going forward, every scientific cosmology must account for the verified existence of this plane of creation. Those that do not are falsified by this very fact. So far, only the cosmology of Light and Life revealed in The Urantia Book predicts and explains the existence of this two-dimensional planar structure.

George, can you clarify this “indisputable empirical evidence“? Has anyone else “verified (the) existence of this plane of creation“? As I understand it, the better the data, the more isotropic (though not necessarily homogenous) the universe appears to be. That is to say, from our location in space, we see the same sort of distribution projected at whatever latitude or longitude we choose to observe. Regarding your excellent work with the astronomic databases, recall that for distances beyond a few hundred million light years, those database data are not actual distances, but measures of redshift of spectral lines. Part of my scheme is that the interaction of particle-like photons with (active and primordial) segregata causes photons to appear wavelike. My guess is that this change-of-state must have some effect on apparent wavelength.

[GP] It’s curious that you should characterize this fundamental requirement of the scientific attitude and method with the moralistic phrase “straight and narrow.” There are plenty of metaphysical theories and theologies which contain moral and spiritual truth, even if they fail the rigorous empirical tests of scientific truth.

Yea indeed! And I’m happy to accept that my unashamedly absonite speculations currently lie beyond any rigorous empirical test. Much like multiverses and string theories?

At this point I should remind you that my main interest is not to defend a global cosmology, but to point out some seriously interesting statements in the UB about how matter and energy work within our spacetime. In particular, about how (passive and potential) space potency is evolved into bosons, leptons and quarks, via segregata and ultimata.

* * *

PS: regarding my evolving speculations, here are links to the current state. Part A (1 of 4) serves as introduction to UB cosmology, and breaks the ice regarding the segregation of pure energy. Part B (2 of 4) introduces an ultimatonic foundation for mass and matter. Part C (upcoming) will show how the perturbation of segregata (not the warping of space) may be a better model for explaining gravitational lensing and clock anomalies. And in Part D, I’ll discuss what a trillion years spent orbiting Paradise may have done to our major sector of Orvonton. And what the James Webb Space Telescope may help to reveal.

PS: regarding actual global cosmology:

(637.3, 56:1.1) […]. And Paradise is the actual source of all material universes — past, present, and future. But this cosmic derivation is an eternity event; at no time — past, present, or future — does either space or the material cosmos come forth from the nuclear Isle of Light. As the cosmic source, Paradise functions prior to space and before time; hence would its derivations seem to be orphaned in time and space did they not emerge through the Unqualified Absolute, their ultimate repository in space and their revealer and regulator in time.

Is this saying that some finalized state of the master universe is somehow projected eternitywise from Paradise, and that this transcendental state somehow leaks into measureable/actualized space, having been held in the great Unqualified Reserve? Is this what they mean by transcendental causation? If so, what does this imply about the action of the primary Paradise Master Force organizers? When they “exit at right angles” from their cyclones of segregata, do they leave behind an absonite intrusion through which the transcendental Paradise projection can actualize out of the Unqualified repository?

George, please continue to criticize and advise!

with thanks – Nigel
George ParkParticipant
Oct 12, 2016, 4:24 PM

Nigel Nunn wrote:

George, can you clarify this “indisputable empirical evidence“?

I have already provided this objective empirical evidence for the plane of creation to you and to others on numerous occasions, most recently at the 2016 Scientific Symposium. I won’t bore you by repeating myself. To date no one has disputed any of this evidence. Those who have not bothered to validate it by querying NASA’s Extragalactic Database for themselves may disbelieve it, but disbelief in no way proves this evidence does not exist.

I will be happy to reconsider your highly speculative theoretical model further, if you can first either explain this evidence in the context of your model or prove that this evidence does not exist. Until then, I’m not sure what more there is to discuss.

Best regards,

George
BonitaParticipant
Oct 13, 2016, 3:03 PM

Nigel Nunn wrote: Is this what they mean by transcendental causation?

I have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about Nigel, but I’ve always thought that transcendental can be thought of as pre- something, like the pre-mind, pre-will or pre-personality of the Adjuster. Segregata is pre-energy, right?

Doesn’t causation, transcendental or otherwise, require will or volition, at least a first cause? Isn’t volition a sole property of personality and first cause a property of Deity personality? I would think that any description of the master universe must include both personal and nonpersonal reality, but causation is originally personal, right?

Also, I can’t picture pre-will or pre-personality “leaking”. Either God wills it, or he doesn’t. Can there be causation on any level without volition? If transcendental causation occurs due to the reaction of primordial force (pre-energy, segregata) in proportion to its absoluteness, what is its absoluteness? I would think that it has something to do with its ability to respond to primal motions initiated by the First Source and Center (absolute volition) and carried out by the God of Action, the Third Source and Center.

42:2.8 Passive and potential force becomes active and primordial in response to the resistance afforded by the space presence of the Primary Eventuated Master Force Organizers. Force is now emerging from the exclusive domain of the Unqualified Absolute into the realms of multiple response — response to certain primal motions initiated by the God of Action and thereupon to certain compensating motions emanating from the Universal Absolute. Primordial force is seemingly reactive to transcendental causation in proportion to absoluteness.

Nigel Nunn wrote: do they leave behind an absonite intrusion

Again, I’m way out of my league here. I have no idea what you’re talking about. There’s nothing absonite about the members of the Trinity. Right? What’s an absonite intrusion? How are you defining absonite? What’s the difference between finite, absonite and absolute? Can the finite become absonite if absonite has no beginning? Can the absonite somehow become absolute? If segregata reacts in proportion to absoluteness, what does absonite-ness have to do with it? I’m confused.

Reply on the current forum

Orvonton and the Milky Way

3. Identity and Diversity of the Master Spirits