Hi Michael,
You wrote:
“I want to thank you for your efforts to compare and contrast modern ideas on astronomy with the relevant parts of the Urantia Book. Besides viewing 3 of the 4-part videos (with the Milky Way video still to come), I read some of the related posts in some of the others forums you started, along with some of the comments from others. I have a better understanding of the foundational structures at the macro & micro levels.
So now may I ask, should we think of Segregata as Dark Matter, and Dark Energy as a force coming from Nether Paradise? Also, should we think of the Ultimaton as a kind of bridge between observable matter/gravity & (currently) non-observable counterparts, especially since one of its properties is anti-gravity? I ask that because vortices are thought by some to serve as portals linking lesser to greater realities.”
What a great set of questions! Here are some thoughts:
[Dark matter]
Before 1998, astronomers had identified three particular issues that cosmologists were finding it hard to explain: (i) the way galaxies cluster, (ii) rotation curves of spiral galaxies, and (iii) excessive gravitational lensing.
Around 1933 (the same time the Urantia papers were being delivered), Fritz Zwicky was studying that first issue, the way galaxies cluster. To make sense of his observations, he proposed that galaxies might be merely bright cores embedded within vast halos of invisible mass. Later, assuming such invisible “mass” must be associated with some kind of invisible “particle”, cosmologists inserted distributions of “dark matter” into their models. This simple fix seemed to work quite well, at least for explaining why galaxies seem to gravitate into clusters along some (massive, invisible) cosmic web.
However, it did not work well for explaining the rotation curves of spiral galaxies. But something else did: replace Einstein’s model for gravity with a modified version of Newton’s. Sadly, this sort of modified Newtonian dynamics (MOND) failed to explain either galaxy clustering or gravitational lensing.
So cosmologists accepted that they would have to get creative. As it turns out, the sort of model that seems to fit best involves rotating disks of some primitive (invisible) superfluid, embedded within (invisible) halos of gravitational potential.
For an good intro, see (1) Dark Matter Recipe… and (2) Superfluid Dark Matter…
Of course, proposing two types of dark mass is twice as bad as invoking one, but such models DO seem to match what astronomers observe.
Which is why I got interested. As I explore in these videos (playlist), segregated islands of segregata (“pure energy“) serve nicely as invisible halos of gravitational potential (e = mc^2); and “force-organized” cyclones of ultimata are the perfect analog for massive, invisible superfluid disks.
So the Urantia book’s model — of spiral galaxies forming within cyclones of ultimata, which evolve within islands of segregata — fits the data quite well. All we need do is to model “dark matter” as two (invisible) phase-states of space potency: segregata and ultimata.
[Dark energy]
So what about this now widely accepted idea, that some kind of “dark energy” is accelerating the rate of expansion of a 14 billion year old Big-Banged universe? First a bit of background.
In the 1990’s, Type 1a supernovae were a hot topic: If these could be used as “standard candles”, they could serve as a new rung in the distance ladder which astronomers use to estimate distances to high redshift galaxies and quasars.
By 1998, two teams studying these supernovae came to the same unexpected conclusion: some of these (Type 1a) supernovae were dimmer than expected. Now, assuming a Big Bang cosmology, one way to fit the data was to assume that about 5 billion years ago, the rate of expansion of the universe began to increase.
Why? We don’t know. But the currently favoured place-holder idea is that some type of energy is fostering the expansion of space. And because cosmologists have no evidence for what this type of energy might be, they naturally called it “dark”.
But notice, cosmologists only REALLY need “dark energy” to explain an accelerated expansion of the universe. And they only REALLY need an accelerated expansion to explain why some supernovae are dimmer than expected. Or rather, dimmer than predicted by a lambda-CDM Big Bang.
But what if such a “Big Bang” model is wrong? Or “not even wrong”? Can we explain supernova luminosities without an accelerating expansion of a young, Big Banged universe? This is what we explore in the 2nd half of video Part 4D (or see PDF script here)
[Nether Paradise]
Regarding forces “coming from nether Paradise“, the sort of dark energy required by Big Bang cosmology is thought of as some property of space, that makes space itself expand. Conceptually, could this be a first hint of a glimpse of how “space work” works?
“When the universes expand and contract, the material masses in pervaded space alternately move against and with the pull of Paradise gravity. The work that is done in moving the material energy mass of creation is space work but not power-energy work.” (12:4.13)
Recall that the foundations of Urantia book cosmology involve “space respiration” (see 11:6.0). So cycles of accelerated (+/-) expansion and contraction will be fundamental to any model we try to build. Watch this space!
[Ultimatons as bridge]
In (42:1.2), the ultimaton is described as “the first measurable form of energy“. So it certainly does seem to act as “a bridge between observable matter/gravity & (currently) non-observable counterparts“, as you stated so well 
Personally, I think of “the mature ultimaton” (46:1.2) more as a borderland phenomenon, quite literally a (minimal) quantization of the angular momentum injected by Master Force Organizers into their halo of segregata (and maybe the cause of Planck’s constant).
So with regard to “vortices and portals linking phases of reality“, if we think of an ultimaton as a quantized vortex of segregata, interacting with its ancestral field of segregata, all the while acting as a component in some Standard Model particle, then this tiny axionic preon might be seen as linking absonite and finite realities…
But trying to imagine such things is well above my pay-grade.
thanks for asking,
Nigel
