The Cosmology of Light & Life

50 posts · 9 participants · started Jul 6, 2017, 3:32 PM

1. GP

   George ParkParticipant
   Jul 13, 2017, 3:26 PM

   MidiChlorian wrote:

   One might consider that the statements made in the UB are correct and then when compared to today’s scientific cosmology, we should ask why is there a difference.

   It is certainly valid to begin by assuming that the cosmological statements in the UB are correct. One of these cosmological statements informs us that we will “discover errors on the face of the associated cosmologies” in the UB. If we assume this statement is also correct, there must be errors of scientific fact and/or interpretation in the text which we will discover over time. We are advised that the cosmological statements in the UB cannot be approached as though they are necessarily infallibly true.

   The distance to Andromeda is a scientific fact, something we are potentially able to discover for ourselves. The revelators inform us they are “forbidden to include such humanly undiscovered facts in the revelatory records.” If the distance of “almost one million” light-years cannot be a fact revealed by the authors, it must have been a humanly discovered fact which was known in 1934, when the Book was indited. This fact is recognized in Edwin Hubble’s 1936 book The Realm of the Nebulae, in which he describes how he first determined the distance to Andromeda in 1923.

   The first extragalactic Cepheid was definitely recognized toward the end of 1923 in M31. … It was a typical Cepheid with a period of about one month…. To appear as faint as the observations indicated (m [max] = 18.2), the required distance was of the order of 900,000 light-years. (pg. 93)

   The distance to Andromeda given in the UB was scientifically correct in 1934, just as we might expect from an epochal revelation. However, in 1952 the astronomer Walter Baade discovered a fundamental problem with Hubble’s calculation which more than doubled the distance to Andromeda. And in 1958 the astronomer Alan Sandage found additional errors, which increased the distance yet again to a value which is roughly the same as that known now in 2017. What was once an accurate scientific fact has become an obsolete scientific fact.

   It is still possible to argue that the distance in the UB is the correct one, but only if the findings of Baade, Sandage, and others can be shown to be scientifically flawed or misinterpretations of the facts. Belief in the truth of a fact is different from the knowledge that a fact is true; “Science must always be grounded in reason.”

2. T

   tasParticipant
   Jul 13, 2017, 3:48 PM

   The Andromeda example is interesting for another reason that often is overlooked. The relevators themselves give their thumbs-up and seal of approval that Edwin Hubble’s approach is an accurate and precise technique to use:

   “In one group of variable stars the period of light fluctuation is directly dependent on luminosity, and knowledge of this fact enables astronomers to utilize such suns as universe lighthouses or accurate measuring points for the further exploration of distant star clusters. By this technique it is possible to measure stellar distances most precisely up to more than one million light-years. (41:3.10)“

   The techniques of the 1920s and 1930s are on record as already perfectly fine to measure distances in the range (“more than one million light-years”) where Andromeda was at first calculated to be (“almost one million”). What scientists didn’t yet know at the time, and which the relevators didn’t give as unearned knowledge, was the discovery that one population of Cepheid variable stars is a lot brighter than the kind scientists were familiar with then.

   It was only the brighter ones that were possible to see in Andromeda at the time. They are what Hubble really saw. With a later scientist (Baade) confirming that and recalculating the distance once it was taken into account these stars’ real brightness — still with the very same technique the revelators say is an accurate and precise method — the distance estimate to Andromeda correspondingly increased, by a factor of two. Like you point out George, has been bit more refinement as well since Baade.  Other techniques that are even more precise have been developed and have confirmed the relevators were right that the use of variable stars to measure distance is accurate. The different techniques corroborate each other well. Knowledge has been earned, it seems to me.

   It makes it that much more clear to me that Andromeda is an example where non-inspired information was used that “within a few short years” was “in need of revision”, like the relevators said we should expect to see.

3. B

   BradlyParticipant
   Jul 13, 2017, 4:00 PM

   Thank you George and tas…..a very illuminating contribution to my understanding by both of you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

   

   "Live loyally today—grow—and tomorrow will attend to itself. The quickest way for a tadpole to become a frog is to live loyally each moment as a tadpole."

4. GP

   George ParkParticipant
   Jul 13, 2017, 9:18 PM

   tas wrote:

   It makes it that much more clear to me that Andromeda is an example where non-inspired information was used that “within a few short years” was “in need of revision”, like the relevators said we should expect to see.

   This is my essential takeaway, as well. But, if the distance to Andromeda has become scientifically obsolete, has this also occurred (or will it occur) to the only other distance to something given in the Book – the distance to Uversa?

   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…. 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)

   The example of Andromeda might make us look upon this distance to the rotational center of Orvonton with suspicion. In fact, quite a few students do just that and have decided this distance to Uversa is incorrect. In over half the papers investigating the cosmology in the Book I have reviewed, the authors put Uversa in the Virgo Cluster of galaxies, which is currently estimated to be over 50 million light-years distant. They give various reasons for doing so, but these all boil down to basically the same thing: the cosmological information in the Book is obsolete and can be disregarded where it conflicts with science. I find this reasoning to be somewhat specious, for at least a couple of reasons.

   The revelators used the most accurate distance available in 1934 for Andromeda, which was Hubble’s distance of almost one million light-years. In a paper published in 1931 Hubble gives a distance of 5.9 million light-years to the Virgo Cluster. This was the most accurate distance available in 1934; actually, this was the only scientifically measured distance at the time. Why would they use a ridiculously inaccurate distance of 200,000-250,000 light-years to Uversa, if it is actually located in the Virgo Cluster, which was estimated in 1934 to be 5.9 million light-years away? Why would they use the best estimate for the distance to Andromeda and the worst possible estimate for the distance to the Virgo Cluster?

   We are told that Uversa, the center of the superuniverse of Orvonton, is located “far, far away in the dense diameter of the Milky Way.” This can only be interpreted to mean that Uversa lies somewhere behind the dense belt of stars we call the Milky Way. The Virgo Cluster is located more than 74 degrees above the plane of the Milky Way, which is defined by this belt of stars. Virgo is nearly as far away from the plane of the Milky Way as it could possibly be.

   There is another thing which makes this distance fundamentally different from the one to Andromeda. Andromeda was observable in 1934, while Uversa never has been. There is nothing comparable to the concept of Uversa found anywhere in evolutionary astronomy. There is no star, no cluster, no galaxy concealed behind the belt of the Milky Way which was or is thought to be a dynamic center around which the Milky Way and the other galaxies in Orvonton revolve. Uversa is favorably situated for the celestial astronomers, because it is away from any star clusters: “there are no gigantic living or dead suns near at hand to disturb the energy currents.” (30:3.2) The existence of Uversa appears to be the “pure revelation” of a new cosmological fact.

   From the little we are told, it does not appear that it will ever be possible for our telescopes to observe Uversa, which would mean there is no way we can ever measure and validate the distance to it. It seems this distance may not be humanly discoverable, even potentially. Because it may not be possible for us to ever earn this knowledge, the authors might have been permitted to reveal this cosmological fact to us. Perhaps this gift of unearned knowledge was allowed because it serves the purpose of “supplying … information which will fill in vital missing gaps in otherwise earned knowledge.” (101:4.9)

   In formulating the succeeding presentations having to do with the portrayal of the character of the Universal Father and the nature of his Paradise associates, together with an attempted description of the perfect central universe and the encircling seven superuniverses…. We may resort to pure revelation only when the concept of presentation has had no adequate previous expression by the human mind. (0:12.11) 

    

5. A

   AnonymousInactive
   Jul 14, 2017, 5:23 PM

   George Park wrote:

   From the little we are told, it does not appear that it will ever be possible for our telescopes to observe Uversa, which would mean there is no way we can ever measure and validate the distance to it. It seems this distance may not be humanly discoverable, even potentially. Because it may not be possible for us to ever earn this knowledge, the authors might have been permitted to reveal this cosmological fact to us. Perhaps this gift of unearned knowledge was allowed because it serves the purpose of “supplying … information which will fill in vital missing gaps in otherwise earned knowledge.”(101:4.9)

   In formulating the succeeding presentations having to do with the portrayal of the character of the Universal Father and the nature of his Paradise associates, together with an attempted description of the perfect central universe and the encircling seven superuniverses…. We may resort to pure revelation only when the concept of presentation has had no adequate previous expression by the human mind. (0:12.11)

   The assumption seems obvious that by indicting that we are told little, in the UB would confirm that not all has been associated or combined from the text to make sense without combining or overlapping the information from other text in the UB.  The major misconception would be how the Superuniverses, are inter-associated and work together as one conceptual structure.

    (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 space potential is truly ultimate only on the absolute level.

   Assuming that our measurement of the speed of light is based on a vacuum density of space, it can be ascertained that since space is not a vacuum, that our assumed speed of light would be in error, thereby making any distances associated with this measuring technique, flawed.  Also, based on the unknown understanding of time, where I have observed variations of light as an observable distortion as the reflective quality through time pockets which seem to be effected by electromagnetic fields, that time is a separate observable entity which must be studied differently in order to truly conceive of what is presented in the UB.

6. GP

   George ParkParticipant
   Jul 14, 2017, 7:03 PM

   MidiChlorian wrote:

   The major misconception would be how the Superuniverses, are inter-associated and work together as one conceptual structure.

   I’m not sure, but are you saying that we misconceive the Superuniverses because we fail to recognize the universe ultimately has “seven different conceptions of space as it is conditioned by time“? If so, I cannot really disagree with this idea, since the universe would certainly be radically different from the three-dimensional space we think we see.

7. A

   AnonymousInactive
   Jul 14, 2017, 9:15 PM

   George Park wrote:

   MidiChlorian wrote: The major misconception would be how the Superuniverses, are inter-associated and work together as one conceptual structure.

   I’m not sure, but are you saying that we misconceive the Superuniverses because we fail to recognize the universe ultimately has “seven different conceptions of space as it is conditioned by time“? If so, I cannot really disagree with this idea, since the universe would certainly be radically different from the three-dimensional space we think we see.

   When one examines the following UB quote, and then applies the various functions of each segment of the superuniverses as related also to spirit function, and reflectively, each of six superuniverses can be associated as a single dimension and the seventh as the union point where they merge.  The focal point of each superuniverse can be assumed as the same point placeholder and as each vibrates at a slightly different time frequency and wave length, one could assimilate this to what might be defined as the “holographic principle”.

   (181.7) 15:14.1 There are seven major purposes which are being unfolded in the evolution of the seven superuniverses. Each major purpose in superuniverse evolution will find fullest expression in only one of the seven superuniverses, and therefore does each superuniverse have a special function and a unique nature.

   If one assumes that all things can be assimilated from light and sound, where the “holographic principle” could be roughly associated to photons and acoustic force-fields there would still be one missing factor “Life”.

   (1227.3) 112:1.13 Life is really a process which takes place between the organism (selfhood) and its environment. The personality imparts value of identity and meanings of continuity to this organismal-environmental association. Thus it will be recognized that the phenomenon of stimulus-response is not a mere mechanical process since the personality functions as a factor in the total situation. It is ever true that mechanisms are innately passive; organisms, inherently active.

   (1227.4) 112:1.14 Physical life is a process taking place not so much within the organism as between the organism and the environment. And every such process tends to create and establish organismal patterns of reaction to such an environment. And all such directive patterns are highly influential in goal choosing.

   (1227.5) 112:1.15 It is through the mediation of mind that the self and the environment establish meaningful contact. The ability and willingness of the organism to make such significant contacts with environment (response to a drive) represents the attitude of the whole personality.

   From our understanding of the “holographic principle”, we may find similarities?

   “The holographic principle is a principle of string theories and a supposed property of quantum gravity that states that the description of a volume of space can be thought of as encoded on a lower-dimensional boundary to the region—preferably a light-like boundary like a gravitational horizon. First proposed by Gerard ‘t Hooft, it was given a precise string-theory interpretation by Leonard Susskind who combined his ideas with previous ones of ‘t Hooft and Charles Thorn. As pointed out by Raphael Bousso, Thorn observed in 1978 that string theory admits a lower-dimensional description in which gravity emerges from it in what would now be called a holographic way.

   In a larger sense, the theory suggests that the entire universe can be seen as two-dimensional information on the cosmological horizon, the event horizon from which information may still be gathered and not lost due to the natural limitations of spacetime supporting a black hole, an observer and a given setting of these specific elements, such that the three dimensions we observe are an effective description only at macroscopic scales and at low energies. Cosmological holography has not been made mathematically precise, partly because the particle horizon has a non-zero area and grows with time. [. . .]”

8. M

   magmasloth64Participant
   Oct 21, 2017, 11:13 PM

   This is an absolutely fascinating thread, and the interplay of intellect between all of you is outstanding! I’ve read up halfway through page 3 and skimmed ahead to have enough time to post before leaving for work, but I’ll need to go back and study this discussion a little further, very interesting topic.

   from this quote:

   30:0.2 It is not possible to formulate comprehensive and entirely consistent classifications of the personalities of the grand universe because all of the groups are not revealed. It would require numerous additional papers to cover the further revelation required to systematically classify all groups. Such conceptual expansion would hardly be desirable as it would deprive the thinking mortals of the next thousand years of that stimulus to creative speculation which these partially revealed concepts supply. It is best that man not have an overrevelation; it stifles imagination.

   I figure we have 800-900 years until we begin truly settling in light and life! We’ve already begun making staggering scientific advances in the 1800’s, and by now it is a matter of mass education, most people don’t know how the technology they use works. I think in this day and age we’re all getting on the same page, but as a race we’re still immature, and will need to live another thousand years before our species behaves more like seasoned adults and less like anxious teenagers.

    

   In terms of our own cosmology, this is a miraculous discovery made by scientists a few years back:

    

   scientists have determined the vector normals our galaxies are travelling in, making pathways leading to a new form of celestial organisation as clusters and superclusters

   and along their pathways some travel away expanding outward into the void while others including our own are heading towards “strange attractors” which i suppose will ultimately destroy us?

   It also mentions our home is on the outskirts of our cluster.  :)
9. B

   BradlyParticipant
   Oct 23, 2017, 8:54 PM

   Welcome magma!!

   Been thinking about this topic for some time and wanted to continue with my “not inspired” consternations and confusions.  Research shows that the definition of “cosmology” had a dramatic shift in the late ’20s and early ’30s although the original definition remains valid and is the one I’ve always understood according to the UB:

   “Cosmology, is the study of the origin, evolution, and eventual fate of the universe. Physical cosmology is the scholarly and scientific study of the origin, evolution, large-scale structures and dynamics, and ultimate fate of the universe, as well as the scientific laws that govern these realities. The term cosmology was first used in English in 1656 in Thomas Blount’s Glossographia,[3] and in 1731 taken up in Latin by German philosopher Christian Wolff, in Cosmologia Generalis.[4]

   Religious or mythological cosmology is a body of beliefs based on mythological, religious, and esoteric literature and traditions of creation myths and eschatology.

   Physical cosmology is studied by scientists, such as astronomers and physicists, as well as philosophers, such as metaphysicians, philosophers of physics, and philosophers of space and time. Because of this shared scope with philosophy, theories in physical cosmology may include both scientific and non-scientific propositions, and may depend upon assumptions that cannot be tested. Cosmology differs from astronomy in that the former is concerned with the Universe as a whole while the latter deals with individual celestial objects. Modern physical cosmology is dominated by the Big Bang theory, which attempts to bring together observational astronomy and particle physics;[5] more specifically, a standard parameterization of the Big Bang with dark matter and dark energy, known as the Lambda-CDM model.”

    

   Until the big bang theory, cosmology included God and creationism – origins, meanings, destiny – or the power, purpose, plans, and methodologies of creation, organization, management, evolutionary change, ultimate destinies.  The UB gives us this cosmology – which is far, far more than particle physics and astrophysics – the extreme polar points of material/physical/material – but we know the universe, including the material universe, is far more than physics.  Here’s a link to quotes including “cosmology OR cosmos” – 95 quotes for some orientation.

   If we cannot agree on the definition of “cosmology”, then we will never agree on the meaning of “not inspired”, which I still maintain means factual rather than being subject to the limits of revelation regarding unearned knowledge.  Indeed, a key word search for “inspired” makes me think that inspiration has everything to do with truth and nothing at all to do with fact.  “not inspired” does not mean lacking truth exactly, it means it resides in another character or form – fact.  We are advised that truth is often inspired and cosmology is never such.  Likewise, I think science is not inspired….it’s discovery and it’s pursuit (the scientific method) is often sparked or triggered by insight, intuition, and inspiration….deep thinking and observation of fact discovers fact.

   The cosmology of the universes is also fact…God is fact.  The reality of all creatures and creation is fact.  The relationships between all creatures and creation is fact.  Physics is one very limited portion of the grandeur of reality….and a strictly material one to the scientist and the method.  For centuries, science and religion were often mutually inclusive studies and the greatest of early scientists did, philosophically at least, tend to integrate both science and religion as a holistic discipline.  Then came Darwin and then the Big Bang, or accidental/mechanical explanations for the observable universe, and ‘cosmology’ became limited to particle and astral physics only.

   But this did not happen until after the UB was given.  So, should we expand or limit the definition of cosmology?  Can any cosmology that is factual and reality oriented dismiss the Creator and creation process from its consideration?  Because that’s what happened around 1935 – the secularists hijacked a term and gave it a new definition – physics….that which the revelators tell us of their limitations regarding unearned knowledge.  Perplexing…..to me!

   I do not find the functions of a factual cosmology and the limitations of revelation as mutually exclusive concepts.  The cosmology of who’s who and how things work is a factual presentation….it is just not a complete presentation regarding physics!  But isn’t Nebadon, Michael’s creation, cosmology?  How is this creation created?  And Paradise and the architectural worlds and power centers and life carriers?  A litany of forms/elements of cosmology not even considered or dreamed of by modern science.  Perhaps the student body needs to consider expanding the definition of cosmology to gain a better understanding of the limits of revelation and the fact that the cosmology presented is not ‘inspired’??

    

   https://urassoc.arko.nyc/search/?zoom_sort=2&zoom_query=cosmology+OR+cosmos&zoom_per_page=100&zoom_and=0&zoom_cat%5B%5D=-1

   

   "Live loyally today—grow—and tomorrow will attend to itself. The quickest way for a tadpole to become a frog is to live loyally each moment as a tadpole."

10. GP

    George ParkParticipant
    Oct 27, 2017, 3:42 PM

    Bradly wrote:

    If we cannot agree on the definition of “cosmology”, then we will never agree on the meaning of “not inspired”, which I still maintain means factual rather than being subject to the limits of revelation regarding unearned knowledge.

    I generally agree with your conclusion that “not inspired” means the cosmology revealed in the Book is essentially true in concept, even if some of the scientific facts may been incorrect, due to the prohibition against giving us unearned knowledge. For instance, we are told there are 7 structural levels of revolution beginning with the earth’s revolution about the sun and ending with Orvonton’s revolution about Paradise. (15:3.8-14) The hierarchy of universe administration parallels this hierarchical physical structure. More than 80 years after this dynamic physical structure was first revealed, there is still no general consensus among students of the Book on what astronomic structure the superuniverse of Orvonton refers to, much less the cosmic structures associated with Norlatiadek, Nebadon, or Splandon. It is still the case that some think Orvonton may be the Milky Way, while others think it may be as large as the Virgo Supercluster, which is a thousand times the size of the Milky Way.

    The physical structure of the universe revealed to us is true, assuming the authors tell us the truth. The few scientifically verifiable facts and relationships included in this description are “not inspired” and may be incorrect, such as the distance to Andromeda. We cannot know which of these facts is incorrect and by how much until astronomic knowledge advances sufficiently. However, we can project that this revealed structure of the universe is the one which informs those worlds in Orvonton which reach Light & Life and interpret the universe accordingly. The location of Paradise at the center of revolution for the entire universe is both an absolute truth and an absolute fact.

     

     

Reply on the current forum