Urantia Book Forum

Urantia Book Discussion Board : Study Group
It is currently Sun Jun 22, 2025 5:00 am +0000

The TruthBook forum will no longer accept new posts. Please continue to read, search, and enjoy all posts made to prior October 28. No login is needed now to access the valuable resource, so it is open to everyone! For more information, please click HERE.


All times are UTC - 7 hours




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 56 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:14 pm +0000
Posts: 189
Hi Graybear,

Back on 14 November 2020, you wrote:
graybear13 wrote:
The relativistic jets of non-stellar radiation from the AGN is the result of the condensation of dark matter, caused by the two dark gravity vortexes and accretion disk. It is not caused by a black hole. In my opinion this is the definition of mesotron. ( 42:8.3 )

On 15 November 2020, I wondered:
Nigel wrote:
Also, can you clarify how your use of the term mesotron relates to the Yakawa-type interaction described in paper 42 section 8? I've recently become amazed by the phenomenon of nuclear stability, and as they point out in 42:8.3-4, this "mediating mesotron" is crucial!

On 29 December 2021, you wrote:
graybear13 wrote:
In my view the reciprocating action of mesotron is caused by the two vortexes locked into a push against each other. Being locked into each other will cause the vortexes to form collapsing concentric spheres and an accretion disk putting further pressure on the "reciprocating cohering function of the mesotron." The experiment I propose will show this.

If we're going to follow the UB's lead and use mesotrons to cause "protons and neutrons constantly to change places" at a rate that is "unbelievably rapid" (42:8.4), a first step is to sort out what a UB mesotron is. You propose a pair of vortices. Since I understand the ultimaton to be a quantized vortex in segregata, I prefer to think of the UB mesotron as a cluster of clusters of these "quantized vortices". Could you work with that? Also, our model will need to be consistent with results from deep scattering experiments that physicists do at colliders,

UB 101:4.2 wrote:
"... within a few short years many of our statements regarding the physical sciences will stand in need of revision in consequence of additional scientific developments and new discoveries." (101:4.2)

best wishes for 2022!
Nigel


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2012 2:07 am +0000
Posts: 1045
Regarding the "mesotron", (i.e. pi meson in today's usage): The principal thing today's scientists do not understand about it is its ability to swap the polarity of charge between a neutron and proton so quickly that the electromagnetic force between protons is nullified. That cannot take place according to the rules of the day. It would clearly break Special Relativity.

Implicit in the description, I believe, of the "mesotron" by the authors of that paper is that some components of a pi meson must, of necessity, travel or rotate faster than the electromagnetic force travels (i.e. the speed of light).

That Special Relativity is essentially far incorrect is also indicated by the authors' characterization of the issues surrounding that theory as "faintly glimpsed". It can be demonstrated mathematically that SR is absolutely unnecessary. The same physical effects that SR describes in an extremely crude way can be eloquently described by only the Maxwell Equations together with the Force Equations given by Newton. Such is the better, truer physics of the 21st century, which, by the way, were discovered last century by J. J. Thomson - discoverer of the electron. It is quite interesting that he actually understood how to properly employ the Maxwell Equations while many, many others of his day - including Lorentz, Poincaré, Einstein, Minkowski and so many others since then did not.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:14 pm +0000
Posts: 189
Hi Riktare,

You point us to a central issue of quantized (ultimatonic) mechanics: if an electron (or electron-level particle) is to be built up from clusters of huddling ultimatons, where does the electric charge actually sit?

Recall that in the early 1980's, Laughlin et al. demonstrated that the units of charge on a 2d arrangement of electrons can be coaxed into fractional quantities (1/2, 1/3, 1/5, etc).

And of course, the over-densities inside a proton or neutron appear to support similar fractional charges. The way the mesotron (pi meson) is thought to orchestrate this proton-neutron oscillation is simply to flip one of the internal clusters (with a 2/3 charge) to a cluster with a 1/3 charge. No faster-than-light motion required.

Nigel


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2012 2:07 am +0000
Posts: 1045
Hi Nigel,

I'll address each of your points one at a time. The first is an especially good question. I can offer some ideas as a catalyst for further thought. As we have been told, Paradise is at the nucleus of an ultimaton. I've tended to think that that statement is maybe somewhat of an analogy, but the revelators wouldn't have offered it if it didn't hold some major truths.

In keeping with the pattern of Paradise where unpervaded space enters on the North side, undergoes the process of being pervaded, then exits the South side, possibly the ultimaton works similarly. If that is the case, then maybe your picture of an ultimaton interacting with segregata which resembles a tornado could be expanded. What if a mirror image of the tornado were added 180 degrees at the point where the tornado focuses and visibly disappears? We are told that the flow of pervaded and unpervaded space through Paradise resembles an hour glass.

Assuming the above scheme, the ultimaton would be rotating at a very rapid rate. That rotation may push the local area of segregata both around in circles and downward (North to South) through the central axis of the ultimaton (assuming the ultimaton has a single axis around which it revolves).

In that picture we would presumably have polarity - a North and a South pole. The flow of energy and segregata (or some aspect of segregata) would have an opposite chirality, so to speak, when observed from above each of the poles. It wouldn't be too much of a stretch at this point to imagine that those poles would induce ultimatons to huddle where the North pole of one ultimaton is attracted to the South pole of another, just as magnets do.

Now we might do well to remember that the classical definition of charge is a discontinuity of polarization. What does that mean in our case? I would venture a guess that either the flow of energy or condition of segregata is diverted or it is cut off from an outside perspective. Could the coupling of one ultimaton's North pole to another's South pole effectively provide that situation? Or could the juxstaposition of the revolving segregata from 2 or more ultimatons provide such a situation? In this second option, ultimatons could be assembled so that the confluence of the flow of segregata might flow through the center of the congregate of the ultimatons. This could make an electron appear to have its charge located near its center rather than embodying an extended surface around the electron. That might help explain why an electron appears to behave as a "point particle".

Alternatively, the axis of a revolving ultimaton might have a point along it at both ends where the polarizing effects diminish to an extent that they are not a primary factor in inducing ultimatons to huddle or be attracted to each other. That point may have a very important relationship to quantization. If that is the case then it is likely to be a principle that applies to other particles such as the electron.

On the last point, Jackson's Classical Electrodynamics devotes quite a few pages to explore Dirac's theory of how quantization arises with an electron. The ideas above might fit in with that but it has been years since I reviewed that material. Here is a possibly related, more recent paper:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.13403

Dirac's theory involves magnetic monopoles which haven't been directly observed, as you know. However there is a reasonable amount of deep theorizing that that type of structure can and does arise for very short periods of time (a concept that apparently Dirac entertained). Maybe the bending or divergence of the energy flow at one pole of a magnetic structure produces similar or related results.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2011 4:24 am +0000
Posts: 194
nnunn wrote:
If we're going to follow the UB's lead and use mesotrons to cause "protons and neutrons constantly to change places" at a rate that is "unbelievably rapid" (42:8.4), a first step is to sort out what a UB mesotron is. You propose a pair of vortices. Since I understand the ultimaton to be a quantized vortex in segregata, I prefer to think of the UB mesotron as a cluster of clusters of these "quantized vortices". Could you work with that? Also, our model will need to be consistent with results from deep scattering experiments that physicists do at colliders,

UB 101:4.2 wrote:
"... within a few short years many of our statements regarding the physical sciences will stand in need of revision in consequence of additional scientific developments and new discoveries." (101:4.2)

best wishes for 2022!
Nigel


Hi Nigel,

Since the experiment would be organizing molecules of ionized air, this would be clusters of mainly charged atoms of oxygen and nitrogen in the initial vortexes. Then these clusters would be pulled into the two main vortexes that are creating a cluster of these clusters surrounding a reciprocating nucleus. Exactly what happens inside the sphere surrounding the nucleus is what we need to know as well as how the vortex tips will interact.

If we start with a 10 ft. diameter vortex at its event horizon spinning at 4,500 rpm, that is something like 4,000 mph wind speed. What will the rpm, air speed and pressure be when the two vortexes collapse to 1 ft. diameter, hook up and begin the sphere of orbits and circuits? Then what happens when they collapse to one tenth of a foot in the nucleus? Will the collapsing sphere be able to hold the nucleus together while gas escapes because of the reciprocating positive pressure of the vortexes? What affect will the escaping gas have on the sphere? Will it form new clusters as it escapes out through the sphere?

One thing I am confident of is that this collapsing cluster of clusters will project a significant linear gravity matrix that will exist outside of earth's gravity matrix. So anything inside of this new matrix will not be affected by earth's gravity.

The colliders are impressive engineering projects, but physicists will never be able to fully understand how atomic particles are wound up by smashing and destroying them. They can only see that they are wound up. My approach of doing the winding will yield more comprehensive results for a lot smaller investment.

regards, gray


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:14 pm +0000
Posts: 189
Hi Riktare - you wrote:
Riktare wrote:
I'll address each of your points one at a time.

I likewise sketched out a reply to each of your points, but it became a bit long. So for now, here are a few thoughts about your very neat use of motion to define an ultimaton... which got me wondering: what's actually moving?

Recall that when particles move, they are said to take with them their properties, one of which is "their space",

UB 118:3.6 wrote:
"It may help to an understanding of space relationships if you would conjecture that, relatively speaking, space is after all a property of all material bodies. 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." (118:3.6)

Does this imply that, when a "particle" moves, it literally drags along with it a tiny bit of space?! If so, this would certainly help to clarify Einstein's famous-but-faint glimpse (195:7.5) about a coupling between space and matter, i.e. between geometry and mass.

To make sense of this, we'd need to look upstream and consider the coupling between space and "space potency": is space potency a potential in space, or a property of space? If space potency (i.e. absoluta, 42:2.6) is a property of space, then given that an ultimaton is a quantization of a condensate of that same absoluta, this might imply something about the topology of ultimatons (which need to be robust).

One way to see them as truly robust would be to model "the mature ultimaton" (46:1.2) as some kind of topological soliton, a topologically locked, looping flow of "potency-pervaded" space. If ultimatons were in fact such a spinning loop of such "potency-pervaded" space -- rather than something spinning in space -- then it's easy to see that when a cluster of 100 such ultimatons moves, that cluster must drag along with it its associated space.

But wait, there's more: once we model ultimatons as quanta of absonite energy locked in a topological knot, I think we might have a source sufficient to overcome local gravity and lift a 50 solar-mass dark island above its event horizon (see "ultimatonic condensation", 41:3.6 and 41:7.15),
UB 41:3.6 wrote:
"This process of cooling and contraction may continue to the limiting and critical explosion point of ultimatonic condensation." (41:3.6)

... which is one of the things we explore in that YouTube video 4C: Exploding dark islands.

I'll send a few thoughts soon regarding that famous double entendre, about ultimatons and Paradise O:)

Nigel


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2017 11:14 am +0000
Posts: 395
Most interesting. What is it about the scientific community in general, is it afraid to confess that there is indeed a Source and First Cause, Infinite I AM, etc.? Why is that? Lack of evidence? Lack of proof?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2012 2:07 am +0000
Posts: 1045
I don't think there's much mystery there. The educational system is very much a product of "post enlightenment age" thinking from the 1700's. Not everyone dares to think, perceive and conceptualize beyond the "frames of reference" that are handed to them on a platter - in this case the educational system.

The enormous expansion of shared knowledge since the beginning of the internet and its free channels of communication is quickly changing that though. It takes time, of course, to think deeply through the issues and arrive at a much more potent articulation of the heavy limitations of the given educational system's preliminary conclusions regarding what both physical and organic realities rest on. In another thread I've given some examples of very popular scientists expressing that type of thought and how it is very rapidly outstripping the arguments and understanding of some of the more vocal and previously well known "materialists" and those touting anti-religion rhetoric. There are many, very many scientists now willing to express their faith in the public eye and defend it with strong arguments.

I would even say that we on this planet as a whole are no longer "quivering on the brink" of a most amazing and enthralling epoch but are starting to enter it.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2017 11:14 am +0000
Posts: 395
Riktare wrote:
I don't think there's much mystery there. The educational system is very much a product of "post enlightenment age" thinking from the 1700's. Not everyone dares to think, perceive and conceptualize beyond the "frames of reference" that are handed to them on a platter - in this case the educational system.

The enormous expansion of shared knowledge since the beginning of the internet and its free channels of communication is quickly changing that though. It takes time, of course, to think deeply through the issues and arrive at a much more potent articulation of the heavy limitations of the given educational system's preliminary conclusions regarding what both physical and organic realities rest on. In another thread I've given some examples of very popular scientists expressing that type of thought and how it is very rapidly outstripping the arguments and understanding of some of the more vocal and previously well known "materialists" and those touting anti-religion rhetoric. There are many, very many scientists now willing to express their faith in the public eye and defend it with strong arguments.

I would even say that we on this planet as a whole are no longer "quivering on the brink" of a most amazing and enthralling epoch but are starting to enter it.



Totally agree, we are starting to enter this most amazing and enthralling epoch. It is an exciting time to be alive!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2011 4:24 am +0000
Posts: 194
I misspoke on my previous post; It will take a 25 ft. dia. vortex spinning @ 4,500 rpm to reach 4,000 mph wind speed.

The new epoch you speak of and wish for cannot be entered as long as scientists still hold on to the false belief that creation was an explosion or big bang. Creation is an implosion; a gravitational collapse that created hydrogen atoms and then an implosion of hydrogen caused the stars to ignite. According to big bang theory the first stars ignited around 400 million years after an explosive inflation. In reality the gravitational collapse of emergent energy into hydrogen atoms and then implosion into star formation took much longer, probably billions of years.

There are two things that science can actually prove that will allow a true understanding of creation. They are the emergent ultimaton energy field that fills the content of space and mesotron, the framework of the gravitational collapse of ultimatons into atomic ignition.

I wish I was as optimistic as you that we are entering an "amazing and enthralling epoch." I am hopeful but not very confident that I will see it in my lifetime.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2017 11:14 am +0000
Posts: 395
graybear13 wrote:
The new epoch you speak of and wish for cannot be entered as long as scientists still hold on to the false belief that creation was an explosion or big bang. Creation is an implosion; a gravitational collapse that created hydrogen atoms and then an implosion of hydrogen caused the stars to ignite. According to big bang theory the first stars ignited around 400 million years after an explosive inflation. In reality the gravitational collapse of emergent energy into hydrogen atoms and then implosion into star formation took much longer, probably billions of years.


But that could happen "from one day to the next" if some irrefutable facts come forth, say from the Webb Telescope. Some scientists will have just as much trouble accepting new truth that shoots down the Big Bang theory as do fundamentalist Christians in accepting that the Genesis story is not absolute truth. I may be wrong but even now there are cosmologists who no longer support the Big Bang Theory, and that group is growing.

https://now.northropgrumman.com/big-bang-theory-called-into-question-by-cosmologists/

Just as the Genesis account was enough to carry civilization forward for a few thousand years, the Big Bang theory served to sort of keep things together in a new view of our origins, and when it falls in the face of new evidence it will shake everyone up and certainly awaken some slumbering folks to the reality of supernal values and concepts. The important thing is that people are searching for answers, and if they are still searching it means they aren't satisfied with the present explanation. Somewhere along the line those that are seeking shall indeed find, and science and religion can finally join hands and continue forward.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2011 4:24 am +0000
Posts: 194
pethuel wrote:
Just as the Genesis account was enough to carry civilization forward for a few thousand years, the Big Bang theory served to sort of keep things together in a new view of our origins,...


Hi pethuel, thank you for the link. Unfortunately there is no new view of creation. In my view the math behind big bang served to continue the genesis account of creation. The Catholic church was able to promote their primeval atom concept (genesis) which became big bang singularity. The math really doesn't quite work, does it? Time to try something else. We can't wait for the big bang cult of physics to finally give up their nonsense and pay attention to what is being said in the UB. Clearly the message from God is, creation took a lot longer than big bang would suggest and is a condensation of emergent energy through gravitational collapse and electronic organization, not an explosion. If we wait much longer it may be to late to save life on earth, we are already one hundred years late. Maybe that is our fate, to die off like the dinosaurs. I guess the difference is, we are doing it to ourselves. We have the opportunity to stop it, but it looks like we just don't care.

Can you tell me what the Webb telescope can do to help us understand how to not destroy our atmosphere? I guess we can sit around staring at the far reaches of the cosmos while we gasp for air like a dying fish on the beach. In my opinion it's another 10 billion dollar boondoggle, not unlike the LHC. Now they want to build a 20 billion dollar collider. It is insanity. We need to aim some money at figuring out how to gravitationally collapse a cloud of gas toward a fussion reaction. We collapse, by explosion, vaporized sleel into a nuclear explosion. Maybe something a little less radical could be the order of the day. No explosion, just a gravitational collapse. We will discover the true nature of gravity.

When there is something that is wrong, those who have the ability to take action, have the responsibility to take action. I think there is a moment and this is that moment which if you don't stand up you are part of the problem. Your silence is complicity and goes to your lack of faith in the message given to us by God through the authors of the UB.

regards, gray


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 5:29 am +0000
Posts: 6039
Speaking of "...faith in the message given to us by God through the authors of the UB.", is that message doom and gloom or despair or anxiety?

By that message, are we taught to share our personal despair with one another and offer regrets and recriminations as some form of loving service?

Social evolutionary progress on our world is so very obvious. Maturity and wisdom come only by trial and error and suffering the consequences of error. Shall we focus on the dark patches of evil or the contrasting background of truth, beauty, and goodness of reality which should be our focus??

There is much to be done and much has been done already. Perhaps we should consider that which we choose to share with others about that which is given to us by the gift of Epochal Revelation. That message is assurance and encouragement and hope I think.

102:2.2 (1119.7) One of the characteristic peculiarities of genuine religious assurance is that, notwithstanding the absoluteness of its affirmations and the stanchness of its attitude, the spirit of its expression is so poised and tempered that it never conveys the slightest impression of self-assertion or egoistic exaltation. The wisdom of religious experience is something of a paradox in that it is both humanly original and Adjuster derivative. Religious force is not the product of the individual’s personal prerogatives but rather the outworking of that sublime partnership of man and the everlasting source of all wisdom. Thus do the words and acts of true and undefiled religion become compellingly authoritative for all enlightened mortals.

102:2.3 (1119.8) It is difficult to identify and analyze the factors of a religious experience, but it is not difficult to observe that such religious practitioners live and carry on as if already in the presence of the Eternal. Believers react to this temporal life as if immortality already were within their grasp. In the lives of such mortals there is a valid originality and a spontaneity of expression that forever segregate them from those of their fellows who have imbibed only the wisdom of the world. Religionists seem to live in effective emancipation from harrying haste and the painful stress of the vicissitudes inherent in the temporal currents of time; they exhibit a stabilization of personality and a tranquillity of character not explained by the laws of physiology, psychology, and sociology.

8)

100:2.7 (1096.4) Jesus portrayed the profound surety of the God-knowing mortal when he said: “To a God-knowing kingdom believer, what does it matter if all things earthly crash?” Temporal securities are vulnerable, but spiritual sureties are impregnable. When the flood tides of human adversity, selfishness, cruelty, hate, malice, and jealousy beat about the mortal soul, you may rest in the assurance that there is one inner bastion, the citadel of the spirit, which is absolutely unassailable; at least this is true of every human being who has dedicated the keeping of his soul to the indwelling spirit of the eternal God.

100:2.8 (1096.5) After such spiritual attainment, whether secured by gradual growth or specific crisis, there occurs a new orientation of personality as well as the development of a new standard of values. Such spirit-born individuals are so remotivated in life that they can calmly stand by while their fondest ambitions perish and their keenest hopes crash; they positively know that such catastrophes are but the redirecting cataclysms which wreck one’s temporal creations preliminary to the rearing of the more noble and enduring realities of a new and more sublime level of universe attainment.

8)

_________________
"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."


Last edited by fanofVan on Thu Feb 10, 2022 6:38 am +0000, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:14 pm +0000
Posts: 189
Hi gray,
graybear13 wrote:
"Can you tell me what the Webb telescope can do to help us understand..."

One of the surprises faced by cosmologists has been the apparent existence of large disk galaxies with very high redshifts. However, a problem for astronomers trying to observe such things has been that as the redshifts of distant sources increase, the wavelengths of their photons are shifted out of the range that the Hubble Space Telescope (and thus its spectrograph) can observe. Fortunately for UB students, one of the design goals of the JWST was to pick up where the Hubble left off -- sources with very high redshifts are literally shifted into an optimal range for the JWST.

Why is this interesting for us?

If the JWST spots large disk galaxies with redshift greater than say, z=15, then the idea that the CMB must be a surface of last scattering released less than 14 billion years ago can no longer be entertained. In other words, inflationary lambda-CDM Big Bang cosmology will have been disproved, and cosmologists will be ready (compelled) to consider alternatives.

But wait, there's more. Being optimized for infrared observation, the JWST may be the best tool we'll have, at least for the next 30 years, to prove or disprove the UB model of a superuniverse (Orvonton) being made up of "immediately recognizable" (15:3.4) major sector spirals, as I try to sketch in this video from time 33:16 to 38:18.

PS: recall that "major sectors" are said to have the potential for about 100 billion inhabited worlds. Since our Milky Way spiral seems to have about 400 billion planet-supporting suns, it seems to tick that major sector box?

fear not O:)
Nigel


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2017 11:14 am +0000
Posts: 395
nnunn wrote:
Hi gray,
graybear13 wrote:
"Can you tell me what the Webb telescope can do to help us understand..."

One of the surprises faced by cosmologists has been the apparent existence of large disk galaxies with very high redshifts. However, a problem for astronomers trying to observe such things has been that as the redshifts of distant sources increase, the wavelengths of their photons are shifted out of the range that the Hubble Space Telescope (and thus its spectrograph) can observe. Fortunately for UB students, one of the design goals of the JWST was to pick up where the Hubble left off -- sources with very high redshifts are literally shifted into an optimal range for the JWST.

Why is this interesting for us?

If the JWST spots large disk galaxies with redshift greater than say, z=15, then the idea that the CMB must be a surface of last scattering released less than 14 billion years ago can no longer be entertained. In other words, inflationary lambda-CDM Big Bang cosmology will have been disproved, and cosmologists will be ready (compelled) to consider alternatives.

But wait, there's more. Being optimized for infrared observation, the JWST may be the best tool we'll have, at least for the next 30 years, to prove or disprove the UB model of a superuniverse (Orvonton) being made up of "immediately recognizable" (15:3.4) major sector spirals, as I try to sketch in this video from time 33:16 to 38:18.

PS: recall that "major sectors" are said to have the potential for about 100 billion inhabited worlds. Since our Milky Way spiral seems to have about 400 billion planet-supporting suns, it seems to tick that major sector box?

fear not O:)
Nigel


This is exactly what I understand as in reference to "quivering on the brink". Since the pubbing of TUB, scientific knowledge has grown exponentially and it is now commonplace for someone or some organization to make a major breakthrough in some field. The reserve of proven and re-proven scientific fact provides an extremely solid foundation on which to launch new research. The Big Bang Theory remains a theory because it hasn't been proved and is about to be permanently disproved. Many theories will be disproved, and many will be proven as our knowledge of proven scientific facts increases. The scientific confirmation and undeniable proof of an eternal non-temporal Reality and Source, First Cause, Supreme Being, God etc. will provide the fertile soil for the seeds of Light and Life on Urantia. Religion and Science will walk hand in hand and a new race will be born. Major upgrade. Now there's an idea for a movie...

Personally speaking, the presentation of truth in the Papers has satisfied all my questions, raises new questions and satisfies them as well and so on. The Papers supported by proven science is a powerful combination. Thrilling times!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 56 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours


Who is online

Registered users: No registered users


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group