Urantia Book Forum

Urantia Book Discussion Board : Study Group
It is currently Sun Mar 23, 2025 2:05 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 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
PostPosted:  
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 12:21 pm +0000
Posts: 85
Hello to everybody. I felt promted to share this information with you. Below is the summary of findings (gathered from various sources) on the location of various architectural spheres mentioned in the Urantia Book.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Uversa – Headquarters of the 7th superuniverse of Orvonton

Could be in fact located at the center of M87 elliptical galaxy in Virgo. This giant galaxy houses a tremendous black hole (dark matter body), around which all the galaxies constituting the 7th superuniverse (in terms of modern science: the Virgo Supercluster of Galaxies) revolve. It is located approximately 60 million light years away. It is also known for a jet of matter escaping from it (this matter most likely being used for establishing material bodies of this superuniverse). This is where Ancients of Days reside.

Image

(For more information on this galaxy see http://seds.org/messier/m/m087.html)

Salvington – Headquarters of the Local Universe

Could be in fact located at the center of M31 spiral galaxy – the Andromeda Galaxy in Andromeda. The distance is 2.3 million light years. Together with other 30 or so galaxies (including our own Milky Way Galaxy) they constitute the Local Universe of Nebadon (in terms of modern science: the Local Galaxy Group) which is still under construction. This is where Christ Michael resides. (Note: Some sources claim that Salvington is located at the center of our galaxy.)

Image

(For more information on this galaxy see http://seds.org/messier/m/m031.html)

Edentia – the Constellation Headquarters

Could be in fact located at the center of the Milky Way Galaxy in Sagittarius. The distance is approximately 26,000 light years. This is where the Most Highs reside.

Image

(For more information on our own galaxy see http://seds.org/messier/more/mw.html)

Jerusem – the Headquarters of the Local System

Could be in fact located near Alnitak, the leftmost star on the Orion's belt (on Earth represented by Khufu's Pyramid in Giza). The distance is approximately 800 light years. This is where Lanaforge resides.

Image

(For more information on Alnitak see http://www.astro.uiuc.edu/~kaler/sow/alnitak.html)


Disclaimer: All the information contained herein is wholly speculative and should be treated as such. There exist no material proofs supporting the information indicated above.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Mon May 31, 2004 10:33 am +0000
Posts: 748
Oh no, here we go...Again!

I-Am says:
Quote:
Disclaimer: All the information contained herein is wholly speculative and should be treated as such. There exist no material proofs supporting the information indicated above.


While it is fun to speculate, I-Am, can you supply quotes to support your position?

paper 32 pg 359-360:
Quote:
The Satania system of inhabited worlds is far removed from Uversa and that great sun cluster which functions as the physical or astronomic center of the seventh superuniverse. 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. 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.


It would seem that the Mighty Messenger, who puportedly authored paper 32, gives a much closer estimate precluding the possibility that Uversa is sixty-million light years away in the direction of the Virgo Supercluster. Since the Mighty Messenger fails to state how far Urantia is from Jerusem, Jerusem is from Edentia, Edentia is from Salvington, or Salvington is from Uversa, such claims are useless in determining the location of Jerusem or in determining how far Urantia is from any of the so-called architectural worlds.

Interestingly enough, TUB mentions "Sagittarius" five times, but "Virgo" not once. The term "Milky Way" is mentioned many times including this from paper 15 pg 167:
Quote:
Observation of the so-called Milky Way discloses the comparative increase in Orvonton stellar density when the heavens are viewed in one direction, while on either side the density diminishes; the number of stars and other spheres decreases away from the chief plane of our material superuniverse. When the angle of observation is propitious, gazing through the main body of this realm of maximum density, you are looking toward the residential universe and the center of all things.


Virgo and Sagittarius are roughly at right angles to each other from our perspective. If the physical center of Orvonton lies in the direction of the dense diameter of the Milky Way, then it would seem that Uversa cannot be in M87. Also, from our perspective, Orion is almost exactly in the opposite direction of galactic center, therefore Alnitak is closer to the edge of the Milky Way than earth/urantia.

pg 167:
Quote:
Of the ten major divisions of Orvonton, eight have been roughly identified by Urantian astronomers. The other two are difficult of separate recognition because you are obliged to view these phenomena from the inside. If you could look upon the superuniverse of Orvonton from a position far-distant in space, you would immediately recognize the ten major sectors of the seventh galaxy.


If the Universal Censor, who purportedly hails from Uversa, would have named these eight of ten major divisions which have supposedly been identified by astronomers (instead of leaving it open to interpretation and speculation), we might have a greater understanding of the actual structure of the grand universe. As it stands, we have speculation and interpretation.



Randy

_________________
Anyone with a mind has an opinion and that opinion is a reflection of that mind.


Last edited by rhermen on Mon Nov 26, 2007 2:03 pm +0000, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Few quotes
PostPosted:  
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 12:21 pm +0000
Posts: 85
Hi Randy,

Just found this sentence in the UB:

p170:1 15:4.7
Quote:
There are not many sun-forming nebulae active in Orvonton at the present time, though Andromeda, which is outside the inhabited superuniverse, is very active.


Andromeda is uninhabited. This means it can not house Salvington.


Last edited by I-AM on Sat Nov 24, 2007 4:54 pm +0000, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Good start
PostPosted:  
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 12:21 pm +0000
Posts: 85
I think this text is very good to start with:

p168:3 15:3.7
Quote:
The Sagittarius sector and all other sectors and divisions of Orvonton are in rotation around Uversa, and some of the confusion of Urantian star observers arises out of the illusions and relative distortions produced by the following multiple revolutionary movements:

1. The revolution of Urantia around its sun.
2. The circuit of your solar system about the nucleus of the former Andronover nebula.
3. The rotation of the Andronover stellar family and the associated clusters about the composite rotation-gravity center of the star cloud of Nebadon.
4. The swing of the local star cloud of Nebadon and its associated creations around the Sagittarius center of their minor sector.
5. The rotation of the one hundred minor sectors, including Sagittarius, about their major sector.
6. The whirl of the ten major sectors, the so-called star drifts, about the Uversa headquarters of Orvonton.
7. The movement of Orvonton and six associated superuniverses around Paradise and Havona, the counterclockwise processional of the superuniverse space level.


Question: Apart from rotating around the center of the Milky Way Galaxy, does our sun rotate around any other celestial body?

If no, then we have a terminology problem. What we call Milky Way Galaxy is not what the UB calls the Milky Way Galaxy.

p170:2 15:4.8
Quote:
The Milky Way galaxy is composed of vast numbers of former spiral and other nebulae, and many still retain their original configuration. But as the result of internal catastrophes and external attraction, many have suffered such distortion and rearrangement as to cause these enormous aggregations to appear as gigantic luminous masses of blazing suns, like the Magellanic Cloud. The globular type of star clusters predominates near the outer margins of Orvonton.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Mon May 31, 2004 10:33 am +0000
Posts: 748
I-AM,

I suppose there might indeed be a terminology problem. As an astrophysics major, I can tell you that proper use of terminology is very important in order to understand scientific concepts. For example, the terms "rotate" or "rotation" are not interchangeble with the terms "revolve" or "revolution" as used in astronomy. These terms are meant to describe two different types of celestial motion. The earth/urantia rotates on its axis, but revolves around the sun. The quote you have submitted (p168:3 15:3.7) confuses these two terms as you have done with the question "Apart from rotating around the center of the Milky Way Galaxy, does our sun rotate around any other celestial body?"

from p168:3 15:3.7

Quote:
6. The whirl of the ten major sectors, the so-called star drifts, about the Uversa headquarters of Orvonton.


If astronomers have roughly identified eight of ten major sectors, I would certainly define this as earned knowledge. In the interest of reducing confusion and transiently clarifying knowledge, these eight should have been named. But instead were left open to interpretation and speculation.

Question: do the revelators properly define the cosmology terms used in the Urantia Papers? If TUB assigns a different meaning to "Milky Way Galaxy" than the one used at the time the FER was given, then it is the responsibility of the revelators to clearly define this meaning, especially when one considers the stated goals of revelation (1109-1110):

Quote:
Truth may be but relatively inspired, even though revelation is invariably a spiritual phenomenon. While statements with reference to cosmology are never inspired, such revelations are of immense value in that they at least transiently clarify knowledge by:

1. The reduction of confusion by the authoritative elimination of error.

2. The co-ordination of known or about-to-be-known facts and observations.

3. The restoration of important bits of lost knowledge concerning epochal transactions in the distant past.

4. The supplying of information which will fill in vital missing gaps in otherwise earned knowledge.

5. Presenting cosmic data in such a manner as to illuminate the spiritual teachings contained in the accompanying revelation.


re #1
How do the revelators reduce confusion by assigning different meaning to terms such as "Milky Way Galaxy" ? How do the revelators reduce confusion by interchanging terms such as "revolve" and "rotate" ? How do the revelators reduce confusion by assigning three different meanings to the area of the sky called "sagittarius" ?

re #2
Do the revelators make a clear and unambiguous distinction between known and about to be known facts in the presetation of this admittedly uninspired cosmology?

re #3
Does this apply to scientific knowledge given the goals and limitations of revelation?

re #4
Do the Urantia Papers clearly indicate when they are filling in the missing gaps?

re #5
How does leaving this so-called cosmic data open to interpretation and speculation illuminate the spiritual teachings in the accompanying revelation?

In your first post which starts this speculative thread, you state:

"Salvington – Headquarters of the Local Universe

Could be in fact located at the center of M31 spiral galaxy – the Andromeda Galaxy in Andromeda. The distance is 2.3 million light years. Together with other 30 or so galaxies (including our own Milky Way Galaxy) they constitute the Local Universe of Nebadon (in terms of modern science: the Local Galaxy Group) which is still under construction. This is where Christ Michael resides. (Note: Some sources claim that Salvington is located at the center of our galaxy.)"


and then you go on to state in the next post:

Just found this sentence in the UB:

p170:1 15:4.7
Quote:
There are not many sun-forming nebulae active in Orvonton at the present time, though Andromeda, which is outside the inhabited superuniverse, is very active.


Andromeda is uninhabited. This means it can not house Salvington.


I applaud your logic, but it would seem you have changed the direction of your speculation. I find it so amazing that each student of the Urantia Papers who attempts to understand the uninspired cosmology presented in the so-called Fifth Epochal Revelation arrives at different interpretations, speculations, and conclusions based on the same material. It is my position that this because the so-called science or cosmology was written by someone who does not have a clear understanding of the concepts they were attempting to elucidate, like when you, with due respect I-AM, stated the sun "rotated" around the center of the galaxy and asked if the sun "rotated" around any other celestial body. It's clear you meant "revolve" but confused the terms. I have neither the time nor the inclination to point out all the times in which the revelators have also confused terms, but it is clear to me that the revelators are mortals pretending to be divine; at least where the uninspired cosmology is concerned.

re sun-forming nebula:

The Orion Nebula (M42) is one such nearby sun-forming nebula. It seems possible that Orion is part of Orvonton, but since M42 and the stars of Orion are farther away from galactic center than our world, can we state with any certainty based on the uninspired cosmology of TUB that Orion is:

a) part of Satania
b) part of Norlatiadek
c) part of Nebadon
d) part of one of the eight identified major sectors
e) or part of the two unidentified major sectors?

If Jerusem was near Alnitak as you speculate, then Jerusem would be closer to the periphery of this galaxy than Urantia.
re Andromeda:

In the early twentieth century, Andromeda was thought to be about one-million light years distant. TUB mentions this. However, today the distance is estimated to be about 2.3 million light yrs as you mentioned. But stating that Andromeda is both uninhabited and an active star forming region (neither of which was known in the early 20th cen), is this:

a) the opinion of the revelator,
b) authoritative elimination of error by revealing unearned knowledge,
c) coordination of known or about to be known facts,
d) lost information of the distant past,
e) filling in missing gaps of earned knowledge, or
f) unsubstantiated data presented to illuminate the spiritual teachings of the accompanying revelation?

Good luck to you in the great cosmic easter egg hunt or wild goose chase!

Randy

p.s. To the best of my knowledge, the sun does not revolve around any other space body, according to modern science anyway. But many pseudo-scientific sources claim that it does. Are these unsubstantiated claims in agreement? They are not; which only serves to enhance confusion, division, separation, and conflict.

_________________
Anyone with a mind has an opinion and that opinion is a reflection of that mind.


Last edited by rhermen on Sat May 17, 2008 10:01 am +0000, edited 3 times in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: More stuff
PostPosted:  
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 12:21 pm +0000
Posts: 85
Hi Randy!

Please let us continue in this pondering.

Quote:
It's clear you meant "revolve" but confused the terms.


English is not my native language. Please have a mercy on me... :smile:

OK, so let me summarize some basic findings.

1) Urantia Book defines Andromeda as a nebula (15:4.7 and also 41:8.3) although in fact it is a spiral galaxy. This leads me to the following conclusion: Andronover nebula is the Milky Way Galaxy. Would you agree?

2) Because of our 'outer' position within the Milky Way Galaxy, we can not see a large portion of Orvonton simply because the highly dense center of our galaxy blocks the view. Would you agree?

3) If Andromeda is already outside of the occupied sphere this means that the entire Universe of Universes (consisting of seven superuniverses + Island of Paradise) forms merely a portion of the Local Group of Galaxies that comprises 30+ galaxies with Andromeda and Milky Way being the dominant ones. Would you agree?

4) Should this be true, one may say that the actually occupied space is 'ridiculously' small compared with how big the universe is. It is like having 1000 fish living in the Caspian Sea that has a potential of providing life to billions upon billions of fish. Would you agree?

5) I also believe that our sun revolves around the center of our galaxy only. I do not think that there exists any kind of sub-revolution within the individual galaxical arms. If so, it would seem that our galaxy revolves around something which is relatively close to us (200,000 ly), but which we can not see because it is behind the galaxy center that denies us the view. Would you agree?

6) If the Universe of Universes is such a 'small thing', in that case some of the close-by galaxies (belonging to the Local Group) may in fact be other Superuniverses! Would you agree?


Last edited by I-AM on Tue Nov 27, 2007 1:38 am +0000, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted:  
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 12:21 pm +0000
Posts: 85
rhermen wrote:
If Jerusem was near Alnitak as you speculate, then Jerusem would be closer to the periphery of this galaxy than Urantia.


I see no problem with that. Any regional capital has neighboring villages all around it. Some of those villages are inevitably closer to the national capital.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Mon May 31, 2004 10:33 am +0000
Posts: 748
Hi I-Am!

Quote:
Please let us continue in this pondering.


OK let’s do that! I said:

Quote:
It's clear you meant "revolve" but confused the terms.


you said:

Quote:
English is not my native language. Please have a mercy on me...


It was not my intent to disparage you or your English language skills. I apologize. Even those of us whose native language is English confuse terms like “rotate” and “revolve.” One would think that celestial beings of divine origin would know the difference, however, even though English probably isn’t their native language either.

Quote:
OK, so let me summarize some basic findings.

1) Urantia Book defines Andromeda as a nebula (15:4.7 and also 41:8.3) although in fact it is a spiral galaxy. This leads me to the following conclusion: Andronover nebula is the Milky Way Galaxy. Would you agree?


In the first part of the twentieth century, astronomers were only just beginning to consider that some objects of space were outside of this galaxy. At that time, the term “nebula” was something of a generic term. Telescopes of that era did not have sufficient resolution to make out individual stars in nearby galaxies like Andromeda. It is quite possible that the Urantia Book uses the term “nebula” for this reason. Today modern astronomy uses different terms to describe different phenomena. It is possible that the entire Milky Way Galaxy was formed from what the astronomers of today would call a Molecular Cloud. It is also possible that such a Molecular Cloud could have been called “Andronover.”

Quote:
2) Because of our 'outer' position within the Milky Way Galaxy, we can not see a large portion of Orvonton simply because the highly dense center of our galaxy blocks the view. Would you agree?


Yes, indeed. From our perspective, the galactic center does obscure a large portion of what might lie behind the Milky Way. Whether this is part of Orvonton, it seems possible.

Quote:
3) If Andromeda is already outside of the occupied sphere this means that the entire Universe of Universes (consisting of seven superuniverses + Island of Paradise) forms merely a portion of the Local Group of Galaxies that comprises 30+ galaxies with Andromeda and Milky Way being the dominant ones. Would you agree?

4) Should this be true, one may say that the actually occupied space is 'ridiculously' small compared with how big the universe is. It is like having 1000 fish living in the Caspian Sea that has a potential of providing life to billions upon billions of fish. Would you agree?

5) I also believe that our sun revolves around the center of our galaxy only. I do not think that there exists any kind of sub-revolution within the individual galaxical arms. If so, it would seem that our galaxy revolves around something which is relatively close to us (200,000 ly), but which we can not see because it is behind the galaxy center that denies us the view. Would you agree?

6) If the Universe of Universes is such a 'small thing', in that case some of the close-by galaxies (belonging to the Local Group) may in fact be other Superuniverses! Would you agree?


I think that we need a point of reference to understand these things. This is why I state that the eight of ten major sectors of Orvonton should have been named by the revelators. Instead it appears that one minor sector has been named.

I said:

Quote:
If Jerusem was near Alnitak as you speculate, then Jerusem would be closer to the periphery of this galaxy than Urantia.


you answered:

Quote:
I see no problem with that. Any regional capital has neighboring villages all around it. Some of those villages are inevitably closer to the national capital.


At the very end of paper 41, the Archangel in collaboration with the Chief of Nebadon Power Centers states:

Quote:
Urantia is comparatively isolated on the outskirts of Satania, your solar system, with one exception, being the farthest removed from Jerusem, while Satania itself is next to the outermost system of Norlatiadek, and this constellation is now traversing the outer fringe of Nebadon. You were truly among the least of all creation until Michael's bestowal elevated your planet to a position of honor and great universe interest. Sometimes the last is first, while truly the least becomes greatest.


Without a point of reference, such assertions have little meaning. From paper 41 using the term “Sagittarius”:

Quote:
Such is the constitution of the local star cloud of Nebadon, which today swings in an increasingly settled orbit about the Sagittarius center of that minor sector of Orvonton to which our local creation belongs.


This could imply that the Milky Way is a minor sector of Orvonton and that Nebadon is part of the Milky Way. From paper 15 also using the term “Sagittarius”:

Quote:
The rotational center of your minor sector is situated far away in the enormous and dense star cloud of Sagittarius, around which your local universe and its associated creations all move, and from opposite sides of the vast Sagittarius subgalactic system you may observe two great streams of star clouds emerging in stupendous stellar coils.


This quote seems to imply that Ensa, capital of our minor sector, may be located at the gravitational center of the Milky Way Galaxy. But the Milky Way does not rotate as a unit. Rather the stars and associated creations, such as nebulas and star forming molecular clouds revolve around this gravitational center. The term "subgalactic system" is not a scientific term as far as I know, but may imply that there is more than has been "discovered" so far.

Quote:
The Sagittarius sector and all other sectors and divisions of Orvonton are in rotation around Uversa…


Again, the revelators have used “rotation” but mean “revolve” but it would seem that the Sagittarius [Minor] Sector is the only one identified within TUB.

Quote:
4. The swing of the local star cloud of Nebadon and its associated creations around the Sagittarius center of their minor sector.


This seems to imply that Nebadon is part of the Milky Way and that Nebadon revolves around the gravitational center of the Milky Way located in the area of the sky called “Sagittarius” from our perspective and that the Milky Way is a minor sector of Orvonton.

Quote:
5. The rotation of the one hundred minor sectors, including Sagittarius, about their major sector.


This could imply that there may be as many as one hundred self-contained island universes we call “galaxies” which revolve around a common center of gravity which the revelators call a major sector. There may be something on the other side of the Milky Way from our perspective which astronomers have yet to "discover." But the distances of 200,000 to 250,000 light years are too close to contain anything like one hundred galaxies. Even the diameter of the 30 or so members of the Local Group which you have mentioned may be as much as 5 million light years. But neither the term "major sector" or "minor sector" is clearly defined in the Urantia Papers from an unambiguous point of reference.

The term "Milky Way" is mentioned seven times in TUB some of which have been mentioned in this thread. Maybe we can continue at some other time.

Randy

_________________
Anyone with a mind has an opinion and that opinion is a reflection of that mind.


Last edited by rhermen on Thu May 29, 2008 6:09 am +0000, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Minor Sector Theory
PostPosted:  
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 12:21 pm +0000
Posts: 85
Hi Randy!

OK, let's now assume that the center of our galaxy in Sagittarius is the center of our Minor Sector.

What does it mean?

15:3.7
Quote:
The Sagittarius sector and all other sectors and divisions of Orvonton are in rotation around Uversa, and some of the confusion of Urantian star observers arises out of the illusions and relative distortions produced by the following multiple revolutionary movements:

1. The revolution of Urantia around its sun.
2. The circuit of your solar system about the nucleus of the former Andronover nebula.
3. The rotation of the Andronover stellar family and the associated clusters about the composite rotation-gravity center of the star cloud of Nebadon.
4. The swing of the local star cloud of Nebadon and its associated creations around the Sagittarius center of their minor sector.
5. The rotation of the one hundred minor sectors, including Sagittarius, about their major sector.
6. The whirl of the ten major sectors, the so-called star drifts, about the Uversa headquarters of Orvonton.
7. The movement of Orvonton and six associated superuniverses around Paradise and Havona, the counterclockwise processional of the superuniverse space level.


Ad 1. There is no problem. Everything understood.
Ad 2. This suggests the 1st sub-revolution of our local system within our galactic arm. The former Andronover nebula as a minor portion of one of the galactic arms still preserving its rotation despite being now locked gravitationally to the galactic arm.
Ad 3. Nebadon seems to be a major portion of our galactic arm. This suggests the 2nd sub-revolution within our galactic arm. Pretty complicated to imagine.
Ad 4. There is no problem. Galactic arms and their components swing around the center of the Milky Way Galaxy.
Ad 5. Now we have a problem. Where are all those remaining 99 galaxies forming together 100 minor sectors? (Are the Magellanic Clouds two of them? It is now emerging that they are not satellite galaxies revolving around our own galaxy. Instead, their movement is independent. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magellanic_Clouds) Hence it is possible that the Milky Way, Large Magellanic Cloud and Small Magellanic Cloud are three minor sectors swinging around the major sector of Splandon!)
Ad 6. Beyond our current observations.
Ad 7. Beyond our current observations.

What do you think?

Image


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Mon May 31, 2004 10:33 am +0000
Posts: 748
I-AM,

Quote:
6. The whirl of the ten major sectors, the so-called star drifts, about the Uversa headquarters of Orvonton.


Image

What are so-called "star drifts" ? Could this be a reference to the galactic arms? I believe it is because this is what the galactic arms were called in the early 20th century. If it is then we need to understand that modern science does not teach that the galactic arms swing around galactic center. The galactic arms do not move, rotate, or revolve. They are density waves. Individual stars enter in one side and leave the other as they orbit galactic center. Most of the star forming regions of this galaxy are located in or near the major or minor arms of the galaxy. So if the entire galaxy is a minor sector as some quotes seem to imply, then how can the galactic arms whirl about the Uversa HQ of Orvonton?

Randy

_________________
Anyone with a mind has an opinion and that opinion is a reflection of that mind.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted:  
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 12:21 pm +0000
Posts: 85
rhermen wrote:
So if the entire galaxy is a minor sector as some quotes seem to imply, then how can the galactic arms whirl about the Uversa HQ of Orvonton?


They can. Together with their minor and major sector.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Nebadon
PostPosted:  
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 12:21 pm +0000
Posts: 85
Randy,

What if what the UB calls the Local Universe of Nebadon is actually what the science calls the Local Arm, the Orion Arm (the Local Spur)?

Or a portion thereof.

What would you say to that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_arm

Image

My point is this.

The Milky Way Galaxy is a barred spiral galaxy that could easily look this one (NGC 1672):

Image

I can very much imagine this being a minor sector consisting of 100 local universes (basically, globular clusters and other space bodies forming the galaxy).

Also, as was recently the case with Andromeda (its size was increased from 70,000 ly to 220,000 ly thanks to new measurements), the actual size of Milky Way Galaxy is probably not 100,000 ly but at least 160,000 ly as some of the major arms probably stretch much further into the space.

Should this be the case, it would be pretty safe to say that the small sub-arm, the Orion Arm, represents about 1/100th of our galaxy, i.e. it is one of the one hundred local universes forming the minor sector.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Mon May 31, 2004 10:33 am +0000
Posts: 748
I-Am,

Or we could interpret each of the major arms as being a major sector. Eight of the ten major sectors being roughly identified by Urantian Astronomers. The other two arms being on the other side of the galaxy hidden by the core...

Image

pg 167:

Quote:
Practically all of the starry realms visible to the naked eye on Urantia belong to the seventh section of the grand universe, the superuniverse of Orvonton. The vast Milky Way starry system represents the central nucleus of Orvonton, being largely beyond the borders of your local universe. This great aggregation of suns, dark islands of space, double stars, globular clusters, star clouds, spiral and other nebulae, together with myriads of individual planets, forms a watchlike, elongated-circular grouping of about one seventh of the inhabited evolutionary universes.



Quote:
Of the ten major divisions of Orvonton, eight have been roughly identified by Urantian astronomers. The other two are difficult of separate recognition because you are obliged to view these phenomena from the inside. If you could look upon the superuniverse of Orvonton from a position far-distant in space, you would immediately recognize the ten major sectors of the seventh galaxy.


Taken together these quotes would imply that the Milky Way is not a minor sector but rather it is most of Orvonton and that Uversa is located at the center of the Milky Way. If we could view the entire galaxy from a point far distant in space, we might see ten major galactic arms and a diameter much greater than 160,000 light years. Maybe as much as 500,000 ly. We could also interpret the Sagittarius Arm and the Perseus Arm as being two of the major sectors we are inside. The Orion Arm is not a major spiral arm, but only an enhancement of stars and gas between the Sagittarius and Perseus arms. The sun is currently entering the Orion Arm and will one day leave the Orion Arm as it revolves around galactic center on its way to enter the Perseus Arm at some time in the distant future as it left the Sagittarius Arm sometime in the distant past. Regarding the Orion Arm, I have some speculation of my own which I call House Cleaning.


Image

Given this interpretation, the Orion Arm, and something astronomers call Gould's Belt (not to be confused with Orion's Belt) might contain much of Satania. Perhaps, given this interpretation, the star Alpha Centauri cluld be the most distant from Jerusem but still part of Satania.

Image

If anything, the LMC and SMC could be considered sub-galactic systems. I know of one pseudo-scientific source which makes the unsubstantiated claim that the Melchizedek Worlds are located in the LMC. From our perspective, the Sagittarius Dwarf Elliptical Galaxy is located on the other side of the galactic core.

Image

And the rest of the Local Group mostly unihabited.

Randy

p.s. please note I have "borrowed" these pictures and diagrams from www.atlasoftheuniverse.com and www.solstation.com

_________________
Anyone with a mind has an opinion and that opinion is a reflection of that mind.


Last edited by rhermen on Sat May 17, 2008 10:03 am +0000, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted:  
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 12:21 pm +0000
Posts: 85
Hi Randy.

Your version (Milky Way Galaxy = Orvonton) is indeed one of the viable options.

It IS supported by several passages found in the UB. Nevertheless, it also runs into many troubles.

You may place the Uversa to the center of this galaxy and say that this galaxy has ten major arms which represent ten major sectors.

But then you start running into troubles as you have to divide these arms into 100 units (minor sectors) which must revolve around the given arm's center.

Now, considering how all those galactic arms are mutually interwoven into each other (they are basically parabola-like curves placed next to each other) I can hardly imagine any suns located at the end of any arm revolve around the center of the given arm. That would require individual stars penetrating deep into the neighboring arms on their path around the given arm's center.

Plus, also, you would then need once again divide 1/100th of the arm (minor sector) by 100 to get to the level of local universes (which must also revolve around one of 100 centers of the given arm).

It is possible, indeed. But even harder to imagine.

Anyway. There is a German guy who successfully created the image of the entire sky by travelling around the globe and stitching multiple images together.

His site is found at: http://home.arcor-online.de/axel.mellinger/

And this is his astonishing view of the Milky Way Galaxy (360-degree view of the sky). In the middle is that fateful Saggitarius center about which we do not know too much:

http://home.arcor-online.de/axel.mellinger/images/mwpan_aitoff_s.jpg

Now tell me what were are looking at... :smile: :smile: :smile:

Nebadon?
Minor Sector?
Major Sector?
Orvonton?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted:  
Offline

Joined: Mon May 31, 2004 10:33 am +0000
Posts: 748
I-AM,

you ask,

Quote:
Now tell me what were are looking at...

Nebadon?
Minor Sector?
Major Sector?
Orvonton?


revelators stated goal #1
Quote:
1. The reduction of confusion by the authoritative elimination of error.


you state:
Quote:
Your version (Milky Way Galaxy = Orvonton) is indeed one of the viable options.


Not my version. I have given two different interpretations of the text you suggested we start with.



you also state:

Quote:
It IS supported by several passages found in the UB. Nevertheless, it also runs into many troubles.


All the interpretations run into trouble at some point, which is precisely WHY I call this a cosmic easter egg hunt or a wild goose chase. (although some are more ingenious than others.) If the revelators truly wished to reduce confusion by authoritative elimination of error, we would be able to assign terms given in the uninspired cosmology to observed celestial objects. We would know the approximate distances and we would not have to imagine, speculate, or interpret. There would be no troubles, we would know what we're looking at.

Image

Again, I think that we need an unambiguous point of reference to understand these things. This is why I state that the eight of ten major sectors of Orvonton should have been named by the revelators.

Image

This is a map of the most luminous stars within 2000 light years. Every point on this map is an actual star listed in the Hipparcos catalog plotted onto the galactic plane. A total of 6481 stars are plotted and every one of them is more than a hundred times more luminous than the Sun. This is a fairly rough map because although the Hipparcos catalog contains the most accurate star distances available, the errors start to become large beyond 800 light years and some of these stars may be plotted a few hundred light years from their true position. The structure of the Orion Arm appears clearly though - the density of these stars drops considerably towards the top and the bottom of this map, and the three major star associations within 2000 light years are also prominant. These are regions of hot, white stars, for example the Scorpius-Centaurus Association contains many of the brightest stars in the constellations of Scorpius, Lupus, Centaurus and Crux. The major star clusters and nebulae have also been plotted onto this map.

the Deep Sky picture comes from the link you have provided:

http://home.arcor-online.de/axel.mellin ... toff_s.jpg

the map of the Orion Arm may be found here:

http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/2000lys.html

A few more interpretations may be found at these locations, if you're interested.

From Truthbook's history, science, and evolution homepage:

http://www.truthbook.com/index.cfm?linkID=6

The Architecture of the Universe and the Urantia Book
by Frederick L. Beckner

http://www.squarecircles.com/PDFFILES/A ... rse,v2.pdf

STARS, GALAXIES, SUPERUNIVERSES and THE URANTIA BOOK

by Frederick L. Beckner

http://www.squarecircles.com/articles/b ... laxies.htm

Is the Milky Way Orvonton?
Dan Massey
April 1979

http://urantiabook.org/archive/science/milkyway.htm



best wishes,

Randy

_________________
Anyone with a mind has an opinion and that opinion is a reflection of that mind.


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 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours


Who is online

Registered users: Google [Bot]


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:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group