Science of the Urantia Book

graybear13
Posts: 203
Joined: Sat May 16, 2009 10:45 am
antispam: human non-spammer
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 50

Science of the Urantia Book

Postby graybear13 » Sun Mar 02, 2014 9:49 am

"Mathematics, material science, is indispensable to the intelligent discussion of the material aspects of the universe, but such knowledge is not necessarily a part of the higher realization of truth or of the personal appreciation of spiritual realities. Not only in the realms of life but even in the world of physical energy, the sum of two or more things is very often something more than, or something different from, the predictable additive consequences of such unions. The entire science of mathematics , the whole domain of philosophy, the highest physics or chemistry, could not predict or know that the union of two gaseous hydrogen atoms with one gaseous oxygen atom would result in a new and qualitatively superadditive substance - liquid water. The understanding knowledge of this one physiochemical phenomenon should have prevented the development of materialistic philosophy and mechanistic cosmology." (Materialism - The philosophical theory that physical matter in it's movements and modifications is the only reality and that everything in the universe, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of physical law.)

"Technical analysis does not reveal what a person or thing can do. For example: water is used effectively to extinguish fire. That water will put out fire is a fact of everyday experience, but no analysis of water could ever be made to disclose such a property. Analysis determines that water is composed of hydrogen and oxygen; a further study of these elements discloses that oxygen is the real supporter of combustion and that hydrogen will itself freely burn."

regards gray

User avatar
Savonarola
Mod@Large
Posts: 1474
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 10:11 pm
antispam: human non-spammer
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 50
Location: NW Arkansas

Re: Science of the Urantia Book

Postby Savonarola » Sun Mar 02, 2014 12:28 pm

graybear13 wrote:The entire science of mathematics , the whole domain of philosophy, the highest physics or chemistry, could not predict or know that the union of two gaseous hydrogen atoms with one gaseous oxygen atom would result in a new and qualitatively superadditive substance - liquid water.
Just no. Good god, shut up when you don't know what the hell you're talking about.
Chemistry didn't predict water's bonding scheme only because we determined water's bonding scheme before we derived the mechanism. Now that we know the mechanism, we CAN and DO predict how bonding will take place. We've now gotten the heavy noble gases to bond precisely because we know how to manipulate the system to induce bonding.
Furthermore, there is no chemical meaning whatsoever to the blustery "new and qualitatively superadditive" label. Chemical properties are not additive. See below.

graybear13 wrote:... water is used effectively to extinguish fire. That water will put out fire is a fact of everyday experience, but no analysis of water could ever be made to disclose such a property.
Bullshit. Water has a high specific heat capacity, so adding it to fire absorbs heat and reduces the energy of the fuel molecules such that they no longer possess the activation energy required for the combustion process. Demonstrating the heat capacity of water is a secondary school activity. When you say that "no analysis of water could ever be made to disclose" its ability to put out a fire, you're just wrong. All we have to do is measure the specific heat capacity. Your statement is terribly, blatantly, stupidly wrong.

graybear13 wrote:a further study of these elements discloses that oxygen is the real supporter of combustion and that hydrogen will itself freely burn.
And water is what you get when you burn hydrogen. It has already been burned; that's why it doesn't burn. Carbon dioxide is carbon that has been burned; it won't burn anymore and puts out fires by displacing oxygen gas. Properties of compounds (like water and carbon dioxide) are not totals of their constituent elements (hydrogen, carbon, oxygen). This is neither magic nor a mystery: it has to do with the distribution of electrons around the nuclei, even when multiple nuclei are present. We understand this, we understand this well, and we've understood this for a very long time now.

Do you want another example? Here's a fun one:
Sodium reacts violently with water. You're mostly water.
Chlorine gas is poisonous to you.
Sodium chloride, which is the product of reacting the two above substances, is essential for life.
Take this essential combination of sodium and chlorine and add oxygen -- which you also need to live -- and you get sodium hypochlorite, which is toxic.

Anyone who thinks that this somehow disproves materialism clearly doesn't understand chemistry. We can explain everything going on by referring to the particles involved.

Your thread is titled, "Science of the Urantia Book." If this is a sampling, then I'll be skipping the book. The "science" cited here is nothing of the sort. It's wronger than wrong. The stupidity is painful.

If you want to understand the universe around you, graybear, talk and listen to people who actually study the universe, not people who babble to New Agers and don't know the first damn thing about science.

User avatar
Doug
Posts: 3388
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 10:05 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville, AR
Contact:

Re: Science of the Urantia Book

Postby Doug » Sun Mar 02, 2014 8:57 pm

Savonarola wrote:If you want to understand the universe around you, graybear, talk and listen to people who actually study the universe, not people who babble to New Agers and don't know the first damn thing about science.


There's a good reason he won't take your advice, Sav.

Graybear doesn't believe he'd be able to understand the world as it really is. It's complicated, and it takes a lot of study. Many students study it and still fail these subjects in school (chemistry, physics, geology, etc.). It is a daunting task, especially once one is out of school.

New Age nonsense, on the other hand, is simple and can be grasped in its basic form by almost anyone. It's a bunch of slogans, and if you don't like the slogans they have, you can just make up your own. You can never be wrong. No one ever piled bullshit incorrectly.

So, faced with the choice between a hard, complex reality and an easy, simple pile of nonsense, he chooses the nonsense.

Unfortunately, this decision is not uncommon.
"We could have done something important Max. We could have fought child abuse or Republicans!" --Oona Hart (played by Victoria Foyt), in the 1995 movie "Last Summer in the Hamptons."

graybear13
Posts: 203
Joined: Sat May 16, 2009 10:45 am
antispam: human non-spammer
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 50

Re: Science of the Urantia Book

Postby graybear13 » Mon Mar 03, 2014 12:44 pm

I am sorry you fail to understand the lesson here. If a scientists, in 1915 (around the time that this paper was written) was given an unknown liquid substance (water) and he or she was asked if it could be used to put out a fire, after analysis of the substance, the answer would have been no.

Similarly, technical analysis of movements and changes in matter can never lead to a true understanding of how creation works. Quantum mechanics has been and still is an abject failure in this regard, it makes no sense to keep beating a dead horse. Take it from Nassim Harimein the focus should be on the proton and understanding how the 'strong force' works. If we can perceive and understand a geometric concept that will produce this force, it will lead to our ability to directly access zero point energy...unlimited clean energy.

"The charged protons and the uncharged neutrons of the nucleus of an atom are held together by the reciprocating function of the mesotron, a particle of matter 180 times as heavy as the electron. Without this arrangement the electric charge carried by the protons would be disruptive of the atomic nucleus...The mesotron explains certain cohesive properties of the atomic nucleus , but it does not account for the cohesion of proton to proton nor for the adhesion of neutron to neutron. The paradoxical and powerful force of atomic cohesive integrity is a form of energy as yet undiscovered on Urantia." TUB circa 1915

regards gray

User avatar
David Franks
Posts: 198
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2011 1:02 am
antispam: human non-spammer
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 50
Location: Outside Fayetteville, Arkansas

Re: Science of the Urantia Book

Postby David Franks » Mon Mar 03, 2014 1:15 pm

graybear13 wrote:I am sorry you fail to understand the lesson here. If a scientists, in 1915 (around the time that this paper was written) was given an unknown liquid substance (water) and he or she was asked if it could be used to put out a fire, after analysis of the substance, the answer would have been no.

What a silly premise. Even if the specific question had not been asked, a scientific analysis of water would begin with an investigation of its physical properties, which would include investigating its flammability. (Have you not ever noticed that basic chemical analysis includes burning samples of materials in order to see what color of flame and residue is produced?) Investigation would quickly determine that water is not flammable, and if it weren't immediately apparent, a little further investigation would show that water puts out most fires.

The fire-suppressing nature of water is more immediately apparent and more easily tested than the fact that its molecules are made op of a flammable gas and a gas that supports combustion.

But you're not a total loss. We can offer the aggregate of your posts in contradiction to the widely-accepted bromide that even a broken clock is right two times a day.
"Debating with a conservative is like cleaning up your dog's vomit: It is an inevitable consequence of your association, he isn't much help, and it makes very clear the fact that he will swallow anything."

User avatar
Savonarola
Mod@Large
Posts: 1474
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 10:11 pm
antispam: human non-spammer
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 50
Location: NW Arkansas

Re: Science of the Urantia Book

Postby Savonarola » Mon Mar 03, 2014 3:10 pm

graybear13 wrote:I am sorry you fail to understand the lesson here. If a scientists, in 1915 (around the time that this paper was written) was given an unknown liquid substance (water) and he or she was asked if it could be used to put out a fire, after analysis of the substance, the answer would have been no.
graybear, your assertion is simply wrong. Incorrect. 100% at odds with reality.

If someone had given a scientist a sample of water in 1915 and asked the scientist to determine whether the substance would put out fire without performing the actual experiment of trying to put out a fire with it, the scientist would have first tested its flammability and then measured the boiling point and specific heat capacity of the substance and determined that it would indeed put out a fire.

You're just wrong. Stop being wrong.

graybear13 wrote:... it will lead to our ability to directly access zero point energy...unlimited clean energy.
It is clear that you don't understand what zero point energy is.

graybear13 wrote:... TUB circa 1915
We've already shown you how moronic it is to accept any "science" from the Urantia book. I can fix your being misinformed, but can't fix your stupidity. You're on your own.

graybear13
Posts: 203
Joined: Sat May 16, 2009 10:45 am
antispam: human non-spammer
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 50

Re: Science of the Urantia Book

Postby graybear13 » Thu Apr 17, 2014 9:58 am

The explanation of the' strong force', having been skipped over by science, has left a big hole in quantum mechanics. What actually does hold the protons in the nucleus of an atom together? Here is a possible explanation.

"As atoms are constituted, neither electric nor gravitational forces could hold the nucleus together. The integrity of the nucleus is maintained by the reciprocal cohering function of the mesotron, which is able to hold charged and uncharged particles together because of superior force-mass power and by the further function of causing protons and neutrons constantly to change places. The mesotron causes the electric charge of the nuclear particles to be incessantly tossed back and forth between protons and neutrons. At one infinitesimal part of a second a given nuclear particle is a charged proton and the next an uncharged neutron. And these alternations of energy status are so unbelievably rapid that electric charge is deprived of all opportunity to function as a disruptive influence. Thus does the mesotron function as an "energy-carrier" particle which mightily contributes to the nuclear stability of the atom."

"The presence and function of the mesotron also explains another atomic riddle. When atoms perform radioactively, they emit far more energy than would be expected. This excess of radiation is derived from the breaking up of the mesotron "energy-carrier," which thereby becomes a mere electron. The mesotronic disintegration is also accompanied by the emission of certian small uncharged particles." (nutrinos?)

It is the dynamics of vortical action that forms the 'mesotron' which collapses into atomic ignition and the resonance we know as electromagnetism.

gray

graybear13
Posts: 203
Joined: Sat May 16, 2009 10:45 am
antispam: human non-spammer
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 50

Re: Science of the Urantia Book

Postby graybear13 » Mon Apr 28, 2014 11:46 am

In response to Art Hobson's comments in the Sunday paper, "The Creation Story: 'Big As It Gets', The Greatest story ever told".

Your sacred cow, the big bang theory of creation, may well be the greatest 'story' ever told. It's right up there with 'the dog ate my homework'. There is not one shred of proof connecting 'big bang' with any of the facts in evidence that have been stated. The mathematics begins with a' singularity' which cannot be defined and the LHC experiment that was going to provide proof of this nonsense has been a complete failure; no mathematical proof, no experimental proof....nothing but a big story to excuse the failure to complete your assignment. Find the 'God Particle'. That is your assignment and don't just tell me some story that sounds good and then say 'that's my story and I'm stickin' to it. That is poor science!

Science is looking for the 'God Particle' (mesotron) in the sub-nuclear realm when it is 180 times as heavy as the electron and exerts tremendous force on protons and neutrons to resonate inside of containment. It seems to me that when scientists collide atoms at high energy, the mesotron would be the first particle to completely disintegrate back to undefined clouds of ultimatons and therefore be undetectable by this method. It is unfortunate that science has this big albatross hanging around it's neck (big bang) and cannot move beyond it.

Research money should go to experiments that try to demonstrate the dynamics of vortical action...try to create a containment vessel; a series of concentric spheroidal vortexes collapsing in and pounding energy to the center.

The energy carrier, mesotron, is the most important revelation in TUB for our immediate survival. This is the key to accessing the unlimited 'zero point energy field' and having zero 'G' force at the surface of the earth.

gray

User avatar
Savonarola
Mod@Large
Posts: 1474
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 10:11 pm
antispam: human non-spammer
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 50
Location: NW Arkansas

Re: Science of the Urantia Book

Postby Savonarola » Mon Apr 28, 2014 9:04 pm

graybear13 wrote:There is not one shred of proof connecting 'big bang' with any of the facts in evidence that have been stated... nothing but a big story to excuse the failure to complete your assignment.

Hi gray,

You've already had a list of evidence that supports the big bang theory provided to you. Merely repeating yourself that there's no evidence for it makes you look like a loon.

CERN did find the Higgs boson with the LHC.

You don't know what you're talking about. Never have.

graybear13
Posts: 203
Joined: Sat May 16, 2009 10:45 am
antispam: human non-spammer
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 50

Re: Science of the Urantia Book

Postby graybear13 » Thu May 01, 2014 10:40 am

Hi Savonarola,

Actually I do know what I am talking about...and that would be, a logical alternative to 'big bang' as the source of creation.

I understand that you cannot think outside of your indoctrination into the 'big bang' ideology, but the 'Standard Model' is crying out for a new approach or new view of the facts in evidence. Yes there is a list of evidence that has been attributed to 'big bang' and all I am saying is that there is no 'PROOF' of any connection between factual evidence and 'big bang'. It's just a big story.

"Ultimatonic rays. The assembly of energy into the minute spheres of the ultimatons occasions vibrations in the content of space (microwave background radiation IMO) which are discernible and measurable. And long before physicists ever discover the ultimaton, they will undoubtedly detect the phenomena of these rays as they shower in upon Urantia. These short and powerful rays represent the initial activity of the ultimatons as they are slowed down to that point where they veer towards the electronic organization of matter. As the ultimatons aggregate into electrons condensation occurs with a consequent storage of energy."

I would equate the ultimaton with the elemental particle of emergent energy. It would seem that they aggregate into electrons through the vortical action of the energy carrier, mesotron(God Particle), which condenses and stores energy in the nucleus of the atom in the form of protons and neutrons. Mesotron is the glue that holds it all together.

"100 ultimatons per electron, 18000 ultimatons per mesotron."

regards gray

User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
Posts: 8168
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville
Contact:

Re: Science of the Urantia Book

Postby Dardedar » Sat May 03, 2014 9:21 pm

Yes Gray, but what do you think of this rebuttal?

The content of which veers towards the nucleus of the atom in the ultimaton, the ultimatons occurs with a content the physicists ever they short and powerful rays as the electron is the physicists ever towards the ultimatons as through they showerful rays represent energy in the vortical activity of the ultimaton, then the showerful rays as the glue the condensation occurs with a condensation of energy carrier, mesotrons they showerful rays as they are slowed down to the aggregate that point is thus.

(gibberish generator, set on 5) http://tee-2.com/design-gibberish.html
"I'm not a skeptic because I want to believe, I'm a skeptic because I want to know." --Michael Shermer

graybear13
Posts: 203
Joined: Sat May 16, 2009 10:45 am
antispam: human non-spammer
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 50

Re: Science of the Urantia Book

Postby graybear13 » Mon May 05, 2014 10:06 am

Dardedar wrote:Yes Gray, but what do you think of this rebuttal?


Hi Dardedar,

Not much. You?

I hope your not suggesting that what I am postulating here is gibberish.

It makes perfect sense in every way to put our energy into understanding how vortexes can interact with each other. Have two small EF5 tornadoes come together at their tips and see what happens...The structure of the mesotron will reveal itself.

regards gray

User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
Posts: 8168
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville
Contact:

Re: Science of the Urantia Book

Postby Dardedar » Mon May 05, 2014 11:23 pm

Obviously I think it's gibberish. The absurdity begins with the very title of the thread: "Science of the Urantia book"

I think anyone who thinks the Urantia book has anything to do with science, has sort of disqualified themselves from being taken seriously. I'm reminded of when a relative popped over and went on about "the science of Feng shui." This means, by definition, that she wasn't familiar with actual science at all. Just like you.
If you actually had knowledge of these issues, you could write your material up and get it accepted for publication among those with knowledge and expertise in this area. But you can't. Because:
a) you think the Urantia book has something to do with science (it doesn't), and
b) what you write appears to be gibberish.

The Urantia Book Spiritual Scam.
"I'm not a skeptic because I want to believe, I'm a skeptic because I want to know." --Michael Shermer

graybear13
Posts: 203
Joined: Sat May 16, 2009 10:45 am
antispam: human non-spammer
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 50

Re: Science of the Urantia Book

Postby graybear13 » Fri May 09, 2014 8:03 pm

Dardedar wrote:If you actually had knowledge of these issues, you could write your material up and get it accepted for publication among those with knowledge and expertise in this area. But you can't. Because:


That one's low and outside. :mrgreen:

Because: I am poorly educated and I don't have a clue how to write a technical paper; I am playing around with talking points here and if it upsets you then why worry about it? I am just practicing and seeing if I get a reaction.

I'm on a quest to understand the 'Theory of Everything' and I think I finally do.

Of course you are free to think what ever you want, but I don't understand why you say negative things against what I think. It's almost as if freethinking goes against free thought.

regards gray

User avatar
Savonarola
Mod@Large
Posts: 1474
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 10:11 pm
antispam: human non-spammer
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 50
Location: NW Arkansas

Re: Science of the Urantia Book

Postby Savonarola » Fri May 09, 2014 9:17 pm

graybear13 wrote:I'm on a quest to understand the 'Theory of Everything' and I think I finally do.
I'm not sure you understand the theory of anything at all.

graybear13 wrote:It's almost as if freethinking goes against free thought.
Freethinking is not "thinking whatever you want." You can -- and certainly do -- think whatever the hell you want, but freethinking uses evidence, logic, and reasoning to arrive at conclusions. You ignore evidence, logic, and reasoning and instead just make up shit that you throw all over. Untrained monkeys can do that.

User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
Posts: 8168
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville
Contact:

Re: Science of the Urantia Book

Postby Dardedar » Sun May 11, 2014 6:56 pm

graybear13 wrote: That one's low and outside.


I thought it was right in the balls actually, which is certainly low, but it was right where I was aiming.

Because: I am poorly educated and I don't have a clue how to write a technical paper;...


I have a high school education, so I am certainly not a snob about have degrees because it's not required for clear and reasoned thinking (I think Thomas Paine had six years of formal education).
When you first came on this board many years ago with your novel claims, I went to the trouble of presenting them to one of our resident physicists (Ph.D. physics, 1966). As I remember, in 2009 he put together a very short and reasonable request of basic questions to see if you had rudimentary competence of these concepts, some of them regarding scientific knowledge known by about 300 years ago (as I remember). This would show whether or not your material be worth listening to, or not. In 2011 I reminded you of this offer in this way:

Until Graybear responds to the very reasonable and basic background request Dr. Harter made of him on May 17, 2009, and thereby demonstrate at least a tiny flyspeck of knowledge on topics he pretends to have a working understanding of, I see no reason any of his mutterings on such advanced and specialized fields should be treated with any more time or respect than one would accord a person who would leap around in public while making farting noises by cupping their hand under their arm pit.


Your response to this in 2011 was: "Dr. Harter knows well that I am not trained in these things. That does not mean I don't understand their bottom line."

That you can't demonstrate rudimentary knowledge of these things, it strongly suggests that you don't understand these things, regardless of your education. We've seen this movie before.

I am playing around with talking points here and if it upsets you then why worry about it? I am just practicing and seeing if I get a reaction.


Right. So don't be disappointed that you get a reaction. I don't say these things to be intentionally rude and I certainly don't get upset about them. But I do find your claims to be world class ridiculous, so I point this out. That's my reaction.

Of course you are free to think what ever you want,


Thanks for your permission!

I don't understand why you say negative things against what I think.


To give you my honest reaction as you practice your points. The Urantia book isn't science, it's not even good New Age foo foo. It's just silly.
"I'm not a skeptic because I want to believe, I'm a skeptic because I want to know." --Michael Shermer


Return to “Science”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest