Cal the u.b is saying the light left those stars one million years ago, they are not giving its actual distance.
I agree the book is saying the light left those stars one million years ago. Scientists meanwhile say it left those stars 2.54 million years ago, so the disagreement is with them, not with me. I've looked at the research and I don't find any necessary reason to disbelieve their number on this point.
The u.b also explains how red shifts and other space phenomenon distort our measurements.
The UB explains that the exact method used to measure the distance to Andromeda by Edwin Hubble (and used with further precision with better modern technology since then) has the revelators seal of approval as accurate:
Paper 41, section 3: "In one group of variable stars the period of light fluctuation is directly dependent on luminosity, and knowledge of this fact enables astronomers to utilize such suns as universe lighthouses or accurate measuring points
for the further exploration of distant star clusters. By this technique it is possible to measure stellar distances most precisely
up to more than one million light-years
Andromeda wasn't measured with red shifts, it was measured with Cepheid variable stars just as described in Paper 41 above. Then it was measured in 3 other different ways scientists have creatively worked out, and all 4 independent techniques are in agreement about its distance. Andromeda isn't in deep space and the red shifts and rotational distortions aren't applicable. It's not far away from the Milky Way on the scale of the cosmos, and the mutual gravitational attraction of these two galaxies is leading them to drift closer
to each other, they're not expanding apart. Andromeda is blue shifted to us, not red shifted.
Notice also how the revelators carefully call the state-of-the-art measurement of the time -- the one million light years that then was the most anyone had measured -- as not the limit but that more than
that amount was going to be possible for precise measurements. In that way it was clear they were careful not to give unearned knowledge of what was going to become possible and be earned by scientists beyond the state of the art of the 1920s and 30s.
Paper 101, section 4 (a UB passage I'm sure many here know too): "While the historic facts and religious truths of this series of revelatory presentations will stand on the records of the ages to come, 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. These new developments we even now foresee, but we are forbidden to include such humanly undiscovered facts in the revelatory records.
... The cosmology of these revelations is not inspired.
Indeed within "a few short years" it was discovered that there was a second type of Cepheid variable that Edwin Hubble hadn't known about, and factoring this discovery in, it doubled the estimated distance to Andromeda, making it close to the modern estimate, which then became more fine tuned with extra developments and research to the point that there is a very well accepted number now with very low margin of error saying that the light we see from Andromeda left it 2.54 million years ago.
Scientists also have no idea how light is affected by dark matter and other space phenomenon.
Well, dark matter is called "dark matter" since it's not interacting directly with light at all -- not absorbing, emitting, reflecting, blocking it etc -- so that's why it has been dubbed "dark". And since the gravity it exerts nonetheless is detectable in how it helps bend light at galaxy clusters (among other gravitational effects), it is dubbed "matter" (though what that "stuff" is as opposed to baryonic matter isn't known). So, they do have two ideas about how light is affected by dark matter, and actually have defined the term itself from those two ideas.
Please provide us with a proven error in the u.b, to prove your point or don't bother.
The Andromeda distance is a quite simple and obvious proven error to my satisfaction. It's ok if it's not to your satisfaction.
But it would be quite illogical to then declare the rest of the cosmology inaccurate, eh? Which the big bang certainly would. Howard claims the theories of human science trump the revelation which gives far more credit to modern science than it asks for itself as most such theories have a short shelf life due to further advances in both technologies AND theories push aside or further refine existing theories.
I agree that the big bang model is problematic to reconcile against the UB's descriptions. But though Paradise-Havona is eternal, there definitely was a start to the rest of the universe at some point.
Paper 15 introduction: "Early in the materialization of the universal creation
the sevenfold scheme of the superuniverse organization and government was formulated. The first post-Havona creation
was divided into seven stupendous segments, and the headquarters worlds of these superuniverse governments were designed and constructed. The present scheme of administration has existed from near eternity, and the rulers of these seven superuniverses are rightly called Ancients of Days."
The UB describes that the very first personality entry at the dawn of this time from "near eternity" was the record of the creation of the Ancients of Days:
Paper 18, section 3: "The Ancients of Days were all trinitized at the same time. They represent the beginning of the personality records of the universe of universes, hence their name — Ancients of Days. When you reach Paradise and search the written records of the beginning of things, you will find that the first entry appearing in the personality section is the recital of the trinitization of these twenty-one Ancients of Days."
If I may step back and make a general comment.... As UB becomes more and more widely known it inevitably is going to be assessed against things like the big bang, and I think it's inevitable that some people are going to find both the big bang evidence convincing and the UB's teachings appealing, and have to come to their conclusions on what to do with those two directions of thought. Some will definitely take the route it seems you and others here propose and prefer, which is to not accept the big bang, assuming it will be replaced by something later that is more in line with TUB. But the big bang model has only gotten to its prominent and convincing perch among cosmologist scientists because of the evidence and its success in having its predictions born out by observations. Some UB-minded people are going to inevitably find the theory sensible and convincing for the same reason.
Me personally, I think it's fun to play around with the ideas and see where logic leads, but as far as life goes my main take away from the cosmology in the UB and the cosmology from current science is that both say it really is a big and old universe no matter how you look at it. This life is such a miniscule baby step in the grand scheme of the epochs before us where we'll have more clarity about these topics to our hearts content. So I'm not concerned especially in however people want to interpret it, but maybe that's just me.
This is a topic that interests me in particular. Why are we assuming that light 'particles' are traveling these distances? I am suggesting that photons travel only locally. The light we perceive and measure from far distant every sources are locally manifest from energy transmitted from excitation in the force-charge of space. There are no Andromeda photons between here and there. We see the photons produced locally when the wave energy from Andromeda excites local matter which we perceive and measure.
This however would then invalidate what the revelators say in the quote I give further above that measuring luminosity of variable stars is an accurate way to measure stellar distances. Also, there is much that is conceptionally problematic with this type of idea you give. Light is itself an electromagnetic wave. The "wave energy" from Andromeda you mention is
the light itself, there isn't a need to propose a theoretical different carrier wave energy form that blinks out of existance no longer being a photon when it's leaving Andromeda and then happens to reemerge as a photon locally right at the time it would need to be observed to be seen by us.