Switch to full style
An open forum for general discussions of a spiritual nature where guests and readers entertain the teachings of The Urantia Book.
Topic locked

mercury an error?

Sun Jan 29, 2006 12:12 am +0000

i noticed one sticking point for critics is the part in UB that claims that the planet mercury maintains a homogeneous orbit wiht the sun, or that it keeps the same side faceing the sun at all times. this same type orbit is witnessed in the moon's relationship with earth. ive read in science journals that the homogeneous orbit is the natural destiny for all moons and planets that maintain thier orbits for the duration of thier lifecycles. this might suggest that the moon has been orbiting the earth longer then the earth has orbited the sun, but i wonder. the point i want to make to critics is, just because mercury now has a slight rotation doesn't mean that mercury didn't have a homogeneous orbit at the time of revelation. in 1932 telescopes would not have been aware of anykind of celetial event that might have altered mercurys orbit. im reminded of the shoemaker-levey comet that struck jupider in 1997. such an impact, or even a much lesser event, verywell could of altered mercurys homogeneous obit and jump started the slight rotation we witness today. if this hypothetical event had happend in the early 40's or 50's i seriouly doubt that astrominers would have been aware of it happening, this would be especially true if it took place while murcury was on the far side of the sun in relationship with earth. bottom line is, just because our science doesn't conferm UB on everypoint doesn't denote anykind of flaw in either, just a misinterpretation or misrepresentation of the data. i've found through personal revelations explantions for eash of the scientific argument againt UB, each accusation is based on nothing more then a limited vision. if anyone has anyother ideas or revelations on the so called scientific errors of UB, such as the number of DNA chromasomes or maximum atomic wieght of elements, plz post them here.

Sun Jan 29, 2006 11:57 pm +0000

Thanks Razeroth, Welcome to the forum.

Arcfixer or Rhermen might have some interesting comments for you on Mercury.

Take a look at Skeptics Corner, Space the final frontier. You migh enjoy some of the posts there and maybe like to leave a comment.
God Bless you Brother! :smile: Enjoy!

Tue Feb 07, 2006 8:42 am +0000

Yes, welcome Razeroth!

"i noticed one sticking point for critics is the part in UB that claims that the planet mercury maintains a homogeneous orbit wiht the sun, or that it keeps the same side faceing the sun at all times."

The term is synchronous orbit. This point you have brought up is but one of the many sticking points within the so-called science of TUB.

"im reminded of the shoemaker-levey comet that struck jupider in 1997."

Actually this happened in 1994 and remains one of the most observed and studied astronomical events to have occured in our modern times.

"such an impact, or even a much lesser event, verywell could of altered mercurys homogeneous obit and jump started the slight rotation we witness today."

Interesting hypothesis. Here's a link to an article from Space.com that some may find interesting.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/0 ... d_run.html

Of course any such impact with a planetary body of sufficient mass and kinetic energy to jump start the rotation of Mercury would have left considerable evidence in the form of a huge, fresh impact crater which most likely would have been observed by radar mapping missions, if it were to have happened subsequent to the printing of TUB.

"just a misinterpretation or misrepresentation of the data."

I agree. Especially when one attempts to make reality conform to personal expectations. We all make mistakes, Razeroth. Myself included. And the errors of TUB show that the "revelators" have a human side.

I believe in and worship only the Universal Father. To believe in or worship a book or a revelator is to short circuit the Universal Power Grid.

Randy

Tue Feb 07, 2006 9:10 pm +0000

Hi Razeroth,
I would like to give my thoughts on mercury. The UB states "The planets nearest the sun were the first to have their revolutions slowed down by tidal friction. Such gravitational influences also contribute to the stabilization of planetary orbits while acting as a brake on the rate of planetary-axial revolution, causing a planet to revolve ever slower until axial revolution ceases, leaving one hemisphere of the planet always turned toward the sun or larger body, as is illustrated by the planet Mercury and by the moon, which always turns the same face toward Urantia."

I think that when the UB states "a planet to revolve ever slower until axial revolution ceases...as is illustrated by the planet Mercury" means Mercury is slowing down but has not yet locked a side towards the sun yet. This does match science. When the UB finishes the paragraph with "and by the moon, which always turns the same face toward Urantia" I believe only the moon was to be correlated to the "always turns the same face". This also agrees with science. I believe the interpretation can be confusing since both facts are mentioned in one long sentence.

Hope this helps.
Quantumkid

Wed Feb 08, 2006 10:11 am +0000

Quantumkid,

I'm not aware that modern science teaches that the rotational rate of Mercury is slowing down...only that the ratio of revolution to rotation is 2:3 Are you jumping to conclusions?

re 24th pair of chromosomes: Here's a link to a thread on the Urantia Board some might find interesting.

http://www.theurantiaboard.com/forums/s ... php?t=2540

Wed Feb 08, 2006 9:53 pm +0000

I agree with Quantum... here is a like interpretation by Dr. Ken Glasziou written in a series of articles published on urantiabook.org,

"Ever since it was discovered that the planet Mercury is still slowly rotating (period of axial revolution is 58.7 days), readers of the Urantia Papers have entered into a polemic about whether the statement on page 657 is, or is not, an error. An answer to that is that the statement may be ambiguous, capable of being taken in several different ways. One way is "...causing a planet to revolve ever slower {as is the case with the planet Mercury}, until axial revolution ceases leaving one hemisphere always turned towards the larger body as is illustrated by the moon which always turns the same face towards Urantia." Without further evidence, there is no way to reach a conclusion that would be satisfatory to everyone. Hence it must be left to individual readers to draw their own conclusion."

What's the problem?

Mon Mar 06, 2006 1:39 am +0000

Even if The URANTIA Book is wrong with respect to Mercury, so what? "Any cosmology presented as a part of revealed religion is destined to be outgrown in a very short time. Accordingly, future students of such a revelation are tempted to discard any element of genuine religious truth it may contain because they discover errors on the face of the associated cosmologies therein presented." (P. 1109)

Chromosomes

Thu Mar 09, 2006 9:40 pm +0000

Rhermen,

This is from your posting on Urantia Board:

The Orvonton life patterns are configured as twelve inheritance carriers. The differing orders of will creatures are configured as 12, 24, 48, 96, 192, 384, and 768. On Urantia there are forty-eight units of pattern control--trait determiners--in the sex cells of human reproduction.

As far as I understand it, each human has 46 chromosomes (44 genetic factors and 2 sex determinants (xx or xy) ) When humans mate and a new human is created, the new person takes 23 from each parent for a total of 46. This is according to information I looked at on the Human Genome Project Website. Basically, there are a total of 48 units of pattern control. Chromosomes 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,x,y would make a male human.
Chromosomes 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12.13.14.15.16.17.18.19.20.21.22.x.x would make a female human.
If you look at it linearly like this, there are 48 units. However, when they pair up, there are only 23 pairs because the two sex genes form one pair and determine the sex of the child. Does that make sense to anybody besides me?

Also, has anybody ever heard of Drunvalo Melchizedek? He has something to say about 46 + 2 in this interview:

http://www.v-j-enterprises.com/drunledg.html

Ben

Mon Mar 13, 2006 12:18 pm +0000

"in the sex cells of human reproduction." Counting one pair twice does seem to be a way to make our understanding of reality fit TUB. But it also seems that the 48 trait determiners might be within the twenty-third pair.

http://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/media/chrom-body.html

Mon Mar 13, 2006 6:49 pm +0000

It is an interesting subject isn't it? When you look at a diagram like the PBS link you sent, it does seem to show that there are 24 chromosomes and you always hear scientists say the "x chromosome or the y chromosome", but when I asked my pathophysiology teacher about it, he said there are only 23. He said that the x and y are counted as 1 chromosome. It doesn't make sense to me but that's what he said.

Tue Mar 14, 2006 7:49 am +0000

Y - ? :shock:

Tue Mar 14, 2006 1:09 pm +0000

I don't know which source to place my faith on in strict regards to the number of chromosomes we have: Urantia or Today's Science.

But, most humbly, I submit that I have one more chromosome than you. :roll:




-----------
We're making progress. Things are getting worse at a slower rate.

Tue Mar 14, 2006 6:00 pm +0000

Tramp Swan said, "I don't know which source to place my faith on in strict regards to the number of chromosomes we have: Urantia or Today's Science."

I'll stick with the UB perspective. After all, they were right about the number of planets in our solar system.
Topic locked