Wed Jun 27, 2007 12:53 am +0000
The Coming Scientific Validation of the Urantia Book
Phenomena correctly described in The Urantia Book: Probability Estimate
Evolution is true but no "missing link" exists; Piltdown man is a hoax: ≤ 1/50
Pangaea, floating continents drifted, formed mountains when obstructed ≤ 1/40
Injured cells secrete chemicals stimulating proliferation of nearby cells: ≤ 1/50
"No less than 375 million" new galaxies will be seen: ≤ 1/100
"Walls" (actually rings) of galaxies are separated by huge voids: ≤ 1/100
Stronger telescopes will see huge red shifts of more than 30,000 mi/sec: ≤ 1/5
Galaxies spin fast; dark matter keeps them together: ≤ 1/5
Neutrinos exist and have mass ≤ 1/4
So given human authorship of the Urantia Book, the combined probability of all of these happening by chance (or by generally following the contemporary scientific beliefs) is
≤ 1/100,000,000,000 = less than 1 chance in 100 billion,
a very unlikely event! Many other examples exist reducing this probability even more. Some estimates might be raised and some lowered, but the result will be the same, an event with very small probability given human authorship.
Superhuman Authorship. A sequence of likely pitfalls and unpopular positions and other positions can hardly ALL turn out well without superhuman authorship. There are no obvious systematic scientific blunders even though it takes some initially implausible positions. On the other hand given superhuman authorship all this becomes likely. Therefore the Urantia Book had superhuman authors.
The reason that I, a scientist, and as a scientist, believe the science of The Urantia Book and so the authenticity of The Urantia Book as divine revelation to our world is because of its humanly improbable avoidance of systematic error and the meandering convergence over the years by contemporary science to implausible positions taken by the Urantia Book authors.
Scientific & Spiritual Value of The Urantia Book. It has become fashionable in some Urantian publications to regularly warn readers that the science and cosmology is "not inspired", but instead "transient" and has "errors on its face", and even that it supposedly represents only the best of 20th century science, which is already, after a "few short years", in need of revision. To justify such supposed errors it has even been suggested that superhuman authors purposely wrote known scientific falsehoods (not just imprecise statements) so that the Urantia Book would not become a fetish!!
This shows just how far wrong logic can go when based on a false premise, namely that there are large numbers of errors already apparent in the cosmology of the Urantia Book. But the Urantia Book precludes such faulty interpretations when it says that these self-qualifications of the cosmology of the Urantia Book do not prevent it from being of "immense value" [p.1109],
a) Immense value in reducing confusion by an authoritative elimination of error,
b) Immense value in co-ordination of known or about-to-be-known facts and observations,
c) Immense value in the restoration of important bits of lost knowledge concerning epochal transactions in the distant past,
d) Immense value in supplying information that will fill in vital missing gaps in otherwise earned knowledge,
e) Immense value by presenting cosmic data in such a manner as to illuminate the spiritual teachings contained in the accompanying revelation [p.1109]
This immense value of the cosmology of the UB cannot be quickly appropriated until scientists in sufficient numbers take the Urantia Book seriously. Nor would it really be of immense value were it to be superseded by contemporary scientists in a few short years without their ever consulting it. That would mean instead that it was of little value to our scientists. As it is, even in 2005 this immensely valuable cosmology from the 1955 Urantia Book remains largely unrecognized and unrealized by contemporary science.
Wed Jun 27, 2007 11:42 pm +0000
Thu Jun 28, 2007 12:23 am +0000
Thu Jun 28, 2007 1:26 am +0000
The fact that the Milky Way is seen in the sky at an angle has always puzzled astronomers. If we originated from the Milky Way, we ought to be oriented to the galaxy's ecliptic, with the planets aligned around our Sun in much the same angle as our Sun aligns with the Milky Way. Instead, the angle suggests that our Sun is influenced by some other system. Now we know what it is. We actually belong to the Sagittarius Dwarf galaxy.
Is the Milky Way Orvonton?
On p. 167 we are told "the vast Milky Way starry system represents the central nucleus of Orvonton..." therefore, there must be some of Orvonton which is not in the Milky Way. We are told that they include in this reference "...globular clusters, star clouds, spiral and other nebulae..."
First, then, the authors of the Book mean "Milky Way" to refer to a visual phenomenon of light in the sky. This is the original meaning of the term "galaxy." In recent years, with the growing dominance of the theory of Hubble that the spiral nebulae are extragalactic bodies, astronomers have ceased to classify the "spiral nebulae" as part of the Milky Way, and assumed they are located far outside. (Of course, many are located in other parts of the sky)
In recent years, radio astronomy has been applied to mapping "our galaxy." This has been found to be a sort-of spiral nebula looking object, about 30,000 light years in radius, centered on an enormously brilliant radio source in the constellation Saggitarius. This description is generally consistent with the expected size and center of our Minor Sector, Ensa, on whose headquarters worlds are "the vast reserves of the physical controllers..." (p.325). On page 168 we are told "the rotational center of your minor sector is ...in...Saggitarius...and from opposite sides of the vast...system you may observe two great streams of star clouds..." These streams have been observed and mapped. Conventional astronomy associates them with the "spiral arms of our galaxy."
Ensa is 1/1000th of Orvonton, therefore it is about 1/10th the radius and 1/10th the thickness of Orvonton (cubic volume varies as the cube of the change in linear measure). If Ensa is 30,000 light-years in radius, then Orvonton is about 300,000 light-years in radius. On p. 359 we are told that it is 250,000 light-years from the outermost inhabited worlds of Orvonton to Uversa, at the enter of the superuniverse.
There are, indeed, thousands of objects the size of the "Milky Way spiral nebula" in the sky. There are 1,000 in Orvonton, and an equal number in each of the other superuniverses. On p. 130 we are told that we will soon see "no less than 375 million new galaxies in the remote stretches of outer space." The most extensive survey of galaxies to date suggests there are about ten million visible out to 2,800 million light-years (see "The Clustering of Galaxies," in Scientific American, November 1977, p. 76 for more on galactic surveys and estimated distributions, but some of the inferences may not be correct).
If the Milky way nominally contains 100 billion suns, this is not inconsistent with the idea that it corresponds to Ensa, with 1 billion inhabited planets.
The terms "nebula" and "galaxy" seem destined to cause confusion. When man first started to catalog the fuzzy splotches he could see in the sky with the unaided eye and with crude telescopes, they were called "nebulae," or "clouds" in Latin. The Milky Way, on the other hand, was visually special and got the specific name "galaxy," from "milk" in Greek. (I am uncertain whether the Greeks may have called it this themselves.) These were simple observational facts, like "angina pectoris" starting out as a "pain in the chest." Like angina, the meanings attached to the words have evolved with man's growing information about the world around him.
Eventually, better telescopes disclosed that some of the "nebulae" were made of individual stars, while others could not be resolved into stars. The closest of the ones which seemed to be made of stars had a certain range of regular structure, ranging from the globular to the spiral, so it was assumed that all objects of these shapes in the sky were made up of many stars, whether the individual stars could be seen or not. Since the biggest and best known fuzzy splotch of stars already had the specific name "galaxy" attached to it, this name was taken as the generic name for all the fuzzy splotches which were either obviously made of stars, or matched one of the related globular-to-spiral shapes at least some of which were known to be made up of stars. These then became the galaxies, while the rest of the nebulae continued undifferentiated as "nebulae."
Hubble drew a very famous diagram classifying the regular galaxies into ten groups (regular = globular-to-spiral). On the basis of some clever matching of the red shift in stellar spectra to the luminosity of certain variable stars of supposedly standard brightness (the Cepheid variables) Hubble founded a school of thought in cosmology which dominates present-day astronomy. He announced that the galaxies (in general) were extragalactic (outside the Milky Way). Of course, he seems to have been generally correct. It appears, however, that not all of the "galaxies" were outside the local region of space. In particular, Hubble and his many followers systematically ignored the effects of the galactic (Milky Way) mass on the propagation of light, which was predictable from the general theory of relativity.
Recent discoveries of quasars and other unusual objects have raised serious questions about the overall applicability of Hubble's discoveries to understanding cosmological questions. These objects appear to be receding from us at velocities near that of light. This seems most improbable, and recent work is beginning to provide us the theoretical basis for understanding in part how the red shift arises from non-cosmological sources. The fact remains that most of the "spiral nebulae" identified by Hubble as extragalactic are so; however, those which lie near the Milky Way or within [it] may not all be extragalactic. The effect of the mass of the Milky Way is to impart a red shift to the observed light. This mimics the effect of a high velocity of recession of a galaxy at great distance.
There are other effects which confound our attempt to locate galaxies in outer space by use of spectroscopic observations.
As for any overlap between the superuniverses, it seems clear to me that none is intended. A zone of quiet space separates the superuniverses from the first outer space level, and I speculate that some vacant area exists between the superuniverses. On p. 167 we are told "practically all of the starry realms visible to the naked eye on Urantia belong to the seventh section of the grand universe..." Clearly there are some which do not, but not many. These exceptions probably include some galaxies in outer space. They may also include parts of the sixth and first superuniverses, but it would be hard to be sure. We would have to look for something curious about 90 degrees along the plane of the Milky Way in either direction from Saggitarius. I don't know what we might find. The other superuniverses may be too far away to see. (or they may not, of course.)
Thu Jun 28, 2007 7:11 am +0000
Thu Jun 28, 2007 7:24 am +0000
Fri Jun 29, 2007 2:05 am +0000
Uncle Bill wrote:Joer, I've read the material you suggested and seen the beautiful digital image. Pretty amazing stuff.
So, as a species, we may not even know where home is. Neat.
This World of the Cross we are blessed to live on is plum full of mysteries.
I image our exact positioning in the heavens has meaning and value that we are utterly uncapable of grasping as yet.
What thrilling questions we will leave the next generations to consider.
Fri Jun 29, 2007 10:32 am +0000
Fri Jun 29, 2007 12:05 pm +0000
Sat Jun 30, 2007 9:24 am +0000
There exists a great cosmic gulf between matter and thought, and this gulf is immeasurably greater between material mind and spiritual love. Consciousness, much less self-consciousness, cannot be explained by any theory of mechanistic electronic association or materialistic energy phenomena.
As mind pursues reality to its ultimate analysis, matter vanishes to the material senses but may still remain real to mind. When spiritual insight pursues that reality which remains after the disappearance of matter and pursues it to an ultimate analysis, it vanishes to mind, but the insight of spirit can still perceive cosmic realities and supreme values of a spiritual nature. Accordingly does science give way to philosophy, while philosophy must surrender to the conclusions inherent in genuine spiritual experience. Thinking surrenders to wisdom, and wisdom is lost in enlightened and reflective worship.
In science the human self observes the material world; philosophy is the observation of this observation of the material world; religion, true spiritual experience, is the experiential realization of the cosmic reality of the observation of the observation of all this relative synthesis of the energy materials of time and space. To build a philosophy of the universe on an exclusive materialism is to ignore the fact that all things material are initially conceived as real in the experience of human consciousness. The observer cannot be the thing observed; evaluation demands some degree of transcendence of the thing which is evaluated.
In time, thinking leads to wisdom and wisdom leads to worship; in eternity, worship leads to wisdom, and wisdom eventuates in the finality of thought.
Sat Jun 30, 2007 11:48 am +0000
Sat Jun 30, 2007 1:22 pm +0000
At some point in the evolution of the Akashic reader, however, a state of unification and awareness can be achieved whereby even the future responses are known with absolute clarity instead of only as a probability.
P1008:2, 92:4.9 5….But no revelation short of the attainment of the Universal Father can ever be complete. All other celestial ministrations are no more than partial, transient, and practically adapted to local conditions in time and space.
To build a philosophy of the universe on an exclusive materialism is to ignore the fact that all things material are initially conceived as real in the experience of human consciousness. The observer cannot be the thing observed; evaluation demands some degree of transcendence of the thing which is evaluated.
and maybe someday science will understand that all we observe is an aspect of consciousness, but not necessarily personality.
Tue Jul 10, 2007 6:43 am +0000
Tue Jul 10, 2007 10:32 am +0000
Thu Jul 12, 2007 8:30 am +0000