Urantia Book: Complications and Contradictions

[Majeston]

Majeston,

you have completely failed to address CraigD's central points:

a) the astronomical knowledge offered in the Urantia book was intended, at least in part, to demonstrate the authors of the book possessed knowledge beyond that of humanity at that time.

:phones: their understanding of Mercury's orbital and rotational periods were completely wrong.

 

Your nitpicking over these periods, which are indeed an exact 2:3 ratio, reveals a lack of understanding of not only astronomy, but also simple arithmetic. Would you now take the time to answer the question properly, rather than simply adding more ill-founded, contentious material. Lets deal with one thing at a time.

 

Eclogite,

thanks for your opinion.

 

A.......

I think I did answer "A", I wrote........

 

Quote:

I understood that, in parts such as 57:6:2, the UB was not such a doctrine, but rather was simply providing the reader with scientific information.

 

Craig, I believe that you are correct.

 

 

 

B.....

 

I think I made it clear that I disagreed with CraigD's interpretation of what was being conveyed about the statement from the Urantia book and I also stated that I would be surprised if the ratio was an EXACT 3:2 mathematical equation and I supported that with a quote from Wiki that in both digits of 3:2 the ratio states ABOUT or in other words APPROXIMATELY.

What more would you like me to do to satisfy your personal assumptions and conclusions?

[Eclogite]

I have not been clear in the stating what I feel you did not answer. My a) and :phones: constitute a single point. a) is the background, :cheer: is what I feel you did not answer.

 

If you will clarify for me, does the UB, or does it not, make any statements regarding the length of day and year of Mercury? If so what are these statements? Do they match the the observed lengths of day and year?

 

The values for the these are given in the wiki article to three decimal places. Not to five. Not to four, not to seven, but to three. Thus the phrase 'about' is wholly appropriate. What you fail to understand is that to three decimal places, these durations produce exactly - not approximately, not about - but exactly a ratio of 3:2.

Even if this were not the case, even if the ratio was actually 3.02:2, for example, what relevance would that have? None! It would still mean that the UB claim was wrong, unless - which my opening questions are intended to determine - I have totally misunderstood, and the UB makes no claims whatsoever.

[Majeston]

I have not been clear in the stating what I feel you did not answer. My a) and :phones: constitute a single point. a) is the background, :cheer: is what I feel you did not answer.

 

If you will clarify for me, does the UB, or does it not, make any statements regarding the length of day and year of Mercury? .............

 

It would still mean that the UB claim was wrong, unless - which my opening questions are intended to determine - I have totally misunderstood, and the UB makes no claims whatsoever.

 

Eclogite,

 

I have stated before that I believe it makes no such statement and makes no claim whatsoever, and I will explain again with the following......

 

 

 

quote:

 

MERCURYAND THE MOON

 

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. (UB 657)

 

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."

 

 

 

The real problem seems to be a misreading of this complicated paragraph. It expresses two ideas in two interrelated sentences. The first sentence introduces the main topic which is planets slowing down by tidal friction.The second is a compound-complex one of parallel construction with several dependent clauses explaining what eventually happens to a planet affected by tidal friction. In it we have two ideas and two examples of those ideas; planets revolving ever slower (Mercury) until axial revolution ceases (the moon).

 

It is easy to see how confusion comes from a sentence so structured with multiple dependent clauses.

 

Without further evidence, there is no way to reach a conclusion that would

be satisfactory to everyone. Hence it must be left to individual readers to draw

their own conclusion.

 

Ken Glasziou, M.Sc., Ph.D.

 

 

 

Furthermore,

 

Let's look at it this way..........

 

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.

 

PERIOD !!!!!!!!!!!!

 

This says to me that Mercury is an example of gravitational influences acting as a brake on axial revolution until one hemisphere is always turned to the larger body or sun. Period !!!!!!!!!

 

If we know that Mercury has not reached that point yet it is obviously an example of "revolving ever slower" and can correctly assume that its' axial revolution will sometime cease.

 

No problem.

 

 

Now add to the example the second example given.............

 

"illustrated by the moon which always turns the same face towards Urantia."

 

 

Obviously a poorly (translated into the English language by foreigners) example of 2 completely different objects in 2 completely different stages of axial rotation, yet both serve as 2 good examples of the premise of axial rotation slowing until it ceases.

 

 

Why don't we look at what these "foreigners" have to say about themselves and their tranlations into English directly from this book, bearing in mind that there are several different "foreigners" writing and translating this information. Let's for example say these "foreigners" are Chinese and Russian, and French etc........

 

I have been directed to formulate this introductory statement in explanation of the meanings which should be attached to certain word symbols as they may be hereinafter used in those papers which the Orvonton corps of truth revealers have been authorized to translate into the English language of Urantia.

 

0:0.2 It is exceedingly difficult to present enlarged concepts and advanced truth, in our endeavor to expand cosmic consciousness and enhance spiritual perception, when we are restricted to the use of a circumscribed language of the realm. But our mandate admonishes us to make every effort to convey our meanings by using the word symbols of the English tongue.

 

 

56:10.23 [This paper on Universal Unity is the twenty-fifth of a series of presentations by various authors, having been sponsored as a group by a commission of Nebadon personalities numbering twelve and acting under the direction of Mantutia Melchizedek. We indited these narratives and put them in the English language, by a technique authorized by our superiors, in the year 1934 of Urantia time.

 

42:2.1 It is indeed difficult to find suitable words in the English language whereby to designate and wherewith to describe the various levels of force and energy—physical, mindal, or spiritual. These narratives cannot altogether follow your accepted definitions of force, energy, and power. There is such paucity of language that we must use these terms in multiple meanings. In this paper, for example, the word energy is used to denote all phases and forms of phenomenal motion, action, and potential, while force is applied to the pregravity, and power to the postgravity, stages of energy.

 

42:2.2 I will, however, endeavor to lessen conceptual confusion by suggesting the advisability of adopting the following classification for cosmic force, emergent energy, and universe power—physical energy:............>

 

 

 

"Without further evidence, there is no way to reach a conclusion that would

be satisfactory to everyone. Hence it must be left to individual readers to draw their own conclusion. "

[Moontanman]

Eclogite,

 

I have stated before that I believe it makes no such statement and makes no claim whatsoever, and I will explain again with the following......

 

 

 

quote:

 

MERCURYAND THE MOON

 

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. (UB 657)

 

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."

 

 

 

The real problem seems to be a misreading of this complicated paragraph. It expresses two ideas in two interrelated sentences. The first sentence introduces the main topic which is planets slowing down by tidal friction.The second is a compound-complex one of parallel construction with several dependent clauses explaining what eventually happens to a planet affected by tidal friction. In it we have two ideas and two examples of those ideas; planets revolving ever slower (Mercury) until axial revolution ceases (the moon).

 

It is easy to see how confusion comes from a sentence so structured with multiple dependent clauses.

 

Without further evidence, there is no way to reach a conclusion that would

be satisfactory to everyone. Hence it must be left to individual readers to draw

their own conclusion.

 

Ken Glasziou, M.Sc., Ph.D.

 

 

 

Furthermore,

 

Let's look at it this way..........

 

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.

 

PERIOD !!!!!!!!!!!!

 

This says to me that Mercury is an example of gravitational influences acting as a brake on axial revolution until one hemisphere is always turned to the larger body or sun. Period !!!!!!!!!

 

If we know that Mercury has not reached that point yet it is obviously an example of "revolving ever slower" and can correctly assume that its' axial revolution will sometime cease.

 

No problem.

 

 

Now add to the example the second example given.............

 

"illustrated by the moon which always turns the same face towards Urantia."

 

 

Obviously a poorly (translated into the English language by foreigners) example of 2 completely different objects in 2 completely different stages of axial rotation, yet both serve as 2 good examples of the premise of axial rotation slowing until it ceases.

 

 

Why don't we look at what these "foreigners" have to say about themselves and their tranlations into English directly from this book, bearing in mind that there are several different "foreigners" writing and translating this information. Let's for example say these "foreigners" are Chinese and Russian, and French etc........

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Without further evidence, there is no way to reach a conclusion that would

be satisfactory to everyone. Hence it must be left to individual readers to draw their own conclusion. "

 

Again majeston you are trying to argue from a totally false assumption, mercury will never point one side to the sun as you say it is slowing down to do. There is even reason to think it's rotation was slower in the past. Mercury rotates the way it does due to it's non circular orbit. It's orbital eccentricity is what causes it to be "locked" into a 3:2 orbit rotational period. See this link

SparkNotes: Mercury: Mercury's Rotation

[freeztar]

"Hence it must be left to individual readers to draw their own conclusion. "

 

Ok, my conclusion is that the writer(s) of UB had no idea about Conservation of Angular Momentum. In order to "cease axial rotation", a body would have to have a zero radius.

 

[math]L=vr[/math]

[math]L=0*r[/math]

[math]L=0[/math]

[math]r=0[/math]

[TheBigDog]

Short answer: No

 

It's a slippery slope. Where do you draw the line? Who would form the committee to decide where to draw the line? I'm quite surprised that you can't see this simple, and quite scary, problem.

 

Forgive me if I am way behind the conversation. The problem is that it is a tempting line. Especially when you want to engineer society in a scientific fashion, which means you play the percentages (since even in genetics nothing is certain.) So I guess you end up with a job, sort of like an actuary who estimates reproductive risks based upon scientific, peer reviewed (globally) study. Then you have a risk assessment you can place on the potential coupling of any pair of people. This would require generations of data; a century at least to have an accurate understanding of risks inclusive of environmental impacts. During that century of study you would need to allow every sort of mixed breeding that people fancied, including incest to have a true data pool. Then you may have enough science to have this stand up.

 

As for the example of the woman drinking while pregnant, that becomes a criminal offense and the penalty could prevent procreation by isolation (prison) or in the extreme case forced sterilization for multiple repeat offenders. The hard part would be recognizing the unborn as having rights, or fashioning a "shared rights" of mother and child while the unborn is totally dependent upon the mother.

 

Back on topic though, I can see an advanced society choosing to enforce selective breeding in a scientific fashion. It would be politically difficult I am sure, although it is amazing what can become a cultural norm given enough effort, but it could also be argued as essential as you approach the perceived edges of human survival.

 

Bill

[freeztar]

I don't know Bill, it reeks of "Brave New World" to me.

 

The UB does not even deal with the modern science of genetics though. It relies on the simple distinction of skin color and lineage. Read this little gem to see how eugenics would be a bad idea (in the context of the UB).

 

racism - The URANTIA Board Community

[Moontanman]

How would you know which genomes to eliminate and which ones to keep. Even genetic problems like sickle cell confers some survival advantage. There are other genetic problems that are bad for the individual but confer an advantage to the population. do we make everyone six feet tall with blue eyes and blond hair with fast twitch muscles? if so what happens if for some unforeseen reason the survival of small dark people with slow twitch muscles is selected for? we cannot say who should and who should not reproduce genetically nor can we forsee the future needs of the genome. We can stop such things as drinking while pregnant and we should but these things are not genetic. I think the whole idea is hubris on a gigantic scale. As is the entire idea of the book of urinatia.

[Moontanman]

I don't know Bill, it reeks of "Brave New World" to me.

 

The UB does not even deal with the modern science of genetics though. It relies on the simple distinction of skin color and lineage. Read this little gem to see how eugenics would be a bad idea (in the context of the UB).

 

racism - The URANTIA Board Community

 

This stuff is scary, I can see another world war coming to pass based on the book of urinatia. A world war based on religion and racism, wow that is original:doh:

[TheBigDog]

I don't know Bill, it reeks of "Brave New World" to me.

 

The UB does not even deal with the modern science of genetics though. It relies on the simple distinction of skin color and lineage. Read this little gem to see how eugenics would be a bad idea (in the context of the UB).

 

racism - The URANTIA Board Community

Don't get me wrong, I am not supporting eugenics, and I think that UB is a work of fiction and should be taken as being for entertainment purposes only. I am simply illustrating that without a moral foundation a scientifically engineered society could easily be subjected limited or controlled reproductive rights. A society with a moral code different than we are familiar with may easily adopt such a policy while we would see it as reprehensible.

 

Bill

[modest]

Don't get me wrong, I am not supporting eugenics, and I think that UB is a work of fiction and should be taken as being for entertainment purposes only. I am simply illustrating that without a moral foundation a scientifically engineered society could easily be subjected limited or controlled reproductive rights. A society with a moral code different than we are familiar with may easily adopt such a policy while we would see it as reprehensible.

 

Bill

 

This is good, but I think the point people are trying to make is that eugenics is not advantageous - not even for an 'advanced' society of different moral guidelines from our own. Someone today with a genetic 'flaw' may well end up being the most recent common ancestor of the entire human species in some fifty thousand years. What if they were not allowed to procreate? Who could project the consequences with unforeseen future events? I conceive that as impossible for any society regardless of advancement or morality.

 

Then there's the separate issue of morality itself being a selected trait. I would submit that adopting the ethos: "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one" is not advantageous to evolution. Inflicting cruelty on individual people (which procreation intervention is) for the "greater good" is not an attitude that would help our species survive. That attitude has too many times in the past led to genocide and world war - things that now make possible the destruction of all humanity. There is a good reason eugenics sounds morally reprehensible just like there is a good reason morality in general exists for humans. It helps our species survive. This is a weaker point being it's subjective, but I think it's important nonetheless.

 

I hope I'm not taking you out of context or strawmanning what you're saying. I just think these things are important to stress - they're not so much directed at you Bill.

 

~modest

[Majeston]

I don't know Bill, it reeks of "Brave New World" to me.

 

The UB does not even deal with the modern science of genetics though. It relies on the simple distinction of skin color and lineage. Read this little gem to see how eugenics would be a bad idea (in the context of the UB).

 

racism - The URANTIA Board Community

 

I fail to see your point. Why would you direct us to thoughts by "Froggy" as some type of example of what Ub people think. The lowest common denominator. The Ub community has just as many irresponsible individuals as this group or any other collection of individuals. I posted 2 fine links of papers by accomplished, thoughtful individuals, one with a PhD from Harvard and you instead are point to "Froggy", for your example. Google also lists a nazi white supremacist group that has latched onto to some of the Ub statements out of context and thinks it furthers their misguided agenda.

 

Should we also point out the topics here on Hypno and the suspended posters here as being indicative or the acme of what the scientific community thinks as a whole? Let's not even go into all the incorrect ideas that the so-called "scientific majority" believed were correct in it's own evolution. Are we to suddenly believe that "science" has miraculously purged itself of all it's current erroneous theories? Virtually every day a new discovery is made with the comment that "we never expected to find this", "we were surprised to discover"; "never in our wildest dreams"; etc. etc.

 

 

The vast majority of the statements from the Ub deal with genetic blending from the Neanderthal/Cro-Magnon era and before on the evolutionary scale as well as the entire evolution of life of earth as well as mindal and spiritual evolution.

 

I could probably point out a thousand cases of people who originally thought the Ub was Sci-Fi or a hoax or racist when first encountered. Who knows why they wrote it in such a way as to cause such doubt and confusion, I don't, but then again I am very young and don't understand beings who tells us they planted multi-cellular life here on Earth 550 million years ago and are still here alive and well and watching the experiment unfold. The same beings who can apparently distinguish between progressive and regressive specie development and superior and inferior strains.

 

 

science

""543 million years ago, in the early Cambrian geological period, this burst of evolutionary creativity produced the first creatures with teeth, claws, jaws and backbones. Last year scientists reported finding a 525-million-year-old fossil of the oldest ancestor yet known of the vertebrate branch of the animals."

 

 

Urantia- 1934-

4. THE LIFE-DAWN ERA

 

That we are called Life Carriers should not confuse you. We can and do carry life to the planets, but we brought no life to Urantia. Urantia life is unique, original with the planet. This sphere is a life-modification world; all life appearing hereon was formulated by us right here on the planet; and there is no other world in all Satania, even in all Nebadon, that has a life existence just like that of Urantia.

 

550,000,000 years ago the Life Carrier corps returned to Urantia. In co-operation with spiritual powers and superphysical forces we organized and initiated the original life patterns of this world and planted them in the hospitable waters of the realm. All planetary life (aside from extraplanetary personalities) down to the days of Caligastia, the Planetary Prince, had its origin in our three original, identical, and simultaneous marine-life implantations. These three life implantations have been designated as: the central or Eurasian-African, the eastern or Australasian, and the western, embracing Greenland and the Americas.

PAPER 58 - LIFE ESTABLISHMENT ON URANTIA

 

 

surely, just another sci-fi hoax co-incidence?

[Majeston]

Ok, my conclusion is that the writer(s) of UB had no idea about Conservation of Angular Momentum.

 

 

perhaps it all comes down to just one inch.

 

MOTIONS OF THE MOON

 

 

The Urantia Book tells us that the moon is presently moving away from the Earth. This has been confirmed by highly accurate radar measurements. The rate of movement is about 1 inch per year.

REFERENCES: The Urantia Book, page 657; Scientific American 249 (6), 71

Science Content Of The Urantia Book

 

Interesting Stuff

 

 

Apparently these are the same guys who do not understand angular momentum. :shrug:

 

"

 

57:4.8 6,000,000,000 years ago marks the end of the terminal breakup and the birth of your sun, the fifty-sixth from the last of the Andronover second solar family. This final eruption of the nebular nucleus gave birth to 136,702 suns, most of them solitary orbs. The total number of suns and sun systems having origin in the Andronover nebula was 1,013,628. The number of the solar system sun is 1,013,572."

The Origin of Urantia; The Urantia Book: Paper 57

 

 

 

Apparently understanding U Cosmology and Astronomy has much to do with understanding the terminology of Astronomy in 1934.

 

Swans: Architecture of The Universe 1934

 

 

 

A very interesting new presentation of U Astronomy. The author makes some erroneous assumptions and the presentation needs work but all in all it deals with the overall picture and new paradigm quite well.

Urantia Book Astronomy

[modest]

science

""543 million years ago, in the early Cambrian geological period, this burst of evolutionary creativity produced the first creatures with teeth, claws, jaws and backbones. Last year scientists reported finding a 525-million-year-old fossil of the oldest ancestor yet known of the vertebrate branch of the animals."

 

 

Urantia- 1934-

4. THE LIFE-DAWN ERA

 

That we are called Life Carriers should not confuse you. We can and do carry life to the planets, but we brought no life to Urantia. Urantia life is unique, original with the planet. This sphere is a life-modification world; all life appearing hereon was formulated by us right here on the planet; and there is no other world in all Satania, even in all Nebadon, that has a life existence just like that of Urantia.

 

550,000,000 years ago the Life Carrier corps returned to Urantia. In co-operation with spiritual powers and superphysical forces we organized and initiated the original life patterns of this world and planted them in the hospitable waters of the realm. All planetary life (aside from extraplanetary personalities) down to the days of Caligastia, the Planetary Prince, had its origin in our three original, identical, and simultaneous marine-life implantations. These three life implantations have been designated as: the central or Eurasian-African, the eastern or Australasian, and the western, embracing Greenland and the Americas.

PAPER 58 - LIFE ESTABLISHMENT ON URANTIA

 

 

surely, just another sci-fi hoax co-incidence?

 

It's now widely understood that life was the driving mechanism that changed earth's atmosphere into an oxygenated form making possible the Cambrian explosion. The fact that Urantia gives a date for the first life in Cambrian times is not a coincidence - it's just plain wrong.

 

perhaps it all comes down to just one inch.

 

MOTIONS OF THE MOON

 

 

The Urantia Book tells us that the moon is presently moving away from the Earth. This has been confirmed by highly accurate radar measurements. The rate of movement is about 1 inch per year.

REFERENCES: The Urantia Book, page 657; Scientific American 249 (6), 71

Science Content Of The Urantia Book

 

Interesting Stuff

 

 

Apparently these are the same guys who do not understand angular momentum. :shrug:

 

William Thomson better known as Lord Kelvin was the first to describe how the earth transfers angular momentum to the moon causing recession. This was long before (or at least significantly before) Urantia was published. There's no guarantee the UB authors understood the particulars of this any more than they just repeated the prevalent theory of the time.

 

On another subject, perhaps you can use some geology sources to support UB's claim that the oceans are no older than one billion years. That's something the best science of the time (see Harold Jeffreys) would have disagreed with.

 

~modest

[Eclogite]

I have stated before that I believe it makes no such statement and makes no claim whatsoever, and I will explain again with the following......

 

....... 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. (UB 657)

There is no ambiguity here. The statement is plain: .....one hemisphere of the planet is always turned towards the sun or larger body, as is illustrated by the planet Mercury......

 

Perhaps the authors were as ignorant of English grammar as they were of orbital dynamics.

[freeztar]

I fail to see your point.

 

I'm not sure how to make it any clearer. :shrug:

 

Why would you direct us to thoughts by "Froggy" as some type of example of what Ub people think. The lowest common denominator. The Ub community has just as many irresponsible individuals as this group or any other collection of individuals. I posted 2 fine links of papers by accomplished, thoughtful individuals, one with a PhD from Harvard and you instead are point to "Froggy", for your example.

 

This is the logical fallacy known as Appeal to Authority. Who cares who makes the claim? It could be "froggy" or Einstein. What is important is the actual claims themselves. Argue the ideas, not the presenter.

 

Google also lists a nazi white supremacist group that has latched onto to some of the Ub statements out of context and thinks it furthers their misguided agenda.

I wonder why...

Should we also point out the topics here on Hypno and the suspended posters here as being indicative or the acme of what the scientific community thinks as a whole? Let's not even go into all the incorrect ideas that the so-called "scientific majority" believed were correct in it's own evolution. Are we to suddenly believe that "science" has miraculously purged itself of all it's current erroneous theories? Virtually every day a new discovery is made with the comment that "we never expected to find this", "we were surprised to discover"; "never in our wildest dreams"; etc. etc.

 

What does this have to do with anything?

 

The rest of your post, reagarding the "science" of the UB, was properly refuted by Modest, so I'll refrain from repeating.

surely, just another sci-fi hoax

 

L. Ron Hubbard would be proud!

[Majeston]

well this looks interesting, which I found while searching out some of Modest's stuff.

 

 

57:6.3 When the tidal frictions of the moon and the earth become equalized, the earth will always turn the same hemisphere toward the moon, and the day and month will be analogous—in length about forty-seven days. When such stability of orbits is attained, tidal frictions will go into reverse action, no longer driving the moon farther away from the earth but gradually drawing the satellite toward the planet. And then, in that far-distant future when the moon approaches to within about eleven thousand miles of the earth, the gravity action of the latter will cause the moon to disrupt, and this tidal-gravity explosion will shatter the moon into small particles, which may assemble about the world as rings of matter resembling those of Saturn or may be gradually drawn into the earth as meteors.

 

 

wikipedia

 

So the Moon is gradually receding from the Earth into a higher orbit, and calculations[1] suggest that this will continue for about fifty billion years. By that time, the Earth and Moon will become caught up in what is called a "spin–orbit resonance" in which the Moon will circle the Earth in about 47 days (currently 29 days), and both Moon and Earth will rotate around their axes in the same time, always facing each other with the same side. Beyond this, it is hard to tell what will happen to the Earth–Moon system.

 

1. ^ C.D. Murray & S.F. Dermott (1999). Solar System Dynamics. Cambridge University Press, 184.

 

 

anyone know when this 47 day figure was worked out?