Urantia Book: Complications and Contradictions

[modest]

anyone know when this 47 day figure was worked out?

 

Try Harold Jeffreys' 1924 book "The earth, its origin, history and physical constitution". I'd be surprised if it doesn't correctly answer 47 days, and I'll explain my thinking.

 

Jeffreys understood that earth transfered angular momentum to the moon. The book above should contain calculations based on that theory. Calculating the transfer of angular momentum is not difficult. Having the equation for conservation of angular momentum and Kepler's laws allows one to calculate without a model of tidal friction. I will do the calculation if you ask. My point is, I'd be surprised if Jeffreys doesn't do that in the book above.

 

It is much more difficult to answer when the Earth will show one face to the moon. How quickly momentum is transfered does require a specific model and that's what Jeffreys (and others) was working toward in the early 20th century. He wanted to know how old the moon was based on lunar recession calculated from tidal friction. If Urantia had given a date for when the Earth will become tidally locked to the moon, that would be much more impressive (if it were to be correct).

 

Long story short, I don't have access to the book, but it's probably in there.

 

On another subject, perhaps you can explain how UB gives an answer of one billion years for the age of the earth's oceans and 550 million years for the age of the first life. Are we accepting that UB is wrong on these points?

 

~modest

[REASON]

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?

 

Unfortunately, in 1/10 the time described above in red, the Sun will have already converted most of it's hydrogen to helium and will have expanded to a red giant, engulfing most of the inner planets including the Earth. The Earth/Moon system will have been long since destroyed by the time 50 billion years comes to pass.

 

Assuming this is a typo and you meant to say 50 million years, if the rate of recession of the Moon is 1 inch per year, then in that amount of time the Moon will have only receeded approximately 789 miles from its present location. This is not a significant enough distance to cause the Earth to syncronize its rotation to match the revolution of the Moon. What is being suggested is that the length of a day will slow to the equivalent of what is currently 47 days with the Moon having only receeded 789 miles.

 

I think these numbers cannot be substantiated.

 

As for the conjecture about the Moon being pulled back in and exploding into a ring? That will require a well verified model to be substantiated. But I guess it's all beside the point because the Earth and Moon will have been destroyed by then by the Sun. You'd think the revelators would have mentioned that.

[modest]

Majeston is quoting wikipedia there. It does sound wrong. We could use this equation to see if its right:

 

Tidal locking - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

~modest

 

EDIT:

Majeston's quote is from:

Orbit of the Moon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Moontanman]

The idea of tidal progression was well known before the book of urinatia was written or published. It wasn't exactly difficult to work out with math. It might not have been confirmed until later in the twentieth century but orbital mechanics is not a new science. I'm not sure about the time scale for this but i know it was thought to be a very long time before this could occur. In a very long time scale the moon will indeed approach the earth it would indeed be broken up by tidal stress and become rings. Again the Earth moon system will not exist long enough for this to happen and and in the time of the "book" this was not known so it comes as no surprise they would think this would eventually happen.

[REASON]

According to Wiki, the rotation of the Earth is slowing at a rate of 0.002 seconds per day per century, meaning that every hundred years, the length of a day increases by 0.002 seconds due to the fact that the Moon is receeding from the Earth at a rate of 3.82 cm per year.

 

If this rate is constant, then in 50 billion years, the length of a day will have increased by 1 million seconds, or approximately 11.8 days. This amounts to a new day length of 35.35 hours, not 47.

 

But again, it doesn't matter because the Earth will be engulfed by the Sun in approximately 5 billion years.

[REASON]

In addition:

 

If the rate of 3.82 cm per year, at which the Moon is receeding from the Earth, remains constant, then in 50 billion years time, the Moon will be nearly six times (5.97) its current average distance from the Earth, or an average of 2,294,403k.

 

The Moon's current average orbital period is 27.3 days, and its average speed is 3,755.16 kph.

 

If the Moon's distance from Earth increases over the next 50 billion years to 2,294,403k, and it's orbital period were to increase to 47 days, its average orbital speed would be 13,018.96 kph, an increase of 246.7%.

 

What force is acting on the Moon to make its orbital speed increase by that amount as it is receding from the Earth in order to qualify the claim of the Urantia Book? If it takes 50 billion years to achieve this so called "spin-orbit resonance," than should we assume that it will take at least that long again to approach the Earth and reduce its distance to the point of shattering into a system of rings? 100 billion years plus?

 

I'm sorry, I'm getting carried away again because I forgot to mention (and obviously, so did the celestial distributors of the 5th Epochal Revelation) that the Sun will have burnt out and taken the Earth and Moon with it after only about 6 billion years. :eek_big:

[freeztar]

the Sun will have burnt out and taken the Earth and Moon with it after only about 6 billion years. :eek_big:

 

That's a minor point Reason. It still stands that in 50 billion years, the orbits would be tidally locked.

 

Did I say "would"? I meant "will". It's all so confusing. :xx: ;)

[TheBigDog]

The progression is not linear. That is what is skewing your calculations.

[modest]

Bill is right, it's very not linear. The recession rate will go down as the moon recedes.

 

Reason,

 

You seem to have missed my post #422. Your last 2 posts have been argued against wikipedia - not Urantia. The paragraph of Majeston's that you're taking issue with is from wiki which I link in post 422.

 

~modest

[Moontanman]

I remember reading all this in grade school many years ago, I think these receding moon theories are part of a largely discounted school of thought from early in the last century. the moon does indeed slowly recede from the earth but I don't think 50 billion years was the time frame given. More like five and ten billion but I'm not sure and it wouldn't matter anyway because of the death of the sun.

I think the first place i read this was from a series of three books called "the world We live in" copy right 1952. the whole moon receding and coming back part is in the third book if I remember correctly and it is the only one i that I no longer have. It came apart and was thrown away a long time ago. Much of the stuff in the books is far out dated now.

[REASON]

The progression is not linear. That is what is skewing your calculations.

 

Alright, I guessed this might be the case. You'll notice that I said "if" as a qualifier to the idea that the rate of recession and the additon of time were constant.

 

So then what would be the proper solution? Would it actually take approximately 50 billion years to achieve spin-orbit resonance as it states in wiki?

 

If so, it would still take around 100 billion years to be shattered into a ring as described in the UP.

 

 

That's a minor point Reason. It still stands that in 50 billion years, the orbits would be tidally locked.

 

So your point is that the Urantia Papers are still correct.....as long as you leave out that part about the Sun and Red Giant and engulfing the inner planets and white dwarf and all that stuff. :eek_big:

[REASON]

Bill is right, it's very not linear. The recession rate will go down as the moon recedes.

 

Reason,

 

You seem to have missed my post #422. Your last 2 posts have been argued against wikipedia - not Urantia. The paragraph of Majeston's that you're taking issue with is from wiki which I link in post 422.

 

~modest

 

Well, not exactly. In Majeston's post, he compared the 47 day "spin-orbit resonance" described in the UP with the 47 day "spin-orbit resonance" described in Wiki. So if the calculations in Wiki are correct, I'm assuming that same period is what the UP are referring to since no time frame was given there. So by arguing using the Wiki numbers, I am arguing against the UP as well. At least that's the way I was looking at it.

 

You are correct though, that I did not consider the formula you had posted in #422. My bad. Maybe you'd be willing to plug in some numbers in that one. My knowledge of math is not that advanced. :eek_big:

[freeztar]

So your point is that the Urantia Papers are still correct.....as long as you leave out that part about the Sun and Red Giant and engulfing the inner planets and white dwarf and all that stuff. ;)

 

Exactly! Who can know the motivations behind the deception? :eek_big:

[TheBigDog]

For the sake of conversation I am going to stand on my head for a moment. Let us assume that the UB is an authentic artifact; what would the significance be for how we run our lives on a daily basis, or for what our long term social strategies are?

 

Bill

[REASON]

I don't mean to step on your post, Bill. I think it's a valid question and deserves a reply.

 

There's just one more point I'd like to make regarding the Earth/Moon system.

 

 

Bill is right, it's very not linear. The recession rate will go down as the moon recedes.

 

If this is the case, then would you agree that the slowing of the Earth's rotation would be proportionate to the rate at which the Moon is receding at any given time? Such that we would essentially say that as the rate of the Moon's recession decreases, so does the rate at which the Earth's rotation slows.

 

In my previous post, I stated:

 

If this rate is constant, then in 50 billion years, the length of a day will have increased by 1 million seconds, or approximately 11.8 days. This amounts to a new day length of 35.35 hours, not 47.

 

Based on a linear calculation, the amount of time added to a day after 50 billion years would still fall short of 47 days by 11.65 days. In fact, this deficit is nearly the same as the amount of time added over 50 billion years at a constant rate. Therefore, it would actually take closer to 100 billion years to arrive at a "spin-orbit resonance" with a rotational period of 47 days based on a constant rate of recession. If the rate of recession of the Moon, and therefore the slowing of the Earth's rotation, is actually decreasing with distance, then it should take significantly longer than 100 billion years to arrive at a 47 day "spin-orbit resonance."

 

Would you agree?

 

Of course, this doesn't take into consideration the time it takes for the Moon to come all the way back and be shattered due to its proximity to Earth.

 

I mean, we could be talkin' 250 to 300 billion years. :eek_big:

 

According to Wiki, this planet will be virtually inhospitable in about 1 billion years due to increases in solar radiation.

 

I think the UP has missed it big on this prediction.

[Moontanman]

I think the UP has missed it big on this prediction.

 

So what else is new?:shrug:

[Majeston]

 

But again, it doesn't matter because the Earth will be engulfed by the Sun in approximately 5 billion years.

 

Which brings up another apparent fundamental flaw in the equation. If I were serious about breaking out of the alleged ( by U standards) current scientific morass of flaws; convoluted theories and erroneous presumptions of so-called modern Astronomy I would take a clue from the Urantia papers and look deeper into what factors could have caused us to misjudge the age of our own sun and what implication that has on Astronomic projections in general.

 

 

P465:5, 41:9.5 Your own sun has long since attained relative equilibrium between its expansion and contraction cycles, those disturbances which produce the gigantic pulsations of many of the younger stars. Your sun is now passing out of its six billionth year. At the present time it is functioning through the period of greatest economy. It will shine on as of present efficiency for more than twenty-five billion years. It will probably experience a partially efficient period of decline as long as the combined periods of its youth and stabilized function.

Urantia Book, Paper 41: Section 9 -- Sun Stability

 

 

 

 

41:7.7 Only those suns which function in the direct channels of the main streams of universe energy can shine on forever. Such solar furnaces blaze on indefinitely, being able to replenish their material losses by the intake of space-force and analogous circulating energy. But stars far removed from these chief channels of recharging are destined to undergo energy depletion—gradually cool off and eventually burn out.

 

41:7.8 Such dead or dying suns can be rejuvenated by collisional impact or can be recharged by certain nonluminous energy islands of space or through gravity-robbery of near-by smaller suns or systems. The majority of dead suns will experience revivification by these or other evolutionary techniques. Those which are not thus eventually recharged are destined to undergo disruption by mass explosion when the gravity condensation attains the critical level of ultimatonic condensation of energy pressure. Such disappearing suns thus become energy of the rarest form, admirably adapted to energize other more favorably situated suns.

 

 

41:8.1

In those suns which are encircuited in the space-energy channels, solar energy is liberated by various complex nuclear-reaction chains, the most common of which is the hydrogen-carbon-helium reaction. In this metamorphosis, carbon acts as an energy catalyst since it is in no way actually changed by this process of converting hydrogen into helium. Under certain conditions of high temperature the hydrogen penetrates the carbon nuclei. Since the carbon cannot hold more than four such protons, when this saturation state is attained, it begins to emit protons as fast as new ones arrive. In this reaction the ingoing hydrogen particles come forth as a helium atom.

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

and, let's not forget this little beauty as we contemplate the current accepted "theory" of how our solar system formed..

 

 

 

57:5.14 All of the solar system material derived from the sun was originally endowed with a homogeneous direction of orbital swing, and had it not been for the intrusion of these three foreign space bodies, all solar system material would still maintain the same direction of orbital movement. As it was, the impact of the three Angona tributaries injected new and foreign directional forces into the emerging solar system with the resultant appearance of retrograde motion. Retrograde motion in any astronomic system is always accidental and always appears as a result of the collisional impact of foreign space bodies. Such collisions may not always produce retrograde motion, but no retrograde ever appears except in a system containing masses which have diverse origins.

 

 

Scientists Now Know: We're Not From Here!

 

A new infra red digital survey of the entire sky was made in 2003. Teams from the universities of Virginia and Massachusetts used a supercomputer to sort through half a billion stars to create a -- NEW STAR MAP showing our Solar System (yellow circle) to be at the exact nexus crossroads where two galaxies are actually joining.

Scientists Now Know: We're Not From Here!

 

 

 

P466:1, 41:10.2

The majority of solar systems, however, had an origin entirely different from yours, and this is true even of those which were produced by gravity-tidal technique.

 

 

 

P655:8, 57:5.3

Thus was the stage of local space set for the unique origin of Monmatia, that being the name of your sun's planetary family, the solar system to which your world belongs. Less than one per cent of the planetary systems of Orvonton have had a similar origin.