Urantia Book: Complications and Contradictions

[Majeston]

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

 

 

Bill,

 

that's a very intelligent thought, you've had a couple of them. :shrug:

I would suggest reading and "understanding" the epochal revelation first, that might take a few years. You should also of course read and understand the conversations between Saitia and Someguy in this thread

http://hypography.com/forums/theology-forum/6013-atheism-faith.html

[Majeston]

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

 

Modest,

 

No, we are not.

 

Obviously you and I both know that if we open this can of worms we will find that "science" is making certain assumptions built upon other assumptions and theories built upon other theories, a virtual cascading falling domino game which collapses when one domino begins to fall.

 

I'm game for exploring it further if you are in order to find the problem.

 

 

Might I suggest that we begin here to start with.

 

 

 

History of Life

 

by

Chris M. Halvorson PhD

Summa *** laude and Phi Beta Kappa

 

http://urantiabook.org/archive/readers/halvorson_histlife.pdf

 

"About 1 000 000 000 years ago, having nearly reached its current size, the earth

“was placed upon the physical registries of Nebadon and given its name”. This is

the literal beginning of Urantia history, the beginning of the Archeozoic Era.

Approximately 950 000 000 years ago, “Urantia was assigned to the system of

Satania for planetary administration and was placed on the life registry of

Norlatiadek”. This life registration marks the initiation of the construction of the

material organizations for life by the Master Physical Controllers, specifically, the

primary associators (29:4.25–27), who were the first beings to arrive on the planet.

The ancient life on the planet was prokaryotic. Prokaryotes (bacteria,

cyanobacteria, archaebacteria, mitochondria, and chloroplasts) are living machines,

single-celled power plants; so their association with the power beings (viz., the

Master Physical Controllers) is only natural. In fact, the energy transformers and

the primary associators both store and release energy, analogous to the storage and

release of energy by prokaryotes via ATP (adenosine triphosphate). Also, the

secondary dissociators (29:4.28) function much like the bacteria involved in the

decomposition of organic matter.

 

When the first Life Carriers came to Urantia 900 000 000 years ago, their presence

activated the lifeless material forms, of the completed original prokaryotes, with

living vitality (cf., 36:6.3). Living vitality is the first phase of life animation.

Prokaryotes cannot access the second phase, the reproductive spark; hence, they

multiply by simple fission (DNA replication and cell division), rather than sexual

reproduction, the meiosis and mitosis of eukaryotes. The oldest cyanobacteria

fossils have a radiometric date of 3.5 billion years ago, corresponding to an actual

date of 875 000 000 years ago. As a result of the activation of prokaryotic life:

“[urantia] was accorded full universe status. Soon thereafter it was registered in

the records of the minor and the major sector headquarters planets of the

superuniverse; and before this age was over, Urantia had found entry on the

planetary-life registry of Uversa.”

 

The Middle Archeozoic begins 850 000 000 years ago, with the real stabilization of a

crust, global convection in the mantle, and a core of heavier elements at the center

of the earth. This date is also marked by the initial functioning of the magnetic

poles. The beginning of the Late Archeozoic, 750 000 000 years ago, is marked by

the initiation of the north-south and east-west cracking of the single land mass, the

start of continental drift. As the continents separated, large shallow seas formed in

the breaks. When these seas reached the proper state of development, they

harbored “the inauguration of the evolutionary cycle” (58:1.2).

 

Eukaryotic life is designed for evolution, and 550 000 000 years ago the Life

Carriers implanted the first single-celled eukaryotes in the seas of Urantia. This

eukaryotic plant life was organized in situ and was built upon the foundation of the

prokaryotic life that had already been established on the planet; in particular,

chloroplasts are prokaryotes. The establishment of eukaryotic life marks the

beginning of the Proterozoic Era. The oldest fossil of a macroscopic organism is

radiometrically dated to be 2.1 billion years old, corresponding to an actual date of

 

History of Life by Chris M. Halvorson page 4

 

 

548 000 000 years ago. The oldest relatively clear evidence of eukaryotes is dated to

be about 1.8 billion years old, implying an actual age of 540 000 000 years. Both of

these dates agree nicely with the date that The Urantia Book gives for the

beginning of the Proterozoic. In addition, geologists date the beginning of the

transition to an oxygen atmosphere at 2.2 billion years ago, which is precisely an

actual date of 550 000 000 years ago.

 

The Master Physical Controllers began to decrease radioactivity subsequent to the

implantation of eukaryotic life. By 500 000 000 years ago, the corresponding

radiometric date is 1.0 billion years ago, rather than 2.0 billion years ago. This is

the time of the transition from the predominance of cyanobacteria to the dominance

of algae and other eukaryotic plant life. This transition marks the end of the

Paleoproterozoic and the beginning of the Mesoproterozoic. Radioactivity continued

to be decreased until the advent of animal life 450 000 000 years ago, marking the

beginning of the Neoproterozoic. There were, and continue to be, many forms of life

between those that can be classified as either true plants or true animals; and these

forms of life evolved gradually from plants. However, there was a final, sudden

transition to a protozoan (literally, “first animal”) from an animallike borderland

organism (65:2.2–4).

[Moontanman]

Majeston, why do you keep posting the very things that have already been debunked in earlier threads? do you think repeating these things will make them true? the science in the book of urinatia is not true, it does not follow main stream science theory nor does any evidence support these claims. all you do is state that science is wrong and that when we learn more we will know it. that is so lame it's not even funny. either back up these claims with evidence or stop maintaining they are true. Being written in the book of urinatia doesn't constitute evidence:naughty:

[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. ;)

 

There’s actually a very large distinction. Calculating these two things are very different:

• 47 days
  
• when the 47 day orbital resonance will happen
  

All Urantia gives is the 47 day result - this is not new. A person can get (and I’m sure they did in the early 20th century) the 47 days using only angular momentum and nothing much else. There’s no “rate” required to get that number. There’s no amount per time or projection into the future that requires a model. To check if wiki is right on that I’ve done an approximate calculation that I’ll reproduce here. This is only approximate, but shows that it can be calculated with only conservation of angular momentum and no time frame, knowledge of friction, recession rate, etc:

 

Moon’s current L:

L = orbital angular momentum = m v r

[math]m = 7.349 \times 10^{22}[/math]

[math]v = 1023[/math] m/s

[math]r = 3.85 \times 10^8[/math] m

 

[math]L_{M(current)} = 2.8944 \times 10^{34} \: kg m^2 s^{-1}[/math]

 

To calculate a new angular momentum for the moon, we need to know it's velocity and radius with a period of 47 days. We can get that with Kepler's third law:

[math]\frac{P_1^2}{r_1^3} = \frac{P_2^2}{r_2^3}[/math]

 

[math]\frac{27.49 d^2}{3.85 \times 10^8 m^3} = \frac{47 d^2}{r_2^3}[/math]

 

[math]r_2 = 5.5048 \times 10^9[/math]

 

orbit = 2[imath]\pi[/imath]r = [imath]3.4588 \times 10^9 m[/imath]

 

velocity = orbit / period = 851.75 m/s

Moon’s L with a 47 day period:

L = orbital angular momentum = m v r

[math]m = 7.349 \times 10^{22}[/math]

[math]v = 851.75[/math] m/s

[math]r = 5.5048 \times 10^8[/math] m

 

[math]L_{M(47d)} = 3.4457 \times 10^{34} \: kg m^2 s^{-1}[/math]

 

By subtracting angular momentum we get the amount of angular momentum the moon must gain in order to have a 47 day period:

 

[math]L_{M(47d)} - L_{M(current)} = \mathbf{5.513 \times 10^{33} \: kg m^2 s^{-1}}[/math]

 

Earth's current spin angular momentum

[math]L_E = I \: \omega[/math]

[math]\omega[/math] = angular velocity

I = moment of inertia

[math]\omega = 7.27 \times 10^{-5} \: rad/sec[/math]

[math]I = 9.71 \times 10^{37} \: kg/m^2[/math]

[math]L_E = 7.0592 \times 10^{33} \: kgm^2s^{-1}[/math]

 

Earth's spin angular momentum with a 47 day, day:

[math]\omega = 1.5473 \times 10^{-6} \: rad/sec[/math] (using 2pi rad = 1 rev)

[math]I = 9.71 \times 10^{37} \: kg/m^2[/math]

[math]L_E2 = 1.5024 \times 10^{32} \: kgm^2s^{-1}[/math]

 

Finding the difference again, we get the amount of angular momentum earth will loose to get a 47-day day:

 

[math]L_E - L_{E2} = \mathbf{6.9090 \times 10^{33} \: kg m^2 s^{-1}}[/math]

 

If wikipedia is correct and such a thing can be calculated with conservation of angular momentum alone then the moon's momentum gained should equal earth's lost based on the figure 47-days we used:

 

[math]\mathbf{5.513 \times 10^{33} = 6.9090 \times 10^{33}}[/math]

 

So, the two are nearly equal by my calculation (it's off by 20%). This doesn't surprise me that it's not exact considering I've made simplifications such as circular orbits - perhaps a member such as Janus could more accurately calculate it or perhaps someone can find a source showing the calculation. I am satisfied that wiki is correct on the 47 day part, in any case.

 

As I said, trying to calculate when this resonance will happen is extraordinarily more difficult and subject to error. When I have time, I will try and use this equation to calculate it:

 

Tidal locking - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

You can see from that equation, it is more than just not linear. It depends on many factor such as earth's rigidity and density and so on. For instance, If earth's oceans were to freeze and make a snowball earth, the moon's recession would slow drastically. So the 50 billion years is a model based guess at best. It isn't easy to calculate and depends on future events such as meteor strikes and earth's cooling rate and many other things.

 

Because of all that, trying to project the moon's current recession rate out to 50 billion years (where we assume earth will be tidally locked) with a simple relationship is bound to fail. It's mixing and matching 2 different things.

 

I hope this is helpful rather than further complicating this tangent.

 

~modest

 

EDIT:

 

Therefore, (sorry for being off topic Turtle) anyone who had a 1920's book on the dynamics of the earth and moon could have hoaxed that particular part of UB :)

[Majeston]

Modest-

perhaps a member such as Janus could more accurately calculate it or perhaps someone can find a source showing the calculation.

 

Modest,

I ran into this in my travels, it might be what you are looking for.

 

Astronomy Answers: AstronomyAnswerBook: Tides

 

Astronomy Answers: Evolution of Lunar Orbit

[modest]

Modest,

I ran into this in my travels, it might be what you are looking for.

 

Astronomy Answers: AstronomyAnswerBook: Tides

 

Astronomy Answers: Evolution of Lunar Orbit

 

Thank you M, your second link there is much more clever and thought out than what I did. That would be the way to go about it.

 

~modest

[Turtle]

Thanks staff for moving the off-topic series of posts from the authorship thread. :) The move did push back a post I made earlier in response to Modest's comment on paleontology, and as it garnered no comment I'm posting it again on the presumption it is overlooked. :hihi:

 

... Here is a link & some testimony already uncovered on the issue of contradictions in regard to paleontology and geology. The piece contains several other detailed scientific analyses of contradictions in the UB. ;) :)

 

Originally Posted by Dale E. Essary

...As one can plainly read from the text, The UB makes no mention of any mass extinction at 65 mya, when mass volcanism is supposed to have taken place. Nor is there any indication of a mass extinction event at The UB’s time line for the close of the Cretaceous (50 mya). And the lack of a mass extinction event at the Cretaceous/Tertiary boundary looms large in The UB’s account of natural history as regards dinosaurs. Evidently, the Life Carrier who sponsored Paper 61 is of the opinion that the dinosaur population hung around long after the close of the Cretaceous, and began to only gradually decline about 35 mya during the Miocene, apparently as the result of underdeveloped brains and competition with mammals (61:2.5,6).

 

A survey of the history of geology will show that these explanations for the dinosaur extinction were, in fact, the prevailing ideas during the penning of the fifth epochal revelation. A widely accepted theory during the early nineteenth century, called catastrophism, related mass extinction events to environmental disturbances that were provoked by sudden episodes of mountain upheaval. But instead of affirming the idea that all inhabitants of the earth had been swept away by catastrophes at successive periods, Darwin was firmly of the opinion that biotic interactions, such as competition for food and space, were of considerably more importance in promoting evolution and extinction than changes in the physical environment. As a result of Darwin’s influence, marked differences in fauna among the different epochs did not elicit much interest in terms of extinction during the latter half of the nineteenth century, and the study of extinction events remained dormant well beyond the turn of the twentieth century.[2]

 

As paleontologists became increasingly familiar with the extinctions that mark the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary, various suggestions for modes of mass extinction began to appear during the late 1950s and into the 1970s, from nearby supernovae explosions to meteorite and comet impacts. Not surprisingly, in light of the lack of tangible evidence, they were also all virtually ignored. Not until 1977 did the situation change dramatically when geologist Walter Alvarez discovered a pencil-thin layer of clay at the Cretaceous-Tertiary (K/T) boundary outside of the town of Gubbio, Italy. Alvarez sent samples of the clay to his father Luis, a physicist, who had the clay analyzed, and found that the samples contained approximately 30 times more of the metallic element iridium than is normal for the Earth’s crustal rocks. The Alvarez team hypothesized that an iridium-bearing asteroid had crashed into the Earth at the end of the Cretaceous. ...

A REVIEW OF IRWIN GINSBURGH=S ASCIENTIFIC PREDICTIONS OF THE URANTIA BOOK--PART II@

 

:shrug:

[Moontanman]

I have to say I am a little bit surprised the book of urinatia didn't get at least a few thing right. I mean, even a blind pig finds an occasional truffle:hihi:

[rmmcclay]

I have to say I am a little bit surprised the book of urinatia didn't get at least a few thing right. I mean, even a blind pig finds an occasional truffle:hihi:

 

I've read through 38 pages of discussion on this thread. It's clear there are a couple of participants who have read the Urantia Book, but it's also obvious that most have not; at least they have not "studied" it. After all the book contains over a million words spread across 2100 pages. Not a trivial feat to read such a book fact or fiction.

 

As for getting things right, the Urantia Book has gotten many things right. There have been a number of serious efforts to bring light to some of the science that is presented in the book.

 

For starters,

 

Scientific Predictions of The Urantia Book

by Irwin Ginsburgh, Ph.D., and Geoffrey L. Taylor

 

The Urantia Book contains much scientific information that was revealed between 1925 and 1935 to an individual who cared little about the material. Some of this information disagreed with science's version. Half a century later, some of this originally conflicting information now agrees with science, and some still does not. The information deals primarily with creation of the universe, the Earth and man, as well as the fundamentals of matter and energy. Theories about these kinds of subjects evolve as science matures, and some of science's ideas change. These changes have brought about the new agreement between science and The Urantia Book, and the now agreeing Urantia information can be considered to have been predictions.

 

The authors consider about thirty predictions that are in their areas of expertise or interest, but there are many others in the book. Science does not now know some of the information in the book. There is a distinct possibility that some of this Urantia information may also turn out to be scientific predictions in the future. If more of these predictions ultimately agree with science, it will give the scientific part of The Urantia Book an authenticity that will enhance the believability of the rest of the book. The authors examine about thirty scientific predictions in The Urantia Book, compare them with science's versions, see how much agreement we can find, and how much more we can anticipate. Those predictions that now agree with science and that partly agree constitute about one-third of all the predictions considered. This can be considered remarkable. Most predictions have yet to agree, but this is to be expected of a book with a very long life. More prediction analysis is warranted in the future, as is more detailed study of individual predictions.

 

beamsdoorway.bizland.com/urantia/science.htm

 

Secondarily, this site focuses on the Urantia Book and astronomy:

 

ubastronomy.com/index.php

 

 

--

Mention is made in this thread about the sun and calcium. It might be of interest to some that recent scientific research has led to the discovery of a solid calcium ferrite covering of the sun's surface. This is very new science and it's remarkable that it was mentioned in a book written in 1935:

 

The sun's photosphere is often mistakenly referred to as the surface of the sun. In reality however, the sun's photosphere is only a "liquid-like" plasma layer made of neon that covers the actual surface of the sun. That visible layer we see with our eyes is composed of penumbral filaments that are several hundred kilometers deep. This visible neon plasma layer that we call the photosphere, and a thicker, more dense atmospheric layer composed of silicon plasma, entirely covers the actual rocky, calcium ferrite surface layer of the sun. The visible photosphere covers the actual surface of the sun, much as the earth's oceans cover most of the surface of the earth. In this case the sun's photosphere is very bright and we cannot see the darker, more rigid surface features below the photosphere without the aid of satellite technology.

 

-rmm

[REASON]

Mention is made in this thread about the sun and calcium. It might be of interest to some that recent scientific research has led to the discovery of a solid calcium ferrite covering of the sun's surface. This is very new science and it's remarkable that it was mentioned in a book written in 1935:

 

The sun's photosphere is often mistakenly referred to as the surface of the sun. In reality however, the sun's photosphere is only a "liquid-like" plasma layer made of neon that covers the actual surface of the sun. That visible layer we see with our eyes is composed of penumbral filaments that are several hundred kilometers deep. This visible neon plasma layer that we call the photosphere, and a thicker, more dense atmospheric layer composed of silicon plasma, entirely covers the actual rocky, calcium ferrite surface layer of the sun. The visible photosphere covers the actual surface of the sun, much as the earth's oceans cover most of the surface of the earth. In this case the sun's photosphere is very bright and we cannot see the darker, more rigid surface features below the photosphere without the aid of satellite technology.

 

-rmm

 

Please provide a source for this information. I know you are limited with your ability to attach links so a written link to a credible source will suffice. The assertion of a "rocky, calcium ferrite surface layer" beneath the photosphere is an astounding claim that requires substantial evidence to be corroborated.

 

I'll make a prediction that you can't find any. ;)

[Pyrotex]

The sun's photosphere is often mistakenly referred to as the surface of the sun. In reality however, the sun's photosphere is only a "liquid-like" plasma layer made of neon that covers the actual surface of the sun. That visible layer we see with our eyes is composed of penumbral filaments that are several hundred kilometers deep. This visible neon plasma layer that we call the photosphere, and a thicker, more dense atmospheric layer composed of silicon plasma, entirely covers the actual rocky, calcium ferrite surface layer of the sun. ...we cannot see the darker, more rigid surface features below the photosphere without the aid of satellite technology.

Here at the Johnson Space Center, we see a LOT of satellite imaging of everything you can think of, including detailed images of the Sun. A number of good ones are available on APOD. And one thing I can tell you is that there is no great amount of Neon or Calcium near the surface of the Sun--it is trace amounts of plasma.

 

Spectral analysis is a very mature science. We know to the nearest part per billion what is in the Sun's outer atmospher. Anything hot enough gives off a light signature of its presence; anything cool enough will absorb its light signature from the ambient light from hot material beneath it. So every atom in the Sun's upper atmosphere is going to make its presence known one way or another. In fact, the element Helium was discovered first in the Sun, using spectral analysis. We know beyond a shadow of doubt how much Calcium and Neon are in the Sun. Trace amounts.

 

Calcium lines in the Sun's spectra are indeed bright, but not because there is a solid surface made up of mostly Calcium. Calcium has two energy states which make it very easy to gain and lose electrons, so it glows a little brighter than most atoms. It is still just a trace element in the Sun, and it is a plasma, like all other atoms.

 

The Sun's upper atmosphere is 6000 F and gets hotter as you go deeper. At this temperature, everything is plasma. Plasma is not a fluid or a gas, it is atoms with all or many of their electrons stripped off. Plasma does not have any "liquid-like' attributes. Plasma is a 4th state of matter, distinct from gas, liquid, solid.

 

I have seen the photos which "prove" the Sun has a solid surface. You see what you want to see. I can spot animals in clouds better than anyone else in my family. But it's my imagination--the animals aren't really there. Which is a pity. I always wanted a pony.

[Moontanman]

Yet another true believer in the book of Urination, if you had actually read the posts in this thread you would know that there are absolutely no legitimate predictions made by the book of Urination, it's complete drivel, BB or what ever you want to call it. If you have information that shows other wise please let us know what universe it's in.

[Turtle]

I've read through 38 pages of discussion on this thread. It's clear there are a couple of participants who have read the Urantia Book, but it's also obvious that most have not; at least they have not "studied" it. After all the book contains over a million words spread across 2100 pages. Not a trivial feat to read such a book fact or fiction.

 

As for getting things right, the Urantia Book has gotten many things right. There have been a number of serious efforts to bring light to some of the science that is presented in the book.

 

For starters,

 

Scientific Predictions of The Urantia Book

by Irwin Ginsburgh, Ph.D., and Geoffrey L. Taylor ,,,

 

-rmm

 

So having myself both read in entirety and studied the tome and instigated these discussions, I point you to my last post in this thread (#381 ) which refers to a detailed analysis of Ginsburgh's writings. Here is the link again for your reading pleasures. >> ;) A REVIEW OF IRWIN GINSBURGH=S ASCIENTIFIC PREDICTIONS OF THE URANTIA BOOK--PART II@

[freeztar]

Please provide a source for this information. I know you are limited with your ability to attach links so a written link to a credible source will suffice. The assertion of a "rocky, calcium ferrite surface layer" beneath the photosphere is an astounding claim that requires substantial evidence to be corroborated.

 

I'll make a prediction that you can't find any. ;)

 

I believe rmm is referring to this site:

 

The surface of the Sun:* The sun has a rigid iron surface located under the photosphere that is revealed by satellite imagery.* The solar surface sits beneath the sun's visible photosphere and is electrically active.

 

I was unable to find any legitimate sources for this claim though, much as Reason suspected.

I did find that it appears to be two main people promoting this idea. The Bad Astronomy forum has a thread on the subject. Apparently, the proponent has been banned from the site.

 

ATM site claims Sun's surface is solid - Bad Astronomy and Universe Today Forum

 

So, rmm, can you please provide scientific evidence for this claim? If you can not, then please do not make such claims in the future. Failure to support claims is a violation of site rules.

[rmmcclay]

I believe rmm is referring to this site:

 

The surface of the Sun:* The sun has a rigid iron surface located under the photosphere that is revealed by satellite imagery.* The solar surface sits beneath the sun's visible photosphere and is electrically active.[/url]

 

You're correct, freeztar. That is the site to which I was referring. I find it interesting and certainly worthy of note. A PDF presents a fairly thorough review of where this

theory derives its surmises:

 

The Surface (Ferrite Layer) Of The Sun

A 21st century 'solid surface' electrical model of the sun

based on state of the art satellite imagery from the

YOHKOH, SOHO and TRACE solar observation programs

and from spectral analysis compiled by the SERTS program.

 

etwebsite.com/TheSurfaceOfTheSun.pdf

 

Cheers,

Russ

[rmmcclay]

Yet another true believer in the book of Urination, if you had actually read the posts in this thread you would know that there are absolutely no legitimate predictions made by the book of Urination, it's complete drivel, BB or what ever you want to call it. If you have information that shows other wise please let us know what universe it's in.

 

My my, aren't we the little snarky one! lol

 

Well Moontanman, it depends on what your definition of a "true believer" is.

I don't know what the book of Urination is, but I assume it's your weak

attempt at derisive humor.

 

The sections about the history of the world's religions is certainly spot on and

provide an excellent overview; as is the Paper 81, Development of Modern

Civilization, or Paper 96, Evolution of the God Concept Among the Hebrews.

 

The Urantia Book does not claim to be a book of predictions. But you'd

know that if you had actually spent any time objectively reading it.

 

It is certainly not complete drivel; but it is highly controversial.

 

There are, though, a number of scientific "facts" presented in the book

which are not consistent with current scientific findings. That's something

which serious and open-minded readers of the book acknowledge.

 

These same readers also acknowledge anyone who thinks that science

currently knows everything it will ever know are deluding themselves.

 

Be of good cheer, young soldier,

rmm

[Pyrotex]

I've read through 38 pages of discussion on this thread. It's clear there are a couple of participants who have read the Urantia Book, but it's also obvious that most have not; at least they have not "studied" it. ...

And why, pray tell, would I want to read it? Let alone, "study" it?

 

Seventy-plus years have gone by since it was written.

It has had ZERO impact on modern scholarship, except as an amusing novelty.

It has had ZERO impact, despite having been read and touted and extolled by, I'm sure, hundreds, perhaps thousands of people over the decades.

The fact that only (I'm guessing here) one in 20 "predictions" turn out to be correct, or almost correct, or slightly correct if you interpret it just so, indicates to me that these "hits" are just fortuitous accidents.

 

Put a million monkeys to work on a million typewriters for a dozen years, and one of them is very likely to type: "E=MC2"

Does that mean we need to read and study all their output?????

Of course not.

Silly. :D