Urantia Book: Complications and Contradictions

[modest]

The Urantia papers lay out EXACTLY how our solar system was formed.

 

In the first half of the 20th century it was well-known that Mercury is tidally locked with the sun just as the moon is locked with the earth. This leaves one side of the smaller body always facing the larger body. Urantia explains:

 

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.

 

Most unexpectedly, radio astronomy in the early 1960s put this well-known fact into question. Subsequent observation proved that Mercury is not tidally locked with the sun. One side does not always face the sun, and it never will. UB is falsified.

 

The timeline of Earth's creation and evolution given in paper 57 is falsified by radiometric dating:

 

Geologic Time: Radiometric Time Scale

 

Precise radiometric dating was not available until 1950's. As you say: "The Urantia papers lay out EXACTLY how our solar system was formed" and we can add that physical evidence lays out exactly how Urantia is wrong in that description.

 

~modest

[Majeston]

The Nova was not a double star explosion Norm, two stars did not explode, the people behind this "Revelation" are being disingenuous to say the least. Only one star produced the Nova and it did not explode. A white dwarf accumulates material from it's companion star until a layer too deep to exist is laid down then the surface of the star explodes into space not the star it's self. At the time the book of urantia was written the idea of a star exploding into a supernova was the only way known for a nova to happen. The idea that this supernova was so spectacular that two stars exploded has nothing to do with the type 1a nova of reality.

 

 

My guess is that in 1934 no-one even knew there was such a thing as a "double-star" perhaps you have a reference to one or to the recorded event. If anyone is being disingenuous sir, it is you. The Urantia account doesn't state that 2 stars exploded and your further analysis is simply theory whether correct or incorrect.

[Moontanman]

My guess is that in 1934 no-one even knew there was such a thing as a "double-star" perhaps you have a reference to one or to the recorded event. If anyone is being disingenuous sir, it is you. The Urantia account doesn't state that 2 stars exploded and your further analysis is simply theory whether correct or incorrect.

 

Majeston, the book of urantia specifically says "Double Star Explosion" As for no one knowing about double stars shouldn't your revelators have known? It was not a double star explosion Majeston, it was a type 1a Nova, not a double star explosion. You are one of the most disingenuous people I have ever tried to have a discussion with. You reflect the worst properties of the religious, being willing to twist anything how ever far is necessary to make your religion look good. You make televangelists look honest :)

 

Urantia News - Verifying History and Science in The Urantia Book

 

The Urantia Book states that "The most recent of the major cosmic eruptions . . . was the extraordinary double star explosion, the light of which reached [Earth] in A.D. 1572. This conflagration was so intense that the explosion was clearly visible in broad daylight."

[Majeston]

Actually, Mr. Nasty,

 

upon further study you could be right that the Urantia revelation is correct and it actually was a Double-Star explosion. There may not be a companion and it might not be a type 1a supernova.

Science just simply doesn't know from what I read and they are just theorizing as usual. I just simply assumed that they actually knew what they were talking about. Quite similar to the exploration of Jupiter and the experts now state that everything they thought they knew about the formation of our solar system is wrong. 2funny.

 

"EXTRAORDINARY double star explosion,"

 

 

The Search for the Companion Star of Tycho Brahe’s 1572 Supernova

The Search for the Companion Star of Tycho Brahe’s 1572 Supernova

 

 

"

Conclusions

 

Our search for the binary companion of Tycho’s supernova has excluded giant stars. It has also shown the absence of blue or highly luminous objects as post-explosion companion stars. One of the stars, Tycho G of our sample, show a high peculiar velocity (both radial and tangential velocities), lies within the distance range for the explosion of SN 1572, and its type, G2IV, fits the post-explosion profile of a type Ia supernova companion whose position in the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram is untypical for a standard subgiant.

 

If Tycho G is the companion star of SN1572, its overall characteristics imply that the supernova explosion affected the companion mainly through the kinematics. Therefore, a star very similar to the our Sun but of a slightly more evolved type would have been the mass donor that triggered the explosion of type Ia SN1572, connecting the supernova explosion to the family of cataclysmic variables."

 

 

In other words, we don't know

[Moontanman]

Yes majeston but wouldn't your revelators have known it was not a double star explosion? Yes we do know majeston, we know a lot more than your revelators evidently knew. so far your book of urination has not scored even one hit. I would have though just by random chance it would occasionally get something correct. Your book is no better than dianetics, simple lies and deceit meant to influence the weak minded and garner prestige, a false sense of being knowledgeable and authority for the people who preach the book of urination.

[Moontanman]

BTW Maj ol buddy name calling is against the rules.

[CraigD]

Science just simply doesn't know from what I read and they are just theorizing as usual. I just simply assumed that they actually knew what they were talking about. Quite similar to the exploration of Jupiter and the experts now state that everything they thought they knew about the formation of our solar system is wrong. 2funny.

That “experts now state that everything they though they knew about the formation of our solar system is wrong” due to recent Jupiter observation and probe spacecraft data strikes me as an extraordinary claim, Majestron. Do you have a source for this claim?

 

Although increasingly detailed data about Jupiter and other extraterrestrial planets have refined the most popular current scientific model of the formation of the universe (the nebular hypothesis, including planetesimals), supported long-standing speculation about Jupiter and its formation, such as it having formed around a relatively small (12 to 45 Earth masses) solid core, and revealed surprising, unexpected details, such as the complex structure of the gas giant planets’ rings, they’ve not to the best of my knowledge overturned the nebular hypothesis, which has been popular for nearly 400 years (See this wikipedia article for an encyclopedic summary).

"EXTRAORDINARY double star explosion,"

 

The Search for the Companion Star of Tycho Brahe’s 1572 Supernova

The Search for the Companion Star of Tycho Brahe’s 1572 Supernova

What in the article you link supports the idea that Tycho’s 1672 supernova was the explosion of two stars, Majestron?

 

Its conclusion, which you quote, is that its remnants are consistent with a type Ia supernova. The most likely cause of this kind of supernova – the single-degenerate model, so called because only one of the stars involved, the white dwarf, contains much degenerate matter – is matter being stripped from the normal star companion of a white dwarf, resulting in unbinding of the white dwarf (what could accurately be called an “explosion”) from very high power fusion reactions surrounding it, but not the unbinding of its companion. This is the reason why astronomers such as those mentioned in Menedez’s article search for nearby normal stars with motion consistent of having been blown away from the vicinity of the supernova, which according the article, Tycho G is believed to be.

 

A less likely model is the double-degenerate, which involves two white dwarfs. However, in this model, on of the stars is ripped apart to supply the infalling matter fused by the other. Although both stars are unbound in this process, an observer describing it would not call it a “double explosion”, because the first start is torn apart over a long period (about 1000 years) before the second is unbound in the brief (about 1 day) powerful supernova event.

My guess is that in 1934 no-one even knew there was such a thing as a "double-star" perhaps you have a reference to one or to the recorded event.

In this day of readily available information, you should not hazard such guesses, Majestron. A simple check of a popular source such as the wikipedia article “double star”, would allow you to know that an unambiguous description of a double star appeared no later than 1651, and possible as early as 1616. Well before the 20th century, double stars were well known to professional and armature stargazers. The Burnham Double Star Catalogue, published in 1906, lists 13665 pairs of double stars.

 

Worse than depriving yourself of easily available information, by not researching your guesses, Majestron, you risk giving readers bad information. This it one of the main reasons hypography’s first rule is

In general,

back up your claims

by using links or references

The Urantia account doesn't state that 2 stars exploded and your further analysis is simply theory whether correct or incorrect.

Paper 41 of this online copy of Urantia book states:

The most recent of the major cosmic eruptions in Orvonton was the extraordinary double star explosion, the light of which reached Urantia in A.D. 1572. This conflagration was so intense that the explosion was clearly visible in broad daylight.

Unless the Urantia Book and the “Urantia account” are different things, I don’t see how one can claim that “the Urantia account doesn't state that 2 stars exploded”.

[Majeston]

 

Striking Coincidences Between The Urantia Book (Copyright 1955) three articles in Science: 309 (2005), and one in Nature, (2005)

 

The Urantia Book

 

The Urantia Book was purportedly written by extraterrestrials and published in 1955. It has been freely available on the internet since 2001. Several scientific developments, unexpected in 1955, reported in 2005 in Science and Nature, and referenced below, were somehow, described rather precisely already in the Urantia Book. I have documented three cases here, but there are many contemporary scientific discoveries which were first posited as far as I can tell, in this rather large tome.

 

 

Biography

Kary Banks Mullis, Nobel Prize winning chemist, was born on December 28, 1944, in Lenoir, North Carolina.

 

He received a Bachelor of Science degree in chemistry from the Georgia Institute of Technology in 1966. He earned a Ph.D. degree in biochemistry from the University of California, Berkeley, in 1972 and lectured in biochemistry there until 1973. That year, Kary became a postdoctoral fellow in pediatric cardiology at the University of Kansas Medical School, with emphasis in the areas of angiotensin and pulmonary vascular physiology. In 1977 he began two years of postdoctoral work in pharmaceutical chemistry at the University of California, San Francisco.

[Majeston]

Urantia News - Verifying History and Science in The Urantia Book

 

Tycho's Nova Report

Prepared by Chris Halvorson, PhD and Halbert Katzen, JD with special thanks to Phil Calabrese, PhD

[updated 02/18/08]

 

Most of the reports at UBtheNEWS involve corroborations of information found in the middle third of The Urantia Book, The History of Urantia [Earth], where it recounts the history of our planet. This report, however, relates to a comment made earlier in the book, which extensively describes aspects of our "local universe," our local section of the galaxy. Chapter 41, Physical Aspects of the Local Universe, makes the following comments about suns in Section 3, Our Starry Associates:

 

When suns that are too large are thrown off a nebular mother wheel, they soon break up or form double stars. All suns are originally truly gaseous, though they may later transiently exist in a semiliquid state. When your sun attained this quasi-liquid state of supergas pressure, it was not sufficiently large to split equatorially, this being one type of double star formation.

 

When less than one tenth the size of your sun, these fiery spheres rapidly contract, condense, and cool. When upwards of thirty times its size-rather thirty times the gross content of actual material-suns readily split into two separate bodies, either becoming the centers of new systems or else remaining in each other's gravity grasp and revolving about a common center as one type of double star.

 

The most recent of the major cosmic eruptions in Orvonton [a part of the universe described in The Urantia Book that is much larger than our local universe and in which our local universe is located] was the extraordinary double star explosion, the light of which reached Urantia in A.D. 1572. This conflagration was so intense that the explosion was clearly visible in broad daylight. (Urantia Book 41:3.3-5)1

In order to appreciate how this statement, published in The Urantia Book in 1955, was ahead of science, one needs to acquire both a general understanding of how the science has developed regarding supernovae and a specific understanding of how this history of science relates to Tycho's Nova, the supernova explosion of 1572 to which The Urantia Book refers. But, before learning about the history of supernovae in general and Tycho's Nova in particular, we will start with defining what a double star is. The following quotes from Wikipedia provide a basic description of a double star and indicate how "double" and "binary" are used interchangeably in reference to this occurrence:

[Moontanman]

 

Striking Coincidences Between The Urantia Book (Copyright 1955) three articles in Science: 309 (2005), and one in Nature, (2005)

 

The Urantia Book

 

The Urantia Book was purportedly written by extraterrestrials and published in 1955. It has been freely available on the internet since 2001. Several scientific developments, unexpected in 1955, reported in 2005 in Science and Nature, and referenced below, were somehow, described rather precisely already in the Urantia Book. I have documented three cases here, but there are many contemporary scientific discoveries which were first posited as far as I can tell, in this rather large tome.

 

 

Biography

Kary Banks Mullis, Nobel Prize winning chemist, was born on December 28, 1944, in Lenoir, North Carolina.

 

He received a Bachelor of Science degree in chemistry from the Georgia Institute of Technology in 1966. He earned a Ph.D. degree in biochemistry from the University of California, Berkeley, in 1972 and lectured in biochemistry there until 1973. That year, Kary became a postdoctoral fellow in pediatric cardiology at the University of Kansas Medical School, with emphasis in the areas of angiotensin and pulmonary vascular physiology. In 1977 he began two years of postdoctoral work in pharmaceutical chemistry at the University of California, San Francisco.

 

So what were those striking coincidences maje?If they weren't in chemistry or cardiology then he isn't necessarily any more qualified to understand them than any one else.

[Moontanman]

Urantia News - Verifying History and Science in The Urantia Book

 

Tycho's Nova Report

Prepared by Chris Halvorson, PhD and Halbert Katzen, JD with special thanks to Phil Calabrese, PhD

[updated 02/18/08]

 

Most of the reports at UBtheNEWS involve corroborations of information found in the middle third of The Urantia Book, The History of Urantia [Earth], where it recounts the history of our planet. This report, however, relates to a comment made earlier in the book, which extensively describes aspects of our "local universe," our local section of the galaxy. Chapter 41, Physical Aspects of the Local Universe, makes the following comments about suns in Section 3, Our Starry Associates:

 

When suns that are too large are thrown off a nebular mother wheel, they soon break up or form double stars. All suns are originally truly gaseous, though they may later transiently exist in a semiliquid state. When your sun attained this quasi-liquid state of supergas pressure, it was not sufficiently large to split equatorially, this being one type of double star formation.

 

When less than one tenth the size of your sun, these fiery spheres rapidly contract, condense, and cool. When upwards of thirty times its size-rather thirty times the gross content of actual material-suns readily split into two separate bodies, either becoming the centers of new systems or else remaining in each other's gravity grasp and revolving about a common center as one type of double star.

 

The most recent of the major cosmic eruptions in Orvonton [a part of the universe described in The Urantia Book that is much larger than our local universe and in which our local universe is located] was the extraordinary double star explosion, the light of which reached Urantia in A.D. 1572. This conflagration was so intense that the explosion was clearly visible in broad daylight. (Urantia Book 41:3.3-5)1

In order to appreciate how this statement, published in The Urantia Book in 1955, was ahead of science, one needs to acquire both a general understanding of how the science has developed regarding supernovae and a specific understanding of how this history of science relates to Tycho's Nova, the supernova explosion of 1572 to which The Urantia Book refers. But, before learning about the history of supernovae in general and Tycho's Nova in particular, we will start with defining what a double star is. The following quotes from Wikipedia provide a basic description of a double star and indicate how "double" and "binary" are used interchangeably in reference to this occurrence:

 

No mage old buddy again you are wrong, Stars do not split up into smaller stars if they are too big, they explode into supernova. All you are doing is trying to obfuscate the issue. I read both the Book of urination's account and wiki's account and they do not even come close to matching.

[pamela]

Ridiculing a text that someone ascribes to, only causes strife. The debate should be kept civil, with use of supporting evidence and without personal conjecture.

[Turtle]

Ridiculing a text that someone ascribes to, only causes strife. The debate should be kept civil, with use of supporting evidence and without personal conjecture.

 

ridiculing this text is the whole point my dear. it's not science & we are not going to let it pass as science. :)

[pamela]

ridiculing this text is the whole point my dear. it's not science & we are not going to let it pass as science. :)

the point is too debunk that which is not science, there is no need for ridicule

[Turtle]

the point is too debunk that which is not science, there is no need for ridicule

 

i disagree. the book is ridiculous in the extreme & a spade is a spade and there is every need to say so. i plan to meet that need. enough of the trolls & their trash. :)

[pamela]

i disagree. the book is ridiculous in the extreme & a spade is a spade and there is every need to say so. i plan to meet that need. enough of the trolls & their trash. :)

 

turtle, ya know i love ya but we have to be civil and not call people trolls and their text the book of urination.It is not befitting of such great minds as yours and moontanmans;)

[Turtle]

turtle, ya know i love ya but we have to be civil and not call people trolls and their text the book of urination.It is not befitting of such great minds as yours and moontanmans;)

 

luv u 2 but it's racist religious crap and i'm gonna say so as long as we discuss it. i wouldn't object to closing the thread either as all it does is attract trolls.