|
|
 My own long time study of
The Urantia Book
has convinced me that it is a genuine cosmic message. From the large amount of information that I have compared to many fields of human knowledge, I would be more amazed if, in the near future, it couldn't be proven that the book contains genuine information of an extrahuman origin, being somewhat adapted to our feeble understanding. But the analysis and the incorporation of
The Urantia Book information into the human sphere of science is an enormous task.
In cosmology the big-bang model is so dominant in the public opinion, that it is difficult to imagine any other possibility. There are however many leading professional cosmologists who have more advanced ideas that aren't so well known.
E. Hubble's discovery of galactic red shifts in the 1930s are criticized by
The Urantia Book
(12:4.12)
and Hubble himself was very cautious about the interpretation of this effect, though his followers were not!
Perhaps the one single modern event (following Lemaitre in 1927 and galaxy red shift by
E. Hubble) that gave new impetus to the big-bang model was the discovery of the cosmic
microwave background radiation at 2.7 deg Kelvin by Penzias and Wilson who shared the
1978 Nobel Prize for Physics. I spoke to Penzias after this event, and I asked his opinion about the big-bang model. He said that he didn't feel very happy about it but he hadn't any other alternative models. It is also amazing that this cornerstone of modern cosmology was explained in 1934, by the authors of The Urantia Book:
Gravity presence and action is what prevents the appearance of the
theoretical absolute zero, for interstellar space does not have the temperature of
absolute zero. Throughout all organized space there are gravity-responding energy
currents, power circuits, and ultimatonic activities, as well as organizing electronic
energies. Practically speaking, space is not empty.
(42:4.6)
So-called dark matter (which just means nonluminous matter), in many forms are also
described in the book. There are many modern candidates; hydrogen and molecular
clouds, neutron stars, brown dwarfs, macho-objects, whimps, space dust, massive
neutrinos or whatever the whims of modern physicists might imagine.
New discoveries about secondary maxima in the background radiation, not predicted by
the big-bang model, might soon prove the book's information to be right also on this point. Therefore this cosmic background radiation might have other sources and isn't
necessarily connected to any big-bang model as believed by many cosmologists.
Some thoughts from a scientist who wanted to remain anonymous:
Astronomers have noticed that the "local group" of galaxies (the superuniverse space
level) is moving in relation to the more distant "cosmic background" (the first outer space level). Having postulated a universe of randomly distributed matter and energy, they have therefore concluded (so far) that there is some huge mass outweighing many galaxies which we are being pulled directly towards. So far, the idea that we are in a stupendous *orbit* around a huge mass (which must then be located somewhere around
right angles to the direction of motion) does not seem to be contemplated.
We are in a uniquely poor position in space to observe this phenomenon and discover its
nature because Paradise-Havona, and all those dark gravity bodies between us and it,
are directly behind the bright, dense center of our own galaxy. (Also it's unclear what
we'd actually see if we were in a position where that direction was open to view.)
An interesting deduction that might be made is that all those galactic units that seem to
be travelling with us (supposedly "towards the Great Attractor" but actually orbiting the
center of the master universe counter-clockwise) should be parts of the superuniverse
space level, while those larger regions which appear unattracted and are not moving with
us (actually, are orbiting clockwise) ought to be parts of the first outer space level.
Probably one could find the astronomers' list of galaxies "heading for the great attractor": galaxies of our own superuniverse (and perhaps our neighboring superuniverses) with a simple web search. Perhaps this would answer some questions about just what is what out there as related to the cosmology of The Urantia Book.
Astronomers' lists of galaxies are huge today, but the deduction of the
geometrical shape of the observable universe is unreliable as long as we don't know
what path the light that we observe has traversed in curved spacetime. There are
Japanese astronomers, and others too, who believe that we might be able to see the light from our own Milky Way when it has traveled one turn around curved space.
I recommend a very interesting article about "A Moebius Universe?" , that appeared in "New
Scientist", 4 January 1997. The article was called "A strange twist in the tale of the
Universe": It explores the idea that the Universe may be shaped like a torus - rather like a bicycle inner tube - a concept that has long fascinated cosmologists.
http://www.vtt.fi/tte/samba/staff/st/electron.html
Dr. Stefan H. Tallqvist
Return to Science & Evolution Page
|
Cosmology
