© 1987 Richard Bain
© 1987 ANZURA, Australia & New Zealand Urantia Association
When I first started writing the “Cosmology Corner” section about a year and a half ago, it seemed that the Big Bang theory was so firmly entrenched that it would be around for decades. It’s fascinating how a structure can seem so solid just before it collapses from termite damage. There now appear to be a few termite cosmologists nibbling inside the structure of the theory.
The Big Bang concept seems to be an elegant solution to the facts observed by astronomers. It nicely explains the fact that the more distant the galaxy, the more the light from it is red-shifted. It also explains the origin of the universe without reference to some “Higher Power”. Until recently, the theory was as universally accepted as Newton’s theory of gravitation was in the previous century. Just when it seemed that Newton’s math could handle any problem dealing with the motion of bodies, a young upstart named Einstein came along and said, “Yes but,…”.
There seem to be a few astronomers these days saying, “Yes, but…” about the Big Bang.
Two articles this year in "SKY AND TELESCOPE’ magazine described work that challenges the idea that greater redshift means greater distance. One of these articles indicated that perhaps it was the nature of the source of the light that gave some of the apparent red-shift. The other article gave the results of studies of red-shifts of various classes of galaxies. Strangely enough, it has been found that the red-shift of various classes of galaxies cluster about certain values. The concepts introduced in these two articles are hard to fit into the theory of a uniformly expanding universe. If the distance versus redshift value is placed in doubt, then the Big Bang likewise loses credibility.
If the news about the red-shift is rocking the Big Bang boat, then the idea presented in the May issue of ‘SKY AND TELESCOPE’ threatens to capsize it. The article, by William Tifft and John Cocke, entitled “Where Are We Going?”, says that the authors have determined that most of the galaxies that we observe outside of our own appear to have a net southward movement. Presumably, the southward refers to the south galactic pole of our Milly Way galaxy. Furthermore, the controller of this motion appears to lie in an area behind our galaxy that can’t be seen with optical telescopes. The authors feel that there must be an enormous congregation of massive galaxies to account for such gravity control. An article appearing in the September, 1987 issue of ‘SCIENIIFIC AMERICAN’ entitled “The Large-Scale Streaming of Galaxies” by Alan Dressler deals with the same subject in somewhat more detail. These ideas should be of great interest to students of The URANTIA Book cosmology. The picture painted in these articles appears to closely describe the motion of the first outer space level and the Paradise Gravity that holds it in place. The author of the article in SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN calls the controlling mass the “Great Attractor”; isn’t that an appropriate name for Paradise?
The astronomers who found the composite motion of the galaxies hope that the source of the gravity can be located with radio telescopes. While light cannot penetrate through the dense centre portion of the galaxy, radio waves can, to some extent. Suppose that they search and can’t find the great concentration of mass needed to account for the gravity, won’t that be exciting? After all, according to the book, the central universe is surrounded by dark gravity bodies and indicates that these bodies don’t radiate radio waves or any other form of energy.
For those of us interested in cosmology, these are exciting times. It looks as though students of the book are about to see confirmation of some of the cosmology of The URANTIA Book. I wonder how long it will take those TV folks to catch on to the new picture of the universe? Well, whatever the astronomers come up with, you can be sure that it will be presented on some TV special with whiz-bang special effects and some fellow trying to persuade us once more that they really have found the secrets of the universe this time. No fooling.
Richard Bain, St, Petersburg, FL,USA
This article first appeared in the Fall/Winter 1987 issue of The Messenger. Richard kindly gave us permission to publish it in the Six-0-Six Newsletter.
It is sad to hear that due to lack of financial support The Messenger is going into mothballs. Out of 320 people only 17 were willing to provide the funds that were needed to keep it afloat. Six-0-Six fared slightly better than that. After introducing subscriptions we still have approx. 91 people on our mailing list with new subscriptions still trickling in. Last year we had about 125 on our list. Compared to The Messenger that is not bad at all!
I am interested to hear the reaction, if any, on your announcement in 6-0-6 of the study by mail. If this “could become the largest global study group” I wonder. Anyway if I can serve some dispersed student I’ll be glad. The writer of that long and confused article about reincarnation should differentiate between reincarnation, which our book denies, and repersonalization, the latter being the process our book teaches. I could go deeper into that but for the moment I must wait.