© 2001 Dick Bain
© 2001 The Brotherhood of Man Library
© 2020 Jan Herca, addition of notes and quotes
Blame it all on Henrietta Leavitt. If it hadn’t been for her, Edwin Hubble might never have discovered that the universe is flying apart due to an event that would later be known as the “Big Bang.” Ms. Leavitt, while studying Cepheid variable stars in the Small Magellanic Cloud in 1912, discovered that the luminosity or brightness of these variable stars is directly related to the time required for the star to go from maximum to minimum brightness or luminosity. It’s unfortunate that this brilliant woman astronomer hasn’t received more credit for her work.
¶ Cepheid Variable Stars
Cepheid variable stars are one of the so called “standard candles”[1] that astronomers use to determine the distance to other galaxies. The property that allows determining distance using these variables is the constant relationship between their actual or absolute brightness and their period of variability. The problem is that we don’t know their absolute brightness, only their relative brightness. The relative brightness is how bright a light source appears from whatever distance we happen to view it. The absolute brightness is how bright stars appear if all are viewed from the same distance. For instance, our sun appears much brighter than Sirius (the Dog Star) because it is much closer to us, but if Sirius were viewed at the same distance as our sun, Sirius would appear much brighter because its absolute brightness is greater. So, we have a conundrum we need to solve. We want to use Cepheid variables to determine distance, but first we need to know the distance to a few of them so we can calibrate the absolute brightness versus distance knowing the period of variability. This problem can be solved using another of the standard candles known as parallax.[2]
If you hold one finger up at arm’s length and view it first with your left eye closed and the right one open, then with your right eye closed and your left one open, you will note that the finger appears to move from side to side. This is due to the fact that your eyes are spaced apart (to give us stereo vision and depth perception,) and the finger is viewed at different angles by your two eyes. Astronomers can use this apparent motion of stars as viewed from widely spaced observatories to determine the distance to nearby stars. Fortunately, there are several Cepheid variable stars close enough to measure the distance to them using parallax. After calibrating our Cepheid variable standard candles, we can use them to measure the distance to other galaxies that contain this type of variable stars.
It is worth noting that the authors of The Urantia Book endorse the use of variable stars to measure distances in the universe. The authors inform us, “In one group of variable stars the period of light fluctuation is directly dependent on luminosity, and knowledge of this fact enables astronomers to utilize such suns as universe lighthouses or accurate measuring points for the further exploration of distant star clusters.” UB 41:3.10
Using Ms. Leavitt’s relationship between brightness and the period of variability of Cepheid variables, Hubble was able to determine the distance to M31, known as the Andromeda galaxy.[3] Hubble found that the distance to M31, our closest neighbor galaxy, is about 1 million light years.[4] And in fact this is the figure that The Urantia Book indicates: [5]
. . . There are not many sun-forming nebulae active in Orvonton at the present time, though Andromeda, which is outside the inhabited superuniverse, is very active. This far-distant nebula is visible to the naked eye, and when you view it, pause to consider that the light you behold left those distant suns almost one million years ago. UB 15:4.7
Unfortunately, this figure is in error. Today, it is known that the distance is actually about 2.54 million light years [6] from Urantia, our planet, to M31. In 1952, Walter Baade[7] discovered that there are two types of Cepheid variables with different period-luminosity relationships.[Ref 1] Hubble had used the wrong population, and thus came up with the wrong distance to M31. Because of Walter Baade’s discovery, the size of the astronomers’ universe doubled overnight! The popular press had a field day poking fun at the astronomers for this sudden inflation of the universe.
¶ Mr. Hubble’s Variable Constant
As Edwin Hubble observed galaxies at greater and greater distance, he noted that the farther a galaxy is from us, the faster it seems to be receding from us. He could tell this from the so-called “red shift” of the light reaching us from the distant galaxy. When a star or galaxy moves away from us, its various colors of visible light are shifted toward the red end of the spectrum. This red shift is mentioned on The Urantia Book: “Spectral lines are displaced from the normal towards the violet by an approaching star; likewise these lines are displaced towards the red by a receding star.” UB 12:4.14
The conclusion Hubble reached from his observations was that the universe is expanding. Initially, Hubble had trouble accepting this conclusion. At first, he supported the so-called “tired light” theory, which supposes that something happens to the light as it passes through space to lower it’s frequency and hence move its color toward the red end of the spectrum; this could account for the red shift. But later he decided that the red shift was indeed a sign of an expanding universe. This idea was another of the major cosmological shocks to which science had introduced the world in the past few centuries. An earlier one was the concept that the earth is not the center of the universe. Everyone had considered the universe as stable and unchanging; to go from a stolid, steady, and dependable universe to an expanding one was too much of a change for some people. Even the brilliant Albert Einstein rejected the expanding universe notion. It wasn’t until he visited Mt. Palomar and saw for himself the evidence on the photographic plates that he accepted the idea of an expanding universe.
Hubble used the information he had gathered to determine a relationship between the distance to a distant galaxy and its speed of recession from us[8]. This relationship is known as Ho, the Hubble constant. Mathematically, the Hubble constant is: Ho = V/d, where V is the velocity of the body away from us, and d is its distance from us. The Hubble constant has the interesting dimensions of kilometers per Megaparsec per second. A megaparsec is about 3.26 million light years, and a light year is the distance light travels in a year at the speed of 186,000 miles per second, or about 19 trillion miles. Hubble determined a value for Ho of between 500 and 550 km/Mps/sec. [Ref 2] This means that for every megaparsec a galaxy is further from us, it’s speed away from us increases by about 525 km/sec.
The authors of The Urantia Book inform us that, “Many influences interpose to make it appear that the recessional velocity of the external universes increases at the rate of more than one hundred miles a second for every million light-years increase in distance.” (UB 12:4.14) When converted to the same terms as the Hubble constant, the value given in The Urantia Book is 525 km/sec/Mpc. Thus, the authors cite Hubble’s value, but reject this speed of recession. They go on to state, “But this apparent speed of recession is not real; it results from numerous factors embracing angles of observation and other time-space distortions.” (UB 12:4.14)
It turns out that the book’s authors were correct about the value of Hubble’s constant being excessive, but not for the reasons they stated. It seems to me that the authors are not denying that the universe is expanding, rather they are saying that the universe is not expanding at the rate Hubble calculated.
Because of Walter Baade’s previously mentioned discovery, the value of the Hubble constant was lowered, and this meant that the universe was expanding at a more leisurely pace than Hubble had calculated. Today, the value of Ho stands at about 75 (km/s)/Mpc.[9] This means that the universe is expanding at a rate only one seventh of that proposed by Hubble. The authors left the question of universe expansion open for an obvious reason. In Paper 11 they discuss a phenomenon known as space respiration and inform us that all of space is in an expansion phase at this time.“The cycles of space respiration extend in each phase for a little more than one billion Urantia years. During one phase the universes expand; during the next they contract. Pervaded space is now approaching the mid-point of the expanding phase, . . .”. UB 11:6.4
Unfortunately, there is no information in The Urantia Book to tell us that rate of expansion, so we have no way of comparing it with the expansion rate proposed by our astronomers and cosmologists. However, astronomers have recently discovered a feature of this expansion that may relate to space respiration[10].
Astronomers recently determined that the rate of universe expansion is not constant; according to them, it is accelerating. They had no explanation for this phenomenon; it was wholly unexpected. However, astronomers have since managed to cobble together an explanation to maintain the illusion that they really understand the origin and evolution of the universe.
In a previous article in Innerface International[Ref 3], I theorized that space respiration could not be constant because it periodically reverses direction. The authors of the book tell us that the Master Universe is at the midpoint of the present expansion cycle.
For a billion years of Urantia time the space reservoirs contract while the master universe and the force activities of all horizontal space expand. It thus requires a little over two billion Urantia years to complete the entire expansion-contraction cycle. UB 11:6.5
When the previous contraction cycle ended, the universe had coasted to a dead stop. In order to begin expanding, it had to accelerate from a dead stop to its present rate of expansion. I theorized in my article that astronomers should be able to see that acceleration; perhaps they now have. But it could just as well be a coincidence. As we have seen in the pseudo-science of so-called scientific creationism, it is easy to ignore evidence that doesn’t support our beliefs and over-emphasize evidence that supports our cherished beliefs.
When we first encounter the scientific and cosmological concepts in The Urantia Book, many of us are tempted to accept all of the ideas as revelatory, but the incorrect ideas we find may eventually introduce an element of doubt about this science and cosmology. Our initial reaction may be to look for new interpretations that will make the incorrect ideas appear correct, but we need to ask ourselves if this is intellectually honest. On the other hand, to reject the science content out of hand because it has some errors is intellectually irresponsible. We need to acknowledge that some of the scientific concepts introduced in the book appear to be prophetic. If we decide that the book contains no revelatory material, how do we explain this prophetic content? Or do we need to?
¶ Doubt and Faith
I believe that the science and cosmology content of The Urantia Book need to be examined for several reasons. First, people to whom we introduce the book may note problems in the science of the book; this may lead them to question the validity of the entire book. We need to have reasonable answers for sincere questions. Second, the ideas presented about the cosmology of the universe in the book may move us to devote some thought to the universe and our place in it. Even if we ultimately reject part or all of the cosmology of The Urantia Book, at least we’ve given the subject some serious thought. But an even more significant reason to study the science and cosmology is to find an answer to this question: Why would the authors co-mingle correct and incorrect scientific concepts in the book?
The authors tell us that portions of the book were gleaned from the works of human authors. Matthew Block, who researches human sources for material in The Urantia Book, has identified portions of various books utilized in the sections on science and cosmology. If these source materials were selected by our unseen friends, we would naturally wonder why they chose to quote information that we later determined to be erroneous along with correct concepts and facts. For example, the authors cited Edwin Hubble’s distance to M31, the Andromeda galaxy, which distance was calculated using the initial value of Hubble’s constant. Then the authors tell us indirectly that the initial value of Hubble’s constant is incorrect. What message are they sending us?
It appears to me that the authors intentionally created a mystery for us. I think they intended for us to be in a perpetual state of uncertainty about the revelatory status of The Urantia Book. If we are in perpetual uncertainty, then we cannot hold the book aloft and shout to the world, “Behold the Revelation.” We are forced to humbly admit that we really don’t know if a particular section is all or only in part revelation. It seems to me that although the authors have handed a few certainties to us, we still have to rely on faith to discern God, and our human reason to discern scientific truth.
¶ References
- ↑ “Hubble's Constant and the Age of the Universe,” Martin V. Zombeck, at internet address: http://www.mathsoft.com/mathcad/library/astronomy
- ↑ “Ho: The Incredible Shrinking Constant,” Virginia Trimble, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 108: 1073-1082, (Dec.,1996)
- ↑ “Brahma Breathed,” Richard Bain, Innerface International Vol 6, No. 1, Jan/Feb 1999.
¶ External Links
-
Article in Innerface International: https://urantia-book.org/archive/newsletters/innerface/vol8_3/page10.html
-
«Hubble’s Contentious Constant», NASA publication, sept. 2017. https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/news-articles/hubbles-contentious-constant-news
-
Francisco R. Villatoro, «The Hubble constant problem», june 2017. https://francis.naukas.com/2017/06/12/el-problema-de-la-constante-de-hubble/
¶ Notes
Editor’s note: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_distance_ladder#Standard_candles ↩︎
Editor’s note: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallax ↩︎
Editor’s note: M31 received his name when he was listed by Charles Messier in 1764. At that time, astronomers thought Andromeda was a nebula, and based on his size, Messier considered that its distance should be only 2,000 times more than Sirius star. In 1917 astronomers discovered stars called novas in Andromeda, and Herber Curtis proposed that Andromeda was an “island universe” separated from our galaxy, located 500,000 light years away. ↩︎
Editor’s note: He exactly calculated 275,000 Parsecs, a little less than 900,000 light years (Edwin Hubble, “A Spiral Nebula As a Stellar System, Messier 31”, Astrophysical Journal 69: 103, 1929. http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/pdf/1929ApJ....69..103H ). This is the same distance that Sir James Jeans offers in his 1930 book: “From the fluctuation periods observed in its cefid variables, and in combination with the other methods we have just explained, Dr. Hubble of the Observatory of the Mount Wilson has recently found that even the closest of those nebulae, called the M33 nebula […], is so remote that in light it has been about 850,000 years to reach us. The great M31 nebula in Andromeda […] is a distance slightly greater than 900,000 years-years.” (Sir James Jeans, The Universe Around Us, Cambridge University Press, second edition, 1930, p. 71.) ↩︎
Editor’s note: It is striking that when in the book there are distances in light years there is no qualms about specifying values such as “four hundred thousand light-years” (UB 12:1.14) and “two hundred thousand light-years” (UB 32:2.11) but nevertheless in this passage it does not say “nine hundred thousand years” but simply “about one million years.” This makes a question arise: were the authors of the book basing Andromeda distances to common to the time it was written, or gave a different figure because they did not consider the figures of that time as correct? It is a question that has its importance, as explained in this article, because unfortunately, both the figure from Mr. Hubble of 900,000 light-years, and the million light-years from The Urantia Book must be considered wrong under science after the date the book was written. ↩︎
Editor’s note: Dick Bain’s original article gave a distance of 2.2 million light years. Wikipedia indicates that the 2.54 value comes out of an average of four different estimation techniques, all of them quite coinciding with each other. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andromeda_Galaxy#Distance_estimate ↩︎
Editor’s note: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Baade ↩︎
Editor’s note: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble’s_law ↩︎
Editor’s note: Recently several great magnitude projects have been carried out to try to measure the Hubble constant as accurately as possible. What scientists have discovered is a remarkable discrepancy when the constant is estimated by some methods and others. This remarkable discrepancy has overwhelmed scientists, because they were not expected to be so great. This discrepancy is so remarkable that it is started to be under consideration the possibility that our current cosmological models are not correct and must be reviewed. This could be an indication that current science is being blocked by the space-temporal distorsions (UB 12:4.14) mentioned in The Urantia Book, that have not yet been detected by science. ↩︎
Editor’s note: Brahma Breathes, Richard Bain, Innerface International, Vol 6. No. 1, Jan/Feb 1999. “In Hindu theology, when Brahma breathes out, the universe appears; when he breathes in, the universe disappears. The Urantia Book has a similar concept called space respiration.” ↩︎