© 2006 Carmelo Martínez, Antonio Moya, Eduardo Altuzarra
© 2006 Urantia Association of Spain
By various authors
(This article is the first part of a series of three)
¶ Carmelo Martínez
I remember that one of the articles that I read more than two years ago (when I was still a lone reader) and that struck me the most was an article about the size of Orvonton [1]. The original English version is at https://archive.urantiabook.org/archive/studyaid/orvonton.html within the Fellowship website.
His thesis and main conclusion is that Orvonton is an area of space 500,000 light years in diameter and centered on the Milky Way. The argumentation is logical and coherent, and contains interesting data when analyzing this issue. Those of you who like this topic will like the article (if you haven’t already read it).
But an objection can be put to it that, in my opinion, invalidates its main conclusion, and that is that it does not take into account the statement of UB 32:2.11 where it is said that from Jerusem to the physical center of Orvonton there are 200,000 light years. This paragraph is also used to refer to the 250,000 years that there are from the system of inhabited worlds to the center of the superuniverse, so I don’t think it has “passed over”. I am also attaching a drawing that I have made (see Fig.1) , more or less to scale, where a central green circle appears that would be the Milky Way (100,000 light years in diameter), an outer blue circle that would be Orvonton (500,000 light years in diameter), a red point that would be the Satania system and a dotted black circle centered around Satania 400,000 light-years in diameter (200,000 light-years in radius) marking points that are 200,000 light-years from Satania.The article’s author makes a lot of things fit except precisely this, which he doesn’t even mention.
By the way, this paragraph is another of those who bring them. It says that Jerusem is 200,000 light-years from the physical center of the superuniverse, however, a little further down, it says that the outermost inhabited world system is 250,000 light-years from the center of the superuniverse; he no longer uses the adjective “physical.” Coincidence? A matter of writing style? In addition (although now I do not remember where) I have seen a discussion in English and by English speakers about the interpretation of a preposition precisely in this paragraph. I copy the sentence in English: “…it is over two bundred thousand light-years to the physical center of the superuniverse of Orvonton, far, far away in the dense diameter of the Milky Way” , Or translated “…it is more than two hundred thousand light-years to the physical center of the Orvonton superuniverse, far far away in the dense diameter of the Milky Way”. I have underlined the preposition in question. In response to that discussion, to translate this phrase “you have to fuck it with cigarette paper.” The most direct translation is the Spanish preposition “en” that indicates position; that is, it is understood that the physical center of the superuniverse is located in the dense diameter of the Milky Way. However, in that discussion there were those who argued that in English it can also be interpreted as “in the direction of the dense diameter of the Milky Way” and not in the diameter itself. Because what is the “dense diameter of the Milky Way”?
Santi makes a very ingenious interpretation by including the Magellanic Cloud inside Orvonton, which allows this center to be moved outside of the Milky Way.
I will further explain my objection to Norm Du Val’s article regarding the distance from Jerusem to the physical center of Orvonton. The objection is based on the fact that the article extends the reach of Orvonton to a diameter of 500,000 light years centered on the Milky Way, but it is accepted, or not contradicted, that the Milky Way itself is of a different size than 100,000 light-years across, or distributed differently. According to Norm Du Val, the Milky Way is what it is but Orvonton is also its halo and the globular groups and dwarf galaxies around it (up to 500,000 light years). He also says that the number of soles is miscalculated due to deficient measurement methods, and that as these improve, the number of soles approaches what the Book says.
The Sun (and therefore Satania) is still about 30,000 light-years from the physical center of the Milky Way, which is the physical center of Orvonton according to the article. He uses the UB 32:2.11 paragraph (among others) to support his argument, but ignores and does not explain another part of the paragraph where he says that from Jerusem to the physical center of Orvonton there are 200,000 light years. The drawing that I sent you tries to represent, following the ideas of the article, the points that are 200,000 light years away from Jerusem. If Jerusem is 200,000 light-years from the physical center of Orvonton, the center of the Milky Way is not the center of Orvonton and therefore the model posited in the article (Orvonton = an area around and centered on the Milky Way, which is its core) is not correct.
¶ Antonio Moya
I have reread the Urantia texts dealing with this subject again, and here are my impressions:
- If Jerusem is more than 200,000 light-years from the large group (or swarm) of suns that serves as the physical or astronomical center of Orvonton, (UB 32:2.11), and Nebadon is now well out towards the edge of Orvonton , rotating far to the southeast of the circuit of our superuniverse (UB 32:2.11), and the radius of Orvonton is about 250,000 light years, it is evident that the center of the Milky Way is NOT the center of Orvonton.
- Which leads us to read with a magnifying glass and extreme attention the paragraph of UB 15:3.1: “The immense star system of the Milky Way represents the central nucleus of Orvonton…” Consulted the relevant dictionaries on the various meanings Of words, you could rewrite that paragraph saying: “The immense star system of the Milky Way represents the essential densest and most luminous part of Orvonton” (core = densest and most luminous part, in astronomy; and central = essential, important).
“The densest and most luminous essential part” does NOT have to be the physical or astronomical center of our superuniverse, of course. The Milky Way is THE MOST IMPORTANT thing about Orvonton, but it is NOT downtown Orvonton.
From our position in space, the elongated whitish smear we call the Milky Way I think we see it as if we were looking at a singing clock, where suns, nebulae and clusters overlap one after the other, one behind the other, in perspective . Hence the luminous agglomerate that is seen. - Sagittarius. Science does NOT say that the center of our galaxy is Sagittarius, but that the center of our galaxy IS IN THE DIRECTION OF Sagittarius, that is, looking in that direction, and, I think, BEYOND Sagittarius, is the center of our galaxy. Urantia says: “The center of rotation of your minor sector is located…in the enormous and dense stellar cloud of Sagittarius, around which your local universe and its associated creations move” (UB 15:3.5) And then calls it “The Sector of Sagittarius…” (UB 15:3.7). Therefore, it seems evident that Sagittarius itself is the center of our minor sector.
- Magellanic Cloud. Urantia does not say whether or not this Cloud is included within Orvonton. It merely says that “these enormous aggregates appear as gigantic luminous masses of resplendent suns, like the Magellanic Cloud” (UB 15:4.8)
Dear Carmelo. With all these data on the table, what drawing would you now make of our superuniverse (drawing in the style of the previous one)?
¶ Carmelo Martínez
Antonio has made two points that I think are very accurate in what refers to the meaning of “core” and “central”. If we add to that Santi’s ideas, we may have come one step closer to interpreting what the revelators told us (who used the English language with a mastery recognized by many).
I have consulted the Compact Oxford Dictionary to corroborate what Antonio says. Here is what it says for nucleus (in one of its meanings referring to astronomy, the other astronomical meaning refers to comets and is conceptually equivalent): “A more condensed, usu. brighter, central portion of a galaxy or nebula”. About central there is a meaning in a figurative sense (in addition to other meanings in a literal sense that refer to something that is positioned in the center or at the same distance from two extremes) that says: «Belonging to the center as the chief or more significant point or part, which lies at the beart, or dominates the rest; hence, chief, principal, leading, dominant.“ , dominant_”.
I am going to try to make a compilation of the ideas expressed by some and by others, and of phrases taken directly from the Book.
-
It seems clear that Orvonton is the Milky Way and something else. And it also seems clear that the “Milky Way represents the densest and most luminous essential part of Orvonton” as interpreted by Antonio. I dare to add that the Milky Way perhaps does not mean more than 50 or 60% of the total matter of Orvonton.
-
Orvonton is a spatial volume characterized, as stated in 167:18, because “you observe that the spheres of Orvonton move in an immense elongated plane, whose width is much greater than the thickness and whose length is much greater than the width ”and is reaffirmed in UB 15:3.3 «_The observation of the so-called Milky Way reveals the relative increase in the stellar density of Orvonton when looking at the skies in a certain direction, while on both sides the density decreases; the number of stars and other spheres decreases as you move away from the main plane of our material superuniverse. The space occupied by Orvonton is flattened and longer than it is wide. It does not mean that the density is similar throughout the Orvonton plane, but that outside that plane the density is low.
-
The longest diameter of Orvonton is at least 500,000 light years (perhaps more, as Santi says).
-
Orvonton is made up of “suns, dark islands of space, double stars, globular clusters, star clouds, spiral nebulae, and others, together with myriads of individual planets.” There is of course the Milky Way, but also the Sagittarius dwarf galaxy, the Large Magellanic Cloud (180,000 light-years from our sun?), the Small Magellanic Cloud (200,000 light-years from us?), other galaxies dwarfs, globular groups and even individual stars that are not associated with any other.
-
Our knowledge of the universe is obviously obtained from observations made from the surface of our planet or from very close to it (Hubble, for example). This prevents having a direct view of the whole, and even being able to detect groups because they are covered with bodies and groups of the Milky Way itself. It appears that the non-Milky Way part of Orvonton is just beyond the edge of the Milky Way away from us. A quote from the Book about it: “Better methods of space measurement and improved telescopic technique will sometime more fully disclose the ten grand divisions of the superuniverse of Orvonton; you will at least recognize eight of these immense sectors as enormous and fairly symmetrical star clusters” (UB 41:3.10).
-
The image I get with all this is that of a kind of rugby ball, with the Milky Way very close to one of its pointed ends. Satania would be somewhere fairly close to this pointy end and would have most of Orvonton’s bulk to the other side. Uversa would be in the center of the ball in “that great sun cluster which functions as the physical or astronomic center of the seventh superuniverse” (UB 32:2.11) (Which will it be?). I wish we could one day make a representation of that ball locating all the known galaxies and groups, but it’s a Chinese job.
-
To finish one more quote that reflects the “arbitrary” character of this division of space: «The Seven Superuniverses are not primary physical organizations; nowhere do their boundaries divide a nebular family, neither do they cross a local universe, a prime creative unit. Each superuniverse is simply a geographic space clustering of approximately one seventh of the organized and partially inhabited post-Havona creation, and each is about equal in the number of local universes embraced and in the space encompassed“ (UB 12:1.12). And I add that although ”arbitrary" in its origin, nothing prevents it from forming a physical unit when it reaches the state of light and life, because if I remember correctly, one of the jobs of the administrators of each unit of the grand universe is to achieve stability physics of all spheres, systems, etc. components. To reach light and life (the objective of this evolutionary phase of the superuniverses) it is necessary to first achieve the physical stability of the power circuits of the corresponding unit (UB 15:9.16, UB 55:11.4).
The “symmetrical” image of an Orvonton centered around the Milky Way pleases precisely because of its symmetry, but it seems that it is not the one that corresponds to reality. It must be remembered that in another time the Urantia thinkers believed that the center of the universe was our planet and everything else revolved around it. This kind of “geocentrism” makes us like this “centered” Orvonton, but we should not trust it.
To finish, I want to say that there is something that still does not fit me. I mean that very detailed description of the position of the seven superuniverses and of the different spatial levels with alternate turns with respect to the central universe of UB 15:1.4. I keep wondering if it is possible to locate all that in space as we know it, or is it necessary some key that we do not have today.
¶ Eduardo Altuzarra
I want to know what you interpret or what The Urantia Book says in UB 15:4.8 “The Milky Way galaxy is composed…” Specifically the subject of the Magellanic Cloud, inside or outside?, since I have some other No doubt, similar to the “center” and “core” that thanks to your opinions I have something clearer.
The Urantia Book says:
The Milky Way galaxy is composed of vast numbers of former spiral and other nebulae, and many still retain their original configuration. But as the result of internal catastrophes and external attraction, many have suffered such distortion and rearrangement as to cause these enormous aggregations to appear as gigantic luminous masses of blazing suns, like the Magellanic Cloud. The globular type of star clusters predominates near the outer margins of Orvonton.
The UB 93 issue says:
“La galaxia de la Vía Láctea está compuesta de vastos números de antiguas nebulosas espirales y de otras formas, muchas aún retienen su configuración original. Pero como resultado de las catástrofes interiores y de la atracción exterior, muchas de ellas han sufrido considerable distorsión y cambio de forma hasta el punto de que estas enormes agregaciones aparecen como gigantescas masas luminosas de soles flameantes, tales como la nube de Magallanes, el grupo estelar del tipo globular que predomina cerca de los límites exteriores de Orvonton.” (UB 15:4.8)
Antonio has translated:
“La galaxia de la Vía Láctea está compuesta de un gran número de antiguas nebulosas espirales y de otro tipo, y muchas de ellas conservan todavía su configuración original. Pero a consecuencia de las catástrofes internas y de la atracción externa, muchas han sufrido tales deformaciones y adaptaciones que han hecho que estos enormes agregados aparezcan como gigantescas masas luminosas de soles resplandecientes semejantes a la Nube de Magallanes. Los enjambres de estrellas de tipo globular predominan cerca de los márgenes exteriores de Orvonton.”
Personally, I interpret what Antonio exposes, it is a group that is located “outside” the Orvonton. Santi and Carmelo seem to interpret it as a group “within” Orvonton.
A work that at the time I downloaded from the Internet by a certain Humberto Andrade from April 1997 “From Urantia to the Master Universe, interesting facts” states on page four: “As an interesting fact, the UB mentions that La Gran y Pequeña Magellanic cloud, would they be there? near the outer limits of Orvonton, belongs to it and that the Andromeda Nebula is located a million light years from the Milky Way and is outside this superuniverse ”. He writes verbatim the word would be.
I currently have more than half a dozen “fronts” “open”, that is, more than half a dozen documents that deal with the subject in one way or another throughout the entire UB.
¶ Antonio Moya
In my translation I do NOT indicate or interpret the Magellanic Cloud to be outside of Orvonton. And after what Carmelo exposed, I interpret it much less. Notice that in the paragraph you comment on, the authors say at the beginning “The Milky Way galaxy…” and end by indicating “…the outer margins of Orvonton”. It seems that the Milky Way and Orvonton are NOT the same. That, as Carmelo says, Orvonton is the Milky Way and something else. In that “something else” it is more than likely that the Magellanic Clouds and other stellar groups are included.
The paragraph in question about the Magellanic Cloud is ambiguous. It doesn’t say it’s in or out of Orvonton. It merely indicates that these “ancient spiral and other nebulae” “have undergone such deformations” as to “appear as gigantic luminous masses of resplendent suns, resembling the Magellanic Cloud.” It compares one thing with the other. But it doesn’t tell you where it is. It may very well be on what they call the Orvonton fringes.
¶ Carmelo Martínez
I’m not sure, of course, but I’m inclined to believe that both Magellanic Clouds are within Orvonton space. They are not in the main plane of the Milky Way, they are even quite far apart, which could suggest that they do not belong to our superuniverse; but on the other hand they would be more or less towards the middle of the “rugby ball” which is the widest part, so they are also in the periphery of Orvonton (in a different periphery from ours, obviously).
On the other hand, I keep thinking about UB 15:1.4, UB 15:1.5 and UB 15:1.6. I am trying to find clues to fix the ‘paradisiacal’ addresses that are mentioned in those paragraphs.
One clear clue is that the Andromeda Nebula is in outer space.
Another clue I found is at UB 12:1.14. It says that between the superuniverse level and the first level of outer space there is an average of 400,000 light years of a relatively calm space zone. By the way, this data supports the belief that both Magellanic Clouds do belong to Orvonton.
Taking into account the ellipse covered by the seven superuniverses and their positions, especially the current position of Orvonton; Given the two clues above and looking at our local group image, I am beginning to suspect that ‘Paradise’ north falls between angles 30 and 50 as modern-day astronomy measures the directions in space relative to the Milky Way.
Maybe you will find more clues. All of them would help us pinpoint with more certainty where the seventh superuniverse extends in relation to the Milky Way.
I don’t know if I’m being very clear. This is a matter best explained by the galaxy distribution drawings of our Local Group.
(End of the first part)
¶ References
- Light and Life Magazine (all old issues): https://aue.urantia-association.org/numeros-antiguos-del-lyv/
¶ Grades
This article is available in Spanish on our website. You can go directly from the link http://www.librodeurantia.es/files/works/ComograndeOrvonton.pdf ↩︎