© 2012 Santiago Rodríguez
© 2012 Urantia Association of Spain
| What is this? | Luz y Vida — No. 28 — March 2012 — Index | The dissemination of The Urantia Book in the Canary Islands |
工 n this third installment, we will address what we could consider as a fact that has already occurred and, contrary to what we have found in previous installments of this section, we will see that the Revealers give information that differed from what was commonly accepted at the time.
Remembering what is indicated in UB 101:4.2, Document 101 “The real nature of religion”, 4. THE LIMITATIONS OF REVELATION, verbatim copy:
“We full well know that, while the historic facts and religious truths of this series of revelatory presentations will stand on the records of the ages to come, within a few short years many of our statements regarding the physical sciences will stand in need of revision in consequence of additional scientific developments and new discoveries”
Could we consider the description of the formation of our solar system as a historical fact, or should we include it in the section of statements related to the physical sciences that may need revision in the future?
We found that the idea expressed in the UB was contrary to the official and commonly accepted theories on the formation of the solar system, and it is now at the beginning of the 21st century when an idea very similar to the one proposed in 1955 by The lu.
Let’s see the point of view of science at the time of the UB edition and that has survived to this day.
The hypothesis that has been maintained about the formation of the solar system is the nebular hypothesis, first proposed by Emanuel Swedenborg. In 1775 Immanuel Kant, who was familiar with Swedenborg’s work, developed the theory further. A similar theory was formulated independently by Pierre-Simon Laplace in 1796. The nebular theory holds that 4.6 billion years ago the solar system was formed by a gravitational collapse of a giant molecular cloud. Although Descartes already in 1644 proposed a nebular theory to explain the appearance of planets.
Making a very brief summary, and without going into details, we can consider that we have in the cosmic scenario an enormous gaseous cloud that is condensing so that a star will appear in its center and around it other smaller bodies will remain, like drops. will be their future planets and satellites. Phenomenon that illustrates the following drawing:
Although the model of the nebular hypothesis has been refined with the addition of new concepts to account for the observations, the recent appearance of extrasolar planets has meant that the nebular model ceases to be, in some cases, consistent with the experimental data. . And alternative explanations are being sought.
Thus, a new model for the formation of solar systems has recently been developed: The Capture Theory. This theory holds that the gravity of a wandering object could pull matter from the Sun, which would then condense and cool to form the planets. This model explains features of the solar system not explained by the nebular model. However, the Capture Theory has been criticized for assuming a different age for the sun and the planets, when there is evidence that the Sun and the rest of the Solar System formed at roughly the same time, which that more accepted models do manage to explain.
Let’s see what the UB says about the formation of our solar system, and it is surprising that it answers the question that science is currently asking: did the Sun form before the planets?
I suggest reading Document 57. It begins with the history of the formation of our Sun. The first to originate was the Sun, which appears on the scene 6,000 million years ago, formed from a second generation of suns produced mostly by a large nebula .
UB 57:5.3, Paper 57, “The Origin of Urantia”:
“Thus was the stage of local space set for the unique origin of Monmatia, that being the name of your sun’s planetary family, the solar system to which your world belongs. Less than one per cent of the planetary systems of Orvonton have had a similar origin…”
At the moment it reveals to us that it was an unusual origin. We have a relatively isolated Sun on the scene that has already attracted to itself a part of the debris that was nearby, produced within the initial nebula, residues even of its own formation.
And it enters the scene in an enormous stellar cloud, in principle foreign to the Solar System itself: “4,500,000,000 years ago the enormous Angona system began its approach to the neighborhood of this solitary sun. The center of this great system was a dark giant of space, solid, highly charged, and possessing tremendous gravity pull.” UB 57:5.4
In addition, we have to take into account that our Sun was a variable star, that it had periods of contraction and expansion, in which it launched enormous tongues of solar material into space that, in most cases, due to the effect of gravity, fell back on the sun. same sun.
In the previous image we can see the ejection of part of the solar corona (compared to the size of Jupiter and the Earth). This phenomenon is repeated with some frequency even in our days.
Angona passes close enough to cause, in one of these intense eruptions of the Sun, the ejected matter to partially separate from the Sun, giving rise to 12 planets.
Jupiter and Saturn are considered to be portions of the Sun that for a short time shone as stars, and have cooled ever since.
Angona did not take anything from the Sun’s environment, but it did lose three large bodies and other material that ended up being picked up by the gravity of Jupiter and Saturn. This is attested by the retrograde movements of some of its satellites.
We could come to the conclusion that, at present, science and the UB present very close versions both in terms of dates and the model of formation of our solar system.
Perhaps the revelers are playing games with us… presenting us with disguised truths, so we have no choice but to investigate. I tend to believe that what is established in the UB as a fact must have the value of historical fact, and that it really happened as the Revelators have described it. But neither is it an absolute certainty.
Science is taking steps and in its journey sometimes it approaches and other times it moves away from the contents of the UB.
In this section we will be attentive to these fluctuations…
¶ References
- Light and Life Magazine (all old issues): https://aue.urantia-association.org/numeros-antiguos-del-lyv/
| What is this? | Luz y Vida — No. 28 — March 2012 — Index | The dissemination of The Urantia Book in the Canary Islands |