What we think we know

[19Merlin69]

I tried this but used a 100,000 c.p. spot.
What I observed was that the smoke became trapped in the beam and then smoothed out into a line and it seemed to be pushed away.
What does that tell me?  Dunno,  maybe like the calicum or sodium attaching itself to photons (("This calcium atom moves outward by alternate jerks of forward propulsion, grasping and letting go the sunbeam about twenty-five thousand times each second. And this is why stone is the chief component of the worlds of space. Calcium is the most expert solar-prison escaper." ))

Since the smoke is mostly carbon, what it shows is that fields, in the form of EM radiation in multiple bands capture and control the action of the carbon.  The more intense the field strength is, the more control that is exerted.  The smoke at boundary regions that manages to be pushed away is actually accelerated as it leaves the confines of the beam.  But, the easiest thing to notice is that the whole thing works in waves & moves in parallel lines in relation to the photon direction.

Now,  let me ask you this Merl,  if that above statement is true,  and I believe it is even though you state that we haven't observed it,  then in the example of the laser they are using a sodium cloud to slow down light to a standstill;  even though it is named in the Ubook that sodium and calcium atoms do the same thing as far as attaching themselves to photons;  it implies that the calcium atom is better at doing it.  It would seem to me that the same experiment could be done more efficiently if they were using a calcium cloud instead of sodium.  What would be the feasibility of carrying out the same experiment with calcium?

Actually - I said that calcium sodium and calcium doesn't ride waves of sunlight and arrive here in the form of the associative element.  My proof is that it isn't observed.  Conversely, it isn't observed because it doesn't happen.  I even took the time to explain the multiple isotopes, their actions and why they could not do what the UB says it does.  What you keep missing is that there are very specific isotopes of sodium being used for the test - the radical isotopes that would be formed in the sun, but would never survive the flight to earth.  To use calcium ones of a similar ilk would result in the same stunted flight.

Do we have the technology to verify that calcium attaches and releases itself 25,000 times a second from a photon?

We do - it doesn't.

Merl,
you've thrown a red herring into the mix;  the EM field.  Skip the EM field and then what do you have?  No waves right?

No red herring.  There are many other "waves" that do not have exclusive connections to EM Field Theory.  There are gravity waves, density waves, sound waves, vibrational waves of string theory and plasmonic waves.  Some waves result for a preponderance of "something" in the midst of "something else" or "nothing else" - where as others are simply a geometric distribution of one thing over another.  In the case of gravity waves, it is easy to understand that the two (EM wave propagation & gravity) are not related; if they were, gravity would not be such a mystery.

P476:1, 42:5.1  5
The excitation of the content of space produces a wavelike reaction to the passage of rapidly moving particles of matter, just as the passage of a ship through water initiates waves of varying amplitude and interval.

This is one of the issues I take with the UB - it routinely uses incorrect analogies to make its (incorrect) case.  It is a sign that the authors did not fundamentally understand the science of nature...  It also indicates that their understanding was that of a human around the 30s & 40s.  Dr. Sadler was bright and relatively well schooled on the science of the day, however, they were wrong back then.

I don't know why you are so easily getting upset. 

I wasn't aware that I was getting upset.  If I remember correctly - I was simply refusing to argue with me when you became argumentative.  Accusing me (of all people) of not supplying proof was a sure sign that you weren't thinking clearly - so I decided to put a stop to any potential escalation in rhetoric.  Accusing me of not supply answers or proof is as absurd as accusing McDonald's, Popeye's or Kentucky Fried Chicken of selling health food.

You are a theoretical physicist and I would think you would be all over this stuff.  There is enough there to keep you busy for a lifetime.  By your own admission physics is so full of errors and assumptions and theories and changes in position every time there is a new discovery that if you applied the same frustration to the Ubook that you do to physics you would have been selling burgers at McDonalds years ago.

There is, however, a difference between searching for answers and following leads in an inaccurate investigation.  I have researched the UB's science thoroughly - it lacks accuracy and therefore credibility.  If the "proof" offered within it is incorrect, I am left to question the remaining material.  We've had this discussion and I agreed to stay out of the dissecting business - but you keep offering it up for sacrifice.

I was just watching the Science channel;  Extreme Universe; Planet Hunters,  and it was amazing that they couldn't find a planet until some guy from Europe or something found the wobble because the planet was rotating about every 3 days instead of the 10 years or so that our guys were looking for.  You talk about inspiring confidence,  well,  let's use the mirror a bit.

I have no idea what you are talking about here.  A mirror?  What's that about?  The fact that our methods improve can hardly be anything other than proof of why we learn!  What doesn't inspire confidence in me is when we use new methods to validate old errors.  That's what my "mission" is all about.

Look,  I don't belong in your class.  I have no foundation for the science and math that you are dishing out.  I surmise that even other physicists have a problem with your stuff. 

Hmmm.....   I cannot ascertain what you mean here.  I can tell you that I am in a class of but a handful, but that has little bearing on my intelligence - it has much more to do with my field of study, experience and expertise.  Most other scientists that I deal with (physicists and astrophysicists alike) find me quirky, obsessive, but overall - extremely committed.  My cimmittment is to finding the truth - not supporting dogma.

The only thing I have is an interest in science;  astronomy;  religion and other such fields but mainly as they pertain to the information in revelation.  The only reason I can even participate in these discussions is because of the Ubook and there are a fair amount of scientific minds with a laundry list of credentials attached to this revelation that can see it for what it is.

I see it for what it is also, however, I think we differ on what "it" is.

I gave you this statement to which you replied .........The aether?  Oi vey -

The so-called ether is merely a collective name to designate a group of force and energy activities occurring in space. Ultimatons, electrons, and other mass aggregations of energy are uniform particles of matter, and in their transit through space they really proceed in direct lines. Light and all other forms of recognizable energy manifestations consist of a succession of definite energy particles which proceed in direct lines except as modified by gravity and other intervening forces. That these processions of energy particles appear as wave phenomena when subjected to certain observations is due to the resistance of the undifferentiated force blanket of all space, the hypothetical ether, and to the intergravity tension of the associated aggregations of matter. The spacing of the particle-intervals of matter, together with the initial velocity of the energy beams, establishes the undulatory appearance of many forms of energy-matter.

what I was pointing out was this so-called undifferentiated force blanket of space and the following sentences.  The Ubook very clearly states that the hypothetical aether that you are Oi Veying about from the 1800's does not exist.  Perhaps one problem here are your "trigger" words."

No - what I was commenting on was the fact that the UB tries to define what the aether is, and whyit appears to exist.  The fact is - it doesn't exist, it never did and the UB's description for why the aether was even predicted is incorrect.  Again, it answer smacks of logic and understanding of the 1930s - 1950s.  It dates itself, and it does it with rudimentary logic - not the advanced knowledge that the "Creators" would have.  That's where the Oi Vey came from.  My trigger words are - Free Energy and Vortex Technology - not aether.

=urantia
P476:2, 42:5.1  6
Primordial-force behavior does give rise to phenomena which are in many ways analogous to your postulated ether. Space is not empty; the spheres of all space whirl and plunge on through a vast ocean of outspread force-energy; neither is the space content of an atom empty. Nevertheless there is no ether, and the very absence of this hypothetical ether enables the inhabited planet to escape falling into the sun and the encircling electron to resist falling into the nucleus.

Now,  if you can  please tell me why the absence of this hypothetical aether keeps the planet from falling into the sun or the electron from falling into the nucleus.

What keeps the Earth from falling into the Sun is angular momentum.  What keeps the electron from falling into the nucleon is not as well understood.  Since we suspect that an electron is not actually an object - but a wave of energy, angular momentum is not an obvious suspect.  The force of electromagnetism is.  You see, the Sun is not repellant to the Earth like an electron is to a nucleon.  Angular momentum ('am') and the force of gravity keeps a "tug-o-war" going between the two massive objects, but attration and repulsion at the atomic level has little to do with 'am' (although it does a wee bit), and nothing to do with the warpage of S/T.  In other words - the UB has given yet another bad analogy and followed up with incorrect information.

[Majeston]

Merlin,

Thank you sincerely for your last reply.  While I am digesting what I can of it and preparing a response I wish to post the following for your review and commentary.  The dates are included for the paper.
I do not think we have gone over this material before and it appears to be in your field of expertise.  I found the addendum interesting and apparently well researched.


http://www.urantiabook.org/archive/newsletters/innerface/vol1_6/page15.html
Nov/Dec 1994
Science and The Urantia Book. Neutrinos, Neutrons, and Neutron Stars
Australia [Ken Glasziou, Ph.D., is a retired physicist.]

    Because of the mandatory restrictions imposed on the revelators (1109), the science and cosmology of The Urantia Book is at the approximate level of current human knowledge for the mid-1930's. It also contains some statements that were prophetic at that time because the mandate allowed the revelators to supply vital information to fill gaps in our otherwise earned knowledge. One such gap-filler may have been:
"In large suns when hydrogen is exhausted and gravity contraction ensures, and such a body is not sufficiently opaque to retain the internal pressure of support for the outer gas regions, then a sudden collapse occurs.  The gravity-electric changes give origin to vast quantities of tiny particles devoid of electric potential, and such particles readily escape from the solar interior thus bringing about the collapse of a gigantic sun within a few days."(464)     
     No tiny particles devoid of electric potential that could escape readily from the interior of a collapsing star were known to exist in 1934. In fact, the reality of such particles were not confirmed until 1956, one year after the publication of The Urantia Book. The existence of particles that might have such properties had been put forward as a suggestion by Wolfgang Pauli in 1932, because studies on radioactive beta decay of atoms had indicated that a neutron could decay to a proton and an electron, but measurements had shown that the combined mass energy of the electron and proton did not add up with that of the neutron. To account for the missing energy, Pauli suggested a little neutral particle was emitted, and then, on the same day, while lunching with the eminent astrophysicist Walter Baade, Pauli commented that he had done the worst thing a theoretical physicist could possibly do, he had proposed a particle that could never be discovered because it had no properties. Not long after, the great Enrico Fermi took up Pauli's idea and attempted to publish a paper on the subject in the prestigious science journal Nature. The editors rejected Fermi's paper on the grounds that it was too speculative. This was in 1933, the year before receipt of the relevant Urantia Paper.
    An interesting thing to note is The Urantia Book statement that tiny particles devoid of electric potential would be released in vast quantities during the collapse of the star. If, in 1934, an author other than a knowledgeable particle physicist was prophesying about the formation of a neutron star (a wildly speculative proposal from Zwicky and Baade in the early 1930's), then surely that author would have been thinking about the reversal of beta decay in which a proton, an electron and Pauli's little neutral particle would be squeezed together to form a neutron.
    Radioactive beta decay can be written...
1. neutron ----> proton + electron + LNP
where LNP stands for little neutral particle.  Hence the reverse should be:
2. LNP + electron + proton---->neutron
    For this to occur an electron and a proton have to be compressed to form a neutron but somehow they would have to add a little neutral particle in order to make up for the missing mass-energy. Thus, in terms of available speculative scientific concepts in 1934, The Urantia Book appears to have put things back to front, it has predicted a vast release of LNP's, when the reversal of radioactive beta decay would appear to demand that LNPs should disappear.
    The idea of a neutron star was considered to be highly speculative right up until 1967. Most astronomers believed that stars of average size, like our sun, up to stars that are very massive, finished their lives as white dwarfs. The theoretical properties of neutron stars were just too preposterous; for example, a thimble full would weigh about 100 million tonnes. A favored alternative proposal was that large stars were presumed to blow off their surplus mass a piece at a time until they got below the Chandrasekhar limit of 1.4 solar masses, when they could retire as respectable white dwarfs. This process did not entail the release of vast quantities of tiny particles devoid of electric potential that accompany star collapse as described in the cited Urantia Book quotation.
    Distinguished Russian astrophysicist, Igor Novikov, has written, "Apparently no searches in earnest for neutron stars or black holes were attempted by astronomers before the 1960s. It was tacitly assumed that these objects were far too eccentric and most probably were the fruits of theorists wishful thinking. Preferably, one avoided speaking about them. Sometimes they were mentioned vaguely with a remark yes, they could be formed, but in all likelihood this had never happened. At any rate, if they existed, then they could not be detected."
    Acceptance of the existence of neutron stars gained ground slowly with discoveries accompanying the development of radio and x-ray astronomy. The Crab nebula played a central role as ideas about it emerged in the decade, 1950-1960. Originally observed as an explosion in the sky by Chinese astronomers in 1054, interest in the Crab nebula increased when, in 1958, Walter Baade reported visual observations suggesting moving ripples in its nebulosity. When sensitive electronic devices replaced  the photographic plate as a means of detection, the oscillation frequency of what was thought to be a white dwarf star at the center of the Crab nebula turned out to be about 30 times per second.
   For a white dwarf star with a diameter in the order of 1000 km, a rotation rate of even once per second would cause it to disintegrate due to centrifugal forces. Hence, this remarkably short pulsation period implied that the object responsible for the light variations must be very much smaller than a white dwarf, and the only possible contender for such properties appeared to be a neutron star. Final acceptance came with pictures of the center of the Crab nebula beamed back to earth by the orbiting Einstein X-ray observatory in 1967. These confirmed and amplified the evidence obtained by prior observations made with both light and radio telescopes.
    The reversal of beta-decay, as depicted in (2) above, involves a triple collision, an extremely improbable event, unless two of the components combine in a meta-stable state--a fact not likely to be obvious to a non-expert observer which also indicates that the author(s) of the Urantia Paper was highly knowledgeable in this field.
    The probable evolutionary course of collapse of massive stars has only been elucidated since the advent of fast computers. Such stars begin life composed mainly of hydrogen gas that burns to form helium. The nuclear energy released in this way holds off the gravitational urge to collapse. With the hydrogen in the central core exhausted, the core begins to shrink and heat up, making the outer layers expand. With the rise in temperature in the core, helium fuses to give carbon and oxygen, while the hydrogen around the core continues to make helium. At this stage the star expands to become a red giant.
    After exhaustion of helium at the core, gravitational contraction again occurs and the rise in temperature permits carbon to burn to yield neon, sodium, and magnesium, after which the star begins to shrink to become a blue giant. Neon and oxygen burning follow. Finally silicon and sulphur, the products from burning of oxygen, ignite to produce iron. Iron nuclei cannot release energy on fusing together, hence with the exhaustion of its fuel source, the furnace at the center of the star goes out. Nothing can now slow the onslaught of gravitational collapse, and when the iron core reaches a critical mass of 1.4 times the mass of our sun, and the diameter of the star is now about half that of the earth, the star's fate is sealed.
    Within a few tenths of a second, the iron ball collapses to about 50 kilometers across and then the collapse is halted as its density approaches that of the atomic nucleus and the protons and neutrons cannot be further squeezed together. The halting of the collapse sends a tremendous shock wave back  through the outer region of the core.
    The light we see from our sun comes only from its outer surface layer. However, the energy that fuels the sunlight (and life on earth) originates from the hot, dense thermonuclear furnace at the Sun's core. Though sunlight takes only about eight minutes to travel from the sun to earth, the energy from the sun's core that gives rise to this sunlight takes in the order of a million years to diffuse from the core to the surface. In other words, a sun (or star) is relatively "opaque" (as per The Urantia Book, p.464) to the energy diffusing from its thermonuclear core to its surface, hence it supplies the pressure necessary to prevent gravitational collapse. But this is not true of the little neutral particles, known since the mid 1930's by the name neutrinos. These particles are so tiny and unreactive that their passage from our sun's core to its exterior takes only about 3 seconds.
    It is because neutrinos can escape so readily that they have a critical role in bringing about the star's sudden death and the ensuing explosion. Neutrinos are formed in a variety of ways, many as neutrino-antineutrino pairs from highly energetic gamma rays and others arise as the compressed protons capture an electron (or expel a positron) to become neutrons, a reaction that is accompanied by the release of a neutrino. Something in the order of 1057 electron neutrinos are released in this way. Neutral current reactions from Zo particles of the weak force also contribute electron neutrinos along with the 'heavy' muon and tau neutrinos.
    Together, these neutrinos constitute a "vast quantity of tiny particles devoid of electric potential" that readily escape from the star's interior. Calculations indicate that they carry ninety-nine percent of the energy released in the final supernova explosion. The gigantic flash of light that accompanies the explosion accounts for only a part of the remaining one percent! Although the bulk of the neutrinos and anti-neutrinos are released during the final explosion, they are also produced at the enormous temperatures reached by the inner core during final stages of contraction.
    The opportunity to confirm the release of the neutrinos postulated to accompany the spectacular death of a giant star came in 1987 when a supernova explosion, visible to the naked eye, occurred in the Cloud of Magellan that neighbors our Milky Way galaxy. Calculations indicated that this supernova, dubbed SN1987A, should give rise to a neutrino burst at a density of 50 billion per square centimeter when it finally reached the earth, even though expanding as a spherical 'surface' originating at a distance 170,000 light years away. This neutrino burst was observed in the huge neutrino detectors at Kamiokande in Japan and at Fairport, Ohio, in the USA. lasting for a period of just 12 seconds, and confirming the computer simulations that indicated they should diffuse through the dense core relatively slowly. From the average energy and the number of 'hits' by the neutrinos in the detectors, it was possible to estimate that the energy released by SN1987 amounted to 2-3 x 1053 ergs. This is equal to the calculated gravitational binding energy that would be released by the collapse of a core of about 1.5 solar masses to a neutron star. Thus SN1987A provided a remarkable confirmation of the general picture of neutron star formation developed over the last fifty years. Importantly, it also confirmed that The Urantia Book had its facts right long before the concept of neutrino-spawning neutron stars achieved respectability..
References

Hoyle, F., and J. Narlikar. The Physics Astronomy Frontier. (W.H. Freeman & Co. San Francisco, 1980.)
Novikov, I. Black Holes and the Universe. (Cambridge University Press, 1990)
Sutton, C. Spaceship Neutrino. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1992)


addendum
March/April 1996
Cosmic Reflections
Neutrinos and Neutron Stars


    "In large suns when hydrogen is exhausted and gravity contraction ensures, and such a body is not sufficiently opaque to retain the internal pressure of support for the outer gas regions, then a sudden collapse occurs. The gravity-electric changes give origin to vast quantities of tiny particles devoid of electric potential, and such particles readily escape from the solar interior thus bringing about the collapse of a gigantic sun within a few days." (p. 464)
    For the mid-thirties that was quite a statement. These tiny particles that we now call neutrinos were entirely speculative in the early 1930's and were required to account for the missing mass-energy of beta radioactive decay.
Hypotheses on the possible origins of the Urantia Paper's statement on solar collapse
    In the early 1930's, the idea that supernova explosions could occur and result in the formation of neutron stars was extensively publicized by Fritz Zwicky of the California Institute of Technology (Caltec) who worked in Professor Millikan's Dept. For a period during the mid-thirties, Zwicky was also at the University of Chicago. Dr. Sadler is said to have known Millikan. So alternative possibilities for the origin of The Urantia Book quote above could be:
    1. The revelators followed their mandate and used a human source of information about supernovae, possibly Zwicky.
    2. Dr Sadler had learned about the tiny particles devoid of electric potential from either Zwicky, Millikan, or some other knowledgeable person and incorporated it into The Urantia Book.
    3. It is information supplied to fill missing gaps in otherwise earned knowledge as permitted in the mandate. (1110)
    Zwicky had the reputation of being a brilliant scientist but given to much wild speculation, some of which turned out to be correct. A paper published by Zwicky and Baade in 1934 proposed that neutron stars would be formed in stellar collapse and that 10% of the mass would be lost in the process (Phys. Reviews. Vol. 45)
    In "Black Holes and Time Warps. Einstein's 'v Outrageous Legacy" (Picador, London, 1994), a book that covers the work and thought of this period in detail, K. S . Thorne, Feynman Professor of Theoretical Physics at Caltec, writes: In the early 1930's, Fritz Zwicky and Walter Baade joined forces to study novae, stars that suddenly flare up and shine 10,000 times more brightly than before. Baade was aware of tentative evidence that, besides ordinary novae, there existed superluminous novae. These were roughly of the same brightness but since they were thought to occur in nebulae far out beyond our Milky Way, they must signal events of extraordinary magnitude. Baade collected data on six such novae that had occurred during the current century.
    As Baade and Zwicky struggled to understand supernovae, James Chadwick, in 1932, reported the discovery of the neutron. This was just what Zwicky required to calculate that if a star could be made to implode until it reached the density of the atomic nucleus, it might transform into a gas of neutrons, reduce its radius to a shrunken core, and, in the process, lose about 10 % of its mass. The energy equivalent of the mass loss would then supply the explosive force to power a supernova.
Zwicky believed cosmic rays accounted for the mass energy loss in supernova explosions
    Information, extracted from Thorne's recent book, indicates that Zwicky knew nothing about the possible role of "little neutral particles" in the implosion of a neutron star, but rather that he attributed the entire mass-energy loss to cosmic rays. So, if not from Zwicky, what then is the human origin of The Urantia Book's statement that the neutrinos escaping from its interior bring about the collapse of the imploding star? (Current estimates attribute about 99% of the energy of a supernova explosion to being carried off by the neutrinos).

    In his book, Thorne further states: astronomers in the 1930's responded enthusiastically to the Baade-Zwicky concept of a supernova, but treated Zwicky's neutron star and cosmic ray ideas with disdain...In fact it is clear to me from a detailed study of Zwicky's writings of the era that he did not understand the laws of physics well enough to be able to substantiate his ideas." This opinion was also held by Robert Oppenheimer who published a set of papers with collaborators Volkoff, Snyder, and Tolman, on Russian physicist Lev Landau's ideas about stellar energy originating from a neutron core at the heart of a star.

Einstein and Eddington opposed neutron star concept
    These Oppenheimer papers concluding that either neutron stars or black holes could be the outcome of massive star implosion were about as far as physicists could go at that time. However, the most prominent physicist of the time, Albert Einstein, and the doyen of astronomers, Sir Arthur Eddington, both vigorously opposed the concepts involved in stellar collapse beyond the white dwarf stage. Thus the subject appears to have been put on hold coincident with the outbreak of war in 1939.
    During the 1940's, virtually all capable physicists were occupied with tasks relating to the war effort. Apparently this was not so for Russian-born astronomer-physicist, George Gamow, a professor at Leningrad who had taken up a position at George Washington University in 1934. Gamow conceived the beginning of the Hubble expanding universe as a thermonuclear fireball in which the original stuff of creation was a dense gas of protons, neutrons, electrons, and gamma radiation which transmuted by a chain of nuclear reactions into the variety of elements that make up the world of today. Referring to this
work, Overbye4 writes: "In the forties, Gamow and a group of collaborators wrote a series of papers spelling out the details of thermonucleogenesis. Unfortunately their scheme didn't work. Some atomic nuclei were so unstable that they fell apart before they could fuse again into something heavier, thus breaking the element building chain. Gamow's team disbanded in the late 40's, its work ignored and disdained." Among this work was a paper by Gamow and Schoenfeld that proposed that energy loss from aging stars would be mediated by an efflux of neutrinos. This proposal appears to have been overlooked or ignored until the 1960's.
Conservation of energy law under fire
As time went by, the need for the neutrino grew, firstly to save the law of conservation of energy, but also laws of conservation of momentum, angular momentum (spin), and lepton number. As knowledge of what it ought to be like grew, plus the knowledge accruing from the intense efforts to produce the atom bomb, possible means of detecting this particle began to emerge. In 1953, experiments were begun by a team led by C.L. Cowan and F. Reines.' Fission reactors were now in existence in which the breakdown of uranium yielded free neutrons that, outside of the atomic nucleus, were unstable and broke down via beta decay to yield a proton, an electron, and, if it existed, the missing particle.
Detection of the elusive neutrino
The Cowan and Reines team devised an elaborate scheme to detect the antineutrinos from a reactor. By 1956 their system was detecting 70 such events per day, unequivocally ascribable to antineutrinos. It now remained to prove that this particle was not its own antiparticle, as is the case with the photon. This was done by R.R. Davis in 1956', using a detection system designed specifically for what the properties of the neutrino should be and testing it with an antineutrino source from a fission reactor.
Renewal of the search for the neutron star
    The subject of the fate of imploding stars re- opened with vigor when both Robert Oppenheimer and John Wheeler, two of the really great names of physics, attended a conference in Brussels in 1958. Oppenheimer believed that his 1939 papers said all that needed to be said about such implosions. Wheeler disagreed, wanting to know what went on beyond the well-established laws of physics.
    When Oppenheimer and Snyder did their work in 1939, it had been hopeless to compute the details of the implosion. In the meantime, nuclear weapons design had provided the necessary tools because, to design a bomb, nuclear reactions, pressure effects, shock waves, heat, radiation, and mass ejection had to be taken into account. Wheeler realized that his team had only to rewrite their computer programs so as to simulate implosion rather than explosion. However his hydrogen bomb team had been disbanded and it fell to Stirling Colgate at Livermore, in collaboration with Richard White and Michael May, to do these simulations. Wheeler learned of the results and was largely responsible for generating the enthusiasm to follow this line of research. The term 'black hole' was coined by Wheeler.
    The theoretical basis for supernova explosions is said to have been laid by E. M. Burbidge, G.R. Burbidge, W. A. Fowler, and Fred Hoyle in a 1957 paper2. However, even in Hoyle and Narlikar's text book, "The Physics-Astronomy Frontier" (1980), no consideration is given to a role for neutrinos in the explosive conduction of energy away from the core of a supernova. In their 1957 paper, Hoyle and his co-workers proposed that when the temperature of an aging massive star rises to about 7 billion degrees K, iron is rapidly converted into helium by a nuclear process that absorbs energy. In meeting the sudden demand for this energy, the core cools rapidly and shrinks catastrophically, implodes in seconds, and the outer envelope crashes into it. As the lighter elements are heated by the implosion they burn so rapidly that the envelope is blasted into space. So, two years after the first publication of The Urantia Book, the most eminent authorities in the field of star evolution make no reference to the "vast quantities of tiny particles devoid of electric potential" that the book says escape from the star interior to bring about its collapse. Instead they invoke the conversion of iron to helium, an energy consuming process now thought not to be of significance.


Following on from the forgotten Gamow and Schoenfeld paper, the next suggestion that neutrinos may have a role in supernovae came from Ph.D. student, Hong-Yee Chiu, working under Philip Morrison. Chiu proposed that towards the end of the life of a massive star, the core would reach temperatures of about 3 billion degrees at which electron-positron pairs would be formed and a tiny fraction of these would give rise to neutrino- antineutrino pairs. Chiu speculated that X-rays would be given off by the star for about 1000 years and that the temperature would ultimately reach about 6 billion degrees when an iron core would form at the central region of the star. The flux of neutron-antineutrino pairs would then be sufficiently great to carry off the explosive energy of the star in a single day. The 1000-year period predicted by Chiu for X-ray emission was reduced to about one year by later workers. Chiu's proposals appear to have been first published in a Ph. D. thesis submitted at Cornell University in 1959. Scattered references to it are made by Philip Morrison3 and by Isaac Asimov1.
No neutral current, no supernova
    Dennis Overbye, in his book "Lonely Hearts of the Cosmos"4 records that, for supernovae, almost all the energy of the inward free fall comes out in the form of neutrinos. The success of this scenario (as proposed by Chiu) depends on a feature of the weak interaction called the neutral currents. Without this, the neutrinos do not supply enough 'oomph' and theorists had no good explanation for how stars explode. In actuality the existence of the neutral current for the weak interaction was not demonstrated until the mid 1970's.
    A 1985 paper (Scientific American) by Bethe and Brown entitled How a Supernova Explodes shows that understanding of the important role of the neutrinos was well advanced by that time. These authors attribute this understanding to the computer simulations of W. David Arnett of the University of Chicago and Thomas Weaver and Stanford Woosley of the University of California at Santa Cruz.
    In a recent report in Sky and Telescope (August, 1995) it is stated that, during the past decade, computer simulations of supernovas have bogged down at 100 to 150 km from the center and failed to explode. These models were one dimensional. With more computer power becoming available, two dimensional simulations have now been carried out and model supernova explosions produced. The one reported was for a 15 solar mass supernova that winds up as a neutron star. However the authors speculate that at least some 5 to 15 solar mass implosions might wind up as black holes. There is still a long way to go in understanding the details of stellar implosions.
Who dunit? Paring away the alternatives
    Referring to our three alternatives to explain how the reference to the role of the tiny uncharged particles in supernova explosions got to be in the Urantia Papers, ostensibly in 1934, our investigation showed that Zwicky is unlikely to have been the source as he firmly believed X-rays, not neutrinos, accounted for the 10% mass loss during the death of the star.
    Remembering that neutron stars were not demonstrated to exist until 1967, that some of the biggest names in physics and astronomy were totally opposed to the concept of collapsing stars (Einstein, Eddington), and that, well into the 1960's, the majority of astronomers assumed that massive stars shed their bulk piecemeal prior to retiring respectably as white dwarfs, it appears that it would have been a preposterous notion to attempt to support the reality of a revelation by means of speculation about the events occurring in massive star implosion at any time prior to the 1960's. If it is assumed that, on what would have needed to be the expert advice of a knowledgeable but reckless astrophysicist, Dr Sadler wrote the page 464 material into the Urantia papers subsequent to the concepts on neutrinos appearing in the Gamow et al. publications, then it becomes necessary to ask why was it not removed when that work lost credibility later in the 1940's?--and particularly so since, in their conclusions, Gamow ad Schoenberg drew attention to the fact that, "the neutrinos are still considered as highly hypothetical particles because of the failure of all efforts to detect them," as well as noting that "the dynamics of the collapse represents very serious mathematical difficulties. "
Printing Plates for The Urantia Book
    As a result of the Maaherra affair, documentary evidence has come to light to show that acceptance of the contract to prepare the metal printing plates from the manuscript of the Urantia Papers occurred in September, 1941. Printing technology of the time required a separate metal plate for each individual page. Hence, deletions, additions, and alterations that carried through to other pages could be enormously expensive and were avoided if at all possible.
    It has already been indicated that the highly speculative 1942 paper of Gamow and Schoenberg was unlikely to have been the source of the book's p. 464 statement on star implosion. The new evidence regarding printing plates makes it even more unlikely.
Invoking Occam's Razor
    The language, level of knowledge, and the terminology of the page 464 reference, together with the references to the binding together of protons and neutrons in the atomic nucleus, the two types of mesotron, and the involvement of small uncharged particles in beta radioactive decay as described on page 479, is that of the early 1930 period, and not that of the 40's and 50's. It is what would be expected from authors constrained by a mandate not to reveal unearned knowledge except in special circumstances. Applying the Occam's razor principle of giving preference to the simplest explanation consistent with the facts, we must conclude that the most probable explanation for the prophetic material of page 464 is that it is original to the Urantia Papers as received in 1934 and therefore comes into the category nominated in the revelatory mandate as key information supplied to fill missing gaps in our knowledge. At present, I do not believe that there is a satisfactory explanation for this p. 464 statement from The Urantia Book in terms of attributing it to a human author.                       

Ken Glasziou


References
1. Asimov, Isaac, (1966) "The Neutrino" (Dobson Books Ltd., London)
2. Burbidge, E.M., G.R. Burbidge, W.A. Fowler, & F. Hoyle. (1957)
3. Morrison, Philip, (1962) Scientific American 207 (2) 90.
4. Overbye, Dennis (1991) "Lonely Hearts of the Cosmos." (HarperCollins)
5. Thorne, K.S. (1994) "Black holes and Time Warps: Einstein 's Outrageous Legacy" (Picador, London)




Sept/October 2001



Particle physics--two remarkable prophecies: The radii of the electron and proton.

Sept/October 2001

   In a textbook published at an American university in 1934 entitled, "The Architecture of the Universe," physicist W.F.G. Swann wrote: "The mass of the electron is so small that if you should magnify all masses so that the electron attains a mass of one tenth of an ounce, that one tenth of an ounce would, on the same scale of magnification, become as heavy as the earth."
   The words of Swann were reproduced in Paper 42, Section 6 but with the comparison obviously deliberately changed from mass to volume. It reads:
   "If the mass of matter should be magnified until that of an electron equaled one tenth of an ounce, then were size to be proportionately magnified, the volume of such an electron would become as large as that of the earth."
    Taking the rest mass of the electron at 9.1 x 10-28 g, 0.1 ounce as 2.8 g, the radius of the earth as 6.4 x 106 m and putting k as the magnification constant, then:
k x 9.1 x 10-28  = 2.8……..1, and so
k = 3.1 x 10-27…………….2
   As the radius of the electron (Re) x k is said to be equal to the radius of the earth, we have:
Re x k = 6.4 x 106……….3
And substituting for k in (3), we get the electron radius:
Re = 2 x 10-21 m ………...4
   At the time of receipt of the Urantia Papers and up until the 1990's this made no sense. Many physicists treated the electron as a dimensionless point so at best its radius would be half the Planck length of 10-35 m. Others, by a process of circuitous reasoning, assigned it a radius of 5 x 10-15 m.
   The statement remained  nonsensical until the 1990's when Nobel prize winner, Hans Dehmelt, found a way to confine a single electron to a trap semi-permanently. This achievement allowed actual measurements to be made that assigned the radius of the electron to fall into the range of 10-19 m to 10-22 m.
   This new estimate was noticed by physicist Stefan Talqvist, a Urantia Book student who had previously checked the calculation using the Urantia Paper's version of Swann's earlier work. A few years later at Dehmelt's laboratory, refining of their techniques allowed them to settle for the electron radius being in the order of 10-22 m, so even closer to the 2 x 10-21 that is calculated for the Urantia Papers modified version of Swann's comparison.
   What are the chances that these figures are coincidental, that the correspondence came about through accident or guesswork alone? Let's be conservative and consider only the order of magnitude. The possible range could extend to the Planck length of  10-35 m, so approximately a 25-30 fold range, with the chances of a close guess roughly at one in twenty five. But there was a second part to Swann's comparison that went:
   "Then we have the proton--the fundamental unit of positive charge--a thing 1800 times as heavy as the electron, but 1800 times smaller in size, so that if you should magnify it to the size of a pin's head, that pin's head would, on the same scale of magnification, attain a diameter equal to that of the earth's orbit around the sun."
   [Note: Swann's estimate of the size of the proton as 1800 times smaller than the electron came from using r = e2/mc2, where e is the charge of the electron. The charge to mass ratio for the electron was known accurately by the early 1900 period. The charge was determined by Millikan in 1909. Its mass was then determined as 9.11 x 10-28 g.]
   The Urantia Paper's author did not use this equation, changing the comparison to:
   "If the volume of a proton--eighteen hundred times as heavy as an electron--should be magnified to the size of the head of a pin, then, in comparison, a pin's head would attain a diameter equal to that of the earth's orbit around the sun."
  Stefan Talqvist was again responsible for doing the calculations and drawing attention to this remarkable piece of prophetic material in the Papers.
   Taking the radius of the Earth's orbital around the sun as 1.5 x 1014 mm and the radius of the pinhead as 1 mm, the magnification factor (k) is obtained by dividing the Earth's orbital radius by the pinhead radius, so 1.5 x 1014 / 1.0, which is 1.5 x 1014 (k)
   The radius of the proton times the magnification factor (k) is equal to the radius of the pinhead, hence:
   Proton radius x 1.5 x 1014 = pinhead radius (1.0 mm), so
   Proton radius = 1.0 /1.5 x 1014, which is 6.7 x 10-15 mm, or 6.7 x 10-18m.
   The classical radius for the proton was given as 0.85 x 10-15m so again the Urantia Paper's comparison looked to be nonsensical.
   In later years it was realized that the proton consisted of three subunits called quarks and this component accounts for only about 50% of the proton's measured momentum, the remainder being accounted for by virtual particles that flip in and out from the vacuum. The current estimate of what is now termed the Bohr radius, a measurement of the 'real' part of the proton was given in Physics Today of November 1993, as 7.7 x 10-18m.--the same order of magnitude as that for the Urantia Paper's estimate.
   Again using order of magnitude to compare the figures, the range for the proton may be about three to five orders less. If we set round figures for both, 25 for the electron and 20 for the proton, then the chances for guessing both comes out at one chance in about 500. Which also means that there are 499 ways to be wrong and illustrates that being right is so much more difficult that being wrong. Even at the 0.05 probability level, there are nineteen ways to be wrong for every one of being right.
   When we take into consideration that Swann's details were deliberately modified in both estimates in order that they produce these results, it becomes impossible to support the notion that this was simply a lucky guess. Any rational interpretation must surely allow that it is a most remarkable prophesy of what our concepts for these parameters would be as we turn the corner into the twenty-first century.

[19Merlin69]

I do not think we have gone over this material before and it appears to be in your field of expertise.  I found the addendum interesting and apparently well researched.

Alright, this is new information, so let's go with it.  To begin with, the author of this article is missing some information.  Allow me to fill in the blank(s).  In 1920, Lord Rutherford postulated the existence of a neutral particle, with the approximate mass of a proton, that could result from the capture of an electron by a proton. He further postulated that it would be completely neutral and that it is the mechanism behind "natural" (as he put it) radiation.  This set of postulation stimulated a search for the particle later dubbed, Neutron. Unfortunately, the electrical neutrality itself complicated the search because all experimental techniques of the time period measured charged particles.   The period between 1920 and 1940 saw an enormous amount of work on the subject of the "un-named particle" where practically ever lab in the world was striving to be first to prove its existence.

In 1928, Walter Bothe and Herbert Becker, took an initial primary step in the search and discovery. Bombarding beryllium with alpha particles emitted from polonium, they found that it gave off a penetrating, electrically neutral radiation, (just as Rutherford predicted) which they interpreted to be high-energy gamma photons.  In 1932, Irene Joliot-Curie and Frederic Joliot-Curie used a strong polonium alpha source to further investigate Bothe’s penetrating radiation. They found that this radiation ejected protons from a paraffin target; amazing in itself because photons have no mass. Unfortunately, however, the Joliot-Curies interpreted the results as the action of photons on the hydrogen atoms in paraffin.  They, like Rutherford, Bothe and Becker before them have discovered neutrons - but they missed it.  The story does get better though - hand in there old friend.

That same week, James Chadwick reported to Lord Rutherford on the Joliot-Curies’ results.  Rutherford was astonished that they had missed the significance of their work and immediately set Chadwick on to duplicated it.   He not only bombarded the hydrogen atoms in paraffin with the beryllium emissions, but also helium, nitrogen, carbon and lithium.  By comparing the recoiling charged particles' energies from different targets, he proved that the beryllium emissions contained Rutherford's mystery particle (a neutral component with a mass approximately equal to that of the proton). He called it the neutron in a paper published in the February 17, 1932, issue of Nature.  So there we have it - almost 20 years of discussion of the mythical particle, its inclusion in science fiction for 10 of those years and finally a conclusion in 1935 with Chadwick winning the Nobel Prize for his work.  That's a storybook ending if I have ever heard one.  The beuty of the neutron is that it is relatively massive but neutral.  It is scarcely affected by the cloud of electrons surrounding the nucleus or by the positive electrical barrier of the nucleus itself; thus it penetrates the nucleus of any element and displaces photons, electrons and neutrinos as it goes..  It is the ultimate wedding crasher, but it leaves tell-tale signs as it travels.

In 1934, Walter Baade and Fritz Zwicky proposed the idea that supernova were occuring in clusters of galaxies (Baade, Walter & F. Zwicky, “On Super-Novae,” Proc. of the Nat. Acad. of Sci. 20, 254, 1934a), and they they ultimately led to the formation of Neutron stars (Baade, Walter & F. Zwicky, “Supernovae and Cosmic rays,” Physical Review 45, 138, 1934b).  Both "prophecies" were printed in 1934, but their origins were much earlier.  The two of them had been working on this explanation for years (at least 12), and it wasn't until Chadwik's discovery and subsequent naming in 1932 that they were able to conclude their search. 

On a separate (but related) note, Zwicky himself proposed the idea in that same time period, 1932-1935, that there was an enormous amount of unseen mass in the Coma Cluster when the virial theorem was applied.  This would begin the search for an explanation that would later include Dark Matter.  He also proposed the hypothesis that galaxies acted as gravitational lenses...  Between 1934 and 1950, Neutrons and neutron stars were so widely written about that it would have been impossible to not know about them.  Zwicky himself talked about them on television programs and radio shows and estimated 300 times in the 1930s alone - according to his autobiography.  His complete theorem was wholly adopted by the mainstream in 1960s, meaning that it finally hit the textbooks then, but the astrophysical society had been using it since 1937, because it made mathematical sense.  I'll grant you that it did not enjoy "mainstream" success in the 1930s, but not much of the emerging science in the first half of the 20th century did.  Even Einstein's work was 15 years prior was slow to convert the converts.

Now, if we wish to talk about Neutrinos as the "tiny neutral particles", then we have a problem.  We know that there are no suns made from neutrinos.  However, I should point out that neutrinos were not first theorized in '32 or '33.  They were theorized in 1922 and not written about by Pauli until 1930; finally published in 1931.  Mathematical proof was given in 1933-1934 accepted by the German and Italian science journals.  Enrico named it in 1934, "little neutral one" in Italian:  Neutrino.  The American/English Journals did not accept the publication until 1938 (published 1939), but they did so because the paper(s) had already been in the country in 12 different languages for the past 5 years - and then there was the Nobel Prize for his work in 1938...  Yep - the Americans and Brits blew it big time by excluding him, only to accept it after the rest of the world had, and had rewarded him with the Top Prize.   Wolfgang got his prize 7 years later.

Anyway, the fact that the neutrinos weren't actually detected until 1955 and reported in '56 isn't important; mathematically, everyone knew that they were there...  Only our technology had to catch up with our science. 

The idea of a neutron star was considered to be highly speculative right up until 1967. Most astronomers believed that stars of average size, like our sun, up to stars that are very massive, finished their lives as white dwarfs. The theoretical properties of neutron stars were just too preposterous; for example, a thimble full would weigh about 100 million tonnes. A favored alternative proposal was that large stars were presumed to blow off their surplus mass a piece at a time until they got below the Chandrasekhar limit of 1.4 solar masses, when they could retire as respectable white dwarfs. This process did not entail the release of vast quantities of tiny particles devoid of electric potential that accompany star collapse as described in the cited Urantia Book quotation.

This is and isn't the case.  Though its prediction came in the early 30s, its discovery came in the late 60s (Like the neutrino - technology lagged science).  The fact is, neutron stars gained in acceptance linearly with every new scientific proof published.  By the time of the UB's publishing, it was a well accepted object (like the neutrino).

If I get the time, I'll come back to this later.  For now, though, I would say that this paper was not researched as well as it appears.  "Publication date" is not synonymous with discovery - particularly in the early 20th century.  Those dates can lag each other by 10 or more years.  I would also say that, because of the lag in discovery and hypothesis of the two objects we are discussing, I am not surprised that the UB is very vague on the topics...  Had they waited until the 50s to publish, their science would have been a bit more correct.  All-in-all, the science of the UB remains in the 30s-40s, and inaccurate.

[19Merlin69]

Alright - I'm back for a few minutes.  Let's further clarify something else:

The mass of a proton is: 1.6726 x 10^-27 kg
The mass of a neutron is: 1.6749 x 10^-27 kg
The mass of an electron is: .00091x10^-27 kg

Since the neutron beta decays by releasing a proton, an electron and an anti-neutrino, it is often thought that a neutron contains those items (like ingredients); however, this is an over simplification.  The reality is complicated, but here it is in its simplified version.  A neutron is three quarks: 1 up, 2 down whereas a proton is three quarks also: 2 up, 1 down.  An up quark and a down quark are not the same thing.  Charge and mass are different.   Quarks can be put together as protons, neutrons, and a wide variety of other particles.  How they are assembled has a large effect on mass.  Due to both quark mass and assembly details, a neutron ends up with more mass than a proton; mostly due to the fact that down quarks are more massive than up quarks.  Anti-neutrinos, long thought massless are not - but their mass is miniscule (even by atomic terms).

In energy units (using E = mc²), the masses are: Proton: 938.272 MeV, neutron: 939.566 MeV.  Mass difference = 1.293 MeV.  Electron mass is: 0.511 Mev.  This leaves .782 Mev for the anti-neutrino & Up/Down quark mass difference. 

So, to the point...  To say that a proton is 1800 times more massive than an electron, but 1800 times smaller in size is completely inaccurate.  The UB's take on it (Paper 42 section 6), comparatively, discussing the ratio between the two and saying its size would be equivelent to the Earth's diameter if scaled - is entirely wrong.  It clearly points to the fact that the writers were copying incorrect information of the time.  What it says, "If the mass of matter should be magnified until that of an electron equaled one tenth of an ounce, then were sized to be proportionately magnified, the volume of such an electron would become as large as that of the earth."  They would say this because they knew no better, but the reality is that electrons are not that volumous.  What was later discovered was that their ORBITS were that large.  So, if we were to scale the size of an electron to the point it (as described), the electron would orbit at a distance equal to the Earth's diameter.  In an attempt to differentiate their "Revelation" from that of the era's textbooks - they created yet another incorrect analogy, while at the same time, giving false information.  If this were truly "divine revelation" - I would have expected to hear about the truly fundamental objects that make up the atomic structure, and a correct description of how that process worked.  Notwithstanding, "they" also failed to denote that electrons are relativistic objects that exist [around the atom] as a cloud, not a point particle.  It was also discovered that the cloud moved in one direction while the charge and angular momentum moved in another.  In other words, their spin was opposite their orbit.  This was learned in the early 1970s - long after the publishing of the UB, and explains why it wasn't included.

Contrary to the author's opinion, this is hardly "remarkable prophesy"...  0 for 3 with scientific accuracy today.

[Majeston]

=Merlin
Notwithstanding, "they" also failed to denote that electrons are relativistic objects that exist [around the atom] as a cloud, not a point particle.  It was also discovered that the cloud moved in one direction while the charge and angular momentum moved in another.  In other words, their spin was opposite their orbit.  This was learned in the early 1970s - long after the publishing of the UB, and explains why it wasn't included.

Let's not jump into this hasty conclusion so quickly Merl 

I recalled reading about the opposite spin so I looked to see if I could find it.   It revealed itself in another place and another context.

58:3.3
These eventualities in the origin of the space rays are determined by many cosmic occurrences as well as by the orbits of circulating matter, which vary from modified circles to extreme ellipses. Physical conditions may also be greatly altered because the electron spin is sometimes in the opposite direction from that of the grosser matter behavior, even in the same physical zone.


in context>>>>>>

3. SPATIAL ENVIRONMENT


58:3.1 During the earlier times of universe materialization the space regions are interspersed with vast hydrogen clouds, just such astronomic dust clusters as now characterize many regions throughout remote space. Much of the organized matter which the blazing suns break down and disperse as radiant energy was originally built up in these early appearing hydrogen clouds of space. Under certain unusual conditions atom disruption also occurs at the nucleus of the larger hydrogen masses. And all of these phenomena of atom building and atom dissolution, as in the highly heated nebulae, are attended by the emergence of flood tides of short space rays of radiant energy. Accompanying these diverse radiations is a form of space-energy unknown on Urantia.

58:3.2 This short-ray energy charge of universe space is four hundred times greater than all other forms of radiant energy existing in the organized space domains. The output of short space rays, whether coming from the blazing nebulae, tense electric fields, outer space, or the vast hydrogen dust clouds, is modified qualitatively and quantitatively by fluctuations of, and sudden tension changes in, temperature, gravity, and electronic pressures.

58:3.3 These eventualities in the origin of the space rays are determined by many cosmic occurrences as well as by the orbits of circulating matter, which vary from modified circles to extreme ellipses. Physical conditions may also be greatly altered because the electron spin is sometimes in the opposite direction from that of the grosser matter behavior, even in the same physical zone.

58:3.4 The vast hydrogen clouds are veritable cosmic chemical laboratories, harboring all phases of evolving energy and metamorphosing matter. Great energy actions also occur in the marginal gases of the great binary stars which so frequently overlap and hence extensively commingle. But none of these tremendous and far-flung energy activities of space exerts the least influence upon the phenomena of organized life -- the germ plasm of living things and beings. These energy conditions of space are germane to the essential environment of life establishment, but they are not effective in the subsequent modification of the inheritance factors of the germ plasm as are some of the longer rays of radiant energy. The implanted life of the Life Carriers is fully resistant to all of this amazing flood of the short space rays of universe energy.

58:3.5 All of these essential cosmic conditions had to evolve to a favorable status before the Life Carriers could actually begin the establishment of life on Urantia.

[Majeston]

Dazzling new images reveal the 'impossible' on the Sun

   20:46 21 March 2007
   NewScientist.com news service
   Hazel Muir
http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn11432-dazzling-new-images-reveal-the-impossible-on-the-sun.html

   
   

 

Enlarge image
Charged particles follow magnetic field lines that rise vertically from a sunspot – an area of strong magnetic field. On the edges of the sunspot, the magnetic field lines bend over to connect to regions of the opposite polarity (Image: Hinode JAXA/NASA)


Enlarge image
Long filaments of plasma connect regions of different magnetic polarity in the chromosphere, a thin layer of the Sun's atmosphere lying between its visible surface, or photosphere, and its outer corona (Image: Hinode JAXA/NASA)
 

Enlarge image
S-shaped magnetic loops such as this one on the Sun are more likely than loops of other shapes to unleash radiation and charged particles, which can damage satellites around Earth. Hinode's X-Ray Telescope took this image (Image: JAXA/NASA/SAO)
 


The restless bubbling and frothing of the Sun's chaotic surface is astonishing astronomers who have been treated to detailed new images from a Japanese space telescope called Hinode.
The observatory will have as dramatic an impact on our understanding of the Sun as the Hubble Space Telescope has had on our view of the universe beyond, scientists told a NASA press conference in Washington, DC, US, on Wednesday.
"Everything we thought we knew about X-ray images of the Sun is now out of date," says Leon Golub from the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, Massachusetts, US. "We've seen many new and unexpected things. For that reason alone, the mission is already a success."
Hinode (Japanese for "sunrise") was launched in September 2006 to study the solar magnetic field and how magnetic energy is released as the field rises into the Sun's outer atmosphere. The mission was formerly known as Solar-B.
Seething and swaying
The spacecraft carries an optical solar telescope (SOT), an X-ray telescope (XRT) and an ultraviolet spectrometer. It orbits the Earth in a permanent twilight zone between night and day, which gives it a continuous view of the Sun.
Hinode has sent back startling images of the Sun's outer limb. Where astronomers expected to see a calm region called the chromosphere, they saw a seething mass of swaying spikes (see image below right, and watch a video of the spikes taken by Hinode).
"These structures are 8000 kilometres long and some extend twice that high," says SOT science team member Alan Title from Lockheed Martin Advance Technology Center in Palo Alto, California, US. "Their speed is such that if you sat on the end of one, which I don't recommend, you could travel from Washington, DC, to San Francisco in about four minutes. These things are really moving."
Crashing loops
Another surprise sighting is that of giant magnetic field loops crashing down onto the Sun's surface as if they were collapsing from exhaustion, a finding that Golub describes as "impossible". Previously, scientists thought they should emerge from the Sun and continue blowing out into space.
"Almost every day, we look at the data and we say – what the heck was that?" says Golub, a member of the XRT science team.
Astronomers do not yet know what to make of the surprises, but they hope Hinode will help solve many big puzzles. One is that the temperature of the Sun's tenuous outermost atmosphere, or corona, is far hotter than the layers underneath, which are nearer its energy-generating core.
Scientists believe that tangled magnetic fields must somehow dump energy in the corona. "Theorists suggested that twisted, tangled magnetic fields might exist," says Golub. "With the XRT, we can see them clearly for the first time."
Astronomers hope Hinode's clear view of the Sun will also help them identify the magnetic field configurations that lead to the most explosive energy releases of all. That would enable better forecasts of stormy "space weather", when solar eruptions can interfere with satellite communications and disrupt electricity supply networks on the ground.

[Majeston]

Merlin,

I'm working on improving my 0/3 average 
At the risk of running 0/4 and appearing dumb as a brick I submit the following

If this were truly "divine revelation" - I would have expected to hear about the truly fundamental objects that make up the atomic structure, and a correct description of how that process worked.

While studying Stefan Tallqvist's site....   http://kotisivu.dnainternet.net/adslfor/     I ran across this in Physics today which I wasn't aware of before.


- in Physics Today, October 1983, page 19, we read: "There are about 100 low-energy neutrinos and antineutrinos per cubic cm in the Universe today,...

         vs.

1934   UB p. 473 : "The most nearly empty space known in Nebadon would yield about one hundred ultimatons - the equivalent
          of one electron - in each cubic inch."

Now, if we wish to talk about Neutrinos as the "tiny neutral particles", then we have a problem.  We know that there are no suns made from neutrinos.  However, I should point out that neutrinos were not first theorized in '32 or '33.  They were theorized in 1922 and not written about by Pauli until 1930; finally published in 1931.  Mathematical proof was given in 1933-1934 accepted by the German and Italian science journals.  Enrico named it in 1934, "little neutral one" in Italian:  Neutrino.  The American/English Journals did not accept the publication until 1938 (published 1939), but they did so because the paper(s) had already been in the country in 12 different languages for the past 5 years - and then there was the Nobel Prize for his work in 1938...  Yep - the Americans and Brits blew it big time by excluding him, only to accept it after the rest of the world had, and had rewarded him with the Top Prize.   Wolfgang got his prize 7 years later.

Anyway, the fact that the neutrinos weren't actually detected until 1955 and reported in '56 isn't important; mathematically, everyone knew that they were there...  Only our technology had to catch up with our science. 
................... I am not surprised that the UB is very vague on the topics...  Had they waited until the 50s to publish, their science would have been a bit more correct.  All-in-all, the science of the UB remains in the 30s-40s, and inaccurate.

Merl,   according to what you say above it seems to contradict the vast quantity of information contained in the Ubook about the neutrino/ultimaton.




P476:5, 42:6.3 Ultimatons function by mutual attraction, responding only to the circular Paradise-gravity pull. Without linear-gravity response they are thus held in the universal space drift. Ultimatons are capable of accelerating revolutionary velocity to the point of partial antigravity behavior, but they cannot, independent of force organizers or power directors, attain the critical escape velocity of deindividuation, return to the puissant-energy stage. In nature, ultimatons escape the status of physical existence only when participating in the terminal disruption of a cooled-off and dying sun.


P476:6, 42:6.4 The ultimatons, unknown on Urantia, slow down through many phases of physical activity before they attain the revolutionary-energy prerequisites to electronic organization. Ultimatons have three varieties of motion: mutual resistance to cosmic force, individual revolutions of antigravity potential, and the intraelectronic positions of the one hundred mutually interassociated ultimatons.

P476:7, 42:6.5 Mutual attraction holds one hundred ultimatons together in the constitution of the electron; and there are never more nor less than one hundred ultimatons in a typical electron. The loss of one or more ultimatons destroys typical electronic identity, thus bringing into existence one of the ten modified forms of the electron.

P476:8, 42:6.6 Ultimatons do not describe orbits or whirl about in circuits within the electrons, but they do spread or cluster in accordance with their axial revolutionary velocities, thus determining the differential electronic dimensions. This same ultimatonic velocity of axial revolution also determines the negative or positive reactions of the several types of electronic units. The entire segregation and grouping of electronic matter, together with the electric differentiation of negative and positive bodies of energy-matter, result from these various functions of the component ultimatonic interassociation.



/////////////////


42:7.4 The local universes are of decimal construction. There are just one hundred distinguishable atomic materializations of space-energy in a dual universe; that is the maximum possible organization of matter in Nebadon. These one hundred forms of matter consist of a regular series in which from one to one hundred electrons revolve around a central and relatively compact nucleus. It is this orderly and dependable association of various energies that constitutes matter.

42:7.5 Not every world will show one hundred recognizable elements at the surface, but they are somewhere present, have been present, or are in process of evolution. Conditions surrounding the origin and subsequent evolution of a planet determine how many of the one hundred atomic types will be observable. The heavier atoms are not found on the surface of many worlds. Even on Urantia the known heavier elements manifest a tendency to fly to pieces, as is illustrated by radium behavior.

42:7.6 Stability of the atom depends on the number of electrically inactive neutrons in the central body. Chemical behavior is wholly dependent on the activity of the freely revolving electrons.

42:7.7 In Orvonton it has never been possible naturally to assemble over one hundred orbital electrons in one atomic system. When one hundred and one have been artificially introduced into the orbital field, the result has always been the instantaneous disruption of the central proton with the wild dispersion of the electrons and other liberated energies.

42:7.8 While atoms may contain from one to one hundred orbital electrons, only the outer ten electrons of the larger atoms revolve about the central nucleus as distinct and discrete bodies, intactly and compactly swinging around on precise and definite orbits. The thirty electrons nearest the center are difficult of observation or detection as separate and organized bodies. This same comparative ratio of electronic behavior in relation to nuclear proximity obtains in all atoms regardless of the number of electrons embraced. The nearer the nucleus, the less there is of electronic individuality. The wavelike energy extension of an electron may so spread out as to occupy the whole of the lesser atomic orbits; especially is this true of the electrons nearest the atomic nucleus.

42:7.9 The thirty innermost orbital electrons have individuality, but their energy systems tend to intermingle, extending from electron to electron and well-nigh from orbit to orbit. The next thirty electrons constitute the second family, or energy zone, and are of advancing individuality, bodies of matter exerting a more complete control over their attendant energy systems. The next thirty electrons, the third energy zone, are still more individualized and circulate in more distinct and definite orbits. The last ten electrons, present in only the ten heaviest elements, are possessed of the dignity of independence and are, therefore, able to escape more or less freely from the control of the mother nucleus. With a minimum variation in temperature and pressure, the members of this fourth and outermost group of electrons will escape from the grasp of the central nucleus, as is illustrated by the spontaneous disruption of uranium and kindred elements.

42:7.10 The first twenty-seven atoms, those containing from one to twenty-seven orbital electrons, are more easy of comprehension than the rest. From twenty-eight upward we encounter more and more of the unpredictability of the supposed presence of the Unqualified Absolute. But some of this electronic unpredictability is due to differential ultimatonic axial revolutionary velocities and to the unexplained "huddling" proclivity of ultimatons. Other influences -- physical, electrical, magnetic, and gravitational -- also operate to produce variable electronic behavior. Atoms therefore are similar to persons as to predictability. Statisticians may announce laws governing a large number of either atoms or persons but not for a single individual atom or person.


ultimatons (42:6.2-6)[476¶4],. See also atoms; matter
100 in an electron, held together by mutual attraction (42:3.3)[472¶1], (42:4.6)[473¶4], (42:6.4)[476¶6]
Associate Master Force Organizers and Universe Power Directors can speed up u. to return to puissant energy (42:6.3)[476¶5]
cold organizes u. into electrons (42:4.5,7)[473¶3]
critical level of condensation causes explosion (41:3.6)[458¶6], (41:7.[464¶2]
energy is stored when u. slow down to become electrons (42:5.4)[474¶8]
energy particles; prime physical units of material existence (42:3.3)[472¶1], (42:4.[473¶6]
escape physical existence only in terminal disruption of suns (42:6.3)[476¶5]
exhibit mutual resistance to absoluta (42:6.4)[476¶6]
first measurable form of energy (42:1.2)[467¶4]
have Paradise as nucleus (42:1.2)[467¶4]
leakage from suns (41:9.1)[465¶1]
morontia material created by modifying primary units of matter (48:1.3)[541¶6]
originate in force-charge of space (15:4.1)[169¶1]
primary associators manipulate (29:4.26)[328¶2]
proceed in direct lines through space (42:5.14)[475¶10]
respond to mutual attraction and Paradise gravity, but not linear gravity when unassociated (41:9.2)[465¶2], (42:4.3)[473¶1], (42:6.2-6)[476¶4]
revolutionary velocity can be accelerated to partial antigravity (42:4.10)[473¶8], (42:6.3,4)[476¶5]
solar heat and pressure cannot convert u. back into puissant energy (41:7.5)[463¶5], (42:4.[473¶6], (42:6.3)[476¶5]
spread or cluster in accordance with axial revolutionary velocities; do not orbit (42:6.4,6)[476¶6], (42:7.3,10)[477¶5]
Supreme Power Centers transmute into electrons (42:4.3)[473¶1]

[Majeston]

 In a textbook published at an American university in 1934 entitled, "The Architecture of the Universe," physicist W.F.G. Swann wrote: "The mass of the electron is so small that if you should magnify all masses so that the electron attains a mass of one tenth of an ounce, that one tenth of an ounce would, on the same scale of magnification, become as heavy as the earth."
   The words of Swann were reproduced in Paper 42, Section 6 but with the comparison obviously deliberately changed from mass to volume. It reads:
   "If the mass of matter should be magnified until that of an electron equaled one tenth of an ounce, then were size to be proportionately magnified, the volume of such an electron would become as large as that of the earth."


Swann- "The mass of the electron is so small that if you should magnify all masses so that the electron attains a mass of one tenth of an ounce, that one tenth of an ounce would, on the same scale of magnification, become as heavy as the earth."

Urantia-   "If the mass of matter should be magnified until that of an electron equaled one tenth of an ounce, then were size to be proportionately magnified, the volume of such an electron would become as large as that of the earth."

=Merlin
They would say this because they knew no better, but the reality is that electrons are not that volumous.  What was later discovered was that their ORBITS were that large.  So, if we were to scale the size of an electron to the point it (as described), the electron would orbit at a distance equal to the Earth's diameter.
In an attempt to differentiate their "Revelation" from that of the era's textbooks - they created yet another incorrect analogy, while at the same time, giving false information. 

vol·ume (vlym, -ym)

a. The amount of space occupied by a three-dimensional object or region of space, expressed in cubic units.
b. The capacity of such a region or of a specified container, expressed in cubic units.

Merl,
I think we are talking semantics here.  It's kind of obvious that what "they"  meant was the orbit.  Who knows what was considered volume in 1934;  most likely it could have meant orbit or actual size.   Since the "orbit"  does equal the volume it is understandable to infer that they meant the size of it's orbit which you admit is correct.  The point to consider is was Swann correct before Urantia changed it.  Swann said if the electron weighed 1/10 ounce then it's size would be as large as the earth.  Is Swann's analogy correct?  Does the size of the electron equal the size of the earth if it proportionally weighs 1/10th ounce?

Let's look at another instance where the "revelators"  used volume to define a space occupied rather than the size of the particular particle.

11:7.5 If you imagine a finite, but inconceivably large, V-shaped plane situated at right angles to both the upper and lower surfaces of Paradise, with its point nearly tangent to peripheral Paradise, and then visualize this plane in elliptical revolution about Paradise, its revolution would roughly outline the  volume of pervaded space.


29:4.14 The Master Physical Controllers often function in batteries of hundreds, thousands, and even millions and by varying their positions and formations are able to effect energy control in a collective as well as an individual capacity. As requirements vary, they can upstep and accelerate the energy volume and movement or detain, condense, and retard the energy currents. They influence energy and power transformations somewhat as so-called catalytic agents augment chemical reactions.


12:1.8..... But about one-half million light-years beyond the periphery of the present grand universe we observe the beginnings of a zone of an unbelievable energy action which increases in volume and intensity for over twenty-five million light-years.

41:3.2 .... The largest star in the universe, the stellar cloud Antares, is four hundred and fifty times the diameter of your sun and is sixty million times its volume.




Now,  Merl,  paper 42 in which the term volume appears was written by "Presented by a Mighty Messenger on duty in Nebadon and by the request of Gabriel."
that is in distinction to the last quote from paper 41 which was written by  "an Archangel in collaboration with the Chief of Nebadon Power Centers"

 so,  we have 2 very diverse personalities writing these two papers with their own particular understanding of the very foreign English language.  I know this doesn't give you the warm & fuzzies,  but it is understandable.

We could go a little deeper into the characteristics and natures of these two dis-similar personalites,   but I perceive you probably are not interested in pursuing that. 


Anyway,  I think I need to get a positive score on this one and a retraction from you,  so that gives me at least 1 for 3 and I'm working on the other 2. 


.
Merl,
here is additional information I found about this ratio for your review...

Swann, Gardner, and The Urantia Book.
by Ken Glasziou 
http://www.urantiabook.org/archive/newsletters/innerface/vol4_2/page6.html

        In the previous issue of Innerface, we presented an account of Stefan Tallqvist's mind-boggling disclosure of two quite amazing "prophecies" that have remained undiscovered in The Urantia Book until brought into the light of day by Stefan.
     We stated our belief that this new information is inexplicable in terms of human authorship of the book, which surely must be attributed to a superhuman origin. We now examine in detail the actual human source material that was modified in order to reveal what the book terms "missing gap" information. (1110) First we compare The Urantia Book statement relating to the radius of the electron with the source work of physicist W.F.G. Swann.
     From Swann in The Architecture of the Universe. (1934): "The mass of the electron is so small that if you should magnify all masses so that the electron attains a mass of one tenth of an ounce, that one tenth of an ounce would, on the same scale of magnification, become as heavy as the earth."
     And from The Urantia Book: "If the mass of matter should be magnified until that of an electron equalled one tenth of an ounce, then were size to be proportionately magnified, the volume of such an electron would become as large as that of the earth." (477)
     By the turn of the century, the ratio of the charge on the electron to its mass was known with a high degree of accuracy, but a similarly accurate measurement of its charge did not come until Millikan's work in 1909. Once the charge was known, the electron mass could be calculated and was found to be 9.11 x 10-28g. On checking the calculations we find that Swann has used this known figure plus the known mass of the earth to calculate the magnification factor that he used to compare the relative masses of an electron and the earth.
    The revelators have changed the comparison from the known mass of the electron and the known mass of the earth to that of the unknown size of the electron and the known size of the earth. This modification permits the calculation of an electron radius and gives the value of 2 x 10-21m. Remarkably, this value is within the range of the 1990's estimates obtained with advanced technology and is a million-fold smaller than the value that prevailed during the 1930's to 1980's interval.
       Following Millikan's measurement of the electron charge, in 1910 Rutherford came up with a set of measurements indicating that the dimensions of the atom were in the order of 10-14m to 10-15m. In the 1930's, two views of the dimensions of the electron and the proton held sway, one being that both were Dirac point particles hence dimensionless, the other that both would have measurable spatial dimensions. Among those who held to the latter view, some believed that the radius of the electron could be estimated from the formula, r = e2/mc2 where r is the radius of the electron, e its charge, m its mass, and c the velocity of light. The value of the radius so obtained was 3 x 10-15m. This figure was quoted in  1932 literature. Later it was refined to 2.8 x 10-15m, but by 1983, experimental data combined with the new theory of quantum electrodynamics (QED), indicated that the electron was close to being a point particle with its mass and charge concentrated in a region smaller than 10-18m. (note that a true point particle should be dimensionless. However, David Bohm has pointed out that there remains an enormous relative distance between the estimates of electron radius and the Planck distance of 10-35m, a distance thought to be the smallest possible dimension for a material particle. Hence there is still ample room for the electron to have a sub-structure). The technology that enabled the new estimates of electron radius to be made is one that permits even single electrons to be trapped and manipulated for extended periods of time--three years for example.
     Moving now to the revelators' estimate of proton radius, the relevant extracts from Swann and The Urantia Book follow. First from Swann: "Then we have the proton--the fundamental unit of positive charge--a thing 1800 times as heavy as the electron, but 1800 times smaller in size, so that if you should magnify it to the size of a pin's head, that pin's head would, on the same scale of magnification, attain a diameter equal to the diameter of the earth's orbit around the sun."
     And from The Urantia Book: "If the volume of a proton--eighteen hundred times as heavy as an electron--should be magnified to the size of the head of a pin, then, in comparison, a pin's head would attain a diameter equal to that of the earth's orbit around the sun.
      The major difference between the two is that revelators have omitted Swann's term, "eighteen hundred times smaller in size," from their description.
    The statement that the proton is 1800 times smaller in size than the electron brought condemnation from Martin Gardner in his book, "Urantia: The Great Cult Mystery." Gardner comments, "Swann made a monumental error when he said the proton was 1800 times smaller than an electron..."
    Closer examination shows Swann was merely using the thought of the day. In 1932, the radius of the electron was calculated from the formula previously given, r = e2/mc2. Since e2 takes the same numerical value for both the electron and proton, and the proton mass is 1800 times larger, a proton radius can be calculated from this equation that would be 1800 times smaller than that for the electron. In performing the calculation for his comparison, Swann appears to have used a pinhead radius of about 0.5mm. Allowing the average radius of the earth's orbit around the sun as being about 1.5 x 1014mm, the magnification factor, K, in going from the pinhead to the orbital radius is:
K = 1.5 x 1014/0.5  = 3 x 1014
    The proton radius, Pr, calculated from the electron radius of 3 x 10-12mm divided by 1800, is 1.6 x 10-15mm. If this is multiplied by the magnification factor of 3 x 1014, we get 0.48 mm, the approximate radius of Swann's pinhead, which confirms that this is what Swann actually did.
     The revelators have totally changed the significance of the comparison by omitting the factor of 1800. Using a pinhead radius of 1.0 mm, the proton radius obtained is  7 x 10-18m, which compares well with a modern estimate of the Bohr radius of the quark system (7.7 x 10-18m). The significance of this estimate was discussed in our previous issue of Innerface. There, we gave reasons why this may be considered as the best estimate of the radius of the proton. [note if the pinhead radius is taken as 0.5mm, the proton radius becomes 3.5 x 10-18m, which is still of the same order of magnitude as that for the quark system]


    The modifications to Swann's comparisons as they appear in The Urantia Book show unequivocally that the revelators not only knew what they were doing but also provided new knowledge that human science was not destined to uncover for more than another fifty years.
References


Innerface International 4 (1) 1997. "Convergence"  http://www.urantiabook.org/archive/newsletters/innerface/vol4_1/page4.html
Ne'emen, Yuval and Yoram Kirsh (1983) "The Particle Hunters" (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge)
Swann, W.F.G. (1934) "The Architecture of the Universe."

[Majeston]

Each year, surprising discoveries raise new questions about exploding stars and other
exotic objects in space. Above: Supernova 1987a in the Large Magellanic Cloud.



 

Jan 30, 2007
Deep Space Explosion Baffles Astronomers

A team of investigators searching for supernovae was caught by surprise recently when it observed a “mysterious object” growing explosively and inexplicably. The event was so unprecedented that astronomers did not know how to categorize it.

The object was discovered on February 22nd, 2006, and was first thought to resemble a supernova. But its brightening and its spectrum didn’t fit. Astronomers cannot even say how far away it is, because of its redshift anomalies.

According to Kyle Dawson of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California (a member of the Supernova Cosmology Project), "It could be some galactic variable [star], a supernova or a quasar. But none of those makes any sense."

Unlike the normal supernova that takes twenty days to reach peak brightness, the mystery object brightened for at least 100 days, achieving a 200-fold increase in brightness after its first observation.

Fundamental to the enigma posed by the object is its redshift. Astronomers use redshift as a means of determining an object’s speed of recession from the observer (and from this they calculate distance). But how far away this object is remains a mystery. According to the New Scientist report, “If the strongest feature in the spectrum is a pair of calcium absorption lines, its red shift would be 0.54, corresponding to a distance of 5.5 billion light years.

“But the object is at least one magnitude brighter than a Type 1A supernova would be at that distance….And there is no sign of a host galaxy, which should be visible.”
Dawson said, “It's still going to be visible for another 2.5 months on the ground. We hope the spectrum will evolve and we see some features we can recognize."

This is yet another example of a redshift incongruity suggesting that something could be profoundly wrong in the astronomers’ assumption that redshift provides a reliable measure of distance.

It is also apparent that supernovae are not as well understood as we have been led to believe. The different types of supernova explosion require different precursors and causes. And researchers have been confounded by observations of supernovae that do not live up to expectations. This latest report seems to add another misfit with theory.

Perhaps Supernova 1987a (image above) provided a clue. As reported by Wallace Thornhill, this earlier observed explosion defied expectations of astronomers while exhibiting all of the peculiar features expected of a powerful plasma "Z-pinch.” Direct observation thus suggests an electrical cause for supernovae, and the more recent deep space explosion should be examined for electrical signatures as well.



P134:3, 12:4.14          Urantia papers 1934 solves problem

Although your spectroscopic estimations of astronomic velocities are fairly reliable when applied to the starry realms belonging to your superuniverse and its associate superuniverses, such reckonings with reference to the realms of outer space are wholly unreliable. 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. 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. By this method of reckoning, subsequent to the perfection of more powerful telescopes, it will appear that these far-distant systems are in flight from this part of the universe at the unbelievable rate of more than thirty thousand miles a second. But this apparent speed of recession is not real; it results from numerous factors of error embracing angles of observation and other time-space distortions.

But the greatest of all such distortions arises because the vast universes of outer space in the realms next to the domains of the seven superuniverses seem to be revolving in a direction opposite to that of the grand universe. That is, these myriads of nebulae and their accompanying suns and spheres are at the present time revolving clockwise about the central creation. The seven superuniverses revolve about Paradise in a counterclockwise direction. It appears that the second outer universe of galaxies, like the seven superuniverses, revolves counterclockwise about Paradise. And the astronomic observers of Uversa think they detect evidence of revolutionary movements in a third outer belt of far-distant space which are beginning to exhibit directional tendencies of a clockwise nature.

http://urantiabook.org/newbook/papers/p012.htm

[19Merlin69]

Merlin,

I'm working on improving my 0/3 average 
At the risk of running 0/4 and appearing dumb as a brick I submit the following

Before I read any further, I want to clarify that I never said, insinuated or intimated that you were dumb.  I feel quite the opposite.  The "0 for 3" comment was based wholly on the fact that the last three evidences were not successful - nothing more.

I'll continue reading now - I just wanted to get that on the record.

[19Merlin69]

While studying Stefan Tallqvist's site....   http://kotisivu.dnainternet.net/adslfor/     I ran across this in Physics today which I wasn't aware of before.


- in Physics Today, October 1983, page 19, we read: "There are about 100 low-energy neutrinos and antineutrinos per cubic cm in the Universe today,...

         vs.

1934   UB p. 473 : "The most nearly empty space known in Nebadon would yield about one hundred ultimatons - the equivalent
          of one electron - in each cubic inch."

I must be missing the point...  1 cubic inch with 1 electron would be equal to 1 electron in 16.3870 cu.cm. - that would make the number quite small according to the UB (in electrons).    What the 1983 research reads is 100 PER cc (1500 times {est.} larger than the UB predicts).  That number has increased drastically in recent times, making it even more problematic for the infantessimally small UB number.  Did I miss your point?

[Majeston]

=Merlin
I must be missing the point...  1 cubic inch with 1 electron would be equal to 1 electron in 16.3870 cu.cm. - that would make the number quite small according to the UB (in electrons).    What the 1983 research reads is 100 PER cc (1500 times {est.} larger than the UB predicts).  That number has increased drastically in recent times, making it even more problematic for the infantessimally small UB number.  Did I miss your point?

Probably 

maybe it's me.  I remember back in the late 60's or early 70's when in N.H. they tried to save gas by reducing the speed limit from 65 to 55 and simultaneously re-educate the population about the metric system.  So,  they changed all the interstate signs to read 55 mph or 90? km.  That project failed because the population was totally confused so they went back to the old way of doing things and changed all the road signs again. 
I think they also rebelled when an attempt was made to change daylight savings time which meant that all the little children were going to school in the dark.

But,  anyway,  When I really need to do a conversion I have to go to a conversion formula.  But,  if I take your word that 1 cubic inch equals 16 cc what I get is a ratio of 1 to 16,  not 1500 times greater.  What am I doing wrong?

One thing about the Ubook is a careful reading of the adjectives and adverbs or other qualifiers.  I notice that it says "The most nearly empty space known in Nebadon".  So,  one questions where the particular sample was taken from.   I have also noticed in another physicists paper that it talks about the estimated time of our sun's demise and I have to look up the reference but from memory the Ubook says 25 billion years and I think the scientific estimate is a small fraction of that.  According to the paper I have in mind it references the Ubook statement that suggests that our sun lies in the so-called "energy currents" which further revitalize such objects as our sun.   Apparently these so-called energy currents are similar to the gulf stream in the ocean as an analogy.

So,  even if the number has changed since 1983,  it still comes back to the point of where the sampling was taken.

BTW thanks for the ego boost. 
 

Whats with the foot and inch thing anyway?  What was that some measurement from the kings big toe to his heel divided by 12?  The universe seems to work on the decimal system.  Why are we still using this antiquated phenomenon of mythology.

                                              

  The power charge of a superuniverse consists of three phases of energy of ten segregations each. This threefold energy charge spreads throughout the space of the grand universe; it is like a vast moving ocean of energy which engulfs and bathes the whole of each of the seven supercreations.

P321:7, 29:2.8 The electronic organization of universe power functions in seven phases and discloses varying response to local or linear gravity. This sevenfold circuit proceeds from the superuniverse power centers and pervades each supercreation. Such specialized currents of time and space are definite and localized energy movements initiated and directed for specific purposes, much as the Gulf Stream functions as a circumscribed phenomenon in the midst of the Atlantic Ocean.                                                       


////////////////////


41:7.8 Such dead or dying suns can be rejuvenated by collisional impact or can be recharged by certain nonluminous energy islands of space or through gravity-robbery of near-by smaller suns or systems. The majority of dead suns will experience revivification by these or other evolutionary techniques. Those which are not thus eventually recharged are destined to undergo disruption by mass explosion when the gravity condensation attains the critical level of ultimatonic condensation of energy pressure. Such disappearing suns thus become energy of the rarest form, admirably adapted to energize other more favorably situated suns. 

41:9.5 Your own sun has long since attained relative equilibrium between its expansion and contraction cycles, those disturbances which produce the gigantic pulsations of many of the younger stars. Your sun is now passing out of its six  billionth  year. At the present time it is functioning through the period of greatest economy. It will shine on as of present efficiency for more than twenty-five  billion years. It will probably experience a partially efficient period of decline as long as the combined periods of its youth and stabilized function.        

[Majeston]

3-Dimensional view of the 2MASS XSC galaxy distribution in the local Universe. The image shows the galaxies as seen in a Galactic projection with the Milky Way front and center.
_________________
2MASS stands for 2 Micron All Sky Survey began in 1997 and completed in 2001. This projection is a composite picture containing about 1.6 million galaxies looking at the sky from all directions as viewed from earth

the colors in the 2MASS composite picture are false colors which have specific meaning according to modern scientific understanding. It is a type of color coding.

The violet or blue dots represent galaxies that are "blue shifted" meaning they are purported to be moving towards us at a fairly high velocity.

The cyan or green dots represent galaxies which are purported to also be moving towards us but at a much lower velocity.

The yellow or orange dots represent galaxies which are purported to be moving away from us at low velocity.

And the red or dark red dots represent galaxies which are "red shifted" and purported to be moving away from us at high velocity.

Notice that the galaxies form clusters, superclusters, and strings over great distances. Because the projection is a two dimensional representation of our 3D/4D universe, it is difficult to discern that the 1.6 million galaxies are NOT in the same plane. Placement seems to be somewhat randomized and equaly uniform in all directions.

[Majeston]

.

That's one heck of a cool Christmas ornament.

[Majeston]

Hideki Yukawa nobel prize
versus
Urantia book

Mesotron

Hideki Yukawa
           (1907-1981)
 In 1949 Hideki Yukawa was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics for predicting the existence of the meson. He originally named it 'mesotron', but was corrected by Werner Heisenberg (whose father was a professor in Greek at University of Munich) that there is no 'tr' in the Greek word 'mesos'.         
           
           Japanese physicist who was awarded the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1949 for research in the theory of elementary particles.
           Graduating from Kyoto Imperial University (now Kyoto University) in 1929, Yukawa became a lecturer there, moving in 1933 to Osaka Imperial University (now Osaka University), where in 1938 he was awarded his doctorate. He rejoined Kyoto Imperial University as professor of theoretical physics (1939-50), held faculty appointments at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, N.J., U.S., and at Columbia University in New York City, and became director of the Research Institute for Fundamental Physics in Kyoto (1953-70).

       

In 1935, while a lecturer at Osaka Imperial University, Yukawa proposed a new theory of nuclear forces in which he predicted the existence of            mesons, or particles that have masses between those of the electron and the proton. The discovery of one type of meson among cosmic rays by American physicists in 1937 suddenly established Yukawa's fame as the founder of meson theory, which later became an important part of nuclear and high-energy physics. After devoting himself to the development of meson theory, he started work in 1947 on a more comprehensive theory of elementary particles based on his idea of the so-called nonlocal field.
         

Urantia 1934

Paper 42  Atomic Cohesion

The charged protons and the uncharged neutrons of the nucleus of the atom are held together by the reciprocating function of the mesotron, a particle of matter 180 times as heavy as the electron. Without this arrangement the electric charge carried by the protons would be disruptive of the atomic nucleus.

As atoms are constituted, neither electric nor gravitational forces could hold the nucleus together. The integrity of the nucleus is maintained by the reciprocal cohering function of the mesotron, which is able to hold charged and uncharged particles together because of superior force-mass power and by the further function of causing protons and neutrons constantly to change places. The mesotron causes the electric charge of the nuclear particles to be incessantly tossed back and forth between protons and neutrons. At one infinitesimal part of a second a given nuclear particle is a charged proton and the next an uncharged neutron. And these alternations of energy status are so unbelievably rapid that the electric charge is deprived of all opportunity to function as a disruptive influence. Thus does the mesotron function as an " energy-carrier" particle which mightily contributes to the nuclear stability of the atom.

The presence and function of the mesotron also explains another atomic riddle. When atoms perform radioactively, they emit far more energy than would be expected. This excess of radiation is derived from the breaking up of the mesotron "energy carrier," which thereby becomes a mere electron. The mesotronic disintegration is also accompanied by the emission of certain small uncharged particles.

The mesotron explains certain cohesive properties of the atomic nucleus, but it does not account for the cohesion of proton to proton nor for the adhesion of neutron to neutron. The paradoxical and powerful force of atomic cohesive integrity is a form of energy as yet undiscovered on Urantia.

These mesotrons are found abundantly in the space rays which so incessantly impinge upon your planet.         


 **************

****************


The Strong Force in the Atomic Nucleus 1998
Prophesied in 1934
------------------------------------------------------------------------

1."The charged protons and the uncharged neutrons of the nucleus of the atom are held together by the reciprocating function of the mesotron, a particle of matter 180 times as heavy as the electron. Without this arrangement the electric charge carried by the protons would be disruptive of the atomic nucleus.

2. "As atoms are constituted, neither electric nor gravitational forces could hold the nucleus together. The integrity of the nucleus is maintained by the reciprocal cohering function of the mesotron, which is able to hold charged and uncharged particles together because of superior force-mass power and by the further function of causing protons and neutrons constantly to change places. The mesotron causes the electric charge of the nuclear particles to be incessantly tossed back and forth between protons and neutrons. At one infinitesimal part of a second a given nuclear particle is a charged proton and the next an uncharged neutron. And these alternations of energy status are so unbelievably rapid that the electric charge is deprived of all opportunity to function as a disruptive influence. Thus does the mesotron function as an "energy-carrier" particle which mightily contributes to the nuclear stability of the atom.

3. "The presence and function of the mesotron also explains another atomic riddle. When atoms perform radioactively, they emit far more energy than would be expected. This excess of radiation is derived from the breaking up of the mesotron "energy carrier," which thereby becomes a mere electron. The mesotronic disintegration is also accompanied by the emission of certain small uncharged particle.

4. "The mesotron explains certain cohesive properties of the atomic nucleus, but it does not account for the cohesion of proton to proton nor for the adhesion of neutron to neutron. The paradoxical and  powerful force of atomic cohesive integrity is a form of energy as yet undiscovered on Urantia." (479)

For me, this is one of the truly remarkable passages on science from a Urantia Paper said to have been written in 1934. I first read it in the early 1970's and recognized paragraphs 1 and 2 as the basic postulates of a theory for which Hideki Yukawa was awarded the Nobel prize in 1948. From the 1950's to the 1970's, particle physics was in a state of confusion because of the multitudes of sub-atomic particles that came spewing forth from particle accelerators. As new concepts and discoveries were announced, I kept noting them in the margins of page 479, which eventually became somewhat messy. At times I felt that there was not much that was right on this page, at other times I marvelled at its accuracy.

In recent years, a considerable amount of information has been forthcoming on the history of development of the present "standard model" for atomic structure. Though recognized as being incomplete, the standard model has enormously increased our understanding of the basic nature of matter. The electromagnetic force and the weak force of radiocactive decay have been successfully unified to  yield the "electroweak" theory. As yet this has not been unified with the theory of the "strong" force that holds the atomic nucleus together. The force of gravity remains intractable to unification with the others.

Para's 1-3 above from The Urantia Book, ostensibly presented in 1934, could have come directly from the mind of Hideki Yukawa. In the quantum theory of electromagnetism, two charged particles interact when one emits a photon and the other absorbs it. In 1932 Yukawa had decided to attempt a similar approach to describe the nuclear force field. He wrote, "...it seemed likely that the nuclear force was a third fundamental force, unrelated to gravitation or electromagnetism... which could also find expression as a field... Then if one visualizes the force field as a game of 'catch' between protons and neutrons, the crux of the problem would be to find the nature of the 'ball' or particle." This work was published in Japanese in 1935, but was not well known in the U.S.A.

At first, Yukawa followed the work of Heisenberg and used a field of electrons to supply the nuclear force between protons and neutrons. This led to problems. In 1934 he decided "to look no longer among the known particles for the particle of the nuclear force field. He wrote: "The crucial point came one night in October. The nuclear force is effective at extremely small distances, on the order of 0.02 trillionth of a centimeter. My new insight was the realization that this distance and the mass of the new particle I was seeking are inversely related to each other." He realized he could make the range of the nuclear force correct if he allowed the ball in the game of 'catch' to be heavy-- approximately 200 times heavier than the electron."

next column>
   
Para. 3 above extends Fermi's 1934 theory of radio-active decay of the neutron. In his early work, Yukawa had considered that his mesotron might act as the 'ball' in the 'catch' game during radioactive decay.  After re-running his calculations, in 1938 he published a paper predicting the properties of such a mesotron which he now called a 'weak' photon, from which it became known as the 'W' particle.

Para's 1-3 come close to being the contemporary, but incredibly speculative, science of 1934. They include three unknown particles--the pion mesotron (found 1947), the W particle mesotron (found 1983), and the small uncharged particles (neutrinos found 1953). Few would have bet on these predictions being right.

Para 2. comments, "the alternations of energy status are unbelievably rapid..." According to Nobel prize winner, Steven Weinberg, they occur in the order of a million, million, million, millionth of a second. In contrast, the process described in para. 3 takes about a hundredth of a second.

Para. 4 states that  the mesotron (pion) does not account for certain cohesive properties of the atomic nucleus. It then tells us that there is an aspect of this force that is as yet undiscovered on Urantia.

Leon Lederman was a young research worker in 1950 who later became director of the Fermi Laboratory. He was awarded the Nobel prize in 1988. In his book, "The God Particle", he comments: "The hot particle of 1950 was the pion or pi meson, as it is also called. The pion had been predicted in 1936 by a Japanese theoretical physicist, Hideki Yukawa. It was thought to be the key to the strong force, which in those days was the big mystery. Today we think of the strong force in terms of gluons. But back then (i.e. 1950's), pions which fly back and forth between the protons to hold them together tightly in the nucleus were the key, and we needed to make and study them."

This force, unknown in 1934, (and for that matter in 1955 when The Urantia Book was published) is now known as the color force. Writing about it in their book, "The Particle Explosion," Close, Marten, and Sutton state, "Back in the 1940's and 1950's, theorists thought that pions were the transmitters of the strong force. But experiments later showed that pions and other hadrons are composite particles, built from quarks, and the theory of the strong force had to be revised completely. We now believe that it is the color within the proton and the neutron that attracts them to each other to build nuclei. This process may have similarities to the way that electrical charge within atoms manages to build up complex molecules. Just as electrons are exchanged between atoms bound within a molecule, so are quarks and anti-quarks--in clusters we call 'pions'--exchanged between the protons and neutrons in a nucleus."

The mandate to the revelators permitted "the supplying of information which will fill in vital missing gaps in otherwise earned knowledge." (1110) Whether any physicist ever effectively utilized the information in para. 4 of page 479, we will probably never know. But there are "more things on heaven and earth"... For example, "Physics, it is hoped, will one day reach the ultimate level of nature in which everything can be described and from which the entire universe develops. This belief could be called the quest for the ultimon." (from E David Peat, 1988, "Superstrings and the Search for the Theory of Everything.") There is a curious coincidence here. The particle The Urantia Book called a mesotron became shortened to meson. It calls the basic building block of matter an ultimaton. Will it one day be called the ultimon?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ken Glasziou, Maleny, Australia. retired physicist
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        


A mental picture of the atom

     In order to be able to communicate with one another in terms of normal, everyday experience, we can visualize an atomic nucleus as being a kind of spherical container in which other little spherical containers are found (Fig 1.). One kind is called a proton and it carries a positive electric charge. The other kind could be described as a mirror image of the proton minus its electric charge, and is given the name "neutron." The simplest of all atoms is the hydrogen atom and it consists of a single proton with its single positive charge. It is a fact of creation that for every positive charge in the universe there exists an equal and opposite charge that we call negative. The proton is accompanied by its negatively charged electron that is thought of as being smeared out in a cloud skirting the spherical proton. The size of an atomic nucleus is in the order of 10-15cm and the electron cloud is of the order of 10-8cm. Putting that into more familiar terms, if the electron cloud was a mist clinging to the surface of the earth, and the nucleus of the atom was at the very center of the earth, that nucleus would be about the size of a football field and situated 4000 miles away from its electron cloud. Which all goes to show how powerful is the electric field that holds the electrons to the nucleus and permits matter to exist.
     As atoms get larger, Nature endows them with  more and more protons with their positive charges and these are highly repellent to one another. To help alleviate the problem, Nature adds neutrons to the protons, on a roughly one to one basis to start with, but as the bundles gets bigger, Nature has to supply more neutrons than protons in order to stop things falling apart. The number of protons in the mix decides whether a particular mix, called an element, will be hydrogen, oxygen, silver, gold, iron, aluminum, or what have you. The number of neutrons accompanying the protons does not influence which element a mix will be, but it does determine its stability. Carbon, for example, has only six protons, but can have from 5 to 8 neutrons. The last one is called carbon 14; it is unstable, and breaks down radioactively, which is very convenient for those archaeologists who use it to carbon date the remnants of their ancestors.
On making nuclear peace
     Par.1 of page 479 is about how the atomic nucleus holds itself together despite the antipathy of the protons for one another. Fig. 2 shows diagrammatically, a theory published by a Japanese physicist, Hideki Yukawa, that is almost the exact equivalent of what is stated in Par.1. Eventually Yukawa was awarded the Nobel Prize for his efforts, which, of course, was not just a simple drawing like Fig. 2, but a highly developed mathematical treatment of his proposal. Effectively, it assumes that this particle, termed the mesotron or meson, picks up a positive electric charge from the charged protons of the nucleus and switches it to the neutron which thereupon becomes a proton while the proton that lost its charge is now a neutron.
     Why does it have two names? Well the Greeks used the word "mesos" to mean middle and Yukawa's particle had a calculated mass somewhere between the electron, the proton, and the neutron. So there were three choices, meson, mesoton, or mesotron simply meaning middle sized particle. Eventually "meson" won the day.
A breach of the mandate?
     Yukawa's theory was published in 1935, one year after receipt of the Urantia Paper. Does that controvert the mandate about the proscription of unearned knowledge? Not necessarily, because Yukawa's memoirs state that he had been thinking about the problem ever since the discovery of the neutron in 1932. It is customary in most research laboratories to have internal seminars, often on a weekly basis, in which research workers present progress reports on their projects. Although the mandate for the revelators proscribed the disclosure of unearned knowledge, there was no stipulation that it had to be published before it could be used in their revelation. Presumably the revelators could have used Yukawa's seminar notes, or even his spoken addresses as source material for the book.
     We do need to note that Yukawa's idea was only one among other possible theories attempting to account for nuclear stability. We also need to note that in Par. 4., p. 479, the revelators point out that Yukawa's explanation of nuclear binding is only partial. The book actually says, "The mesotron explains certain cohesive properties of the atomic nucleus, but it does not account for the cohesion of proton to proton nor for the adhesion of neutron to neutron. The paradoxical and powerful force of atomic cohesive integrity is a form of energy as yet undiscovered on Urantia."
      That particular comment appears to be highly prophetic, and would have remained so even if our Triple "A" authors had written it in during the 1950's. For example, Nobel Prize winner, Leon Lederman, wrote: "The hot particle of 1950 was the pion or pi meson. The pion had been predicted in 1936 by a Japanese theoretical physicist, Hideki Yukawa. It was thought to be the key to the strong force, which in those days was the big mystery. Today, we think of the strong force in terms of gluons. But back then, mesons which fly back and forth between the protons to hold them together tightly in the nucleus were the key, and we needed to make and study them." Here Lederman appears to indicate that, in the 1950's, most physicists thought the Yukawa theory was still adequate--and perhaps they should have for they had only just awarded him the Nobel Prize because of it. The Urantia Book, of course, says it was inadequate--a comment that turned out to be true.
     A development causing mini-excitement occurred in 1936 when Anderson and his co-workers announced the discovery of a particle in cosmic ray experiments that appeared to correspond to Yukawa's meson as it had almost exactly the mass that Yukawa had predicted. However, the euphoria was short-lived when it was discovered that Anderson's meson had a negative charge and not the positive charge required by Yukawa theory. Even later Anderson's meson turned out not to be a meson at all, but a heavy electron, now called the muon. Yukawa's meson was finally discovered in 1947.
Colliders bring confusion in the 1950's
     In the 50's, confusion broke loose as powerful accelerators collided nuclear particles at higher and higher energy levels and generated an absolute profusion of new particles, including 4 or 5 kinds of mesons.
     The confusion in the fifties was such that one prominent physicist is reported to have advocated presenting the Nobel Prize to the next physicist not to discover a new particle. That brings up a point. It has been claimed (by Martin Gardner) that the text of The Urantia Book could have been modified until the books started to roll off the presses in 1955. If so, then the enormous confusion in the world of sub-atomic physics during the early 1950's should have generated enough anxiety in our Triple "A" committee physicist for him to become uncertain about any of his prophetic commentary--and surely he would have been impelled to remove it if he gave thought to the potential effects upon the revelatory status of the book.
     Let's now examine the details of Par. 3.
On radioactive decay of the neutron
     The presence and function of the mesotron also explains another atomic riddle. When atoms perform radioactively, they emit far more energy than would be expected. This excess of radiation is derived from the breaking up of the mesotron "energy carrier," which thereby becomes a mere electron. The mesotronic disintegration is also accompanied by the emission of certain small uncharged particles. (479)
     
     Here we are told about two kinds of undiscovered particles that result from the beta radioactive decay of the neutron. One of them, called in the book, a "small uncharged particle," had been predicted by Wolfgang Pauli in 1932 to account for the missing energy when a neutron decayed radioactively to a proton and an electron. This tiny particle became known as the neutrino. A word of explanation. The mass of the neutron was known to be greater than the masses of the proton and the electron combined. From Einstein's famous equation E = MC2, the change in energy can be calculated from the change in mass and since all the energy could not be accounted for, Pauli invented his little particle with no properties that he said could never be discovered.
     The accepted theory of beta radioactive decay in 1934/5 was that proposed in 1932 by one of the most famous physicists of this century, Werner Heisenberg. It became known as the four fermion theory and is shown in our Fig. 3. Here a single neutron arrives at a single space-time point (position A) whereupon it decides it is sick of being what it is and opts for a new life as three new particles, a proton, an electron, and a  little uncharged particle, a neutrino. This theory was shown to be entirely satisfactory for the low energy conditions available in those days, except for one thing. Nobody could demonstrate that the neutrino actually existed.
Conservation of energy. True or false?
     We'll digress for a moment to consider the status of a law in classical physics that states that energy cannot be created or destroyed. This energy-balance problem we have referred to during neutron decay required an implicit faith that this law would hold good despite the fact that many classical concepts had withered and failed in the new physics introduced in the early part of this century. Among the new theories were relativity and quantum physics. As time went by, and on onto the 1940's, faith in this law of the immortality of energy began to wither. Many asked the question of whether it was really valid to postulate a little uncharged particle that could never be detected because it had no properties, for the sole purpose of preserving what may well have become an outdated law of classical physics.
    If this p. 479 material in the book was really written by our Triple "A" committee, then its members show some pretty strange behavior.

In Par.4, they go against front line physics by pointing out that the theory that earned Yukawa the Nobel Prize in 1948 is inadequate to account

for aspects of the binding of the nucleus, and in Par. 3, they bet on the conservation of energy law holding up under circumstances in which it

had yet to be tested. This law was derived from the effects of heat, work, and gravity on steam engines, hydraulic pumps, horses pulling

plows, apples falling off trees, etc. It was not known whether the law held good in the micro-world of the atom.

Einstein came along and said the gravity concepts were wrong and also introduced a new idea, the equivalence of mass and energy for which

there was nothing comparable in classical physics. In radioactive beta decay a neutron changes into a proton and an electron but the energy

equivalent to the loss in mass does not correspond to what was measured. Hence the invention of the undetectable neutrino to preserve

the validity of the law that energy cannot be created or destroyed.

       Now if our Triple "A" people were at work faking a revelation, right here, in Par. 3, they took the unprecedented step

of ignoring the top physicists of the day and introducing their own concept of beta-decay as illustrated in Fig. 4. 

Please note that I did not draw Fig. 4, but copied it from a modern text book because The Urantia Book concept has become the modern theory.



http://www.urantiabook.org/archive/newsletters/innerface/vol4_1/page7.html


     The major difference from the Heisenberg scheme (Fig. 3) was the introduction of another unidentified (and in those days, unidentifiable) particle that the revelators have called a mesotron, but is now known as the W- particle. Clearly it is not the same mesotron as postulated for mediating nucleus stability since that mesotron shuttles a positive charge, and this second mesotron carries negative charge as shown by its breaking down to the negatively charged electron and the small uncharged particle.
     The Urantia Paper that provided this information was dated as having been delivered to the Contact Commission in 1934. In 1938, Hideki Yukawa made an attempt to reformulate the Heisenberg scheme for beta decay using one similar to that in The Urantia Book. In it, he called his carrier a weak photon rather than a mesotron. The work was not taken seriously as the four fermion process of Fig. 3 was considered adequate and remained so until into the 1950's.
The speculative(?) predictions on p. 479 of the book
    Here we can reasonably ask the question of why a physicist of the Triple "A" committee would indulge in a guessing game that could discredit all the work entailed in amassing a 2000-page revelation. All told, there are six highly speculative suggestions that could easily have been wrong.
1. The Yukawa meson (identified in 1947),
2. The small uncharged particles (neutrinos) of radioactive decay proposed in 1932 and identified in 1956. Note that in an article in the February 1996 issue of Scientific American, one of their discoverers, Dr Frederick Reines, says, "For 25 years the neutrino was little more than a figment of the theoretical physicists' imagination." So even when the book was first printed, the neutrino was still a figment of the imagination.
3. The mesotron of radioactive beta decay that became known as the W-- boson (discovered 1981)
4. The force other than Yukawa's meson that holds proton to proton and neutron to neutron and which was finally clarified in the period between 1950 and 1970.
5. In Par. 5, the book states that, "These mesotrons are found abundantly in the space rays which so incessantly impinge upon your planet." The first report of a meson being discovered  in cosmic rays occurred in 1936, two years after the Paper was received--but turned out not to be a meson.
6. Then there is another highly speculative suggestion in Par. 2. The book says, "The mesotron causes the electric charge of the nuclear particles to be incessantly tossed back and forth between protons and neutrons. At one infinitesimal part of a second a given nuclear particle is a charged proton and the next an uncharged neutron. And these alternations of energy status are so unbelievably rapid that the electric charge is deprived of all opportunity to function as a disruptive influence." In effect, it is as if the charge is smeared out rather than being localized. Nobel Prize winner, Steven Weinberg (1992), remarks that these alternations occur in the order of a million, million, million, millionth of a second. In contrast, the movement of electric charge from neutron to electron during the beta radioactive decay process takes about one hundredth of a second. In 1934, there was no hard evidence available to make such comparisons. 

http://www.urantiabook.org/archive/newsletters/innerface/vol4_1/page5.html