Talk:The Urantia Book/Archive 4

message: I thought it might be useful for the article to switch to the Wikipedia:Footnotes system for referencing.  The article covers a lot of ground now, and sometimes questions have come up about whether specific bits of information are accurately verified (eg the question of the big bang vs tub cosmology) or whether sources are actually being used (eg the recent deletion of the gooch and house books from references).  I've done the conversion and hope it suits people.  Wazronk 21:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations using footnotes 

message: First, I'd like to second the motion to write a new article on "History and future of the world" and shorten the section here to a summary. This article is more than twice the recommended length.
Second, though it may be difficult, I think more effort should be made in the introduction to situate the book and summarize its orientation. Is it "a new age spirituality with many beliefs in common with Christianity but inclusive of other religious teachings"? I'm not familiar with the book myself. Something that would orient the reader might be helpful. -DoctorW 04:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm kind of in agreement with both your statements, I'm just gathering myself to get back and see what to do next. There has been some elaboration and rearrangement of the History and Future section. I think the language could also be simplified, but how to do it and keep the information is kind of tricky. Maybe having someone unfamiliar with the book could help simplify it. Add somemore thoughts. Richiar 05:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  A difficulty with situating the book is that POV plays a large part.  Antireconciler made the comment about the "lack an established popular interpretation" and I agree.  Various people will say "new age", "gnostic", "revelation", "metaphysics", "occult".  There is a strong affinity to Judeo-Christian traditions but also large points that diverge.  References don't seem to point to a clear, satisfactory categorization.  Wazronk 16:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Length of page; focus in intro 

message: I have a feeling that some people might disagree with me.  However, the word "tome" distracts the reader. It made me click over to the article on "tome" to find out what that really meant. The purpose of the sentence is to tell what the Urantia Book is, not to bring up side issues.  There is nothing wrong with saying, "The Urantia Book is a book." Steve Dufour 15:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like book, it is long enough to be a tome, but it is still a book and I think it is a less distracting word. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I had the same impression as you: once I looked up "tome" it made sense, but a smoother wording might be better. I'm still hanging back reading archives and gathering impressions, I'll be back to help with the article when I get through with that, maybe several more weeks for me. Richiar 15:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The smoother the wording the better, especially in the intro. The change looks good.  Wazronk 15:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I read through the archives a while back. I must say, I have never seen a talk page where people got along and made progress so well. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 17:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Book" vs. "tome"

message: Since this topic in the article as a science criticism has come up more than once in discussion I wanted to put together a summary of information and sources.  In paper 57 of The Urantia Book, section 6, the second paragraph says this:
The planets nearest the sun were the first to have their revolutions slowed down by tidal friction. Such gravitational influences also contribute to the stabilization of planetary orbits while acting as a brake on the rate of planetary-axial revolution, causing a planet to revolve ever slower until axial revolution ceases, leaving one hemisphere of the planet always turned toward the sun or larger body, as is illustrated by the planet Mercury and by the moon, which always turns the same face toward Urantia.
Here are some different statements and intrepretations / derivations people can take away from the paragraph, along with whether they're true or not.
# "Tidal friction acts as a brake on the rate of planetary-axial revolution, causing a planet to revolve ever slower until axial revolution ceases, leaving one hemisphere of a planet always turned toward the sun".... False.  Axial revolutions don't cease in this situation, but stabilize to match the same amount of time needed to orbit the sun.  It's a fundamentally inconsistent description of motion to say that both axial revolution would cease and one hemisphere would always be turned to the sun.
# "Mercury is an illustration of a planet that has slowed to the point where one hemisphere always faces the sun" .... False.  Since Mercury revolves three times for every two orbits around the sun, all sides see exposure to the sun.
# "Before 1965, scientists believed that Mercury was a planet that had slowed to the point where one hemisphere always faces the sun" ... This is true.
# "Mercury's axial revolutions have ceased" ... False, Mercury revolves once every 58.6 days.
# "Before 1965, scientists believed that Mercury's axial revolutions had ceased" ... False, they believed Mercury revolved once every 88 days.
# "Mercury's axial revolutions haven't ceased, rather it's an example of an 'ever slowing' planet".... Not true, the Mercury 3:2 spin-orbit resonance is a stable equilibrium -- the planet's revolutions are neither slowing down nor speeding up.   
# "The moon has slowed to the point where one hemisphere always faces the 'larger body' of the earth".  Yes, true.
# "The moon's axial revolutions have ceased."  False, the moon revolves on its axis once every 27.3 days.
Of the above, Gardner covers 1, 2, 3, 4, and 8, and numbers 2 and 3 are what the article includes.  Number 5 is obvious as a result of 1 but can be seen directly in the public domain 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica (which also corroborates 3).  Number 6 is from the Mercury (planet) article.  Number 7 I'll bet everybody knew.
Interestingly, of the three things TUB can be interpreted as saying Mercury is an illustration of -- "ever slowing" axial revolution, "axial revolution ceased", "one hemisphere always turned toward the sun" -- all three of them turn out not to be the case. Wazronk 19:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmmm. Thanks for pointing this out. And here all this time I was thinking it was the sun that went around the earth. !?? :) Richiar 17:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tidal friction, Mercury, and the moon 

message: a person whose identity has remained unknown received the material from celestial intelligences while asleep - this can hardly be called "the documented history", or what? -- 62.65.228.67 12:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand the comment/question by 62.65.228.67. Nobody has called the unknown identity a "documented history" that I know of. Richiar 14:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It says in the article: "The documented history[3][6][7] is that a person whose identity has remained unknown received the material from celestial intelligences while asleep." I just wonder how can the involvement of celestial beings be documented. Wouldn't it be more accurate to write that "N. claimed that X (whose identity he refused to reveal) had received" etc.? -- 88.196.108.7 16:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see what you're saying now. Yes, I think what 88.196.108.7 is saying is correct. Its ok to change it from my pov. Richiar 20:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is that sentence any better? Richiar 23:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  documented history of book's origin