Hi I-Am!
Quote:
Please let us continue in this pondering.
OK let’s do that! I said:
Quote:
It's clear you meant "revolve" but confused the terms.
you said:
Quote:
English is not my native language. Please have a mercy on me...
It was not my intent to disparage you or your English language skills. I apologize. Even those of us whose native language is English confuse terms like “rotate” and “revolve.” One would think that celestial beings of divine origin would know the difference, however, even though English probably isn’t their native language either.
Quote:
OK, so let me summarize some basic findings.
1) Urantia Book defines Andromeda as a nebula (15:4.7 and also 41:8.3) although in fact it is a spiral galaxy. This leads me to the following conclusion: Andronover nebula is the Milky Way Galaxy. Would you agree?
In the first part of the twentieth century, astronomers were only just beginning to consider that some objects of space were outside of this galaxy. At that time, the term “nebula” was something of a generic term. Telescopes of that era did not have sufficient resolution to make out individual stars in nearby galaxies like Andromeda. It is quite possible that the Urantia Book uses the term “nebula” for this reason. Today modern astronomy uses different terms to describe different phenomena. It is possible that the entire Milky Way Galaxy was formed from what the astronomers of today would call a Molecular Cloud. It is also possible that such a Molecular Cloud could have been called “Andronover.”
Quote:
2) Because of our 'outer' position within the Milky Way Galaxy, we can not see a large portion of Orvonton simply because the highly dense center of our galaxy blocks the view. Would you agree?
Yes, indeed. From our perspective, the galactic center does obscure a large portion of what might lie behind the Milky Way. Whether this is part of Orvonton, it seems possible.
Quote:
3) If Andromeda is already outside of the occupied sphere this means that the entire Universe of Universes (consisting of seven superuniverses + Island of Paradise) forms merely a portion of the Local Group of Galaxies that comprises 30+ galaxies with Andromeda and Milky Way being the dominant ones. Would you agree?
4) Should this be true, one may say that the actually occupied space is 'ridiculously' small compared with how big the universe is. It is like having 1000 fish living in the Caspian Sea that has a potential of providing life to billions upon billions of fish. Would you agree?
5) I also believe that our sun revolves around the center of our galaxy only. I do not think that there exists any kind of sub-revolution within the individual galaxical arms. If so, it would seem that our galaxy revolves around something which is relatively close to us (200,000 ly), but which we can not see because it is behind the galaxy center that denies us the view. Would you agree?
6) If the Universe of Universes is such a 'small thing', in that case some of the close-by galaxies (belonging to the Local Group) may in fact be other Superuniverses! Would you agree?
I think that we need a point of reference to understand these things. This is why I state that the eight of ten major sectors of Orvonton should have been named by the revelators. Instead it appears that one minor sector has been named.
I said:
Quote:
If Jerusem was near Alnitak as you speculate, then Jerusem would be closer to the periphery of this galaxy than Urantia.
you answered:
Quote:
I see no problem with that. Any regional capital has neighboring villages all around it. Some of those villages are inevitably closer to the national capital.
At the very end of paper 41, the Archangel in collaboration with the Chief of Nebadon Power Centers states:
Quote:
Urantia is comparatively isolated on the outskirts of Satania, your solar system, with one exception, being the farthest removed from Jerusem, while Satania itself is next to the outermost system of Norlatiadek, and this constellation is now traversing the outer fringe of Nebadon. You were truly among the least of all creation until Michael's bestowal elevated your planet to a position of honor and great universe interest. Sometimes the last is first, while truly the least becomes greatest.
Without a point of reference, such assertions have little meaning. From paper 41 using the term “Sagittarius”:
Quote:
Such is the constitution of the local star cloud of Nebadon, which today swings in an increasingly settled orbit about the Sagittarius center of that minor sector of Orvonton to which our local creation belongs.
This could imply that the Milky Way is a minor sector of Orvonton and that Nebadon is part of the Milky Way. From paper 15 also using the term “Sagittarius”:
Quote:
The rotational center of your minor sector is situated far away in the enormous and dense star cloud of Sagittarius, around which your local universe and its associated creations all move, and from opposite sides of the vast Sagittarius subgalactic system you may observe two great streams of star clouds emerging in stupendous stellar coils.
This quote seems to imply that Ensa, capital of our minor sector, may be located at the gravitational center of the Milky Way Galaxy. But the Milky Way does not rotate as a unit. Rather the stars and associated creations, such as nebulas and star forming molecular clouds revolve around this gravitational center. The term "subgalactic system" is not a scientific term as far as I know, but may imply that there is more than has been "discovered" so far.
Quote:
The Sagittarius sector and all other sectors and divisions of Orvonton are in rotation around Uversa…
Again, the revelators have used “rotation” but mean “revolve” but it would seem that the Sagittarius [Minor] Sector is the only one identified within TUB.
Quote:
4. The swing of the local star cloud of Nebadon and its associated creations around the Sagittarius center of their minor sector.
This seems to imply that Nebadon is part of the Milky Way and that Nebadon revolves around the gravitational center of the Milky Way located in the area of the sky called “Sagittarius” from our perspective and that the Milky Way is a minor sector of Orvonton.
Quote:
5. The rotation of the one hundred minor sectors, including Sagittarius, about their major sector.
This could imply that there may be as many as one hundred self-contained island universes we call “galaxies” which revolve around a common center of gravity which the revelators call a major sector. There may be something on the other side of the Milky Way from our perspective which astronomers have yet to "discover." But the distances of 200,000 to 250,000 light years are too close to contain anything like one hundred galaxies. Even the diameter of the 30 or so members of the Local Group which you have mentioned may be as much as 5 million light years. But neither the term "major sector" or "minor sector" is clearly defined in the Urantia Papers from an unambiguous point of reference.
The term "Milky Way" is mentioned seven times in TUB some of which have been mentioned in this thread. Maybe we can continue at some other time.
Randy