The Urantia Book mentions that collisions between stars can revivify
stellar action.

"8. Burned-out Suns. Some of the dark islands of space are
burned-out isolated suns, all available space-energy having
been emitted. The organized units of matter approximate full
condensation, virtual complete consolidation; and it requires
ages upon ages for such enormous masses of highly condensed
matter to be recharged in the circuits of space and thus to
be prepared for new cycles of universe function following a
collision or some equally revivifying cosmic happening."
(UB171:6)

"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."
(UB465:2)

Evidence for this has been recently discovered. There is an article
entitled "The smashup that rejuvenates" in the July 22, 2000 issue of
Science News (Volume 158, p59). I quote:

"For elderly stars, the fountain of youth may be only a
collision away.

Evidence for the rejuvenating power of collisions comes from
studying bright, young-looking stars residing in globular
clusters, the oldest stellar groupings in the Milky Way. For
nearly 50 years, astronomers examining globular clusters
have encountered a paradox. Even though massive stars go for
the gusto, burning brightly and dying out in just a few million
years, several keep on shining in the dense cores of these
clusters, which may be as old as 16 billion years.

According to theory, no star heavier than 80 percent of the
sun's mass should reside in an ancient globular cluster. Yet,
astronomers have fund resident bright stars, known as blue
stragglers, that are nearly twice as massive as the sun and
one-tenth the age of the clusters.

Theorists have suggested that the merger of old, lower-mass
stars led to the recent formation of the stragglers. There
are two ways such a merger can happen, notes Rex A. Saffer of
Villanova (Pa.) University. In one model, two stars that are
tightly orbiting each other succumb to the pull of gravity
and coalesce. In the second scenario, two or more completely
independent stars smash into one another and merge.

Recent calculations have favored the collision hypothesis, but
it remained unproven until now.

Saffer and his colleagues used the Hubble Space Telescope to
peer into the Milky Way globular cluster NGC 6397, which
contains about 100,000 stars and lies some 8,500 light years
from Earth. They confirmed that five blue stragglers reside
in the cluster's core. Four of them weigh about twice as much
as the most massive stars that theorists calculate could
survive in the cluster. The mass of the four stragglers could
be accounted for by either collisions or coalescence.A fifth
straggler, however, turns out to be so massive that it could only
have formed by the collision of three or more stars, Saffer's
team calculates. He and his colleagues reported the findings
last month in Rochester, N.Y., at a meeting of the American
Astronomical Society.

"Our result is especially exciting because stellar collisions
have long been predicted on theoretical grounds" but evidence
has been scant, says Saffer. "To our knowledge, this is the
first observation of the product of these stellar smashups."
-R.C."

All of this was published 45 years before science had even the technology to theorize or even see it happening in our own galaxy.

If you wish to learn more go to this site:www.urantia.org

Machaiventa Speaks :D :D :cool: :p :p :p
It appears that this is a case of current science verifying a statement
presented as fact by the revelators 45 years ago.


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


[This message has been edited by paul defourneaux (edited August 05, 2000).]

[This message has been edited by paul defourneaux (edited August 05, 2000).]

Originally posted by paul defourneaux:
The Urantia Book mentions that collisions between stars can revivify stellar action.


Perhaps your topic would be better placed over in the UFO/Alien section of this board. :rolleyes: Of course, I wouldn't have read it over there because I am of the opinion that such discussions are a complete waste of time.

It is perhaps a waste of my time to respond to your post here but I do so in an effort to warn those among us who are the most vulnerable that your “Urantia Foundation” promotes a very dangerous kind of junk science: That sort that not only proposes to have all the answers concerning the natural universe but also claims to be a valid religion with a special revelation from god. (Whom in this case I believe, happens to be an alien!) It is for such causes that “true believers” don running shoes and drink lethal quantities of strychnine in an effort to join their creator as he passes by on the tail of an inbound comet.

As far as your claim of proof for the validly of Urantia because some recent observations tend to support something written half a century before, let me tell you a little story.

In 1960 when I was a child of twelve, I sat in my bathtub and watched the bubbles form a vortex as the water drained out. It occurred to me that what I was experiencing looked very much like the picture of M-31 on my science teacher’s wall.

That next day in class I stated my theory that M-31 and probably all spiral galaxies including our own must have a “hole” in the center and that eventually all the stars would “drain out”. I can still hear the laughter!

Forty years later it is believed that all such galaxies may have a massage black hole deep inside them. Recently, observation has indicated that both M-31 and the Milky Way have super massive black holes at their centers which are ingesting vast amounts of matter and which if given enough time would consume the entire galaxy.

Now the fact that as a child of twelve, I predicted what would come to be accepted theory in no way validated me as a child prodigy in the field of theoretical cosmology. In the same way, an early twentieth century charlatan’s chance agreement with current theory in no way validates the “junk science” and “junk religion” he proposed.



[This message has been edited by Lenny (edited August 06, 2000).]

Lenny:
I am terribly sorry that you believe that the foundation is a religion of cultist and poison drinking fanatics. I guess Gene Rodenberry and Frank Herbert would be suprised to hear that, since they were and are both members.
Please give your self time to read more of the book before you begin to disect it.It may surprise you to find out that is more accurate than you wish to admit and in no way represents a religion or cult in any way.

Paul/Machiaventa :cool: :p :p :p

[This message has been edited by paul defourneaux (edited August 07, 2000).]

Originally posted by paul defourneaux:
Lenny:
I am terribly sorry that you believe that the foundation is a religion of cultist and poison drinking fanatics. I guess Gene Rodenberry and Frank Herbert would be suprised to hear that, since they were and are both members.

OK, so it is a religion of cultists and science fiction writers, hopefully with no poison drinkers among them.



Please give your self time to read more of the book before you begin to disect it...in no way represents a religion or cult in any way.

I haven't read the book but I have read most of the "information" on the Urantia Foundation's web site which I quote:


The Urantia Book, first published by the Urantia Foundation in 1955, was authored by celestial beings as a special revelation to our planet, Urantia.
The book's message is that all human beings are one family, the sons and daughters of one God, the Universal Father. It instructs on the genesis, history, and destiny of mankind and on our relationship with God. It also presents a unique and compelling portrayal of the life and teachings of Jesus, opening new vistas of time and eternity, and revealing new concepts of Man's ever-ascending adventure of finding the Universal Father in our friendly and carefully administered universe.
Sounds like a religion to me!

After writing the above post I thought it was only fair to attempt to read the book. I went to the "foundation" web site figuring I could pick up a copy for five buck contribution... WRONG Over $25 for a paperback copy :eek: Looks like the Urantia is more into making a profit than proselytization. Guess I will pass.



[This message has been edited by Lenny (edited August 08, 2000).]

Mr.Lenny:
You do not have to pay to read the book. It is available on line and at your local library. I will attempt to post a link to a web site which you can read the book on-line. If your e-mail our foundation and tell them that you need a copy for a study group we will send one at no charge.
Although at first impression it may seem to be a religion, it is not, though it does have many spiritual meanings is does not fall into the context of a religion. If I have sparked your curiosity, my goal has been accomplished,thankyou for your curtious responses.

http://www.ubook.org/index1.html


Paul/Machiaventa :cool: :cool: :cool:

Hello Paul.

I doubt if I will be able to read much of the Urantia Book on line. A couple of pages of text on a computer screen and my old myopic eyes go south! I will check my public library when I get a chance. I did download the database of comparisons with the Bible and will check it out in the mean time.

I would really be interested in your definition of a religion! I haven't read the book but everything I see on the web site says "religion" to me. It is precisely your denial of what appears to me to be obvious that leads me to suspect that Urantia is a "cult". I am a practicing Roman Catholic but I have great respect for the other major religions in the world. I tend to be more suspicious of one that is less than a hundred years old. I have done quite a bit of study on comparative religion but frankly, until reading your post I had never heard of Urantia.

BTW: I would prefer continuing our discussion via private e-mail. It is really off topic in the Astronomy conference.


------------------
The sky is not the limit, nor are the stars.