|
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.
|
|
