mis-typed character.
Notes to Paper № 41
[1]
2?1030 kg, Note that the current scientific estimate of Sun's mass is 1.98892?1030 kg.
[2]
40,000 times, In 1955 text: sixty thousand times. Textual consistency and current scientific estimates of our sun’s density both support the change to “40,000.” The first paragraph of this section states that our sun is about 1.5 times the density of water 1 g/cm3, and 40,000 times this is 40 kg/cm3; the current scientific estimate of the sun’s density is 1.4 times the density of water; 40,000 times that is 56 kg/cm3. The likely cause of this error in the 1955 text is that the number in question was written as a numeral in the manuscript (40,000 not forty thousand), and the error was caused by a simple keystroke error in which 6 was mis-keyed for 4, creating 60,000 instead of 40,000. When the text was formatted for printing, the numerals were changed to words, and an error that formerly consisted of one digit was transformed into an incorrect word. The formatting of words and numbers for printing is not a revelatory issue; it is a matter of style, and is covered extensively in the
Notes to Paper № 42
[1]
?-rays, In 1955 text: Y rays. From external reference to physics, and multiple internal cross-references (see for example 42:5.7), gamma is clearly intended here. As to the origin of the “Y” in the 1955 text, it is likely that the Greek letter “?” (gamma) was mistakenly transposed into “Y” at some point in the preparation of the original edition (probably at the time of the first typing from the original manuscript) either because of a faulty inference from the immediately preceding X, from an unfamiliarity with the Greek alphabet, or simply because there was no better way to represent the character on a standard typewriter. Even though a typesetter would have been able to place the Greek letter “?” on the page, the later decision to replace that letter with gamma is clear, reasonable, and consistent with the usage found elsewhere throughout The Urantia Book.
[1]
more, In 1955 text: less. [For historical reference, the first discussion of the relative masses of the structural elements of atoms in the Encyclopaedia Britannica is found in its 11th Edition (1910 / 1911) with revisions in the 12th (1922). The calculation of the relative masses of the electron and the hydrogen atom was undergoing a rapid evolution just prior to the writing of The Urantia Book, the ratio being 1:1700 in 1897; 1:2000 in 1904; and 1:1845 by 1922. This last ratio is also the one quoted in the 1934 Websters.] The revised wording is consistent with the statement in the paragraph following the subject paragraph 42:6.8 in the text where the author states that a proton is “eighteen hundred times as heavy as an electron;” and is also in general agreement with current scientific opinion which places the ratio at about 1:1836. After the committee’s work, this item, plus the closely-related following item, are the only recommended changes that do not have a straightforward typographical explanation.
[1]
mesotron — usually called
[2]
protons and neutrons constantly to change places. The mechanism of ?+ pion exchange described here was first suggested by Hideki Yukawa in 1935 and experimentally confirmed in 1947. However, in 1964 it was superseded by the quark model, according to which the proton-neutron force is a kind of “residual” force caused by the gluon exchange between the quark constituents of nucleons.
[3]
reality, In 1955 text no comma here.
Notes to Paper № 43
[1]
40,000, In 1955 text: four thousand. The second edition correction appears to be warranted based on a reference at 119:7.2 in the text: “The public announcement that Michael had selected Urantia as the theatre for his final bestowal was made shortly after we learned about the default of Adam and Eve. And thus, for more than thirty-five thousand years, your world occupied a very conspicuous place in the councils of the entire universe.” The default occurred about 37,800 years ago, so “almost forty thousand” and “more than thirty- five thousand” would seem to be equally reasonable descriptions. The committee concluded that the problem here is identical in origin to that of 41:4.4 in the text: the number in question was written as a numeral in the manuscript (40,000 not forty thousand), and the error was caused by the loss of a zero before the number was formatted into words for printing.
