Fusion/Condensation

Fusion occurs when the right position of sub-atomic particles occurs. Heat and pressure speeds the process. All elements will fuse and become heavier elements.  It just takes more time when heat and pressure are missing.

The extremely heavy elements will defuse and decompose and recombine in the center of stars. In planets the process occurs slowly but still occurs.l but is deterministic toward heavier fusion. There is no need to get the heavier elements from off planet sources. They will eventually appear here in the center of our planet and certain flows will bring them to the surface in small amounts.

In space most of the soup emitted by stars condense back into hydrogen over long periods of time. That is why it is abundant. It is much easier to combine the starry exhaust as it is sub-atomic and will easily combine into hydrogen. Hydrogen is simple and it is the first stage of sub-elemental combination.

The electromagnetic particle output of stars will combine over long periods of time and shift towards the heavier sub-atomic elements until they are hydrogen. Redshift is a good example of this. A

We, as yet, have yet to define the range of sub-atomic elements.  We are just beginning to understand the sub-atomic forces that keep particles in close proximity. We need another Mendeleev to mentally organize these combinations.

It is right that we resist change.  Resistance insures the forward momentum of ideas. Resistance cements the next step much like a check valve won't alow fluid to reverse through a pipe, so does resistance work to resist a backward step when the forward resistance has occured. The pressure of truth will insure the step forward remains. Resistance also allows us to better examine any change. 

That is why theories like the Big Bang will have a lasting impression in the minds of most scientists.  That and the fact that no better theory existed to replace it. Condensation or slow fusion does replace it. It explains why it's possible to have blue galaxies at the edge of our universe. These galaxies are just now beginning. Currently, an extension of the Big Bang, that is, multiple Big Bangs or multiple universes try to make sense of these blue galaxies. 

Of course, if they are in process of formation it implies a beginning and also implies intelligent design of the universe as a whole.

Science leads to philosophy and philosophy leads to religion and religion leads to truth. We fashion our theories of our gods. We haven't accepted them as they really are. We live in a steady state universe where planets grow very rapidly and become stars and stars die and are reborn.

If the Universe disappears every few billion years then there is no intelligent design and life is a cold hearted master wielding fiery elements. 

Pierre Chicoine

Light red shifts over distance

The Big Bang is an outdated theory that is based on the expansion of the Universe because far away galaxies are red shifted because they appear to travel away at high speed. I propose that everything passes through accumulation of particles so every element and sub elemental particle shifts towards the heavier and the slower. Light over distance will accumulate particles and naturally shift. It's also why they're is an abundance of hydrogen. Suns die and are others are reborn. A very long balance. Also this part of the Universe is young so it appears the entire Universe was created a few billion years ago. Hubble destroyed the Big Bang when it found blue galaxies beyond the so-called 13 billion edge

The Big Bang and Urantia

Astronomers and the Urantia book are in full disagreement on this subject of this fatalistic Big Bang type of expansion/contraction that locks us into a death grip of destruction every so often. Nothing survives with this theory, nothing. No paradise,  no Havona, no galaxies, no Earth, everything is destroyed at the end of the contraction cycle. Yuk. All the best hopes of everything that ever existed destroyed with not a twig of life left.

The book says that the Universe does have a cycle of expansion and contraction but it's very long term and disagrees on almost every item of current scientific theory on this subject.

The Urantia book has no Big Bang occurring 13 billion years ago. This idea that the the Universe kills everything alive every 40 or so billion years after full contraction is based, first, on a color shift that takes place on the color of suns to a redder hue the farther away these sun/stars are so they look as if they're traveling away from us at an alarming speed. No other alternative has been proposed that has gotten any traction with astronomers. They're stuck on this fatalistic Bang theory. I think it may be an unconscious repercussion that comes from the Christian fatalistic view of God destroying the world and starting over again. We all tend to get led into the inertial pull of the subconscious beliefs of younger times.

According to the book we live in the young local universe of Nebadon, which was, at the time of the writing, around 1932, about 1/100,000 the size of the Milky way galaxy. It's more than 500 billion years old. This removes all doubt of a 13 billion year expansion, that is, if the book is real. I have long since removed any real doubt the book is a fabrication.

Look at it this way, there are almost 700,000 local universes that are older than Nebadon existing in only 7 galaxies that are populated, all the rest are currently barren of life until we get there. From these simple calculations, there's no way of deducing the age of the entire universe from the book. It's, at the very least, several trillion years old and that is probably a ridiculously small estimate.

The words "local universe" were used at the time of the writing of the book to describe a very small part of one galaxy. The Universe is, not considering the size of Havona and the new blue galaxies found by the Hubbard telescope, 360 billion (360,000,000,000) more star populated than Nebadon which has 10,000,000 inhabited worlds.

Hubbard deduced the Universe expansion from these red shifting suns. Although he eventually recanted this belief. Too late, though, as it unfortunately got stuck in the minds of most astronomers by then.

This idea of solar red shift can be best understood by standing on a sidewalk and listening to the pitch of a car's sound drop as the car passes you. This drop in pitch is not relativity even though the passengers in the  car don't hear a drop like you do. It's because the sound wave peaks and valleys are stretched out by time. The peaks are sound pulses.The car is moving so that the sound pulse comes later because the car has moved since the last pulse. Using the exact same method or idea, not the same example, Hubble theorized light waves or pulses were stretched from moving stars in the same way as my car sound example.

I believe a different phenomenon is taking place. I think it could be due to light condensation.  That is, light condenses to a redder or more dense particle grouping and the farther away the star, the denser light becomes and therefore the deeper red shift. I think that this theory could be proven by seeing stable plateaus of color where light shifts into stable groups of color therefore light would not show a linear shift of color. I certainly don't have the time or incentive to work on proving that theory.
Anyway I'll add this to the blog I have on the subject of Universe light and element condensation and conversion.

http://thecondensinguniverse.blogspot.com/?m=1

Pierre Chicoine