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.
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.
Pierre Chicoine
No comments:
Post a Comment