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

Universe Condensation and Evaporation

First, I am not a rebel. It is just that I was born with a mind that continues to serve me with visualizations that, to me, place me at odds with a deeply embedded theory of universe creation. I believe the universe is in a dynamic steady state.

Science today believes the universe is expanding from a explosion that took place billions of years ago. They point to red shifting of distant stars as the proof of this event.

Bear with me and I will explain why velocity is not the only cause of starry red shifts and in doing so I hope to put a small amount of doubt in the main leg supporting the Big Bang theory. I thoroughly apologize, even if I'm wrong.

The universe is in a constant process of condensing with an equal an opposing balance of element evaporation occurring in the suns of space.

Light has mass. Is it so difficult to believe elements decompose slowly in suns? That fusion is not the only purpose of sun furnaces. We use heavy elements to create a decomposition that we call nuclear fission and these elemental isotopes decompose into lighter elements. Also heating any element will cause it to emit light. If light has mass then isn't that element losing mass? Just add time.

After light and other electromagnetic energy is created in the starry furnaces, these energies travels out into space and begin a slow and steady condensation into our lightest element, hydrogen, which incidentally happens to be the most abundant element in the universe. We live short lives and it is difficult to see the process of light becoming hydrogen, dark energy and dark matter. We simply have not measured these. What we can't see, though, we can infer.

It takes untold billions of years for light to shift towards elemental hydrogen. It must traverse all the stages of atom creation one stage at a time. It has to travel through all the subatomic spectrums of dark engery/matter. There so many levels to be taken. Atoms are far more complex than we can now measure. There are so many particles that aren't understood and combinations of those particles that organize into the complexities that aggregate into an atom of hydrogen.

Light's first step in it's travel through space is to shift it's color. It must travel a long distance before this takes place. I find it interesting that light ignores most forms of subatomic matter to allow it to travel such long distances without being absorbed. There must be an attractive and repulsive dark energy/matter force that keeps many forms of energy and matter travelling at the same speed as when it began even while it displaces this basic stuff of the universe. This neutral force kept me from accepting my own visualizations for a long time.

There are several reasons why we, as yet, have not measured these changes. First most of these condensations occur so rapidly and create so little matter that we don't have the tools, as yet, to measure them. Also, we aren't really looking, are we?

Secondly, we don't have the time or the positioning on the surface of our planet to see the slow changes taking place. Condensation from one element into another is so slow that we must look for these slow changes over a long period of time. Add to that, most of these changes occur where there is pressure, at the center of planets. The smaller the planet, the slower the fusion condensation.

We have proof that the lighter elements can fuse into heavier elements. Hydrogen readily fuses into helium at extreme temperatures. Substitute time and pressure and the same fusion occurs with a mathematical randomness that is very predictable.

A balance exists between absorption and condensation so at the other end of the fusive scale are the heavier elements such as isotopes of uranium and thorium. They fission into lighter elements quite easily when their heavier isotopes are simply placed into close proximity to each other. They also lose mass as they radiate electromagnetic energy. Just add time and you can see they are evaporating.

By now, you should have gathered that it may be that the color shifts of light don't add up to a big explosion They may be caused by velocity but distance is the bigger part of the equation. If this theory holds any truth to it, it will be difficult to separate one from the other for distance space objects.

I would like to mention that a condensing universe is one that has a lot of stuff in it's so called empty space. On any matter sphere, depending on size, a huge flow is created from the condensation of dark energy/matter and this flow will create matter, the larger the sphere, the more hydrogen and other elements are created. So much so that planets grow much more rapidly than simple addition of space debris.

If this theory has any validity there must be proof somewhere. Neal Adam's expanding earth shows a fast growing earth based on Nasa's calculations of sea floor age. There is also water (hydrogen/oxygen) added to this expanding earth that form the seas. The suns must live much longer as they also absorb this dark energy/matter flow. In my imaginings I see different vacuums created at different frequencies on the surfaces of planets and suns from condensing energies and they create negative pressures for those particular frequencies.

All in all. It may be that we will find the universe far more interesting than we have previously imagined. If it has lived for untold trillions of years, then life out there is very interesting indeed.

Pierre Chicoine