Our opening premise: The Universe, of which we are a
part, exists. The Universe exists. As rational beings, we
all agree that it does. This is as self-evident as it could possibly be.
(Notice that the word ‘Universe’ is capitalized to make it clear that we
are referring to the one real Universe that actually exists.)
1 Is the Universe Finite or Infinite?
In the quest for a problem-free cosmology, the
first task should involve deciding whether the Universe exists as a finite
or an infinite cosmos. Is the Universe spatially endless or not? Is the
Universe timeless or not?
If we unwisely choose to place limits on the
Universe ---as most cosmologies throughout history have--- we run into
several major problems. The most obvious one is called the boundary
The Boundary Problem
The boundary problem involves hypothesizing
some sort of “cosmic edge” that bounds and limits the universe. (When
uncapitalized, the word ‘universe’ refers to the model of our Universe or
some hypothetical universe.) The nature of the outer boundary of the
universe has puzzled many of the ablest minds in the history of cosmology.
Over the centuries, a variety of cosmic-edge boundaries have been
proposed; none makes a compelling connection with reality; all represent
attempts to tame the limitless.
One of the earliest attempts at a cosmic edge involved an enveloping
boundary of nothingness. A first century B.C. school of Roman
philosophers, known as the Stoics, taught that the finite cosmos
was surrounded by a void region that stretched to infinity.
The Stoics sought to restrict the size of their finite universe by
surrounding it with an infinite universe! To the Ancients, the void
represented absolute nothingness, and so it seemed reasonable to invoke
the void as a cosmic barrier. Modern astrophysicists, however, recognized
that the void, or the vacuum, represents physical dynamical space. And, of
course, everything that is physical belongs to
the Universe. As a strategy for a finite universe the barrier of endless
nothingness was a failure.
A common conception was the belief in a wall-like cosmic edge
---think of a cosmic egg shell. Johannes Kepler may be cited as a believer
in a finite universe that was enclosed in a dark cosmic wall of
During the middle ages a spiritual boundary was adopted (and
acceptance of it was strictly enforced). A spiritual cosmic shell, called
the Realm of Heaven, was the outermost region enclosing a number of lower
ranking concentric shells of the less pure and material universe. As
one moved outward away from Earth the physical realm was progressively
transformed into an aetheric or spiritual realm.
The spiritual cosmic-edge itself ---the extreme limit of the medieval
universe--- consisted of the convex outer limits of the sphere of this
Giordano Bruno boldly challenged the effectiveness
of the barrier. He ‘explored’ the forbidden territory beyond the edge and
found ---to the horror of the Guardians of the Holy Truth--- infinity.
And as with most official doctrines, the more untenable the underlying
idea the more ruthlessly it is enforced. Philosopher Bruno exposed the
futility of a cosmic-edge idea when he advanced the argument, “... let the
surface be what it will, I must always put the question: what is beyond?”
and paid the ultimate price. The terminal tax of heresy.
As if on some mission of vengeance Bruno’s
question lives on ---haunting all who fear the unholy truth of infinity.
Before considering the modern cosmic boundaries we need to understand
the relationship between space-and-time and the universe. Evidently the
ancient view was that space and time contained the universe. The
universe was pictured as an island surrounded by the void (space) and
existing in independent time. The modern view is the converse: the universe contains space and time.
The old simplistic barriers have long been discarded; the new complex
barriers of the mathematical genus were now embraced.
The first attempt at a mathematical boundary was
made by the German astronomer Johann Zöllner, who was not so much
motivated by a desire to confine the universe as by the intellectual
demand to resolve the infamous gravity paradox.
“In 1887 ... Zöllner proposed a resolution of the
gravity paradox that was a landmark in the history of cosmology. Inspired
by [Georg Bernhard] Riemann’s work on curved space, he suggested that
space was curved and finite, so that the total amount of matter in the
universe was finite. ... This was a remarkable anticipation of the
Einstein universe of 1917.”
And as it happened, Einstein constructed the
modern cosmic boundary. Einstein formulated (in his 1917 theory of the
universe) the new boundary as the limits of a mathematical hypersphere of
The mathematical magic behind this geometric
barrier may be described something like this: If the universe of spherical
space were static, then as you approach the cosmic ‘edge’ you are bounced
back towards the center of the universe but from the opposite end of
the universe! You will have circumnavigated the finite universe of
curved space! Science writer Timothy Ferris, in his book The Whole
Shebang, gives a similar description of this bizarre effect using a
light beam traveling towards the edge.
The universes based on Einstein’s general
relativity are abstract universes, not to be confused with the real
It should also be mentioned that a cosmic edge implies a cosmic center.
The presence of a cosmic center leads to a violation of the
cosmological principle which states that the universe is uniform, on
the large scale, in all places (spatial homogeneity) and in all directions
(isotropic), and has no preferred location. And so in this sense,
the presence of a boundary is an affront to the cosmological principle.
You never, ever, want to violate this principle!
Now consider the problems associated with temporal
restrictions. Although a universe that is finite in time does not
necessarily imply an end-of-time it most definitely demands a
beginning. Also, any universe that is both finite and evolving
has, by implication, a beginning. The very notion that a universe evolves
implies a ‘beginning’ moment (and state) from which it evolved. Georges
Lemaître understood this when he fashioned the original version of the Big
Bang by explicitly demanding one. However, Sir Arthur Eddington suggested
a deeper understanding when he wrote in the journal Nature:
“Philosophically the notion of a beginning to the present order of nature
is repugnant to me.”
The philosopher Constantin Antonopoulos, critical of the beginning-of-time
aspect of the expanding universe model, argues convincingly that the “idea
of a first moment of Time is a self-contradictory one.”
Trying to explain “a beginning” adds a vast new
layer of complexity to any meaningful understanding of the Cosmos. A
philosophical branch of cosmology called cosmogenesis deals with
this complexity. It involves the search for the origin of the universe.
But since genesis involves an unsound and unnecessary assumption ---a
creation event--- it is not good science. Postulating and explaining
the creation of the universe is more a matter of faith than logic.
Noble Laureate Hannes Alfvén sums up the point:
“There is no rational reason to doubt that the
universe has existed indefinitely, for an infinite time. It is only myth
that attempts to say how the universe came into being either four thousand
years ago or twenty billion years ago.”
And of course anyone who has done any thinking at
all will have, at one time or another, asked, “What came before the big
creation event?” Physicists recognize this for what it is ---an invalid
question since there was no ‘before’ time. However, the related question
has them scratching their heads.
“What caused the creation event?” Indeed, what did trigger the
The popular approach to resolve the beginning-paradox is to invoke
repeating cycles of creation followed by annihilation. The irony is that
the resolution lays in transforming (by multiplication) finite time into
infinite time. The ‘beginning’ (of course) vanishes, demonstrating once
more that for an infinite universe there is no paradox and that our
‘infinite’ choice in Flowchart 1 is a wise
A universe that is finite in time has always been philosophically
Initial Conditions Problem
A true infinite universe is clearly a non-created
universe. It did NOT start-out in some compact form and then transition to
the infinite state. It is because it always was.
In contrast, a true finite universe is a created
universe. The problem with a created universe, aside from the serious
philosophical problems mentioned, is the determination of the physical
laws of nature and the magnitude of the fundamental constants. How and why
did Nature choose the laws and the constants? This is known as the
initial conditions problem. How did the created universe end-up with
its three or four fundamental forces when there could have been any number
whatsoever?! Same goes for the various constants of nature and the
collection of unique subatomic particles. How were the menu items of
universal rules and building components selected before there was a menu?
In big bang cosmology the initial conditions problem leads to
the mystery of the primordial atom: The metaphysical assumption that the
universe originated as an infinitely small primordial atom of
infinite matter density is countered by the probability that for physical
reasons a singular state of this nature is unattainable.
Nevertheless, this is what some versions of the big bang propose. Now
think about this for a moment. A universe starts out as a singularity
---an infinitely small speck of a point. Then this singularity grows to
become a universe. Is there anyone who would deny that a speck of almost
nothing that contains almost everything is a paradox?
A paradox, of course, is the worst kind of
problem. It is the most effective way of destroying any hypothesis (and
Academic cosmologists tell us that “A universe that evolves from
initial conditions, that has all its complexity implicit in a simple
initial state, is a preferred universe.”
But wait a moment. Aren’t the experts overlooking the fact that a universe
that simply has NO initial conditions is actually the most
preferred universe? ... They should be reminded that only an infinite
universe presents such a situation; it has no initial conditions
(simply because it was never in an infant state). Consequently, it has no
genesis paradox and no singularity paradox.
Needless to say, regardless of the finite-infinite
selection we are undertaking, the fundamental laws still need to be
explained (why they are what they are) but this is not the purpose of the
For most finite universes there is also the related problem of
end-state conditions. It’s described as the mystery of the fate of the
Cosmos. For example, will the big bang universe continue expanding forever
or will it collapse back into that impossible singularity?
Existence Cannot be Quantified
The Universe is the exclusive manifestation of
existence. To limit the Universe in any way with respect to its spatial
extent or its temporal duration is to place a limit upon existence itself.
Existence cannot be quantified. You either have it or you don’t.
Axiomatically, it’s all or nothing. Since we agreed in the opening
discussion that, indeed, we and the rest of the Universe do have
existence, then we must recognize its full infiniteness. Nothing less than
an infinite universe is acceptable.
Although the argument in favor of an infinite universe is compelling,
it does not diminish the extraordinary difficulty of grasping the
conclusion’s totally uncompromising meaning and its power to out-scale
anything imaginable into unimaginable insignificance. It is as though that
which has no limiting barrier becomes itself a conceptual barrier of
sorts. Ironic indeed. Infinitude becomes a barrier of the mind. ... We
each deal with that issue as best we can.
The Universe is timeless and spatially endless because it has always
been timeless and endless. It exists perpetually.
“Things are as they are because they were as they
were.” —American physicist Thomas Gold
And in its perpetual existence, it exemplifies the
dictum called the perfect cosmological principle.
Flowchart 1. Choosing between
the finite class of universe and the infinite class of
We go with “the Infinite”
Based on the above discussion, the winning choice
is clearly the infinite universe. The Objective-reality view
holds that the Universe is infinite.
Care to guess the Official Science view?
The Official View is succinctly expressed by Roger Penrose a leading
expert on the Universe and “one of the world’s most knowledgeable and
creative mathematical physicists,”
“We do not know whether the universe as a whole is
finite or infinite in extent —either in space or in time ...” — R. Penrose
It may surprise you that Academic Science does not
commit itself. Understand that Academia would like to embrace the
finite concept but the accompanying problems are too blatant, too
irresolvable. On the other hand, no matter how compelling the ‘infinity’
choice may be, Academia cannot accept it! I repeat, the infinite universe
cannot be accepted into the Official View. In the next section we make a
simple choice for the space-medium of our universe and in the selection
process explain why Academia must preclude the limitless universe.
2 The Space-Medium of the Universe is Dynamic
Early in the 20th
century the theories and investigations of Einstein, Willem de Sitter, and
Alexander Friedmann made it imperative that, whatever space is, it
must posses a dynamic quality. Space could not be static; space
had to be an active player in the universe. In other words, the nature of
space was such that it had to expand or contract. In fact, DeSitter found
that space was dynamic (specifically expansionary) even when space was
completely empty, that is, when there was no mass present! With or without
mass, “... in the general relativity picture the universe consists of
Then came the hard evidence. Astronomers, most notably Vesto Slipher,
followed in the 1920s by Carl Wirtz, Howard Robertson and Edwin Hubble,
found that all but the nearest galaxies appeared to be receding from our
solar system and our Milky Way galaxy. Evidently the cosmic space between
galaxies was expanding. It was the light from those galaxies that held the
key. As the light from far-off galaxies radiates through expanding space
the light waves are stretched —slowly, relentlessly, cumulatively. The
resulting elongated light-waves carry the measurable imprint of space
expansion. The measurable imprint is called the redshift --- the
The large scale
expansion of space is commonly called the Hubble expansion in honor of
Space expansion is also observable as the
phenomenon called the Lambda effect (and means exactly the same thing). In
fact, astrophysicists have for many years referred to space expansion as
the Lambda effect, as well as the DeSitter effect. Then in the 1980s
another kind of space expansion, called inflation, was introduced
and became popular.
The evidence that space actually expands was so overwhelmingly
convincing that this dynamic process has been adopted as the main pillar
of modern cosmology. You will find this process underpinning practically
all the models of the last 100 years or so. The Einstein-DeSitter model
---the basic textbook model--- depends on space expansion. All the Big
Bang models depend on space expansion. The various Inflation models depend
on space expansion. Even the historic Steady State models required space
expansion. (A rare exception is the Milne model of kinematic relativity.)
Cyclical and Oscillating universes use space expansion for their current
But space expansion is only part of the dynamic story. Dynamic space
also partakes in a process of contraction. The universe’s space medium has
a contraction mode.
“Einstein’s theory ... predicts that a uniform,
unbounded medium can’t be static; it must either expand or contract.”
Einstein’s theory of
gravity (general relativity theory) is a mathematical description of the
contractile nature of space. According to his theory, space undergoes a
contraction (relativists prefer the geometric phrasing and say that
space curves positively) in the vicinity of mass and energy. As a
simplified illustration, the Sun, is contracting the space of the solar
system, but since the Earth is (and the other orbiting bodies are)
‘falling’ tangentially away from the Sun we do not notice the
shrinkage. The Earth’s outward motion is balanced by the inward motion of
space and our distance from the Sun remains more or less constant.
contraction is an observable phenomenon that is essential in the
manifestation of the gravitational effect. In the field of Process
Physics, researchers refer to the contraction process as the
‘self-dissipation of space’. It means the same thing —space shrinks, space disappears.
So here’s what we have. Theory says space must contract or expand;
observational evidence shows that space does both. The choice for our
space-medium is obvious. We vote with the Official View, as shown in
It is a well established fact that space is dynamic. There are two basic
modes whereby space reveals its dynamic nature ---space may expand, space
may contract. Which then means there are three ways to incorporate dynamic
space into a model of the universe: (1) Space in the universe expands; (2)
space in the universe contracts; (3) the universe contains both expansion
Before moving on to the final and most interesting selection-round
allow me to explain the expanding-space trap in which Contemporary
Cosmology has entangled itself. Rightfully convinced of the reality of
space expansion, the overzealous participants then extrapolated the fact
of the expansion of cosmic regional-space into the highly speculative
notion of the expansion of the entire universe!! Calling the extrapolation
the Big Bang universe leaves no doubt about what they think is expanding.
But now observe: Only a finite universe can,
theoretically, expand. An infinite universe cannot. It would be utterly
foolish and completely pointless to propose an infinite universe that
could or would expand and become measurably bigger! If the concept of
infinity means anything, it certainly means “already fully expanded” and
the infinite radius (or diameter) cannot become more infinite!
And so, Official Cosmology must turn its back on
the infinite universe concept, for it has committed itself a priori
to the expansion paradigm. History tells us, the medievalists had solemnly
pronounced that the perfection of the universe was revealed in the perfect
circular motions of the Heavenly bodies. Their modern counterparts now
ordain that the perfection of the universe is patent in the universal
Having elevated the Hubble expansion as the
defining feature of the universe (rather than restricting the defining
feature to a property of space itself) Official Cosmology must equivocate
on the issue of finite versus infinite. Otherwise, if it does the honest
thing and declares the universe to be finite it will look
foolish because of its inability to resolve the serious problems
(associated with the finite universe) discussed in section one. If it
submits to reality and declares the universe to be infinite
it will look foolish because it’s sacred Hubble expansion will become
impotent. There appears to be no way out.
Let me make this absolutely clear, the expanding
universe paradigm (and I must emphasis here, expanding space and expanding
universe are two totally different things), the very heart of the Official
Cosmology, is scientifically untenable. The paradigm of universe-wide
expansion has led Official Cosmology into a trap. It is trapped between
the jaws of finitude and infinitude. The
simple choice presented in Flowchart 1 is
Understand the nature of the trap and you
understand the forces resisting meaningful change. It seems that when
Academic cosmologists discuss the problem of finite-versus-infinite the
main purpose is not to nail down a resolution in the interest of science,
but rather to maintain a perpetual balance of views as if in the interest
of fairness. If this is the game plan then it works wonderfully
---Academia cleverly avoids making that fateful commitment. The Ptolemaic
‘saving the appearances’ trumps the search for truth.
3 The Five Combinations of Space-Expansion and Space-Contraction
The chosen criterion
is a universe with two opposing space dynamics. We may quickly conclude
that there are only five possible ways to combine expansion and
contraction. They represent five classes of universes; each class with
generally defined combinations of space dynamics.
The Chaotic universe has no discernable order. Randomness reigns.
There is a chaotic expansion and contraction of space; and the scale of
this activity may depend on some unrestrained (similarly chaotic)
variable. Theorists, like the Russian cosmologist Andrei Linde, have a
field day throwing together a seemingly endless variety of speculative
models. Nature, however, reveals far too much order for this category to
When the two processes occur simultaneously nothing of consequence
happens (at least initially). Think of it as a leaky balloon universe. As
you ‘expand’ or ‘inflate’ the quantity of air by pumping air into the
balloon there is a compensating ‘dissipation’ of air via the pinhole
leaks. With luck, a temporary equilibrium may be achieved. Anyway,
metaphor aside, you end up with a nominally static universe ---a
universe balanced between runaway expansion and runaway contraction.
In 1917 Einstein constructed a mathematical
version of the static universe. Not surprisingly, its state, and
fate, was precariously balanced. The slightest disturbance between
cosmological ‘inflation’ and ‘dissipation’ resulted in the unmistakable
instability of feedback amplification. In other words Einstein’s model
wouldn’t work. Einstein eventually abandoned it and in 1932 selected the
universal expansion class instead. In the context of
Flowchart 3, he switched from the 2nd
box to the 4th box.
The Sequential combination (the third block from the left in
Flowchart 3) leads directly to the quasi-religionary
universe offering repeated creation and annihilation. This group is
defined by the sequential and monolithic space-expansion, then
space-contraction, then expansion again, and so on. Every reader of
popular science will recognize this as a cyclical Big-Bang Big-Crunch
universe. Historically, this is known as the Oscillating universe
and was the type favored by Alexander Friedmann. Interestingly the oldest
documented universe ---the Brahmanda universe of Hinduism--- belongs to
The problems? The Sequential (or Oscillating)
universe, as a more complex version of the Big Bang, has them in
Flowchart 3. The five possible
combinations of space expansion and space contraction define five universe
classes. The Regional class stands out: When, for an infinite
universe, space expansion is fundamentally linked to space contraction,
then a cosmic cellular structure necessarily manifests. The Regional
category leads to the Cellular Universe which has consistently shown to be
a problem-free cosmology.
The fourth combination involves Universal Expansion with Isolated
Contraction. This of course is the Official View. Universal
space expansion, which the Big Bang ideologists call the Hubble expansion,
causes the universe to expand; meanwhile isolated space-contraction tends
to concentrate the otherwise randomly distributed galaxies, resulting in
the formation of localized galaxy clusters. Unfortunately the model makes
wrong predictions. For instance, a slowing-down of the big-bang expansion
had been predicted, but in 1998 certain astronomical evidence was
interpreted as the unexpected speeding-up of big-bang expansion. So in
1998, the decelerating Big Bang became the Accelerating Big Bang
With its paradoxes, patches, and phantom
components the Official View is a problem plagued cosmology. A
leading physicist, Sean M. Carroll, with the California Institute of Technology, makes it devastatingly clear.
“...This scenario staggers under the burden of its unnaturalness, ...”
In fact, and in bold print, he calls it “the preposterous universe.”
Included in the fourth category is the
hierarchical universe (often called the fractal model), a type of universe
popular among some physicists. As is usually the case, there are many
versions; but since they generally incorporate the characteristic
universal expansion with localized contraction, albeit of greater
complexity, they are included here.
The final combination involves the regional expansion of space and a
compensating regional contraction. Now, if we apply this combination to
the infinite universe (chosen in Flowchart 1)
and recognize, as we did earlier, that an infinite universe neither
expands nor contracts, then we necessarily end-up with a
cellularized universe. Furthermore, if the dual dynamics are in
some way fundamentally linked to each other, then a stable equilibrium
will exist between the processes of space expansion and space contraction.
More to the point, the cosmic cell structure will be more or less
A perfectly natural
picture of the Universe emerges. Naturally ordered regions of space
expansion (regions called voids) are separated by enveloping regions of
space contraction (regions called galaxy clusters).
In this balanced
struggle between rival dynamics, the Greek philosopher Heraclitus would
have recognized his own world view of “opposites in harmony” and
everything being in perpetual flux. We recognize it as a problem-free
cosmology ---a revolutionary new cosmology.
4 Revolutionary Cosmology versus Official Cosmology
Two aspects of the
Cellular Universe need to be explained. First, the adoption of the
Cellular Universe model represents a true revolution in Cosmology. Second,
it plays a leading role in a strange mystery of omission.
Revolution in Cosmology
In the chronicles of
cosmology great emphasis is placed on the so called Copernican revolution.
Yet the Copernican world system was not, by any stretch of the
imagination, a revolutionary new theory; it was the rediscovery of the
ancient Aristarchos (of Samos) Heliocentric system from almost nineteen
centuries earlier. By glorifying a recycled idea as a great revolution I
suppose we assuage the Western World’s failure to equal the Ancients in
their intellectual prowess and the Western World’s scientific stagnation
during the many centuries of relative darkness before the appearance of
the light of Copernicus, Kepler, and Galileo.
The chronicles of cosmology also describe the
great 20th century revolution with the development of general relativity
theory and the discovery of cosmic redshift, followed subsequently by the
enthronement of the exploding-universe paradigm. The central idea had been
called, derisively, the Big Bang but by the late 1960s it had become the
Yet the model was a consistent failure and made no useful predictions.
Truly devastating is that the Official Model cannot account for the large
scale structure in the universe ---the deviation from homogeneity of
galaxy count distribution.
Astronomers observe the grand-scale clumping in the Universe, but Academic
theorists have no explanation.
And so the chronicles describe the Official Model’s long and fruitless
search for missing dark matter ---crucial for explaining the
cohesion of galaxy clusters and networks. And at the same time there is a
search for missing dark energy ---crucial for explaining the
acceleration of the Hubble expansion, as suggested by the famous
supernovae, type 1a, observations.
The problems and failures of the Official Model
are far too numerous to itemize here let alone go into the embarrassing
details. Yes, there is a constant struggle to patch-up the model.
Researchers typically concentrate on one particular problem at a time and
resolution attempts end-up exacerbating some other existing problem, or
worse, creating new ones. Meanwhile, there is an audience that is growing
impatient. Science writer Roy C. Martin, Jr. has been evaluating the
performance, making it quite clear that its time for the curtain to come
down. He presents the verdict in his popular book entitled, Astronomy
on Trial: A Devastating and Complete Repudiation of the Big Bang Fiasco.
While the Copernican ‘revolution’, if we can call it that, was
successful; the Big Bang ‘revolution’ was a failure.
Which brings us to the next cosmology revolution.
Look at the flowcharts again. They include ALL the realistic
possibilities. In the first chart only two possibilities exist; in the
second chart only three; the last, only five. If I have, by some
oversight, omitted any other such possibility I will immediately retract
this article and make whatever inclusion is needed. In particular I draw
your attention to the third chart which shows all the conceivable
realistic ways (I place the emphasis on realistic so as to
exclude the countless mathematical ways) that space can expand and
contract. We know (we agreed earlier) it does both. I will now explain why
the distinct combinations are important.
Up to this point there has been very little
discussion of the relationship between dynamic space and the material
stuff in the universe. We now add this material, say in the form of
galaxies, to the five model types; and observe. The observations will
become the final arbiter of the validity of the model.
We have five combinations of space; giving rise to
characteristic patterns. The pattern of the space dynamics will determine
the distribution of the mass. For the chaotic space category, in
the absence of more specific details, we would expect a random mass
distribution. For the second category in which space simultaneously
expands and contracts no noteworthy pattern would be expected. For both
the sequential and the universal categories we would quite
reasonably expect a high degree of homogeneous distribution of mass, but
not an organized pattern. Only the regional class predicts a
pattern with an orderly distribution of mass. Mass would concentrate at
the interface bordering (and surrounding) the individual cosmic cells with
their space expanding interiors. It is this cellular pattern formed by
galaxies clustering according to regional space dynamics that solves the
The large departure from homogeneity that
astronomers observe in our Universe is such a striking fact, that
physicist Hannes Alfvén considered this as the main argument against the
Big Bang (which predicts a smooth distribution). To Alfvén, the cellular
structure of the Universe was obvious; and the fact that the Official
Model could not explain cellular structure, equally obvious.
At this point, I have to pause and wonder. ... What is preventing my
learned colleagues from seeing the glaringly obvious solution? May I
respectfully suggest that the easiest way to explain the observed
cell-like structure is to use a cellular model? Not a
Strange how a revolution can hinge on something so
For a new cosmology to be considered revolutionary
it must, as a bare minimum, solve the homogeneity riddle and thereby
reveal the nature of our Universe’s conformity to the cosmological
principle; it must make meaningful predictions that agree with actual
observations; and it must share none of the serious problems and fatal
flaws highlighted in Flowchart 1. The
Cellular Universe model does this and much more. Its ability to resolve
numerous other cosmology and astrophysics problems is detailed elsewhere.
However, based solely on the three charts, the conclusion is unambiguous:
The Universe is non-expanding. The Universe is ordered. The Universe is
The cellular model represents a powerful theory
with the ability to explain the deviation from simple homogeneity,
overcome the initial conditions problem, resolve the genesis paradox,
stabilize the universe, and conform to the uncompromising demands of
astronomical observations. Remarkably, all is accomplished without any
radical departure from standard physics! ... and without introducing any
radical mysterious components. This is unprecedented in modern cosmology.
This is considered Revolutionary Cosmology.
The Omission Mystery
I now come to the most amazing aspect of the quest
that led to the cellular universe. If I had not done the related research
myself, I would find these statements quite incredible. I still find it
hard to believe. According to the chronicles of cosmology all of the
models implicit in the third chart have been tested ... except for one.
During the years and decades following the key realization that space is
dynamic, all possible variations of dynamic modes have been explored
---with one exception.
The cellular universe model has never been
examined; there is nothing to be found in the literature. In fact,
prior to 2002 there was no name or term for a universe in which space
expands but the universe itself does not.
This oversight is arguably the most inexplicable omission confronting
cosmology and astrophysics.
Imagine the challenge of performing research in
biology, crystallography, thermodynamics, and a number of other fields
without the concept of cells and cell structure! Knowing that the
macro-world tends to imitate the micro-world would it not be basic
scientific procedure to test this concept on the ultimate macro-world?
The omission is not only inexplicable, it is
inexcusable when you consider that cellular structure is, after all, and
regardless of scale, nature’s preferred expression of order.
Transformation of Official Cosmology
One can’t help but ask: What kind of science are
researchers practicing in the relevant academic departments? When will the
problems and paradoxes be resolved and the “preposterous universe” become
less preposterous? Or how about the very simple but still unanswered
question, What causes some galaxies to rotate?
Twentieth century cosmology has blundered badly.
The evasion of the finite-infinite question, the error of omission, and
the paradoxes mentioned earlier are but a few of the many unresolved
problems. The sad truth is that they are irresolvable without destroying
much of the superstructure of the Official Model. However, unable or
unwilling to address the serious issues, Official Cosmology blunders on.
And so, patching the failing pieces of the model has become a never-ending
project of ‘saving the appearances.’ Again, sad. Rather than “... return
to this foundation and start over again asking ancient but fundamental
questions hoping that today we are in a better position to answer them.”
as physicist Johan Masreliez advises; rather than submit to the simple
logic that cosmic cellular structure is surely best explained by a dynamic
cellular model; rather than perform an elementary reality check, as our
three charts exemplify and restore basic scientific principles; Academic
Cosmology has devolved into a deception.
The Official Cosmology has experienced so many failures and endured so
many attacks that it has evolved an effective defense strategy: It has
become ever more esoterical and mathematical in an effort to conceal the
blunders. Furthermore, while maintaining the pretense of doing science,
Official Cosmology has over the course of many decades transformed itself
into Modern Mythology.
Objective Cosmology versus Modern Mythology
The Official Cosmology paints a picture of an
evolving universe. But what it evolved from, we are told, is a complete
mystery. A universe that evolves from a place or time outside the
investigative reach of science is a universe that requires variable laws
of nature. If the current laws break down for the very early Big Bang
universe then the laws must have been different (or even non-existent).
Again, this is what we are told. But a picture of an evolving universe, no
matter how refined and detailed, is not a scientific representation.
“The big bang implied that the universe evolved
over time, which implied that natural laws might also evolve over time.
Such evolution would undermine the repeatability of experiments and so
undermine the cornerstone of scientific method[ology].”
The Big-Bang universal-expansion view represents a
denial of the scientific method.
If I had to choose a checkmate argument one that leaves no way out, and
makes it clear why there is no way out, I would advance the following. The
Official model (and all of its variants) uses variable physical laws,
therefore it is unscientific. It represents a mythical universe. It cannot
claim to represent a real universe.
That latter claim goes to the Objective Model: the naturally ordered,
balanced dynamic-space, and stable, here it comes, as promised, ...
2008 03 Copyright © 2008 by Conrad
Notes and References
Johan Masreliez: www.estfound.org/philosophical.htm
Lancelot Law Whyte, as in The Mystery of Matter. Edited by
Louise B. Young. 1965 (Oxford University Press, New York) P538
Harrison, E. R. 1981. Cosmology, the Science of the Universe
(Cambridge University Press) p103
Harrison, E. R. 2003. Masks of the Universe, Changing Ideas on the
Nature of the Cosmos (2nd ed. Cambridge University Press) p254
Harrison, E. R. 1981. Cosmology, the Science of the Universe,
Ferris, T. 1997. The Whole Shebang, A State-of-the-Universe(s)
Report (Simon & Schuster, New York) p70 & p320
Sir Arthur Eddington, quoted in Corey S. Powell. 2002. God in the
Equation (The Free Press, New York) p134
Antonopoulos, Constantin. A Bang into Nowhere, Comments on the
Universe Expansion Theory (Aperion, Vol. 10, No. 1, January 2003) p46
Hannes Alfvén, as in The Big Bang Never Happened, Discover magazine, June 1988
Harrison, E. R. 1981. Cosmology, the Science of the Universe, p229
Thomas Gold, as in: Timothy Ferris. 1988. Coming of Age in the
Milky Way (William Morrow and Co., Inc., New York) p338
The Perfect Cosmological Principle states that the universe is
uniform both in unlimited time and in unlimited space; an extension of
the cosmological principle.
Penrose, Roger. 1990. The Emperor’s New Mind (Oxford University
Press, New York) Page v
Harrison, E. R. 1981. Cosmology, the Science of the Universe,
Layzer, David. 1991. Cosmogenesis, the Growth of Order in the
Universe (Oxford University Press, New York) p145
Physicist Sean Carroll’s website: http://preposterousuniverse.com/
Powell, Corey S. 2002. God in the Equation (The Free Press,
New York) p178
Baryshev, Yurij V. Conceptual Problems of Fractal Cosmology (arXiv:astro-ph/9912074
v1 3 Dec 1999) p3 & p15
Einasto, Jaan. The Structure of the Universe on 100 MPC Scales
(arXiv:astro-ph/0011334 v1 17Nov 2000) p8-9
Martin Jr., Roy C. 1999. Astronomy on Trial: A Devastating and
Complete Repudiation of the Big Bang Fiasco (University Press of
America, Inc, Lanham, Maryland)
As described in: Jean-Claude Pecker, Some Critiques of the
Big Bang Cosmology (J. Astrophys. Astr. 1997 18, p323–333)
The name Dynamic Steady State Universe, selected to
designate an equilibrium universe in which space expands but the
universe itself does not, first appeared at the 2002 International
Johan Masreliez: www.estfound.org/philosophical.htm
Powell, Corey S. 2002. God in the Equation (The Free Press,
New York) p163