|

|
|
"Search Form" for
this WEBSITE
NEW ITEMS:
The Physical Nature of Length Contraction: An easy to
follow examination of how the mode by which matter is “conducted” through
luminiferous aether causes the matter to contract. A simple derivation of
the mathematical expression for this physical phenomenon is presented. There
is also a brief discussion of relevant historical aspects and of nonphysical
length contraction. (Posted 2012 Jan)
Einstein’s Simple Mathematical Trick
–and the Illusion of a Constant Speed of Light
(Posted 2011 Dec)
The Cosmology Debate That Never Happened
What historians call "the greatest cosmological debate in
history” was between TWO expanding universes —two
hypothetical models that share the same, I repeat, the same
foundational property! If one is to claim some great clash of ideas (let
alone the "greatest") then surely there must exist some deep dividing
difference! (Posted 2011 Oct)
Amazing video of a simulated cellular universe. The nodal galaxy structures are truly stunning.
Latest research paper:
The
Three Components of the Speed-of-Light Postulate —Absolute
vs relative; variance vs invariance. Another instance of the Heraclitian
"Harmony of Opposites" (Posted 2011 June 27)
Why Copernicus Did Not Need a Force of Gravity
—Explores the question of why no one, except Newton, invoked a force.
(Posted April 7, 2011)
Contradiction Divides Two Aether Theories —An exploration into the three parts
of the speed-of-light postulate.
Published in
Physics Essays Journal
(Vol
24, No.3, Sept, 2011)
|
|
GENERAL INTEREST ARTICLES:
Mysteries & Paradoxes that Plague Standard Cosmology
Cosmology Crisis of 1998
Critique of Conventional Cosmology ...
comments relating to the 'preposterous' expanding-universe paradigm.
Bafflement
—the remarkable admission of a physicist.
The Cosmology Debate That Never Happened
—During the 20th century there was a decades-long debate: The cataclysmic
expanding universe VS the stable expanding universe. But there has never
been a debate of the dynamic expanding universe VS the dynamic
non-expanding universe. (Posted
2011 Oct)
Models of the Universe:
Historical, Expanding, and Cellular universes.
The Universe is Infinite
(Part 1)
—an explanation of why it must be spatially infinite.
The Universe is Infinite
(Part 2)
—an explanation of why it must be time-wise infinite.
DSSU, The
Non-Expanding Universe: Structure, Redshift, Distance
—A long sought-after goal of astrophysicists has been a formulation of cosmic distance that is
independent of the speed of light. The goal has now been achieved. The
present Paper details the surprisingly simple distance expression and its
validating agreement with Supernova data.
Gravity and Lambda —a Story of Opposites
(.htm) —A story of opposites in harmony. Key differences between the Conventional
Cosmology and the New Cosmology are presented.
Dynamic Cosmic Cell
—The Structural Component of the DSSU —Animated image and discussion
of the self-sustaining, self-balancing system.
Why
Einstein Did Not Receive the Nobel Prize for His Theory of Relativity (htm)
with EXTRAS.
Why Einstein Did Not Receive the Nobel Prize for
His Theory of Relativity (pdf) —C. Ranzan —“By 1922 Einstein had been
nominated about fifty times —most were for his relativity theories.”
(Reprinted by permission of
PEP, from
Physics Essays Vol 22, No 4, P564 (2009).
ABSTRACT
Questions & Comments
|
DSSU Theory:
Theoretical
Foundation and Pillars of the DSSU (Introduction) --- This
introductory essay gives a thematic tour of historical and modern universes
culminating with the Natural Universe.
Theoretical Foundation and Pillars of the Dynamic Steady State Universe
(PDF) ---The first complete presentation of all four
postulates of DSSU theory. A powerful paper that resolves the
cause-of-causes paradox, explains the non-independent nature of time, and
reveals the 'supreme advantage'. It includes a concise comparison with
standard cosmology focusing on real-world viability.
Dynamic Cosmic Cell
--The Structural Component of the DSSU ---Animated image and discussion
of the self-sustaining, self-balancing system.
Unified Gravitation Cells
of the DSSU —Constructing the Universe with Cosmic Gravity Cells
Space Flow
Equations and Expansion-Contraction Rates (PDF) ---This paper
explores the mathematical aspects of the two space postulates of DSSU
theory —and uncovers some profound consequences.
|
| ARTICLES on
AETHER: The
Aether Experiments and the Impact on Cosmology
—The aether has been detected at least 6 times in recent history. Its most
recent re-discovery, in 2001, led to the long-sought causal mechanism of
gravity
—a discovery, which in turn, is revolutionizing cosmology. Michelson-Morley and the
Story of the Aether Theory —Richard Milton's analysis of the
historical details involving the misrepresentation, bias and cover-up that
hampered the Aether theory.
The History of
the Aether Theory
—The historic development of the
aether as a scientific theory of space itself. What started as the "fifth
element" of Antiquity becomes molded by theoretical constraints and
experimental evidence into the
dual-dynamic quantum foam
—the Essence of the Universe.
(rev2011-3)
Relativity of
Time in the Aether-Space of the DSSU
—How intrinsic time and relative time are related.
DSSU Relativity —The Lorentz Transformations Applied to Aether-Space
—Ranzan
Reprinted by permission of Physics Essays Publication,
Physics
Essays Vol.23, No.3, p520. (2010).
ABSTRACT
Here is
an external webpage with an extensive list of
research papers on the
aether-drift experiments, and the larger question of energy in space. |
DSSU RESEARCH PAPERS:
DSSU Cosmic Redshift-Distance Relation
(htm)
(Converting the cosmic
redshift into
distance for our Cellular Universe using
a simple and elegant equation)
The Large Scale Structure of the Dynamic Steady State Universe (PDF)
(Chapter 1 of DSSU Manuscript) —
The postulates and implications of regional space expansion and
contraction.
Cosmic-Scale Structural Features Explained (PDF)
(Chapter 2 of DSSU Manuscript) —The
Spacing of Clusters —Sheets of
Galaxies —Supernodes— Right-angled Walls of Galaxies.
The Cosmic Background Radiation in the
DSSU
—The natural explanation of the microwave background radiation applicable to
the natural Cellular Universe.
Cause of Galaxy
Rotation and Aspects of Galaxy Motion (PUBLICATION PENDING)
|
Glossary of Terms
used in Cosmology and Astrophysics with particular emphasis on DSSU
theory.
(Opens in separate Window or Tab) |
|
GRAVITY:
Why Copernicus Did Not
Need a Force of Gravity —Explores the question of why no one, except
Newton, invoked a force.
First journal-published paper
featuring the DSSU:
The Story of Gravity and Lambda --How the Theory of Heraclitus Solved the Dark Matter Mystery
—Ranzan
Reprinted by permission of
PEP, from
Physics Essays, Vol 23, No1, P75-87 (2010 Mar).
ABSTRACT
The
Story of Gravity and Lambda —How the Theory of Heraclitus Solved the Dark
Matter Mystery
—Ranzan
Considered "an excellent contribution to the [PE journal]"
--professional reviewer.
Unified Gravitation Cells
of the DSSU —Constructing the Universe with Cosmic Gravity Cells
|
|
RELATIVITY ARTICLES:
Einstein’s Simple Mathematical Trick –and the Illusion of a Constant Speed
of Light
(Posted 2011 Dec)
Extended Relativity
—Exploiting the Loopholes in Enstein's Relativity
(Revised 2011, Nov):—Abstract
& link
— Initial Reviews
Relativity of
Time in the Aether-Space of the DSSU —Absolute Motion and Intrinsic Time
Resolving a Paradox in Special
Relativity —Absolute Motion and the Unified Doppler Equation.
Posted 2011, JULY.
Reprinted by permission of
PEP,
from
Physics
Essays Vol 23, No.4, p594 (2010).
ABSTRACT
How DSSU Relativity Resolves the Speed
Paradox (Introductory Discussion) —Absolute Motion Resolves a (speed) Paradox in Einstein’s
Special Relativity. (Supplementary Discussion)
DSSU Relativity --The Lorentz Transformations Applied
to Aether-Space
Posted 2011, JULY.
Reprinted by permission of Physics Essays Publication,
Physics
Essays Vol.23, No.3, p520. (2010).
ABSTRACT
The Key that Extends
Einstein’s Relativity (Part 1) —Response to a Reviewer Critical of DSSU
Absolute-Space Relativity
The Key that Extends
Einstein’s Relativity (Part 2) —how to convert ABSTRACT-SPACE equations
into ABSOLUTE-SPACE equations
|
|
An Open Letter to the Scientific Community
(Published in New Scientist, May 22, 2004)
"The big bang today relies on a growing number of
hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark
matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there
would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers
and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics
would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a
way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the
least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory.
..."
continues
...
A devastating Declaration of opposition to Big Bang
cosmology signed by more than 400 Researchers.
For the full text click on:
CosmologyStatement.org
or alternate
site.
|
|
INTELLECTUAL FREEDOM:
This website is mainly concerned with revisionism in cosmology. Those of us
involved in replacing the unnatural expanding-universe paradigm are aware of
the difficulties involved.
However,
other revisionists have unimaginable difficulties. Consider the ongoing
persecution of revisionists in other fields of intellectual pursuit:
"It makes you wonder —about the immense effort being made
by State and State-sponsored organizations with budgets of tens of millions
of dollars and thousands of employees and associates to smother and punish
these few men and women. Every punishing instrument imaginable is used,
every vicious slander conceivable, every flagrant and pervasive form of
censorship that law allows, including the imprisonment of simple writers for
thought crimes against the State. ... Makes you wonder." —Bradley R.
Smith (2011)
"Discussing truth is so controversial, so dangerous … In most of the
world it is simply illegal.”
Gordon Duff, Senior Editor, Veterans Today (2011) |
DEDICATION: This website is solemnly dedicated to those
individuals who have conducted research in their chosen field and have
informed others of their inquiries and suffered the consequences when
subpoenaed by the Inquisition or some variant thereof. The dedication
extends to those individuals currently imprisoned, and those now facing
trial and persecution simply for exercising their basic human right of
freedom of expression supposedly granted to them under the UN Charter of
Human Rights.
. . . more than 1000 writers persecuted
worldwide . . .Precedent-setting Internet
Censorship Case heard by the Federal Court of Canada involving freedom proponent
Marc Lemire.
On December 13-14 (2011) the Court ruled on the
Government's appeal of an earlier decision, by the CHRC Tribunal, which
declared Section 13 (Internet censorship) of the Canadian Human Rights Act to be
unconstitutional. (Section 13 prohibits criticism of any identifiable group and, amazingly,
does not allow truth to be used as a defence!) |
|
© Copyright 2005-2012 by
Conrad Ranzan
and
DSSU Research
All Rights Reserved
For information regarding permission to reproduce selected material
herein, please contact:
D S S U Research
Niagara Falls, Canada
11th year on the Internet.
Most recent update:
2012 Jan 22
Visits since 2010 July:

2012-1-22 |
| |
Critique of Conventional Cosmology
www.CellularUniverse.org
| |
"One seldom sees what one is not
looking for, and theory tells experimenters where to look." |
|
So warned Timothy Ferris in his popular
book The Whole Shebang. … In other words, one sees what one is
trained to see!
In today’s institutes of higher learning, all students of the astro-sciences are indoctrinated with
Big-Bang expanding-universe theory.
This BB theory plays a dominant roll. It moulds the perceptions of the
initiated. The theory, now officially in its sixth decade of dominance, frames the context of
everything that astronomers see and detect —regardless of how speculative,
how unrealistic, and how unconvincing the ensuing interpretations may be!
1. On Model Tinkering in the Ptolemaic Tradition
Every now and then it is enlightening to
check on the "progress" of conventional cosmology, which, as everyone
knows, embraces the expanding-universe model ---popularly called the Big
Bang model.
The basic Big Bang has a parameter called the scaling factor.
Think of it as the radius of the growing universe. It gets bigger as the
Big Bang universe gets bigger. Technically it is the derivative of this
scaling factor that describes the rate with which the universe is
expanding. It is a measure of the speed of the expansion of the expanding
universe. Simple enough.
However, the model holds that the speed changes over time. For many
years it was believed that the expansion speed was slowing down. But
careful astronomical observations, notably in 1998, revealed that this was
not the case. Expansion wasn't tapering off. It seemed to be ramping up!
Rather than abandon the model, the experts came up with accelerated
expansion. Henceforth they employed an acceleration parameter, which,
technically, is the second derivative of the scaling factor. (If you
are keeping count, that makes three parameters available for theory
manipulation.) As the story goes, the universe not only expands but it
expands faster and faster. End of story? No. ...
A few years after that notable crisis of
1998 it was gradually revealed, through even more careful and ever deeper
astronomical observations, that uniform accelerated expansion still
wasn't the answer. (Now at this stage any conscious-and-rational person
would have abandoned the Big-Bang ship especially since there are far
superior models floating around.) Having maintained a tradition of
commitment going back as far as the 1920s when Lemaître formalized the
explosion-idea, abandonment was not an option. And so the experts now came
up with another parameter. Yes, a fourth adjustable factor! Admittedly it
is not very original. If you can't connect with the underlying reality of
the expansion process at least you can connect with the differential
calculus. Ready for this one? The new parameter is the third derivative of
(you guessed it) the scaling factor. They call it the jerk parameter,
and it means exactly what it says.
Now I assure you I am not making this up
---and in a moment I will do more than assure you by providing the
reference source.
The experts even tell us when, in the
past of the Big Bang, this supposed "jerk" occurred. (It corresponds to
z = 0.5 or about 5.4 gigayears ago when the universe was 9.2 gigayears old
assuming a Hubble constant, H0 = 20 km/s/Mly.
[1]) Think about this
for a moment; a jerk-event occurred at some particular period of cosmic
time. A special identifiable time! What this means is that the BB universe
now has no less than three special moments in time during its existence:
The beginning time (t=0), the end-of-inflation time, and the
jerk time; all in violation of the cosmological principle
(strong version)! It means a violation of the generally accepted rule that
a real universe must have no special time or place.
|
 |
|
Professor Sean M. Carroll, promoter of the Preposterous Big Bang
universe model.
Image source: www.thegreatcourses.com |
It is little wonder that
physicists and cosmologists consider the expanding universe model to be
preposterous! Physicist Sean M. Carroll even named his website "preposterous
universe." And he goes into some detail in his paper, The Cosmological Constant, available at
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2001-1.
Undeterred by considerations of
preposterousness and implausibility, a group of experts, using the latest
high-z supernovae discoveries, presented their ideas for 'improvements' to
the Big Bang. The research paper,
[2] authored by no less than 19
physicists/astronomers, was published in the Astrophysical Journal, June
2004. (See, Riess et al., ApJ 607, 665 (2004)
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0402512 )
Their problem can be expressed this way:
For a growing collection of remote supernova events the redshift-distance
curve does not agree with the magnitude-distance curve (magnitude =
apparent brightness). The challenge is to get the theoretical curve
(the redshift-distance graph) to agree with the empirical curve (the
magnitude-distance graph).
And that is why the scaling factor
derivatives are so useful. If it is mathematically necessary to invoke a
fourth or even fifth derivative of the scaling factor, to force-fit the
curves, then so be it. The Big Bang, being, as it is, a mathematical model,
literally cannot fail.
What we
are witnessing in conventional cosmology is the "keeping up the
appearances" in the best Ptolemaic tradition.
Posted 2008
July
---C.Ranzan
References
- ^ Ned Wright's Javascript Cosmology Calculator
www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html
- ^
Type Ia Supernova Discoveries at z > 1 From the Hubble
Space Telescope: Evidence for Past Deceleration and Constraints on Dark
Energy Evolution, Riess et al., ApJ 607, 665 (2004)
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0402512
|
| |
"Sometimes it seems that the only
thing expanding faster than the universe is cosmologists'
bewilderment."
–George Musser, Columnist for Scientific
American (1999 Sept p26) |
|
2. Baffled by the Preposterous
—Another Admission of Bafflement
Dan Hooper is a practicing physicist. He has applied his
considerable talents to the search for the universe's missing mass and
energy ... and the presentation of the details to a broad audience. He has
written a book about the 95 percent of matter in the universe that is
totally invisible. In his words "This invisible stuff comes in two
varieties —dark matter and dark energy. One holds the universe together,
while the other tears it apart."
In light of the fact that many hundreds of physicists are
involved in this search, and the search has been going on for many years
(well over thirty years), there should be much to report. Unfortunately,
the search has turned out to be a profound disappointment. Dan Hooper finds
himself making the following admission:
| |
"The advances made in
observational cosmology during the past few decades have been
incredible. ... the catalog of distant supernova observations has led
to the discovery that dark energy comprises about 70 percent of our
Universe's density. These findings are remarkable. Sadly, the attempts
to develop a compelling theoretical explanation for these findings
have been not nearly as successful." —Dan
Hooper, Dark Cosmos p173-4 |
|
Dan Hooper is talking about dark energy, the stuff that
is somehow shaping the universe. Here he expands on the "not nearly as
successful" part of his assessment quoted above:
| |
"It's fair to say that the theoretical physics
community is, at least for the time being, entirely baffled when it
comes to dark energy. ..." |
|
An understatement if ever there was one. But then, this is not anything
new. Actually the theoretical physics community has been "entirely
baffled" ever since the adoption of creationism cosmology
—ever since the adoption of a speculation (a far-out hypothesis)
promulgated as science by Georges Lemaître, way back in 1927 & 1929. Take
note, we're not talking about temporary bafflement here. The bafflement
goes way back to the time of Edwin Hubble in the 1920s. (Hubble had the
wisdom to advise caution before jumping to radical unscientific
conclusions.)
The admission is that dark energy, aka
Lambda, aka cosmological constant, aka vacuum energy, is shaping the
universe BUT how it does the shaping —and even what that shape might be— is
a bafflement! ... It is not known what drives this energy nor what shape it
leads to. At least that is the sad situation in Academic Cosmology.
What about the other half of the puzzle —the dark matter?
| |
"As our search has left us with no
known candidate for dark matter, we must turn our attention to the
purely theoretical and ... the branch of mathematics ... "
—Dark Cosmos p80 |
|
Are dark energy and dark matter related?
| |
"Dark energy and matter are, as
far as we [physicists] understand them, completely unrelated
phenomena." --Dark Cosmos p174 |
|
Dark energy (or Lambda) and material matter are
unrelated?!! ... They shape the universe yet are unrelated?!! ... Folks,
the admission of bafflement could not be any clearer. ... Meanwhile, in
DSSU cosmology the two are intimately linked in true Heraclitian tradition
---involving flux, processes, opposites, and harmony.
Academic Astrophysics/Cosmology seems to suffer from a
strange inbreeding of ideas.
Consider the following remarkable claim, made in his 2006
book, by theoretical physicist Hooper:
| |
"The vast majority of cosmologists
are convinced that around 14 billion years ago our Universe was in an
ultra-hot state that expanded over time to eventually become ... the
Big Bang. In fact, I don't believe that I have ever met a cosmologist
who disagreed with this assessment." --Dark Cosmos p206 |
|
I say this is a remarkable claim because these same people
admit the model is preposterous and they admit their puzzlement. I'm
scratching my head. Something is not right here.
Physicists are baffled by the model they have pieced and pasted
together ---their model of the expanding universe. Big Bang for short. Yet
despite the serious and persistent bafflement, they all agree, or so we
keep hearing, on the validity of the Big Bang model!! The academic
colleagues of Dan Hooper, instead of voicing justifiable skepticism
compliantly vote their support!
Now what kind of scientific methodology are these learned
scientists using? Seems rather irrational, doesn't it? The average thinking
person can't help but conclude that there is something seriously wrong
here.
What one is witnessing in academic astrophysics/cosmology
is conformism to official dogma. Science writer Corey S Powell calls it "sci/religion"
(and calls its practitioners the "Priests of sci/religion"). Others call it
"mytho-science." I call it (among other things) the inbreeding of
expanding-universe theories. We are witnessing the 80-year-long inbreeding
of theories based on the biggest unscientific extrapolation in the long
history of science. ...
All the serious models of the universe that have been
debated following the introduction of Lemaître's fireball-universe were
based on whole-universe expansion. They included general-relativity
expansion, steady-state expansion, kinematic expansion, inflationary
expansion, negative-pressure expansion, and quintessence expansion, to name
the most popular ones. Cross fertilize any of them and you still end up
with whole-universe expansion! The expanding universe models have
metaphorically reached an evolutionary dead-end.
And what is blatantly obvious in all this is that Modern
Cosmology (more specifically, Academic Cosmology) has simply NOT
investigated the non-expanding universe. It has never explored the
perfectly natural cellular universe!
Giving the last word to Dan Hooper, who despite his
bafflement, expresses hope,
| |
"Modern physicists hope ... to
find not only a more complete description of nature, but also a more
complete explanation for it." --Dark Cosmos p5 |
|
* * * *
Posted 2010 May
---C.Ranzan
References:
Hooper, Dan. 2006. Dark Cosmos: In Search of Our
Universe's Missing Mass and Energy (Smithsonian Books, HarperCollins
Publishers, New York)
|
3. The Cosmology Debate That Never Happened
During the 20th century there was a prolonged
debate between the proponents of the Big Bang hypothesis and those of
the Steady State hypothesis. The debate started in the 1920s with the
misinterpretation of the red-shifted light from distant galaxies and
supposedly ended in the 1990s with the discovery of minute variations
in the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR).
The debate dealt with the profound consequences of
the series of discoveries by Arizona astronomer Vesto Slipher during
the years 1912 to 1923, German astronomer Carl Wirtz in 1922, Harlow
Shapley in the 1920s, American Cosmologist Howard Robertson in 1928,
and Edwin Hubble in 1929 —discoveries that led to the empirical law
that the greater the distance to a galaxy, the greater is the redshift
of its light. Stated another way, the empirical relationship
meant that the apparent recessional speed of a galaxy is proportional
to its distance. Note that both the Big Bang side and the Steady State
side considered the apparent speed to be a REAL recessional
motion. (But further note: Hubble himself preferred “the alternative
possible interpretation, that red shifts are not velocity shifts,
avoid[ing two major expanding-universe] difficulties ... ." [1]
)
We all know which Worldview came out on top.
 |
Edwin Hubble Powell in 1952.
Credit: Hale Observatories, courtesy AIP Emilio Segre
Visual Archives |
"[T]he conclusion of the greatest cosmological
debate in history,” according to historian-of-the-Big-Bang, Simon
Singh, came with the discovery, by Pezias and Wilson, of the CMB
radiation and became widely publicized on 21 May 1965 when the
New York Times carried the front page story under the banner
headline, SIGNALS IMPLY ‘BIG BANG’ UNIVERSE.[2]
Actually, the debate continued into the 1990s. It
was in 1992 that the COBE satallite discovered variations in the CMB
radiation —variations of 1 part in 100,000— coming from different parts
of the sky. When appropriately interpreted (as indicating tiny
variations in density of the baby big-bang universe), the data "proved"
the superiority of the Big Bang model. Quoting, again, from Simon
Singh's book Big Bang: "At last, the challenge to prove the Big
Bang model was over." [3]
When a debate drags on for that long
... and the outcome hangs by a thread (a thread of evidence, in the
variation of some variable, that is as tiny as 1 part in 100,000!) then
credibility suffers. My initial reaction was to suspect that both sides
were wrong.
Now it does not take an astrophysicist to realize
that the debate-of-the-century was fundamentally between two types of
EXPANDING universe —two types of expanding single-cell universe. The
Big Bang (BB) and the historic Steady State (SS) were not of the same
species, so to speak. But they certainly were of the same genus.
Undeniably, both universes were single cell and both were
expanding. That is, each expanded as a single cosmic unit —even
if infinite in size (as some BB and SS versions claim to be)!
But hold on a minute. The debate went on for
roughly 75 years. A long time. Certainly it was long enough to examine
fundamentally different ideas. Surely, the non-expanding
option would have been proposed and explored.
Surely, there must have been a "great debate"
between the expanding universe and the non-expanding universe.
And what about a "great debate" between the single-cell cosmos
and the multi-cell cosmos? After all, these are concepts of fundamental
and obvious relevance to the historic debate.
Guess what! ... Search your libraries; search the
history of cosmology; search the astrophysics literature. You will come
up empty handed. No such debate has ever taken place!
Ladies and gentlemen, let me make this crystal
clear: what historians call "the greatest cosmological debate in
history” was between TWO expanding universes —two
hypothetical models that share the same, I repeat, the same
foundational property! If one is to claim some great contest of ideas
(let alone the "greatest") then surely there must exist some deep
dividing difference! What —we must ask— is so great about a debate when
both sides agree that the universe is expanding, is
single-celled, and is evolving? [4]
|
|
The cosmology debate that never happened.
The pioneering "expert", in their haste to construct a mathematical
universe based on Einstein's theory of general relativity, neglected
to make a proper evaluation of the two distinct classes of universe
—the expanding and the non-expanding universe. With the
non-contestation of the expansion-of-the-whole-universe idea,
Academic Cosmology became entangled in a phantasmagoric debate and
devolved into an unnatural esoteric Worldview known as the Big Bang. |
Sad to say, the experts in this field have dropped
the ball —collectively and individually.
The astrophysicists, the cosmologists, and the
theorists of the 20th century were embarrassingly negligent.
Admittedly, these are strong words, but fully justified. Since the
late 1960s and early 1970s, astronomers, including Charlier-de
Vaucouleurs, and most notably Jaan Einasto of Estonia, have
stated over and over that our universe appears to be cellularly
structured! However, in time, astronomers convinced themselves that
without a proper supporting theory the apparent cellularity was merely
an observational phenomenon. Without a "proper theory" this critical
observation was relegated to the status of a mirage, a mere curiosity. ... All I can do is shake my head in
disbelief.
Anyway, the debate that never
happened, the cosmology debate that should have taken place long ago,
the debate that the history books will call the "Great
Debate III",[5] ... at long last,
IS NOW ON.
One of the key issues is the multi-cellular
universe as opposed to the single-cell universe (both the BB and historic SS
are single-cell).
When I say "multi-cellular universe" I'm not talking about a
multiverse.
I am not talking about a collection of many separate and isolated
universes each with its own laws of physics —each with its own defining
parameters. No. I am talking about the universe (in the
singular) being divided into subunits with no interaction among such
subunits other than radiation.
A beautiful idea. There is a beautiful idea that Nature has decided
to use, and it does so, on all size-scales. The beautiful idea is
cellular structure. The scales range from the microscopic scale (think
viruses and crystals), through the biological scale (think living
cells), and the planetary scale (think plate tectonics), to the stellar
scale —and even to the cosmic scale!
Nature's cells are not phenomenological. Rather,
they are dynamic and process driven. A beautiful idea.
A Failing Cosmology
Although we are repeatedly told that the debate is
over and that the Big Bang reigns supreme, problems remain. In his
book on the Big Bang, Simon Singh, after explaining that the BB
universe "is a strange place indeed" and quite unnatural, wrote the
following:
| |
"Completely solving the
remaining mysteries of the Big Bang will require a three-pronged
attack, involving further theoretical developments, laboratory
experiments and, most important of all, even clearer observations
of the cosmos ... and experiments on the lookout for signs of
dark matter." [6]
[emphasis added] |
|
This does not sound like a winning cosmology. To many
impartial observers, It remains a mystery how the BB model actually
connects with reality. Evidently, some theory rethinking is called for
(prong one). More laboratory tests are needed (prong two).
More observations and experiments are needed in the perennial effort to find
that elusive dark matter (prong three).
Incidentally, those words, calling for
laboratory experiments, brought a smile and inspired the following
comic strip. It metaphorically illustrates why a penetrating examination
of the BB model would lead to its destruction.
The above cartoon highlights one of the more
serious problems with Standard Cosmology, its insistence on applying
the so-called cosmological principle of homogeneity of the universe.[7]
Just like the balloon is a ball of homogenous air, the early BB was a
ball of homogenous plasma (hot ionized gas). The problem is that in the real universe
homogeneity IS NOT OBSERVED! As already pointed out, it is cosmic
cellular structure that is actually observed. This cell structure is
popularly reported as nodes of rich galaxy clusters and enormous
networks of superclusters.
The BB model demands a high degree of homogeneity; while the
DSSU[8] cellular model requires the inhomogeneity inherent in cosmic
tessellation. The BB model hypothesizes the homogeneity of the Hubble
expansion; while the DSSU model expounds the inhomogeneity of space
expansion by including its harmonious opposite, space contraction.
That is to say, while the BB insists on the universal expansion of
space, the DSSU insists on regional expansion (and regional
contraction). The issue boils down to: a run-away universe-wide
dynamic model versus a stable regionally-dynamic model. A
BB expanding universe versus a SS non-expanding universe.
If you like a black-and-white view of cosmology, it does not
get any better. As a sharp contrast to the conventional wisdom,
the DSSU has the right stuff for a meaningful debate!
Returning to Singh's earlier comment. He stresses
the importance of finding the mysterious dark matter. Let me make a
light-hearted public appeal: In
the interest of helping a failing cosmology, if you see anything
suspicious, if you come across anything that looks, feels, or smells
like dark matter, there are BB believers who
need your keen observational skills.
Consider the dedication. The dedication of the BB veterans is
truly astonishing. Imagine searching for the dark-matter stuff for over
30 years and finding nothing meaningful! How utterly discouraging! ... They
really do need help.
It is not my purpose in this short essay to
catalogue the problems of Standard Academic Cosmology. I will simply
note that they are many, they are glaring, and they refuse to go away.
David Darling, author of Gravity’s Arc, warns that,
| |
"The fall of every great theory is
foreshadowed by some niggling problems or inconsistencies that refuse
to go away." [9] |
|
The one-time assistant to Edwin Hubble and
distinguished astronomer, Dr. Halton Arp, had this to say about the
failing cosmology:
| |
"I believe the observational
evidence has become overwhelming, and the Big Bang has in reality been
toppled. There is now a need to communicate the new observations, ...
and the new insights into the workings of the universe —all the
primary obligations of academic science, which has generally tried to
suppress or ignore such dissident information." [10] |
|
He calls the situation a "crisis for the
reasonable members of the profession" of the space sciences; with so
many alternative, even contradictory, versions of the BB model, "many
of them fitting the evidence very badly." Furthermore, he was motivated
to make his own appeal. A sincere outreach. ...
| |
"At this point, I believe we
must look for salvation from the non-specialists, amateurs and
interdisciplinary thinkers —those who form judgments on the general
thrust of the evidence, those who are skeptical about any explanation,
particularly official ones ..." [10] |
|
Halton Arp ends the preface of his book with these
prophetic words:
| |
"I believe a painfully honest
debate is the only exercise capable of galvanizing meaningful change." [10] |
|
And that "honest debate" with "meaningful change" has its roots in
the cosmology debate that never happened!
* * * *
Posted 2011 Oct
–C. Ranzan
Notes & References:
[1]
Hubble, E. The Observational Approach to Cosmology,
(Oxford Eng: Clarendon Press, 1937)
[2] Singh, Simon. BIG BANG, The Origin of the Universe
(Fourth Estate, Harper Collins Publishers, New York, 2004) p433-4
[3] Ibid. p463
[4] The BB is an
evolving universe; that is obvious. It is not obvious with the SS
universe. The SS universe evolves in the sense that it is perpetually
gaining matter as it expands (and there is no compensating loss!).
[5] Great Debate I was between the idea of a single island
universe and that of multiple island universes. It concerned the
astronomical objects known as "nebulae". One side maintained that the
nebulae lay within the Milky Way galaxy; the opposing side held the
view that they were independent galaxies far beyond the Milky Way.
Great Debate II was between two versions of the expanding
universe, the BB and the SS.
Great Debate III is between the expanding universe and the
non-expanding universe.
[6] Singh, Simon. BIG BANG, The Origin of the Universe
(Fourth Estate, Harper Collins Publishers, New York, 2004) p481
[7] Jean-Claude Pecker (Collège de France, Paris), Some
Critiques of the Big Bang Cosmology J. Astrophys. Astr.
(1997) 18, 323–333
[8]
DSSU is the acronym for the Dynamic Steady State
Universe —the cosmology theory that holds that aether-space is
dynamic and that aether-space expands and contracts regionally
and equally resulting in a cosmic-scale cellularly-structured
universe.
[9] Darling, David. Gravity’s Arc, The Story of Gravity from
Aristotle to Einstein and Beyond (John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken,
New Jersey. 2006) p121
[10] Arp, Halton. 1998. Seeing Red: Redshifts, Cosmology and
Academic Science
Posted 2011 Oct
—C.R. |
|
|
2011 10
Top of page
Back to DSSU Home Page
|
Copyright © 2005-2011
All rights reserved. |
C. Ranzan |
Email:
DSSUresearch@CellularUniverse.org |
|
Revised: 11-03-15. |
|
|