Critique of Conventional Cosmology

www.CellularUniverse.org
 

    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!

 

"Sometimes it seems that the only thing expanding faster than the universe is cosmologists' bewilderment." –George Musser, Columnist for Scientific American (1999 Sept p26)

 

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