The  Dynamic  Steady  State  Universe

 Home        Contact       Under Construction

SEARCH THIS WEBSITE

NEW ITEMS:

The Key that Extends Einstein’s Relativity (Part 1) —Response to a Reviewer Critical of DSSU Absolute-Space Relativity

Research paper accepted for publication: DSSU Relativity --The Lorentz Transformations Applied to Aether-Space ---To be published in the 2010 Sept issue of Physics Essays.

Bafflement —the remarkable admission of a physicist

Extended Relativity —Exploiting the Loopholes in Enstein's Relativity:—Abstract — Initial Review

The Story of Gravity and Lambda --How the Theory of Heraclitus Solved the Dark Matter Mystery

Published in the March, 2010, issue of  PHYSICS ESSAYS  Journal (Vol.23 No.1)

The Universe is Infinite —an explanation of why it must be so.

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  ---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 —“By 1922 Einstein had been nominated about fifty times —most were for his relativity theories.” ... A story of the perils of ignoring absolute motion!
(Published in the December, 2009, issue of PHYSICS ESSAYS, a Journal published through the American Institute of Physics.)

Questions & Answers
 

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 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.

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.

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 ---To be published in the next issue of Physics Essays.

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.

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.
 

(PUBLICATION PENDING)
Cause of Galaxy Rotation and Aspects of Galaxy Motion
 

The Key that Extends Einstein’s Relativity (Part 1) —Response to a Reviewer Critical of DSSU Absolute-Space Relativity

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.
 

© Copyright 2005-2010 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

C. R. C.
Niagara Falls, Canada

9th year on the Internet.
Most recent update:
2010 AUG

Visits since 2010 July:

08-16

Conventional Cosmology Critique

www.CellularUniverse.org

COMMENTS:            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 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.

   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.R.

Notes and References

1. ^ Ned Wright's Javascript Cosmology Calculator  www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html
2. ^ 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

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:

   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:

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?

   Are dark energy and dark matter related?

   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:

   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,

* * * *

Posted 2010 May
---C.R.

References:
Hooper, Dan. 2006. Dark Cosmos: In Search of Our Universe's Missing Mass and Energy (Smithsonian Books, HarperCollins Publishers, New York)

2010-5

Top of page            Back to DSSU Home Page