Assorted Brief Comments
 

Questions and Comments:

1. Where, conceptually, did DSSU theory originate?
   1a. What is the difference: the historical Steady State vs the Cellular Steady State?
2. Why does space expand?
3. If cosmic space is expanding, what is it expanding into?
4. Why no Academic discussion?
5. What is the difference between the vacuum and the void?
6. What is the difference between the Hubble constant, H, used in the DSSU theory and the one used in Big Bang theory?
7. What does a redshift with a value approaching infinity mean in the DSSU?
8. Why do astronomers speak of "Doppler equations" and "recession motion" in connection to cosmic distance?
9. Since there is a process of matter creation in the DSSU, doesn't this represent a violation of the sacred conservation of energy rule? ---and, hence, invalidate the theory?
10. Why is dark matter unnecessary for holding a cluster of galaxies together?
11. A reviewer of one of the DSSU research papers questions my use of the term “DSSU”
12. Why the opposition to the publication of aether research?
13. Aether Theory and Journal Publishing
14. DSSU and Conservation Laws. (Comments and questions from a 14-year old student.)
15. Understanding Gravity
16. The Unnecessary Assumption (within standard cosmology)
17. Physical Aether versus Mechanical Aether
18. The process of energy and the connection to cosmology
19. Have Einstein’s gravity waves been detected?
20. Cosmology and the Test of Validity
21. On the Existence of Aether (Comment from a book author.)
22. "So easy to understand" (comment from an Australian engineer)
23. Gravity, aether, discussion groups, and the purpose of the DSSU website
24. Gravity: photonic cause and “fluidic” conveyance
25. How is the universe cellular? Does space warp? Does gravity push or pull?
26. Galaxy age misinterpretation. Does cosmic distance have any relationship to a galaxy’s age?
27. The Train Wreck of Modern Physics and Big Bang Mythology
28. Response to a Fake Review of gravity-unification paper (2018)
29. Where does the information in the universe come from?
30. Can energy be extracted from aether?
31. What astrophysicist Richard Gott missed!
32. Is there a place in DSSU for the concept of "Deus"?
33. German philosopher questions theological aspects and endorses DSSU theory!
34. Fantasyland Physics versus Objective Physics
35. Higgs field versus DSSU aether —How do they compare?
36. Negative Mass versus Positive Mass
37. The Fermi Paradox. Where are other advanced civilizations?
38. Question on the universe’s most misunderstood component

Assorted Brief Comments (most recent at top):

■  … I finished reading the book Laws of Physics Twentieth-Century Scientists Overlooked. Nice work -- & an enjoyable read – thank you.
    –Mac Rynkiewicz, Australia (2023-2-4).
 

■  … I stumbled upon your theory of the Cellular Universe a few weeks ago, and I have been blown away by the detailed analysis and dismantling of the Big Bang paradigm. Having been taught the conventional cosmology in school but always finding it lacking, I believe the DSSU model is far more convincing and realistic. I am certain Science will eventually recognize it for the crowning achievement it is.
   –N. Gupta, a recent physics graduate from UCLA in Los Angeles. (2023-1-23)
 

■  … I can’t tell you enough how amazed I am by your work – the breadth, the depth and the clarity!  The "Mainspring" paper is truly a masterpiece!  Reading your two books, plus this article has clarified so much in my mind …
    Infinite thanks and appreciation,
    Renee Hoadley (email, 2022-11-1)
[Her educational website: www.Cosmic-Core.org ]
 

■  This is really remarkable stuff. … [It] is one of the most profound descriptions of the eternality of the Universe. It’s just really well expressed.
–Robert Metz (in his August 2022 JustRight podcast) referring to a passage on the nature of existence and the Universe as revealed in the book Guide to the Construction of the Natural Universe.
 

■ … I somehow stumbled onto your work several years ago, and quickly began to see that, of all the various Aether models, yours was the most complete and easy to understand. Also, there was something about that rhombic dodecahedron that really hooked me! …
   –R. Hoadley (email, 2022-6-15)
 

■ Dear Dr. Conrad Ranzan, … I have read your research online and found its conclusions remarkable. This significant work has the potential to inspire fellow researchers and scientists working in the same domain. …
    I was impressed by your research aptitude and a profound understanding of your field of study. I found that your research matches the scope of our journal and would like to invite you to associate with us. Our editorial board, management and I have agreed to recognize you as an invited author of London Journals Press (United Kingdom). …
    Your work shows your investigative aptitude, a rational approach and a profound understanding of your field of study. …
–Dr. Matilda Brady, Managing Editor, “London Journal of Research in Science: Natural and Formal” (2022-3-29)
 

■  Hello Conrad:  I read your Article —Centrifugal Effect Negation. Another brilliant novel work.
–Mac Rynkiewicz,  Ballarat, Australia,  (2021-11-10)
 

■  Hello Conrad: I came across your amazing work with the rhombic dodecahedron on the web. Your understanding of the astrophysics of the material far exceeds mine. I'm into exploring the mysteries of creation through the subject entitled "sacred" geometry. ...  I appreciate your incredible work and how you've used geometry to describe the structure of the universe. Amazingly, my study of sacred geometry led me to that same universal level. I'm thankful you are providing the science to describe it and verify it.
Thank You,
–George Leoniak, Video LINK: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1LSQrH4Hgs&t=73s  (2021-10-05)
 

■  … Your published paper: Mass-to-Energy Conversion, the Astrophysical Mechanism. It proves to be the most popular paper in the journal. –Zoey Yang, managing editor of the Journal of High Energy Physics, Gravitation and Cosmology (2020-1-7)
 

■  … your excellent book, Guide to the Construction of the Natural Universe. ... I've already been skimming through various parts of the book, including your most inspiring and insightful closing comments in the 'Afterword' on page 288 regarding the nature of the universe and 'consciousness.'

[T]hank you for your excellent insights and work regarding the nature of the universe, ideas which have impacted many of my own on a philosophical level.

–Bob Metz, Just Right Media  (2019-11-1)
 

■  SNIP from email sent to subscribers of Just Right Media:

The GRAVITY of our situation – from the state of science to the state of our universe

Sadly, the ‘gravity of our situation’ may be better applied to the current discipline of science itself.

For example, take a closer look at what has been called the “big bang theory” – a theory popularly shared by most scientists and the public alike to explain the ‘origins of the universe.’ Having done so ourselves [we at Just Right Media], it’s difficult to avoid the conclusion that this is yet another theory that demonstrates how so much of what we think we know “just ain’t so.”

On the other hand, the once accepted view of a “steady state universe” (which makes no attempt to explain the ‘origins’ of the universe) demonstrates how so much of what has been rejected by modern theorists actually “is so.”  ... –Robert Metz (Ontario, 2019-9-19)
 

■  “Conrad, … your website grows evermore richer each time I pay a visit. Meanwhile, Cosmology, driven by the Big Bang genesis, refuses to give up their stupid delusion.” –R.F. (California, 2017-10)
 

■  “Just came across your website and read your essay regarding why Einstein's Nobel was not awarded for relativity. Excellent research and amazing historical details: I had known of Poincaré and Lorentz, but not Voigt and Larmor. Many thanks for your hard work and scholarship. Also of interest was your information on galactic redshift; …"
Thanks again
Anthony Fazio, (2017-10)
 

■ ... “I am super excited about all his work, a new hero for me honestly. And I hope very much to connect my own work to his someday. And I would absolutely love for Dr. Ranzan to read some of my work and to give me his opinion. Thank you and your team for your work [on] the Cellular Universe.”
Super Proudly,
Arturo Cuscó  (2017-8-9)
[We share your excitement. … Let it be known, there is much more to come. –CR]
 

■ Conrad, you not only have “The Rhythm of the Dance” but also “The Photonic Rhythm of the Universe!”

–Dr John Paroschy (2017 August) [John is a long-time friend among our ballroom dance circle. –CR]
 

■ Hi Conrad: I found your website and information about Gravitational Aether which I found very interested.
     I have been developing a theory that I call Liquid Gravity (www.liquidgravity.nz) that seems to follow a lot of the ideas expressed on your website.
… Michael Hodges, Wanaka, New Zealand (2017-3-15)
 

■ Dear Dr. Conrad Ranzan: I am a mechanical engineer (1975 MSC). I do admit that you are right when you emphasize the fact that: “The bottom line is that the Aether, the space medium, is the key to understanding the Universe.” I have read the valuable article titled “The History of the Aether Theory” in your interesting website: http://www.cellularuniverse.org/AA3AetherHistory.htm. …
    My own proof of the existence of aether is here: http://kvisit.com/S6LHmAw
… Best Regards, Hamid  (2017-3-19)
 

■ Dear Conrad: Thanks for the link to “The Nature of Gravitational Collapse”. I found that I did have a copy, but I don't remember reading it, until now. Awesome.
... Mac Rynkiewicz (Civil Engineer, retired – Ballarat, Victoria, Australia) (2016-12-21)
 

■ Subject: ... Aether-Based Universe: “I've just found your magnificent website on the cellular universe. I wish I'd found it several years ago. It would have saved me a lot of effort. In many aspects our models agree, which is quite comforting.” … “I very much appreciate all your efforts in many very important directions.”
–Best Wishes, Neil (PhD) (2016-3-30)
 

■ “In my view the author’s idea about matter formation and mass acquisition are based in arcane imaginations that have no theoretical or experimental fundamentation [sic]. The pretentious creation and annihilation of the non-energetic aether particles, the aether contraction, distortion of the space medium and its effects on the particles is nothing [more] than imagination of the author.” –anonymous reviewer for Physics Essays Journal (2013-12)
[Yes, but it works! It makes valid predictions! –CR]

Questions and Comments

1. Where, conceptually, did DSSU theory originate ?

A:  Historically the key concept --the idea that space expands-- can be traced back to the De Sitter  expanding universe of 1917 and the Einstein static-but-unstable universe also of 1917. It was Einstein's general theory of relativity, published just a year earlier, that ascribed space with its dynamic qualities --the ability to expand and contract. The progression of ideas weaves through much of the 20th century. The addition of two missing components is detailed in the DSSU Manuscript. All the conceptual pieces, primarily the four Postulates, were linked together in the month of August in the year 2001.

The name --Dynamic Steady State Universe-- was carefully chosen to reflect the fact that space is Dynamic (it expands in some regions AND contracts in others) while the greater Universe is highly stable. Furthermore, all its processes are perpetually in a Steady State mode.

Back to Top

1a. What is the difference: the historical Steady State vs the Cellular Steady State?

Q:  What is the difference between the historical Steady State universe (proposed by Bondi & Gold) and the cellular Dynamic Steady State universe?

A: The Bondi & Gold (and the Fred Hoyle version) Steady State universe is an expanding universe. The historical Steady State had this in common with all the universe models of the 20th century after the 1920s —they were all EXPANDING UNIVERSES!

In contrast, the DSSU is NOT an expanding universe.

For a comparison of all major universe models see: (www.CellularUniverse.org/UniverseModels.htm ).

Back to Top

2. Why does space expand?

A:  Without elaboration, space expands when it is under tension. Space expands, meaning that new space forms, when mass concentrations pull on it from opposite directions. The effect occurs on the unit-universe scale; that is, it acts across (or within) each and every unit-universe cell.

Back to Top

3. Science journalist Timothy Ferris in his book The Whole Shebang [1997, Simon & Schuster. p67] asks if cosmic space is expanding, what is it expanding into?

A:  Space is expanding into an enveloping cosmic cell boundary. Space, or the vacuum, is expanding into regions that are rich in mass-and-energy ---more specifically, it is expanding into space-contracting fields that surround all mass and energy bodies.

And why is space expanding into those regions? ... Simple. mass/energy acts as a sink for space (called aether in DSSU theory). In fact, the flow of aether into mass particles and mass bodies sustains their very existence. It is truly one of the most remarkable aspects of DSSU theory.

Back to Top

4. Why no Academic discussion?

Q:  Dear Dr. Ranzan: I have been looking for independent, published work acting —in a bona fide scientific way— to critically assess your theoretical ideas and publications. But, I have had very little success. Would you be so good as to direct me towards the sort of references I seek?
Yours sincerely –Tim M. (2014-02-14)

A:  I am not aware of any discussion of my work, on DSSU theory, in professional scientific circles.

From the numerous "expert" peer reviews of my research papers and the many rejection notices from Journal editors, it is obvious to me that DSSU theory is recognized as a threat to existing physics, astrophysics, and cosmology (particularly cosmology). They struggle to find flaws in the theory —and fail. Their many years of advanced indoctrination, everything they were ever taught, has convinced them that DSSU theory MUST be wrong. But, and they must surely find this deeply disturbing, they can't find the flaw they assume must be there —somewhere! However, they have to find something, some justification for rejection; most often they are critical of what is not there, what is not even in the particular research paper.

From their perspective, the best way to deal with the threat to the established paradigm is to ignore it. Hence, no discussion. Entirely understandable.

I expect serious discussion to grow from the non-professional community, from journalists, from science writers, from the educated lay person. These are the people I consider to be my target audience. My entire presentation —clear writing style, absence of jargon, unambiguous ideas, inclusion of the historical perspective, abundant and clear diagrams, simple comparison charts, minimal supplementary basic math— is to make DSSU theory and cosmology accessible to a wide audience. The publication of my papers in professional journals merely provides the necessary credibility.

 Warm Regards                         –C.R., Niagara Falls, Canada (2014-02-18) CR
___________________________________

Response from Tim M.: 

Dear Conrad: Many thanks for your kind and prompt reply. Indeed, thanks for just replying.

I am just a very interested lay person, who appreciates your clarity! I will certainly explore further.

I am only just beginning to see the extent of the on-going "Crisis of Physics" —a sad but I guess all too human situation which we all need to learn from, and adapt our future conduct accordingly.

As a psychologist, coming to grips with the historical debacle of Freudian theory opened my eyes to some of the problems of achieving good science —but I can see this old story pales into insignificance alongside the current position for theorizing in fundamental physics.

Best wishes               –Tim M. (2014-02-19)

Back to Top

5. What is the difference between the vacuum and the void?

A:  As a term used to express the emptiness of a region the vacuum and the void are interchangeable.  More specifically, a vacuum (especially an ideal vacuum) refers to the absence of any gaseous atoms or molecules in a region of space. The meaning of void goes further. The void refers to the absence of everything conceivable; it represents complete nothingness. No air, no aether, no entities of any sort. No need to concern ourselves, though; this kind of void does not exist. Descartes had it right when he wrote that it is contrary to reason to say that there is a space in which there is absolutely nothing. As for the vacuum, he argued that it does not exclude all entities. [Ed. Margaret D. Wilson, The Essential Descartes, 1969 Mentor p342]

Consider also the nuance of meaning when it comes to specialized jargon: In the field of astronomy the void refers to the relatively empty region of the interior of the cosmic cells of the Universe. In astrophysics and philosophy the void refers to complete nothingness.

Back to Top

6. What is the difference between the Hubble constant, H, used in the DSSU theory and the one used in BB theory?

A:   In the DSSU theory H serves as the space expansion constant and denotes the speed with which each of the three dimensions increase in length per million lightyears (or per megaparsec) of length. Here’s a visualization for the mind’s eye: A space cube having sides of a million lightyears will continually expand its dimensions by about 18.5km/sec.

In Big Bang cosmology H serves the same purpose. However, there is an important difference. Expressed as H₀, pronounced “H-nought,” it also denotes the rate at which the ENTIRE Big Bang universe is expanding.

Both are named after Edwin Hubble the man who popularized the findings that higher redshifts relate to greater distance of galaxies.

Back to Top

7.  A theoretical redshift index approaching infinite value is interpreted by Big Bang theory as the increasing approach to the big bang event —that supposed singularity of universal genesis.
What does an infinite redshift mean in the DSSU?

A:  Theoretically, a galaxy (say a node galaxy) whose redshift approaches infinity signifies a galaxy whose distance from us is near infinity.

Back to Top

8. Why do astronomers speak of ‘Doppler equations’ and ‘recession motion’ in connection to cosmic distance?

A:  There is really no good reason other than vestigial --what once was a historical habit has become a quirk of specialized jargon. When astronomers use these Doppler equations or refer to recession velocities they are fully aware (at least the vast majority are) that it is the "space" expansion between galaxy clusters that actually causes the redshifting of light and not galactic Doppler motion through space.

Back to Top

9. Since there is a process of matter creation in the DSSU, doesn't this represent a violation of the sacred conservation of energy rule? ---and, hence, invalidate the theory?

A:  In terrestrial physics the conservation of energy law is accepted as being valid. It means that matter is neither created nor destroyed; and of course, when we speak of matter, the term includes both normal energy  and frozen energy (commonly called mass).

In astrophysics, however, things are not as constricted. The creation ('formation' is the more accurate term) of matter-and-energy is permitted ---in fact it is essential. You simply can't have a universe without it. Practically all theorists use the concept of matter creation. The subject of serious debate is not IF matter is being created but rather HOW. The vast majority believe that it was created all at once long long ago in some spectacular big bang scenario. A minority of theorists, on the other hand, believe that matter formation takes place continuously in a sedate steady state universe.

Understanding the essential ingredient of matter formation/creation to any functional theory of the universe means that the various Big Bang models, the historic Steady State models, as well as the Cellular Universe, cannot be reasonably rejected on the grounds that they violate the conservation-of-energy law.

But the Cellular Model clearly has the advantage. Although the DSSU has a process of matter formation/creation, amazingly it does not, in principle, violate the energy conservation rule? No net energy is created or destroyed.

Back to Top

10. Why is dark matter unnecessary for holding a cluster of galaxies together?

A:  Academic physicists claim there must be much more gravity holding the clusters together than could be produced by the visible stars and gas. They invoke the existence of mysterious invisible dark matter which they claim adds to the gravitational mass of the cluster. Although it has never been detected it is supposed to increase the gravity of the cluster. What they fail to realize is that gravity and Lambda are NOT forces in opposition. They have failed to grasp the fundamental fact that in addition to normal gravity pulling the galaxies (of the cluster) together, the cosmic gravity, commonly called Lambda, is also pushing the cluster together. Every cluster is surrounded by voids. The voids are where Lambda dominates. In the context of a cellularly structured universe gravity and Lambda are both active in maintaining galaxy cluster cohesion. Dark matter is simply not needed.

The bottom line: The equations used to model the dynamic behavior of galaxy clusters are wrong.

Back to Top

11. One of the reviewers of the Paper Resolving a Paradox in Special Relativity –Absolute Motion and the Unified Doppler Equation made the following comment:

My Respose: A good point; and this is why I have used “Unified Doppler” in the Manuscript title and not “DSSU Doppler.” ... However ...
I have two reasons for using the DSSU label.

(1) The nature of DSSU aether is embedded in the key postulates of DSSU Cosmology theory. So in a sense, DSSU aether theory and DSSU relativity theory are parts of a larger theory ---DSSU theory for short. Why have multiple theories when one will do?

(2) I wish to distance myself from the Big Bang model. As a hypothetical, it is a universe designed by mathematicians and for mathematicians. Conceptually, it is little more than creationism and mytho-cosmology propped up by government funding and media hype. The “creationism” aspect was made official at a 1951 cosmology conference, when the head of the world’s dominant church endorsed the Big Bang model. As a practical model of The Universe it has long outlived its usefulness. Having studied the vastly superior alternative model I find the BB model —based, as it is, on the grandest unscientific extrapolation ever— an embarrassment. (In a nutshell, the difference is this:  The BB is a universe of expanding space AND a universe for which this expansion is extrapolated into the expansion of the entire universe!! The DSSU is a universe of expanding space but suffers no wild extrapolation.)

Back to Top

12. Why the opposition to the publication of aether research?

Q: … I am a French physicist in fluid mechanics. I recently wrote a paper where I calculated spacetime viscosity at both large and small scales. The French science academy found my work very interesting and they encourage me to publish in a high-level gravity journal. But it seems that they are embarrassed with this article! Searching the web for similar cases, I found your very interesting work and noticed the publishing difficulties you encountered. Perhaps you could tell me why there is such opposition to this kind of new [aether] approach?
–Franck D.             Paris, France, (2014-03-10)
 

A:  Regarding the opposition of the acceptance and publication of research involving the aether concept: Aether is a touchy topic among traditional physicists and journal editors. It has been this way for a very long time. The Physics Community, for one reason or another, has been unwilling to face the reality that they made a major mistake when they misinterpreted the results of the famous aether-wind experiment performed by Michelson & Morley way back in 1887.

In 1920 Einstein said the aether exists, but the Physics Community would not listen. To the present day, they still refuse to listen and, rather, pretend there is no such thing as "aether." They simply will not face the facts and admit they were wrong! Wrong for over 100 years!

Most physicists when discussing the space medium shy away from the term "aether" and simply substitute some other expression. For example, Brian Greene in his popular book, The Fabric of the Cosmos, calls the space medium an “ocean.” He obviously knows "aether" is verboten.

My deeply held belief is that a conceptual construction and understanding of the space medium must come first. It (the conceptual picture) is of primary importance. The mathematical structure and understanding comes second. It (the mathematical formulation) is of secondary importance. Philosophically, the dichotomy may be likened to the difference between Aristotle’s more objective/practical approach on the one hand and Plato’s Pythagorean abstract approach on the other.

Wishing you “all the best” in your research.               –CR (2014-03-20)

(Subsequent REPLY: “Thank you very much for your response. I fully agree with you!” –Franck, 2014-03-21)

Back to Top

13. Aether Theory and Journal Publishing.

Q: Here is another item relating to aether opposition. On the "History of the Aether Theory" webpage, it states: "The vast majority of journal publishers participate in the denial. Any theory or model that dares to incorporate the aether concept will simply not be accepted for mainstream publication." Someone named Harold was asking for a clarification of such a policy. –(2016-02-12)

Response: The quoted statement was and is an oversimplification.

The reality is this:

Practically all researchers use aether and practically all journals allow the discussion of aether; it is simply that they are averse to actually calling it “aether.” They hate to see the term in black-and-white print. Presumably they realize that the physics profession made a mistake, and for too long were misled, not even having been taught that Einstein himself affirmed its existence (in his 1920 Leyden lecture), and, hence, find it embarrassing to use the term.

A good example, one of my favorite, is Brian Greene’s book The Fabric of the Cosmos —a popular publication on the nature of space. Within its 570 pages there is not a single mention of “aether.” It is an extensive and detailed presentation of the space medium —which the author calls a sea, an ocean, a quantum foam, and, of course, a Fabric— but he never mentions the aether, not even in a historical context.

Here is an interesting link that someone sent me; it discusses a modern version of aether:

Modern Versions of Aether: Fluid Dynamics vs Standard Model with gravity connection http://www.simonsfoundation.org/quanta/20140624-fluid-tests-hint-at-concrete-quantum-reality/

My experience, during the last few years, is that only the old guard defenders of Big-Bang dogma reject the aether and its implications. They have little choice —for now. Nevertheless, I’m sure they suspect that they may be on the losing side of a revolution.

There are new journals, rapidly growing, moving ahead, publishing and incorporating significant recent discoveries —all relating to aether.

The bottom line is that the aether, the space medium, is the key to understanding the Universe.

–Conrad (2016-2-14)

Back to Top

14. DSSU and Conservation Laws. Comments and questions from a 14-year old student.

C & Q: Dear Conrad Ranzan:  My name is Trevor Wendt and I’m interested in Cosmology (and may possibly pursue this as a career). As I am only 14 years old, I know it may seem a bit too young to be asking you questions about your model of the Universe. … When I first became interested in Cosmology I did believe in the Big Bang Model. But through research, careful examination, and education I came to realize how strange the Big Bang Model sounds and how inaccurate it is. Because of this, I started making my own theory (similar to yours) and when I researched other cosmology theories, I came across yours, and found it is one of the few that makes sense. After looking at the differences between my model and yours, I realized my flaw (which I didn't find surprising considering I'm so young) was that I did not have a true infinite model. I simply had a model infinite in age, but not in space. It was after looking at your Dynamic Steady State Universe model and your proof that I realized your model is probably one of the most (if not the most) accurate predictive cosmological models of our present history [state] and our future history [state]. …

My question is, do you think it might be possible that the cosmic cells were created by small "big bangs" each cell like a miniature version of the Big Bang? Is it possible that such “explosions” would recycle matter from other cells into our cosmic cell? If that is what you mean with the [radially] expanding arrows in some of your diagrams, it may explain why there is evidence for a "big bang" to have existed. This would mean that old matter would recycle into new matter (and this would agree with the Law of Conservation of Mass); but taking no matter [nothing] and creating [new] matter out of it would be against the Law of Conservation of Mass (if I'm not mistaken).
I know you must be very busy, but if you could please respond to me as soon as you can it would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you for all of your great work to begin the 5th Revolution of Cosmology,
–Trevor Wendt    ( 2015-07-16)

Reply:

Thank you for your interest in the CellularUniverse.org website and my research into the Dynamic SS Universe.

You are absolutely on the right track. Your approach is sound, thoughtful, critically investigative, and, quite frankly, scientific; and your attitude is remarkably mature. In other words you are a seeker of truth. Congratulations.

You are willing to be critical of your own theory. That is good. I have been attacking my own theory for almost 14 years now. Amazingly, with every attack it has become stronger.

Anyway, always keep these important points in mind:

• The Big Bang is essentially a mathematical model (therefore, it can call itself a scientific model).
• The Big Bang is a modern quasi-religious Myth with no connection to reality. (Because it attempts to explain observations, it may be called a pseudo-science, like astrology is sometimes called a pseudo-science.)
• The Universe is infinite in size (3-dimensional space).
• But there is a secret behind the meaning of infinite time: the Universe is temporally infinite in the sense that it has always existed and will always exist. HOWEVER, and this is extremely important, everything IN the universe, every entity OF the universe, has a limited term of existence. But because there are ongoing formation/emergence processes, the overall appearance of the Universe never changes. This is utterly profound! If you understand this at a deep level, you will essentially hold the secret of the Universe.
• The cosmic cells of the DSSU were never “created.” They have ALWAYS existed. They are forever being sustained by ongoing perpetual processes. <---This answers your question about the cells possibly being created in the manner of “big bang” explosions.
• To answer your other question: Yes, the Law of Conservation of Matter (mass & energy) does apply to the Universe; but not in the way you would normally expect. … Here is a simple way to conceptualize the way Conservation Law is handled in the two cosmologies: In the Big Bang everything, mass and energy, is RECYCLED (stuff is transformed). In the DSSU everything, mass and energy and aether, is RENEWED (stuff dies and new stuff emerges); a balance is always maintained.

There are many aspects of the DSSU that have not yet been published, so keep checking the www.cellularuniverse.org website for new or revised postings. I usually do an update once a month.

I have to tell you this: By what you have stated in your email, you have proved a claim that I have long made. I often tell people that any average high-school student could, with a little bit of effort, understand DSSU cosmology and the underlying theory. And you, it seems have shown that my claim was/is valid.

Good luck in your cosmology quest. If you take to heart the above key points, you will have a far deeper understanding of the real Universe than any professional Big Bang believer.

Warm Regards.                  –Conrad Ranzan   (2015-7-19)

Back to Top

15. Understanding Gravity.

C & Q: Hello Conrad, I just started reading your site and I am pleased to see your view of gravity in a cellular universe (http://www.cellularuniverse.org/G1GravityLambda.htm).

Since the mid 1990's I've viewed all of nature as one organism. Has anyone related 'gravity' to magnetism? Was Newton aware of magnetism?

I agree that gravity is not a real force and I am perplexed how science TV programs use the word gravity over and over, as if to cover up what they do not understand.

Thanks for your inspiring work!   ...

A while ago I started a small forum about the PATTERN that permeates ALL things. One of the members posted your Cellular Universe link and I enjoyed your point of view. In response to skepticism of some members, I used your site to show that I am not the only person who finds fault with the current assumptions of gravity.

I look forward to learning more about your research!!!
     –Laura Miller (2011 July)

Response:

Re: Gravity in a cellular universe

Thank you for your interest in the CellularUniverse.org website and my research.

To answer your question “Has anyone related 'gravity' to magnetism?”: … Yes, Einstein was working on this very problem during the last 40 years of his life. He was unsuccessful —mainly because he did not have a causal mechanism for gravity (neither, of course, did Newton).

According to DSSU theory, gravity and magnetism are related as follows: Magnetism is a manifestation of force carriers known as electromagnetic wave/particles (or photons). Electromagnetic wave/particles represent a form of energy; and ALL forms of energy produce a gravitational effect. Ordinary mass is a form of energy and therefore produces a gravitational effect. (Future articles on the Website will explain this in greater detail.)

I suggest you read the article: Why Copernicus Did Not Need a Force of Gravity. (Posted at: www.CellularUniverse.org/G5_GravityNotAForce.htm)  There, you will find that of all the historical investigators on the subject, Newton was the only one who invoked gravity AS A FORCE.

As for TV programs, I gave up on them about 15 years ago —as they devolved into fake science and politically correct propaganda. The “Global Warming” issue is a good example.

Anyway, enjoy the real thing: objective reality!
Sincerely,            Conrad (2011 July)

Back to Top

16.  The Unnecessary Assumption (within standard cosmology)

C & Q:  Hello! … It is with much pleasure that I read your web pages.  I find them just amazing. Thank you so much for sharing all this knowledge and your ideas and interpretations.

I believe that science has historically proven that seemingly-unshakable theories do become obsolete in light of fresh ideas backed by new observations. This seems a safe assertion about the progress of science.

I like the Dynamic Steady State Universe theory. It talks to me.

Just as living organisms are constantly renewing themselves through various (dynamic) biological processes, it makes sense to have the Universe follow the same principle. From the incredibly small to the infinitely big all exist according to continuous steady-and-dynamic processes.  A Universe that “breathes”, “lives”, and remains forever the same.

My question relates to your statement: “One cannot claim that a universe is infinite in extent and also simultaneously expanding (no matter how good one's imagination).” Would it be possible for the Universe to create the space and expand into such newly created space? Just an idea, I’m just using my imagination here.  

Again, thank you for the ideas and knowledge !

–Aziz Koulibaly (2015-12-25)

Response:

To Aziz Koulibaly, … Let me address your question and provide some additional comments.

You have simply worded the basic argument used for the Big Bang theory —in trying to resolve the problem of an expanding universe (infinite or not). One might say, as Big Bang proponents do, that the universe expands itself into newly created space. Or, one might say that newly created space expands into a pre-existing infinite universe. It makes little difference. It makes little difference because there is an unnecessary assumption.

Essentially it is not a problem that needs to be resolved. The real Universe does NOT expand —not explosively, not gently. ... Here are some further relevant concepts:

·         The Universe was never created, the Universe has always existed and will always exist. However, and this is extremely important, everything IN the universe, every entity OF the universe, has a limited term of existence. But because there are ongoing formation/emergence processes, the overall appearance of the Universe never changes. This is utterly profound! If you understand this at a deep level, you will essentially hold the secret of the Universe.

·          The Universe is. Period. Meanwhile, everything in and of the Universe is continuously being formed (“created”) and transformed and destroyed (“terminally annihilated”).

·          The Universe is the perpetual manifestation of renewing processes.

·          The Big Bang is essentially a mathematical model (therefore, it can call itself a logical model).

·          The Big Bang is a modern quasi-religious Myth with no connection to reality. (At best, it is a pseudo-scientific attempt to explain observations, but fails miserably.)

Keep using your imagination and, most importantly, keep testing your ideas.

Warm Regards,             –Conrad (2015-12)

Back to Top

17.  Physical Aether versus Mechanical Aether

C & Q:  A common question has to do with the nature of the space medium. To understand the aether there are some important distinctions among the commonly used terms. What does it mean to call the space medium a physical aether? … a mechanical aether? … a subquantum aether? … a dynamic aether? What are the differences?

Thank you Alistair Riddoch (of Ontario) for raising this issue. (2016-2)

Response:

There are many researchers who are definitely on the right track in seeking a “layer to the universe, below quantum size and level.” But what I have invariably found is that they fail do understand what “subquantum” really means. Assuming, correctly I might add, that the quantum is the smallest particle or entity of energy, then it must logically follow that anything deemed to be subquantum (below the quantum level) cannot possess energy. By one’s own definition, a subquantum entity cannot represent energy. They fail to realize that their proposed space-medium (the aether) particles can have no mass and no energy. Most researchers consider this a dead end! They think that without mass or energy there is nothing to work with and simply abandon the idea. (This, in part, explains why DSSU currently has no competition.)

Now, to clarify the various terms used to describe the subquantum level: Terms such as physical, mechanical, subquantum, and dynamic.

·         The space medium of the DSSU consists of aether units/particles without mass and without energy, therefore it is a subquantum aether.

·         By being a subquantum aether, DSSU aether is consequently not a physical aether.

·         The DSSU has an essence aether, not a physical aether.

·         HOWEVER, it is still categorically a mechanical aether, for it does have discrete units.

·         DSSU aether is dynamic, because it has the ability to expand and contract (depending on conditions).

·         And most importantly, the combination works.

As for the shape of the subquantum units, I have not speculated. I’ll let others try to work that out. Other than the fact that they do pulsate/fluctuate and must do so in perpendicular directions, there are few specifics. (Personally, I think the shape and the nature of the essence fluctuators is unknowable.)

–CR (2016-2)

Back to Top

18.  The process of energy and the connection to cosmology

Dear Dr. Ranzan,

I have read with great interest your articles [The fundamental Process of Energy, Part 1 & Part 2] in Issues 113 and 114 of Infinite Energy Magazine.  I am convinced of the correctness of your theory of the aether and your explanations of photons, electrons, mass, and the various forms of energy.

I then went to your website www.CellularUniverse.org to see if you had any theory on the origin of the Universe and was pleasantly surprised that you address that very question in detail.

I am completely convinced of your explanation of the aether and the energy-process model of the universe —and in your theory that the universe is nonexpanding and cellular (truly excellent work!). However, I am not yet convinced in your theory of the origins of the Universe.  In particular, I have trouble with believing in an infinite universe that has always existed.  I was hoping that you could answer a couple of questions.

1.  If the Universe is infinite in space, why is the sky dark at night?  Wouldn't an infinite number of stars and galaxies light up the sky infinitely?  Each one only very little, but an infinite number of them would light up the sky infinitely, would it not?  Yet, we do not observe that.  How do you explain this?

2.  I agree with you that space (and the aether) may have always existed.  But why do you assume that time is a function of space and not simply a function of energy/matter?  If time is a function of energy/matter, wouldn't time begin the moment the first photon appeared?  And that begs the question: how are photons formed in your model?

3. How do you explain the existence of planets, stars, galaxies, etc?  Do you begin with an empty aether or one that already is full of what we now see?  If the former, what is your explanation as to how mass and energy come into existence out of the aether?

I look forward to your reply.

Best to you,      –Anthony Santelli, Ph.D. (2014-06-20)

Reply:

Dear Dr. Santelli:  Thank you for your interest in my work, and your kind words.

To answer your first question dealing with Olbers’ dark-night-sky paradox:

There are three independent factors involved in eliminating photons and reducing their energy: (1) The more cosmic-scale cells that a photon traverses, the greater is the probability of it being captured by some object. (2) There are astronomical bodies in which a process of terminal-annihilation takes place and matter is lost; the amazing thing about this process is that it does NOT require any additional postulate or axiom. (3) Cosmic redshift produces a relentless diminishment of energy of propagating photons. Wavelength increases with each passage of a photon through a cosmic-scale cell, eventually, to be captured as it encounters an object in its path.

 Some comments with respect to your second question:

“Time,” in the Dynamic Steady State Universe (DSSU), has no independent existence. “Time” is simply a mathematical contrivance of convenience. As Aristotle had suggested, time is the same as motion.  It serves as a convenient way of comparing one motion with another; for instance, the one-tick motion of the second hand of a traditional clock is but a comparison of a fractional motion of the Earth’s rotation (or of a fraction of the Earth’s motion along its solar orbit). In the case of an electronic clock, it is a sequence of oscillatory motions of electrons that is compared to a fractional motion of the Earth. “Time” is always, without exception, a comparison of one motion with another.

Turning to your third question, How does energy (and mass) come into existence out of the aether? … The basic meaning of this question is: How does the photon, the fundamental energy particle, come into existence out of the aether?  Once you have the photon, then the explanation of “mass” automatically follows (as detailed in the Infinite Energy article). Briefly, matter formation involves the following:

● Aether units defined as essence fluctuators, which I conceive as being a primitive form of electromagnetic energy (but do not themselves represent energy).

● A self-synchronization of those essence fluctuators (non-energy fundamental fluctuators).

● Subquantum processes/interactions that eventually produce a real energy particle, namely the photon.

● Mass is simply confined energy; a mass particle is just a self-orbiting photon (or similar photonic configuration).

Turning to the cosmology aspect. The problem that you are having in trying to conceive of the infinite existence of the Universe is that you are treating the universe as “a thing” (which it is not).  Think in these terms: EVERYTHING in the universe came into existence and WILL pass out of existence. No thing exists forever. The processes of coming into existence and passing out of existence occur continuously and perpetually. The Universe is not a thing so the “existence” restrictions do not apply. It simply is.

I do believe professional philosophers have seriously failed us in not making these essential connections.

For an overview of DSSU theory, I suggest this recently published paper:
The Dynamic Steady State Universe. Physics Essays Vol.27, No.2, pp.286-315 (2014)

 I hope you enjoy the new perspectives and lucid interpretations.

Warm Regards,              –Conrad (2014-6-23)

[Update: The dark-night-sky question has now been formally addressed in this published work: C. Ranzan, “Olbers’ Paradox Resolved for the Nonexpanding Infinite Universe,” American Journal of Astronomy and Astrophysics Vol.4, No.1, pp1-14 (2016 Jan)  Abstract & links.]

Back to Top

19.  Have Einstein’s gravity waves been detected?

Comments: I have been asked to comment on the reports —the mass media’s ″spin-science stories″ of February, 2016— claiming the discovery/detection of Einstein’s gravity waves in connection with two colliding black holes. 

●    Do not be misled by the recent reports of the detection of gravity waves. What the LIGO apparatus measures is noise —the unavoidable noise of terrestrial vibrations and ambient interference. It does not measure gravity waves. It uses electromagnetic waves in a Michelson-Morley type interferometer to make its measurements. The noise was so severe, and the alleged gravity wave signal was so obscure, that what was presented to the public was an illustrative graph of a “simulation [claimed to be] a close fit to the LIGO signal, which was hidden by background noise.” [Nature, Vol.531, 2016 March 24] My opinion is that the signal was probably some random seismic event that resembled the wave pattern the researchers were looking for. Remember now, the LIGO team already knew what the wave pattern should be!  That information was provided by theoretical physicists, who had used general relativity applied to orbiting-and-merging black holes.

●    All the information relating to any distant binary system —its distance, the orbital size, the individual masses, the orbital frequency, the rate of orbit decay— must be skillfully extracted from the photons, the particles of “light,” originating from the two orbiting objects. The problem, with the LIGO’s merging-objects claim, is that no such conventional astronomical measurements were ever made! Astronomers failed to detect any supporting electromagnetic radiation coming from alleged orbiting-and-merging black holes!

●    Have gravity waves really been detected?  Think about this: The academic experts do not have the cause and mechanism of gravity (Isaac Newton did not, Albert Einstein did not, and today’s big-bang astrophysicists do not). Their theory of gravity is embarrassingly incomplete!  So, if they do not yet understand the nature of gravity itself, how then can they claim to be able to recognize the waves that gravity supposedly emits? The experts cannot even answer the simple question: Specifically, what is it that is waving? What is waving back and forth? Remember, the experts deny the existence of the aether medium!

●    Here is something else the reports fail to mention: The gravity waves that are actually detectable are those associated with the turbulence in the aether flow (the space medium streaming through our Solar System). Australian physicist Reginald T. Cahill has been examining these aether-flow waves for over 15 years.

●    As long as the government keeps funding such speculative stuff, it will not go away!! So, expect to see more spin-science reports. … Keep in mind that LIGO (the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory) has been in operation since the late 1990’s! And worse, the gravity-wave search has been going on since the 1960s! The predicament was similar to that of the multi-billion-dollar search for the Higgs particle: The expenditures of time and money had to be justified. Something HAD to be found!! Gravity waves had to be extracted from the data! There really was very little choice.

And I have not even mentioned how inconceivably tiny the alleged measured effect is supposed to be.

As my first point made clear, the big problem is the noise. It can’t be eliminated. It is impossible to isolate the LIGO apparatus from the Earth-based vibrations. And this is the reason behind the efforts to construct a gravity wave detector in outer space —possibly in Earth orbit. Thus, the futile search will continue.

The miniscule wave motion that is being sought probably does not exist.

–C. Ranzan (2016-05)

[IMPORTANT UPDATE:  For an explanation of why the gravity waves that have been detected are not energy waves, see the Press Release 2018 and The Nature of Gravity.]

Q: So, what is a free thinker to do?

Response: The independent thinker must challenge the experts, confronting them with some rather elementary questions? … The question to ask is Why?

Let me explain by putting the LIGO claim into perspective.

What these experimental scientists are saying is that they have failed to detect gravity waves originating from within our own galaxy, and yet they were somehow able to detect such waves coming from a vastly greater distance —supposedly from 1.3 billion lightyears away. The radius of the Milky Way galaxy is 50,000 lightyears and no gravity waves were detected here. Good enough. However, these gravity-wave believers believe they actually detected waves coming from 26,000 times farther away! … Why?

Look at it this way: You have this amazingly sensitive listening device —it can record a normal conversation between two people located 26 kilometers away— but for some strange reason it is deaf to a conversation only one meter away!! … Why?

LIGO team member Daniel Holz is reported (in Nature Vol.531) to have said, “To be honest, I find it really hard to believe …” Nevertheless, he really, honestly, faithfully, does believe! … But why?

People, please, think.

–C. Ranzan (2016-06)

Back to Top

20.  Cosmology and the Test of Validity

Request for comment: Dear Conrad Ranzan,

My name is Vladimir Netchitailo; I am a Doctor of Sciences in Physics.

I refer to you seeking feedback for the World-Universe Model that I have developed, since I know you to be an authority in the field of cosmology.

In essence, I propose inter-connectivity of all cosmological parameters and provide a mathematical framework that allows direct calculation thereof. The core ideas of the Model are described in three papers published by the journal "Journal of High Energy Physics, Gravitation and Cosmology":

5D World-Universe Model. Neutrinos. The World. (www.scirp.org/Journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=62208)
5D World-Universe Model. Multicomponent Dark Matter (www.scirp.org/Journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=60366)
5D World-Universe Model Space-Time-Energy (http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=58059&utm_campaign=linkedin&utm_medium=yh)

5D Space-Time-Energy World-Universe Model is a unified model of the World built around the concept of Medium, composed of massive particles (protons, electrons, photons, neutrinos, and dark matter particles). The Model provides a mathematical framework that enables precise calculation ...

Hoping to hear from you soon,

–Vladimir N. (2016-4-21, Irvine, USA.)

Response:

My compliments on your use of a space medium.

The problem I see is that your space medium "the Medium of the World" is composed of "massive particles."  I hold the view, in agreement with Einstein's 1920 statement, that the space medium, the aether, exists but has no mass and no energy.  Although in his view the aether is a continuum, in DSSU theory it is a particulate aether. But the "particles," in themselves, have no energy and no mass. They exist at a subquantum level.

My point is this: A "massive" medium will, ultimately, not work in modeling the Universe.

My personal interest in cosmology and astrophysics is to model the real Universe. The basic test I use ---to test ANY model against the real Universe--- is the Abell85 galaxy-cluster periodicity and a related structural configuration. These two cosmic structural configurations are the most inexplicable observational features in all of astronomy/astrophysics.  They allow for only one solution —a unique solution. DSSU theory predicts those key patterns as detailed in:

DSSU Validated by Redshift Theory and Structural Evidence, Physics Essays, Vol.28, No.4, p455-473 (2015 Dec)
(Abstract and links)

It is this same critical test you must apply to your 5-dimensional “World-Universe" theory, assuming your goal is a reality-based model. Otherwise, it will be just a marvelously elaborate mathematical exercise with only superficial connection to our real World.

Wishing you success in your exploration. ... Warm regards,
–Conrad (2016-4-25)

Follow up:

Rather than provide an explanation for the major structural features of the observable universe, Vladimir, in a brief response, firmly claims it is “much more important to calculate the values of the Hubble's parameter and temperature of Microwave Background radiation and compare them with the experimentally measured values.”

Clearly, his mathematical model has no explanation for cosmic structure in general and Abell85 in particular!
–2016-4-26

Back to Top

21. On the Existence of Aether

Comment from book author:

Subject: Irrefutable proof of the existence of aether

After reading articles on aether written by you and others, and conducting private research, I came across solid irrefutable evidence regarding the existence of aether. As you have correctly stated, it is the raw essence of the universe including the matter constituting our bodies and all other objects. The presence of aether alone gives rise to the gravitational fields around celestial bodies.

My book, The Seven Deadly Misconceptions, explains how your ideas about aether are 100 percent correct.

Regards,

H. V. Mohanlal, Bangalore (2016-7-8)

Back to Top

22. “So easy to understand!” (comment from an engineer)

Dear Conrad,

I love your DSSU stuff. …

I read your recent 2014 article Velocity-Differential Theory of Cosmic Redshift. A wonderful article, and so easy to understand!

(It appears that Louis Marmet, whose web-posting presents an extensive comparison of redshift mechanisms including your DSSU redshift theory, isn't aware of this article.)

My warmest regards.

Mac Rynkiewicz, Civil Engineer, retired, Victoria, Australia (2016-11-29)

Dear Mac Rynkiewicz,

Thank you for the kind words and your interest in my work relating to the Dynamic Steady State Universe.

The articles, the Cosmic Redshift in the Nonexpanding Cellular Universe (subtitled, Velocity-Differential Theory of Cosmic Redshift) as well as DSSU Validated by Redshift Theory and Structural Evidence, are what I call my “checkmate” papers. I see no reasonable way they can be refuted. This simple redshift mechanism makes any big-bang hypothesis irrelevant.

I was aware of Louis Marmet’s earlier (2013) version of redshift mechanisms; but I was not aware of his 2016 updated version. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. I am baffled by his claim that cosmic cellular structure is an ad hoc concept, when in reality it is surely the most commonly observed characteristic of the large-scale Universe! Incidentally, the same misunderstanding appears on Wikipedia, the last time I checked.

It always amuses me how seemingly rational and intelligent people fail to see what should be rather obvious (and not just with respect to physics and cosmology). No doubt, Marmet’s oversights will, sooner or later, be brought to his attention. I am rather reluctant to spend my time contending and correcting other people’s misconceptions of DSSU theory. My energy is strictly focused on presenting DSSU concepts in absolutely uncompromising clarity. The strategy is to circumvent the big-bang esoterica of the academics and to make Cosmology “so easy to understand” for the average person.

All the best.    –Conrad (2016-12-4)

Back to Top

23. Gravity, aether, discussion groups, and the purpose of the DSSU website

Comment & question: My name is George Rhude, I am not a scientist in any way. I have been involved in construction and sales as a business owner all my life and am now semi-retired.

I write to you because, I’ve always had a deep interest in gravity and the centrifugal force and the aether, and would now like to attain a full understanding of the subject.

I believe there is an aether of some type because that will explain the gravitational lensing of light and should also explain the speed limit of light. I believe knowing the structure of the aether will solve the gravity question.

Are you a member of any discussion groups? Or are you open to an exchange of thoughts?

Sincerely  –George M Rhude (2016-9-5)

Reply: Thank you for your interest in the CellularUniverse.org website and my research into the Dynamic Steady State Universe —a cosmology built around a defined aether.

Generally, when you refer to the aether it’s always a good idea to specify the type. For example, the DSSU aether is not physical, but it is mechanical. It has no energy or mass particles, but it does have discrete units/entities.

In regards to the aether, you are on the right track. Aether solves the problems of gravity (along with many other problems plaguing conventional astrophysics).

As far as discussion groups are concerned, I am not involved in any. My focus is on making available the evidence, arguments, and proofs that are utterly devastating to Standard Cosmology/Astrophysics. My website serves as a powerful source for those involved in overturning the Big Bang hypothesis (especially those involved in discussion groups). As you may be aware the Big Bang has lost its status as a scientific theory. It is now little more than a new-age religion for academic true-believers.

You could not have picked a better time to enter this field. There is no greater experience than finding out the truth. Good luck. And enjoy.

Warm regards    –Conrad (2016-9-10)

Back to Top

24. Gravity: photonic cause and “fluidic” conveyance

C & Q:  Hello Conrad,  Thanks for your reply, much appreciated. Well done on your success in building your theory and gaining positive traction.

I have been trying to find more information on your theory of how light particles generate gravitational force. You have referred to it in numerous places but I would like to understand if it is a theory with supporting experimental evidence or simply a hypothetical idea? Is this information in your new book? Will it be available online? …

–Michael Hodges (Wanaka, New Zealand, 2017-03-25)

[Michael has a website on what he calls Liquid Gravity (www.liquidgravity.nz)]
 

Response:  Hello Mike, DSSU is so highly integrated, that when one tries to explain one aspect, one is automatically explaining other aspects. The theory is so conceptually “tight”, that, for example, when one grasps the explanation of photon propagation, one automatically has the causative mechanism of gravity.

There are three mechanisms involved in gravity, and the photon (the EM force) is the sole root causative component. A secondary causative factor is attributed to an axiomatic feature of the space medium.

Another important point: Gravity is not a fundamental force. It is only an apparent force. (This is why the preferred term is “gravity effect”.)

All of this is discussed in the new book.

Let me address your query about the status of the theory: You can be reasonably sure of having a powerful theory when the editor of a prominent journal allows you to state “… theory validated …” in the title of the article.

DSSU Validated by Redshift Theory and Structural Evidence, Physics Essays, Vol.28, No.4, pp455-473 (2015 Dec) (Doi: 10.4006/0836-1398-28.4.455)

Furthermore, in key papers I make it quite clear that what follows, or what is about to be presented, “is NOT a what-if exercise.”

Warm regards  –Conrad (2017-4-19)

Back to Top

25. How is the universe cellular? Does space warp? Does gravity push or pull?

C & Q: Subject: Cellular model / three questions

Dear Conrad,  I just stumbled over your amazing website: (www.cellularuniverse.org/UniverseModels.htm). And I must say: That is a work of at least one life-time! Wow!

I would like to ask you three questions:

1. I was wondering, if you actually postulate a real cell structure, like a bubble multiverse, as the term "Cellular Universe" is suggesting?

2. Assuming space has no properties, no form, weight, substance, whatsoever. Do you accept the notion of warped space?

3. Is gravity pushing or pulling?

Best regards  –Philip Mikas (Aying, Munich, 2017-10-13)

RESPONSE:  Dear Philip,  Thank you for the kind words and your interest in the CellularUniverse.org website (featuring the Dynamic Steady State Universe).

Regarding your wonderment of how the universe is cellular:

To suggest that the Cellular Universe (the DSSU) is a bubble-like multiverse would be grossly misleading. There can be only one universe. This is simply because, by definition, the term “universe” is all-inclusive —it includes EVERYTHING. The cellularity of the Cellular Universe can be understood in two ways.

First, the observational configuration. A cell consists of a Void surrounded by galaxy clusters. The shape is non-Platonic dodecahedral.

Second, the fundamental configuration. Every significant galaxy cluster is the heart of an individual cosmic-scale gravity domain. These gravity domains come in two shapes, tetrahedral and octahedral, as required by basic geometry.

What is revolutionary, here, is that these cells are unified-gravity domains —they incorporate expansionary “antigravity” AND normal contractile gravity into a single cosmic cell.

Regarding the DSSU meaning and usage of “space”:

“Warped space” or curvature of space is a mathematical description —a geometric concept of descriptive importance but NOT of explanatory value. In DSSU theory, space is the empty stage, or the nothingness container. And all that may be said about space-as-a-container is that it has no properties whatsoever, except its three abstract dimensions. Those spatial dimensions are permeated by an ethereal medium. Although this medium is dynamic, I would not say that it warps.

So, a concise answer to your question is that space-as-a-container does not warp, and neither does the space medium.

Regarding the question, Is gravity pushing or pulling?

According to the DSSU definition: Gravity is the tendency of matter to move in the direction of the maximum gradient of inhomogeneous flow of aether. It means: in the direction in which the fundamental space medium is accelerating.

Because gravity manifests ONLY when there is a center of gravity, it may properly be said that gravity is a pulling effect.  However, I like to think of matter being “carried along by the aether” rather than being “pulled by gravity.”

Wishing you all the best in your research. Regards  –Conrad (2017-10-15)

Back to Top

26. Galaxy age misinterpretation. Does cosmic distance have any relationship to a galaxy’s age?

Another extremely distant fully-formed and wholly-active galaxy has been discovered. Here are my comments on a published report from Carnegie Science headlined “Found: The most-distant supermassive black hole ever observed”  December 06, 2017…

Artist’s conceptions of the most-distant supermassive black hole ever discovered, which is part of a quasar from just 690 million years after the Big Bang. ...  Illustrations by Robin Dienel, provided courtesy of the Carnegie Institution for Science.

There are two stories here. One is legitimate the other is fake.

First and foremost, we have a fascinating story. The discovery of a quasar galaxy located at a redshift distance of 7.54. This is an enormous distance, to say the least. As for the detected object itself, it is important to note that, by virtue of being a quasar, this is a mature galaxy. The report states, “Quasars are tremendously bright objects comprised of enormous black holes accreting matter at the centers of massive galaxies.” These are the hallmarks of a mature galaxy.

Then there is the fake story. This most-distant galaxy yet discovered was supposedly formed in 690 million years. The experts want us to believe that a cloud of primordial gas grew into a mature galaxy within a brief time span (cosmologically speaking) of a few hundred million years; and yet we know it takes over 5 BILLION years for a modest planet (like the Earth) to reach maturity!

Only in the Big-Bang fairytale is it blissfully allowed to have a galaxy that is younger than its various constituents. Think about it, a half-billion-year-old galaxy with planets that are 10 times older! An obvious paradox.

No wonder the experts find it so challenging to come up with an explanation. One of the discoverers stated, it “is an enormous challenge for theories of supermassive black hole growth.”

This kind of story comes out about once a year. And each time the galaxy is “younger” than the previous one. I’m sure the spectator-public must be wondering: “At what brevity in the formation of a full-fledged galaxy will the astro-scientists recognize that they have slipped into a make-believe realm?”

–CR (2017-12)

Back to Top

27. The Train Wreck of Modern Physics and Big Bang Mythology.

The son of an eminent and dissident physics professor writes:

Modern physics is indeed one big train wreck in slow motion, a 100 year slow-motion scene; but now we are getting to the really catastrophic part where the engine explodes and the tracks disappear as the canyon opens up beneath a collapsing bridge.

The reasons for [adherence to] the big bang mythology cannot be scientific with 90% made-up evidence and whales in the room that must be ignored, rather it is political. Humans are social primates, consensus is mandatory for the crucial social cohesion it provides.

Science is often described as a search for the truth, but in reality it is a search for falsehood. Science is about ASKING questions; once they are answered with certainty, science is done. Uncertainty is a liability politically however, an individual’s ability to project an air of certainty is their greatest possible asset socially since in the natural environment false certainty often equals death. Numerous experiments have shown that the public tends to trust people who project confidence and to be suspicious of the doubtful individual, which suggested that the public tends to be suspicious of the scientifically minded individual. Science is composed of doubt, of falsification, it’s a process fundamentally built on eliminating models. If you can't eliminate a model, science is done and you have a fact, at least until you find a way to eliminate the model later.

It’s like [the demands on] a race car driver. You must focus on where you want to go, the space, the gap, and never focus on getting away from what you want to avoid because in fast action the brain becomes attracted to whatever it focuses on so focusing on rigid but unproven models is like focusing on barriers to science during a scientific race where you are supposed to be looking for the gaps, the spaces between the barriers, not obsessing on the barriers.

We use a rigid top-down authoritarian system backed by economic threats and enticements to lure students into lifelong debt as part of the "education" process. In the past "lifelong unforgivable debt" was simply called "slavery".

When scientists are corporate employees with profit obsessed bosses how scientific are they? If security clearances restrict what I can say, how scientific am I? If I've spent my formative years being  bossed around by teachers and employers, told what to do and when to do it all day, how much opportunity for creativity is there?

One will discover troubled educational and employment records for most of the famous creative people who are acknowledged to have changed the world; it’s hard to be creative while cowering and begging for grades or wages.

My father had a tired light redshift model; and brought up much of what you are saying as well —really interesting ideas.
–https://www.jamespaulwesley.org/
–"arrayist2" (2018-8-18)
 

RESPONSE:   Thank you for your Interesting observations and insights —good information for young people to consider before they become trapped.

And thanks for sending the link to the website dedicated to your father James Paul Wesley and detailing his life and work. Very impressive.

Just want to point out something about the DSSU redshift mechanism: Because it encompasses both energy loss AND energy gain, it cannot be classed as a tired-light model.

Regards, Conrad (2018-8-28)

Back to Top

28.  Response to a Fake Review of gravity-unification paper (2018)

Who would believe such opposition to the unprecedented unification of gravity?

My open response to a Fake Review by an astrophysics journal:

Here we go again! Another round of dealing with indoctrinated closed minds. Latest research paper rejected.

Reason? “The paper contains too many acronyms …” How many? Hey! It contains only one well-known acronym (DSSU)!  “The manuscript is based on diverse undefined words,” but the review gives not a single example. Let me point out, DSSU theory eschews special terms and does not use undefined words; the meaning of all terms is self-evident and are the same as dictionary-defined counterparts. It is a theory and cosmology readily accessible to anyone with a basic reality-rooted education.

 Although clearly written and logically presented with an easy to follow style (text, examples, mathematics, graphics), the Reviewer/Editor found “The paper contains too many acronyms, undefined metaphors etc that makes [sic] it impenetratable [sic] and therefore impossible to referee in any detail.” … No examples, no particulars, it was just hopelessly “impossible to referee.”

“Undefined metaphors”!? Seriously? … I ask, is there anyone who knows anything about science who does not understand Isaac Newton’s simple metaphor of absolute space as being an empty container for the stuff of the universe? The paper draws on Newton’s comparison when it states that DSSU background space serves as “a metaphorical empty vessel.” And this one. Is there anyone who does not grasp the meaning of mass particles as being bottled-up light waves, or being confined radiation, (as metaphorically explained in those terms by British physicist and astronomer Sir James Hopwood Jeans)? No, of course not.

No, whoever examined the Article, understood the acronym and the metaphors only too well —all were simple and accurate but threatened to undermine the FLAWED orthodox interpretation.

The seeking and exposing of errors is the essence of a legitimate review process. Evidently the Reviewer/Editor failed to find anything that could be considered demonstrably false, and so, found it necessary to concoct BS objections (acronym for bovine excrement). And as a further demonstration of incompetence, it seems the Journal editor “forgot” to send out the rejection notice (causing a needless four week delay!). What happened here was simply a FAKE review.

 –CR (2018 November)

UPDATE: The article was subsequently published in a different journal:

Conrad Ranzan, The Nature of Gravity – How One Factor Unifies Gravity’s Convergent, Divergent, Vortex, and Wave Effects, International Journal of Astrophysics and Space Science. Vol. 6, No. 5, 2018, pp. 73-92. Doi: 10.11648/j.ijass.20180605.11

Back to Top

29.  Where does the information in the universe come from?

Q: Hello Conrad, I read your articles on your website. I have two questions:

Where does the information in the universe come from? … The coded patterns that we see in everything from living cells and organisms to the mathematical rules the universe is anchored in?

… [the second question appears below]

Thank you, –Scalar (2019-4-5)

RESPONSE: Hello Scalar (I presume this is a pseudonym),

Thank you for your interest in DSSU research.

Regarding the question: Where does the information in the universe come from?

Information emerges through evolution —pre-biological and then biological. In its ultimate manifestation, it is called consciousness.

There are worldviews in which everything is considered to be information. It is then proper to say that ALL information is derived from, or is in some way connected to, aether.

As an example: In the early 1980s, Edward Fredkin originated the idea that the universe itself may be a cellular automaton and that energy and mass are just information. In Fredkin's model, both space and time are grainy rather than continuous, so space is permeated with exquisitely small, discrete cells whose states change at extremely brief, discrete intervals, just as patterns generated by computers' cellular automata do. Edward Fredkin's "Digital Philosophy" is posted at http://www.digitalphilosophy.org/.

"Digital Philosophy" is probably worthy of serious consideration with one caveat —regarding its concept of time. I reject the conventional view and, instead, adopt the New Cosmology interpretation. “Time”, in accordance with DSSU theory, has no independent existence; only motion exists.

I do not place great emphasis on “information” as a unifying principle. It is too ambiguous a term —too subjective.

Regards, –Conrad (2019-4)

Back to Top

30.  Can energy be extracted from aether?

Q: Are there manmade mechanisms that can be used to tap into the aether and use it as a power generator system, and to replicate and assemble and transmute matter?

RESPONSE: On the question of energy extraction from aether:

I do not believe there is any technological way to extract energy (in the conventional sense) from aether —and certainly not in any meaningful quantitative way. Notably, it does not possess any energy — energy in the proper sense of the word. In the Mechanism described in “Natural Mechanism for the Generation and Emission of Extreme Energy Particles” (Posted at: www.CellularUniverse.org) and “Nature’s Supreme Mechanism for Energy Extraction from Nonmaterial Aether”; in this mechanism, the aether produces energetic photons and neutrinos, even of extraordinarily high energy. BUT NO energy is transferred from aether and into those same particles!

The question can also be addressed another way: All manmade mechanisms do tap into the aether. All power generator systems are ultimately dependent on aether. But one must be careful to draw the distinction between the quantum level of energy and the subquantum level of non-energy (the level called aether); and recognize that the energy level is utterly dependent on the non-energy level. This is best understood in the context of The Fundamental Process of Energy .

–Conrad (2019-4)

Back to Top

31.  What astrophysicist Richard Gott missed!

Hi Conrad,

I found two YouTube videos by J. Richard Gott that might be of interest (links are below).

Gott mentions voids, edges, corners, honeycomb architecture, cellular structure, polyhedrons, sponge-like geometry, Swiss cheese, slices, cells, froth of bubbles, great wall, super wall, filaments (making a sponge), tunnels (joining the voids), cosmic web (which is also the name of Gott's book).

But no mention of the DSSU!  And no mention of aether!?

Regards,
     Mac Rynkiewicz – Australia. (2019-5-6)

Link to 66-minute lecture at The Royal Institution: The Mysterious Architecture of the Universe –J. Richard Gott https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9AuqxSVHUY (YouTube Published on July 12, 2017)

“J Richard Gott leads a journey through the history of our understanding of the Universe’s structure, and explains the ‘cosmic web’: the idea that our Universe is like a sponge made up of clusters of galaxies intricately connected by filaments of galaxies.”

Link to Q&A: https://youtu.be/B4duk3RiQzA

---------------------------------------------

My comments:

What astrophysicist Richard Gott missed, both in the 2016 book (The Cosmic Web) and in the lecture, is the key space-filling polyhedron: the rhombic dodecahedron! His original idea was to use a truncated octahedron as his space-filling cellular unit.

Since he lacks a proper causal mechanism for matter density distribution, he focuses on the randomness. This is why he favours the chaotic nature of sponge-like models and Swiss cheese simulations.

Ironically, if he had followed the instructions [p68] in his own book —instructions on how to form a 3-D Voronoi honeycomb— he would have arrived at the rhombic dodecahedral cell-shape.  And THAT shape does have a fundamental causal mechanism associated with it.

–Conrad (2019-5)

Back to Top

32.  Is there a place in DSSU for the concept of "Deus"?

A philosophy professor from Ottawa asks: Cellular cosmology, dynamic steady-state universe ... Is there a place in it for a "cosmological singularity" that theologians identify with the concept of "Deus"?
–Rene (per email 2018-12-16)

MY RESPONSE: Dear Professor Rene:

The DSSU is a Natural cosmology. A singularity is not something natural. There is no descriptive modifier that can make it natural. A “black hole” singularity, for instance, although it is a real mathematical concept, is NOT natural (due to its paradoxical infinities). Similarly, although a "cosmological singularity" may be a real theological concept, it is not natural. It too is challenged by paradoxical infinities. And when identified with the concept of "Deus", it enters the realm of the supernatural.

So, the simple answer is NO. … However, there is a place for "Deus" as a concept. God is a concept that manifests in sentient beings possessing a sufficiently high level of consciousness.

I believe the great popularity (now and throughout history) of the God concept is that it can be, and has been, used to “explain” anything and everything without having to conform to reason and logic, and without having to provide evidence and repeatability. But I must add this in defense of the God concept: It has been an enormously successful adaptive strategy in the evolution of mankind. The belief in a supreme being has competitive advantages when there is a survival-of-the-fittest struggle.

…

–Conrad (2018-12-17)

Back to Top

33.  German philosopher questions theological aspects and endorses DSSU theory!

This truth-seeker considers himself a Pantheist. Follow his reasoning, below, as he explores theological insights, praises Cellular Universe website, and endorses DSSU theory.

English translation of Markus Schumacher's email (2019-8):

Original email in German:

Pantheism: "A doctrine or belief which identifies God with the universe, or regards the universe as a manifestation of God." –Concise Oxford Dictionary

Pantheism: "Doctrine that the universe is God and, conversely, that there is no god apart from the substance, forces, and laws manifested in the universe. Pantheism characterizes many Buddhist and Hindu doctrines and can be seen in such Hindu works as the Vedas and the Bhagavadgita. Numerous Greek philosophers contributed to the foundations of Western pantheism. In the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, the tradition was continued in Neoplatonism and Judeo-Christian Mysticism. In the 17th century Benedict De Spinoza formulated the most thoroughly pantheistic philosophical system, arguing that God and Nature are merely two names for one reality." –Britannica Concise Encyclopedia

MY RESPONSE:
To: Philosopher Markus Schumacher,

Thank you for your very interesting letter; also for your enthusiastic interest in DSSU Research. Your letter has been translated to English. Both the English and the original German version are now posted on the website.

I like your suggestion of making some of the website material available in the German language. The main problem is finding someone who is capable and willing to do the proofreading/editing and give it a professional touch so that it will sound natural to a native German speaker. (My German is not good enough for this.)

You have obviously given the mystery of reality and existence considerable thought. Your struggle towards, and achievement of, enlightenment does not surprise me. There is something I’ve known for a long time. In some of my writings, a few years ago, I did express some warnings of the power of DSSU theory and its mind-altering potential. It was, and remains, a game-changing theory. Your analytical struggle with traditional doctrines and unraveling their internal contradictions is living proof of its power. And as several people have commented, the theory is remarkably easy to understand. (See items #14 and #22 above.)

Thank you for pointing out and emphasizing something very important, something that disturbs many people: “Infinity is completely beyond our imaginations.”

There is much more that I still need to present (publish); some of it is of a truly profound philosophical nature. For instance: I will be discussing my principle of limited existence, which affects everything IN and OF the universe but not the universe itself. I find it hard to believe that philosophers over the past 3,000 years have missed this essential concept!

Yes, there is more to be web-posted. I’m sure you will enjoy; and no doubt will lead you to further enlightenment.

Warm Regards,
Conrad Ranzan, DSSU Research, (2019-9-4)
 

German version: Philosoph Markus Schumacher,

Vielen Dank für Ihren sehr interessanten Brief; auch für Ihr begeistertes Interesse an DSSU Research. Ihr Brief wurde ins Englische übersetzt. Sowohl die englische als auch die deutsche Originalversion werden nun auf der Website veröffentlicht.
    Ich mag Ihren Vorschlag, einige der Website-Materialien in deutscher Sprache zur Verfügung zu stellen. Das Hauptproblem besteht darin, jemanden zu finden, der in der Lage und willens ist, das Korrekturlesen/Bearbeiten zu machen und ihm eine professionelle Note zu geben, damit es für einen deutschen Muttersprachler natürlich klingt. (Mein Deutsch ist dafür nicht gut genug.)
    Sie haben dem Geheimnis der Realität und existenz offensichtlich beträchtliche Gedanken gegeben. Ihr Kampf für und die Errungenschaft der Erleuchtung überrascht mich nicht. Es gibt etwas, das ich schon lange kenne. In einigen meiner Schriften habe ich vor einigen Jahren einige Warnungen vor der Macht der DSSU Theorie und ihrem bewusstseinsverändernden Potenzial ausgesprochen. Es war und bleibt eine bahnbrechende Theorie. Ihr analytischer Kampf mit traditionellen Lehren und die Auflösung ihrer inneren Widersprüche ist ein lebendiger Beweis für ihre Macht. Und wie mehrere Leute kommentiert haben: ist die Theorie bemerkenswert leicht zu verstehen.
    Danke, dass Sie auf etwas sehr Wichtiges hingewiesen und betont habt, etwas, das viele Menschen stört: "Die Unendlichkeit … ist völlig jenseits unserer Vorstellungskraft."
    Es gibt noch viel mehr, das ich noch präsentieren muss (veröffentlichen); einigedavon sind von wirklich tiefgründiger philosophischer Natur. Zum Beispiel: Ich werde über mein Prinzip der begrenzten Existenz sprechen, das alles im, und von, des Universums betrifft, aber nicht das Universum selbst. Ich kann kaum glauben, dass Philosophen in den letzten 3000 Jahren dieses wesentliche Konzept verfehlt haben!
    Ja, mehr Material wird für die Veröffentlichung auf der Website vorbereitet. Ich bin sicher, Sie werden genießen; und zweifellos wird Sich zu weiterer Erleuchtung führen.
    Herzliche Grüße,
    Conrad Ranzan
    DSSU Research, Niagara Falls, Kanada
 

Back to Top

34.  Fantasyland Physics versus Objective Physics

Hello Conrad,

 … [A]t some point in the future I plan to critique some of the silly notions (and perhaps a few valid ones) that I encountered on a recent YouTube presentation made by Bill Whittle, who himself has some well-deserved scientific credentials, but seems to have slipped off the rails a bit with this one:

Infinite You and Quantum God: Multiverse Theory Grows, Challenges … Everything
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uuukOrqFuOg (22 min; posted 2019 Oct 24; Bill Whittle)

As summarized on his post:

If you have any immediate observations or insights to offer on Whittle's theories that might escape my own notice, they would be appreciated.

…

Cheers
Bob Metz (Just Right Media) 2019-11-1

MY RESPONSE:
How is anyone supposed to make sense of such wild and wacky ideas —eccentric to the point of being absurd?! After viewing the Bill Whittle 22-minute video, I decided to organize my thoughts and do some categorizing.

Polarization of science:

Today’s Theoretical Physics is Platonic in nature —the numbers, the equations, the symbols are more important (more real, more perfect) than the perceptions (Plato’s cave-wall shadows).

The opposing perspective is what I think should be called Objective Physics. It is based on (i) reason; (ii) sensory perception and their extensions; and (iii) the principle that all the foundational assumptions and the known facts have to fit together logically.

Success of Theoretical (Platonic) Physics is indirect: success rests primarily on the fact that mathematics can be used to model anything anyone may choose to imagine. It’s mathematical magic. Connection to reality may be coincidental, tenuous, or non-existent. Without such a constraining connection, it is undoubtedly far easier for a person to pursue and obtain an academic degree.  And let us not forget the success that comes with money —the resources provided by government/taxpayer funding.

Success of Objective Physics is direct: something either works or it doesn’t. Processes are primary. Mathematics is secondary; it serves in a supporting role.

Interestingly, it is far easier to discredit Objective Physics than it is Platonic Physics.  As Steven Weinberg, Nobelist, explains,

“All logical arguments can be defeated by the simple refusal to reason logically”

(It just occurred to me that mathematics can be described as something obviously objective BUT something that is not necessarily associated with functionality of the real world.)

And then there is Fantasy Physics. Practitioners here take some legitimate aspect of science and extrapolate it far beyond all reasonable bounds. This is the domain of the discussion between Bill Whittle and Scott Ott on multiverses, infinite intelligence, quantum God, and multiple hyper-dimensions! (Your assessment is correct; they start with something valid but somehow end up with silly notions.)  The quantum world is the domain of single photons and individual fundamental particles; the quantum world does not affect the macro world. Schrödinger's cat, infinite intelligence, God, and the multiverse are concepts of Fantasyland. Add the numbers, symbols, and equations and, lo and behold, you’ve got Fantasy Physics. Unfortunately, as evidenced by the video, Bill Whittle has bought into this Fantasy Physics of Sean Carroll and “the growing cadre of scientists.”

…

Regards, –Conrad (2019-11)
 

Back to Top

35. Higgs field versus DSSU aether —How do they compare?

Q: One of the reviewers of the article Mass Extinction by Aether Deprivation asked about the Higgs field versus DSSU aether. What is the standing of the Higgs mechanism in the context of a universe filled with aether? How do they compare?

My RESPONSE:

In light of the prominent role that aether plays in the Law of Mass Extinction (as well as several of the other laws overlooked by 20^th-century physicists), it is natural to ask But what about the Higgs field? According to the 20^th-century model of physics, the universe is permeated by a so-called Higgs field. The question then is How does this field differ from the DSSU aether? And in particular, one would like to know how the Higgs bestows the property of mass onto particles compared to how the same property is acquired through an aether environment.

Here are the key points:

● The conventional view is that mass particles acquire their property of mass from the Higgs field by interacting with an intermediate particle —the Higgs boson. In contrast, the DSSU aether is not a "field" in the usual sense and, therefore, needs no force carrier. It needs no bosons whatsoever. It should be emphasized that this aether is not a conventional field but rather a subquantum universal medium.

● The Higgs mechanism involves extremely massive Higgs bosons; but there is no explanation of where this self-mass comes from! The DSSU mechanism does not have this problem. There simply are no bosons; moreover, the aether, being a subquantum medium, possesses no mass.

● Under the DSSU framework, particles acquire the property of mass directly from aether. It is accomplished via a combination of processes, namely aether excitation, aether absorption, and aether vanishment.

● What drives the Higgs mechanism?  It is a complete unknown as to what generates the Higgs field. Essentially, it is purely an elaborate mathematical construct. In contrast, the generation of aether, as the essence of the universe, is unambiguous. The process of the steady-state emergence of aether is axiomatic. (Unquestionably this is revolutionary. But since aether units are subquantum entities, there is simply no violation of thermodynamic laws.) The existence of a discretized universal essence is the foundational premise of DSSU theory.

● Understand that the Higgs may describe, mathematically, to a limited extent, the mass-acquisition process; BUT it does not explain it. On the other hand, DSSU aether theory provides the explanation; and it does so in clearly understood terms.

● Lastly, DSSU aether has the added ability, lacking with the Higgs mechanism, to literally destroy matter —it accomplishes this via the aether deprivation process.

–Conrad (2020-10)
 

Back to Top

36. Negative Mass versus Positive Mass

Q: In response to a video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAJlg8MDAlU) about Negative Mass versus Positive Mass, Mac Rynkiewicz posted a comment in which he suggested the possibility that mass, instead of being a sink for aether, might be a source of aether.
His query: “I wonder whether you have ever seen reference to negative mass.”
–Mac Rynkiewicz (Ballarat, Australia) (2021-10-11)

My RESPONSE:

Hello Mac.  Your comment/suggestion is that aether might be created by mass, and flow out of mass.

Not a chance.

● Mass is not something independent of aether. It exists (it is sustained) by a continuous consumption of aether. (Because this is a foundational principle, it cannot be reverse.) Since aether is more fundamental than mass, the relationship CANNOT be reversed. That is to say, aether can exist without mass; but mass cannot exist without aether!

● Where does aether come from? … Aether emerges in the cosmic Voids. It is an axiomatic process —requires no causal factor. At the fundamental level the emergence of aether is axiomatic; HOWEVER, in practice the process is augmented by the tension that exists in the “space” between galaxy clusters on opposite sides of a cosmic Void (and pulling in opposite directions).

● Mass (all mass particles) is just confined EM energy. (“Bottled up” energy as Sir James Jeans called it.) That opens the door to a really simple and logical explanation: Positive Energy is Lambda (the emergence of aether). Then, Negative Energy is anything, any process, that absorbs/consumes aether.

Bottom line: MASS, then, is already NEGATIVE.

It all boils down to whether one wants to do physics in the REAL world or in the abstract MATH world.

I do realize I need to do a proper write-up on the fundamentals of DSSU theory. The most recent Paper that discusses much of this is: Law of Physics 20^th-Century Scientists Overlooked (Part 6): Cosmic-Scale Conservation of Energy, Physics Essays (Vol.34, No.3, 2021).  A copy is posted here www.cellularuniverse.org/ Directory.htm

–Conrad (2021-10-14)
 

Back to Top

37. The Fermi Paradox. Where are other advanced civilizations?

Q: How does DSSU theory intersect with the study of life in the universe (in light of the unbroken increase in complexity and intelligence we have witnessed over time on Earth and presumably occurs on other Earth-like planets out there)? Given the rate of technological progress, and the fact that the universe is likely infinite in age and extent, what is your view on the role of life? Where are other civilizations?

My suspicion is that certain astronomical phenomena are actually signs of intelligent life. In particular, the regions around Superneutron stars and Supermassive regions are never ending wells of energy, which life needs to sustain itself. I can imagine intelligent technological civilizations sustaining themselves permanently at the center of central node galaxies, constantly feeding in the jets emitted by Supermassive regions.

I would love to hear your thoughts on this topic, as you have a more rigorous philosophical perspective than most on questions like these.

Sincerely, Nakul Gupta, California (2023-1-23)
 

My RESPONSE:  My comments in response to “the unbroken increase in complexity and intelligence over time on Earth …”

There is no question about the remarkable rate of technological progress that Western civilization has achieved. … But because of a deep fundamental problem, the future looks grim. Earth’s civilization does not seem to recognize the reason for its success.

With every succeeding generation the AVERAGE intelligence of the populace declines. This is, sad to say, part of a purposeful strategy. The dumbing down of society is in large part the result of the policy-driven practice of diseugenics. Whether purposeful or unintentional, overly taxing the competent high achievers (the producers of society) and simultaneously subsidizing the dependent poor (the net non-producers) and the criminal class, these have obvious detrimental long-term consequences. Yet this is what our so-called governments are doing! If the average intelligence of society continues to decline, Earth’s civilization will go nowhere ---it will gradually decay.
 

Interesting question. Where are other civilizations?

You’re right. They are out there. Probably lots of them. Since the laws of physics are the same everywhere, the progression of localized complexity tends to produce life, consciousness, intelligence, and ultimately, technologically advanced civilizations.

Here’s the irresolvable problem of networking with advanced civilizations (and why we haven’t received any messages and, thus, invoke the Fermi paradox). The distances separating them are just too vast. Robotic missions can, in theory, deal with the distance (and time spans) but any communication link would eventually be impossible to maintain. I believe without some kind of communication link any motivation for sending out probes would be lost. Why bother to undertake a blind mission and never receive an answer!?

I concede that an advanced technological society may, for one reason or another, decide to migrate away from its home planet and star. This may be the only type of intelligent ‘encounter’ we should expect.

The ultimate challenge for long-lasting technological civilizations (multi-billion year spans) is not a matter of finding a source of energy. The challenge is a gravitational one. The Earth will eventually ‘fall’ into the Sun; the Sun will eventually ‘fall’ into the Galactic core; and our Milky Way galactic remnant will eventually ‘fall’ into the Virgo supergalaxy, M87. To counter such a fate, Earth’s inhabitants will have to migrate to other stars, stars located in the opposite direction ---always away from M87.

Final point to keep in mind: We really don’t want to be anywhere near the emission beam of a Superneutron/Terminal star (or the combined beam of a cluster of Terminal stars). Being in the path of such a beam would be equivalent to (actually worse than) being at the target end of the CERN particle accelerator.

–Conrad (2023-2)
 

Back to Top

38. Question on the universe’s most misunderstood component

Q: … I’d love to hear your view on is the perspective of “black holes as the ultimate computers.” There are a lot of theories that combine information theory, computation theory, and (Einstein’s) general relativity to postulate that black holes could be the most optimal computation devices ever created.

It does appear that denser configurations of matter become more computationally optimal (in the sense of Moore’s law and nanotechnology). But in light of DSSU’s aether extinction theory, it seems like this would no longer be the case. Still, I do wonder, is there any useful computation that can be extracted from the aether/mass extinction process?

–Nakul G., California (2023-2-19)
 

My RESPONSE:  Yes, there are a lot of theories that combine information theory, computation theory, and GR to postulate that black holes could serve as computation devices. My reaction?  I see two warning flags. (i) The several components involved ---information theory, computation theory, general relativity and black holes--- are all mathematical theories whose relevance to reality is highly questionable and is endlessly debatable. The problem lies in the abstract nature of mathematics; it can, and too often is, used to describe abstract worlds. Physics, I believe, should properly be for the study of the real physical (and the real sub-physical) world. (ii) Moreover, what is being employed is a ‘postulate’ (or several postulates), which means the whole enterprise is based on assumption(s). A postulate means an assumption. In other words, it is not based on empirical evidence!

Something to keep in mind about the universe’s most misunderstood component. Black holes are abstract mathematical objects (objects with emptiness between the core mass and the surrounding event horizon). They do not actually exist in the real world. Any and all gravitational collapse, when it finally ends, ends in the formation of a Terminal star (as defined under DSSU theory). The so-called supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way is actually a rotating compact cluster of Terminal stars ---with total mass equivalent to 4 million Suns.

Turning to your question on the usefulness of the “aether/mass extinction process.”  By the term “aether-extinction theory”,  I presume you mean mass extinction by aether deprivation. … No, the extinction process and the Terminal-star mass are not useful in any conceivable way. The density is too extreme for anything to happen. No possibility of any interaction. The Terminal star’s superneutron mass has no temperature whatsoever (absolutely no vibratory motion of the neutrons or whatever the identity of the actual mass particles). The density is just too great. Conclusion: No motion, no thermodynamics, no computation, no activity whatsoever.

–Regards, Conrad (2023-2)
 

Back to Top

Updated 2023-10  (Postings started in 2005)

(Reset ~2018)

Back to Top    Back to Home Page