The   Dynamic   Steady   State   Universe

 Home    Advance Search    Contact    For Educators (Under Construction)   

NEW ITEMS:


(2017 March): Work on the second book is nearing completion ... currently writing the final chapter. –CR


(2016 December): “So easy to understand” comment from an Australian engineer.


(2016 November): “Large-Scale Structure of the Dynamic Steady State Universe” has now been published in the American Journal of Astronomy and Astrophysics, Vol.4, No.6, 2016, pp.65-77. Astract and Links to HTML and PDF.


(2016 June):
New research paper The Nature of Gravitational Collapse has been published in the American Journal of Astronomy and Astrophysics, Vol.4, No.2, 2016, pp.15-33. Abstract and Links:
—Another major DSSU success, as it reveals amazing new insights! The theory has uncovered the mechanism by which mass undergoes a total conversion to energy. Yes, a mass to energy conversion with 100% efficiency!  As everything else in the DSSU, it is a perfectly natural process. Truly amazing!


Have gravity waves really been detected?

Comments updated  2016 June: Comment #19
 


(2016-4-26:)  A mathematical cosmologist claims the values of the Hubble-expansion parameter and the cosmic-background temperature are the most important elements for understanding the real Universe! Letter and response.


(2016 March)  What is the difference between a physical and a mechanical aether? ...
Be aware of the distinctions among the terms commonly applied to aether: Terms such as physical, mechanical, subquantum, and dynamic. Link to new Question & Answer.


The book, Guide to the Construction of the Natural Universe, is  now available at the Niagara Falls Public Library  (Victoria branch). If you live in the Province of Ontario, your local library can request the book from the Niagara Falls Public Library.
 

Participate in a unique exploration of the Cosmos: venture into the sub-atomic realm, even into the sub-quantum realm where the roots of reality reside, and into the domain of cosmic-scale cell-structure and beyond to infinity. Along the way, discover the cause of mass, the cause of gravitation, and rediscover Einstein’s “nonponderable” aether and Heraclitus’ harmony-of-opposites principle. … The book represents the ultimate vindication for all the skeptics who resisted the "preposterous" Big Bang mythology and who refused to join the exploding-cosmos religion.
This new work contains 317 pages, 61 illustrations, references, and index … Available from C-FAR Books.

 


My comments on the latest mass media "Official Science" news story:


Do not be misled by the recent reports of the detection of gravity waves.
What the LIGO apparatus measures is the interference from beams of self-generated electromagnetic waves. It seems highly probable that what LIGO actually detected was some vibrational “noise” or some unexplained interference; and NOT gravity waves originating from a distant binary system (in which two extremely massive black holes are supposedly in the process of merging). How the data, the wave patterns, are interpreted is subject to theory and restricted by theory. Naturally the official interpretation must conform to the Officially-sanctioned theory of gravity —Einstein’s general theory of relativity. Thus, the light patterns recorded by LIGO are interpreted via Einstein’s mathematical concept of gravity. The problem is the general-relativity-gravity interpretation, as is well known, ignores the space medium!

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?
    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. –CR (2016 May)
Updated 2016 June. See Comment #19


(2016 Jan 6) Now published:
Olbers’ Paradox Resolved for the Infinite Non-Expanding Universe
, American Journal of Astronomy & Astrophysics Vol.4, No.1, (2016 January). Abstract & download links.
Excerpts:
● “The man accredited with discovering universe expansion did not believe that the universe was expanding. Hubble was convinced that the key evidence, the cosmic redshift, was caused by some other factor, something more fundamental than mere expansion.”
● “With the recent discovery of a new cosmic-redshift mechanism, and its theoretical validation, it turns out that Hubble was right.”
● Explains how “an infinite, non-expanding, perpetually regenerating universe" is able to predict a dark night sky.


Press Release (2015 Oct 15):
The Big Bang is no longer a viable hypothesis !

(2016 June) Now posted. Link to details:
"DSSU Validated by Redshift Theory and Structural Evidence", Physics Essays, Vol.28, No.4, p455-473 (2015 Dec) —Delivers the coup de grâce to the Big Bang. Abstract & Links.
Both Reviewers enthusiastically endorsed this "well-written and incisive article."
 


(2015-Oct 6) Webpage added for article Cosmic-Redshift Distance Law Without c Without H: Comments & Links  Describes the challenge of getting DSSU papers published.
 


(2015 Aug 20:) Allow me to extend a sincere "Thank You" for the many invitations to join social media and professional networks. Unfortunately I must decline. It’s simply a matter of precious time —there is just too little of it. All my available time is taken up by research, writing, and website maintenance —in fact, two more web domains have been purchased. It is all being done for the purpose of providing the educated and interested public with the ammunition to refute and replace the utterly bankrupt big-bang Worldview. (However, not to give the impression of a total recluse, seclusionist, or misanthrope, I do manage to squeeze in a few delightful hours of ballroom dancing every week or two.) –CR
 


(2015 Aug:) Brief update on the status of the neutrino and its adaptation into the DSSU particle theory. See Section 5 of the Discussion webpage for the article: The Fundamental Process of Energy

(2015 Aug:) The article The Universe Is Infinite (Part 1) has been revised.

(2015 July:) Comments and questions from a 14-year old student.
 


LATEST RESEARCH PAPERS:

"The Nature of Gravitational Collapse"
–Published in American Journal of Astronomy & Astrophysics. ( Abstract and Links.)
-------------------------

"Olbers’ Paradox Resolved for the Infinite Non-Expanding Universe" –Published in American Journal of Astronomy & Astrophysics. ( Abstract & download links.)
-------------------------

"DSSU Validated by Redshift Theory and Structural Evidence" published in Physics Essays, Vol.28, No.4, p455-473 (2015 Dec). Abstract.
Both Reviewers enthusiastically endorsed this "well-written and incisive article."
-------------------------

Published in the American Journal of Astronomy & Astrophysics, AJAA, Vol.3, No.2, 2015:
Ellipticity, Its Origin & Progression in Comoving Galaxies  
Local  high-resolution PDF.

HIGHLIGHTS:
• Provides the first-ever natural explanation for the cause of the elliptical shape of nonrotating galaxies
• Retains the foundation premise of all modern cosmology but rejects the absurd concept of whole-universe expansion
• Takes full advantage of the universe’s cosmic cellular structure and exploits the DSSU theory of unified gravity domains
• Amazingly, the mechanism that stretches galaxies turns out to be the very same mechanism that causes the cosmic spectral redshift!


Published Dec 2014 in the American Journal of Astronomy & Astrophysics:

"Cosmic Redshift in the Nonexpanding Cellular Universe” —details the actual causal mechanism. Abstract.
Preprint with larger images.
HIGHLIGHTS:
• Entirely new concept for cosmic redshift mechanism;
• Retains the foundation premise of all modern cosmology;
• But does not require whole-universe expansion;
• A redshift based on the DSSU theory of unified gravity & cosmic cellular structure;
• Remarkable agreement with independently established redshift distances.


The Dynamic Steady State Universe. This work brings together the main pieces of the cosmic puzzle in a step-by-step construction of the Natural Universe. Published in Physics Essays Vol.27 No.2 (2014 June issue)  "... the arguments are well-made. The article is competent, enjoyable and readable." —Reviewer
(PDF download)



Higgs Boson Discovered?
After 50 long years of searching, Physicists claim to have detected the Higgs boson, the "particle" that ostensibly bestows the property of mass on all other such particles. Is it now time to celebrate? … Definitely not.
   The question now is this: If the Higgs ‘particle’ is the giver of mass to all other particles, what then gives the Higgs itself its mass?! (Yes, the newly discovered particle has mass, lots of it!) A difficult and embarrassing question indeed. It is like asking:
If God created everything, then who, or what, created God?
   While physicists think they have solved the mass problem, the reality is that they have unwittingly exposed an even bigger problem —the riddle of “First Cause”.
 

Glossary of Terms used in Cosmology and Astrophysics with particular emphasis on DSSU theory.
(Opens in separate Window or Tab)

GENERAL INTEREST ARTICLES:

Mysteries & Paradoxes that Plague Standard Cosmology  (Updated 2015-7)

Cosmology Crisis of 1998 (Revised 2015-5)

Critique of Conventional Cosmology ... comments relating to the 'preposterous' expanding-universe paradigm.
Bafflement —the remarkable admission of a physicist.
The Cosmology Debate That Never Happened   —During the 20th century there was a decades-long debate: The cataclysmic expanding universe VS the stable expanding universe. But there has never been a debate of the dynamic expanding universe VS the dynamic non-expanding universe. (Posted 2011 Oct)

Models of the Universe —Historical, Expanding, and Cellular universes. INCLUDES A USEFUL TABLE FOR COMPARING THEORIES.

The Universe Is Infinite (Part 1) —overcoming a "central" problem of cosmology theories.

The Universe Is Infinite (Part 2) —an explanation of how the universe can always have existed and will always exist.

DSSU, The Non-Expanding Universe: Structure, Redshift, Distance —A long sought-after goal of astrophysicists has been a formulation of cosmic distance that is independent of the speed of light. The goal has now been achieved. The present Paper details the surprisingly simple distance expression and its validating agreement with Supernova data.

Why Copernicus Did Not Need a Force of Gravity —Explores the question of why no one, except Newton, invoked a force. (Posted April, 2011)

Gravity and Lambda —A Story of Opposites (.htm) —A story of opposites in harmony. Key differences between the Conventional Cosmology and the New Cosmology are presented.

Dynamic Cosmic Cell —The Structural Component of the DSSU —Animated image and discussion of the self-sustaining, self-balancing system.

Why Einstein Did Not Receive the Nobel Prize for His Theory of Relativity —“By 1922 Einstein had been nominated about fifty times —most were for his relativity theories.”


Questions & Answers & Comments
 

COSMOLOGY ARTICLES, etc:

(2016 June) Now posted. Link to details:
DSSU Validated by Redshift Theory and Structural Evidence, Physics Essays, Vol.28, No.4, p455-473 (2015 Dec) —Delivers the coup de grâce to the Big Bang. Abstract & Links.
Both Reviewers enthusiastically endorsed this "well-written and incisive article."



The Dynamic Steady State Universe.
This work brings together the main pieces of the cosmic puzzle in a step-by-step construction of the Natural Universe. Published in Physics Essays Vol.27 No.2 (2014 June issue) (PDF download)  "... the arguments are well-made. The article is competent, enjoyable and readable." —Reviewer for Physics Essays Journal


Published 2016 January:
Olbers’ Paradox Resolved for the Infinite Non-Expanding Universe
, American Journal of Astronomy & Astrophysics Vol.4, No.1, (2016 January). Abstract & download links.
Excerpts:
● “The man accredited with discovering universe expansion did not believe that the universe was expanding. Hubble was convinced that the key evidence, the cosmic redshift, was caused by some other factor, something more fundamental than mere expansion.”
● “With the recent discovery of a new cosmic-redshift mechanism, and its theoretical validation, it turns out that Hubble was right.”


"Cosmic Redshift in the Nonexpanding Cellular Universe" (Journal pdf) —details the actual causal mechanism. Published in the American Journal of Astronomy & Astrophysics, Vol.2, No.5 (2014) Abstract.
Local copy with quality images: (Preprint pdf).
HIGHLIGHTS:
• Entirely new concept for cosmic redshift mechanism;
• Retains the foundation premise of all modern cosmology;
• But does not require whole-universe expansion;
• A redshift based on the DSSU theory of unified gravity & cosmic cellular structure;
• Remarkable agreement with independently established redshift distances.

The Cosmology Debate That Never Happened
What historians call "the greatest cosmological debate in history” was between TWO  expanding universes —two hypothetical models that share the same, I repeat, the same foundational property! If one is to claim some great clash of ideas (let alone the "greatest") then surely there must exist some deep dividing difference! (Posted 2011 Oct)

The Case for a Cellular Universe
—the Story of a Baffling Omission in Modern Cosmology    (Revised 2015)
 

Large-Scale Structure of the Dynamic Steady State Universe published in the American Journal of Astronomy and Astrophysics, Vol.4, No.6, 2016, pp.65-77. Astract and Links.
Highlights:
■ Presents the first 2 of the 4 main postulates that define the DSSU.
■ Space-medium expansion and contraction are perpetually held in balance, thus ensuring a non-expanding universe.
■ Explains how the two dynamic processes of the DSSU’s space medium sustain the cellular structure responsible for the pattern of matter distribution in our Universe.

Cosmic-Redshift Distance Law Without c Without H Comments & Links Simplifying the redshift-distance formula by removing the speed-of-light constant and the Hubble parameter —while maintaining agreement with observational evidence.

EXTERNAL LINKS:
Big Bang Never Happened –Home Page and Summary

Noteworthy video of a simulated cellular universe. The nodal galaxy structures are most interesting.
 

DSSU Theory:

Theoretical Foundation and Pillars of the DSSU (Introduction) —This introductory essay gives a thematic tour of historical and modern universes culminating with the Natural Universe.

Currently undergoing revision and updating: Theoretical Foundation and Pillars of the Dynamic Steady State Universe (pdf) —The first complete presentation of all four postulates of DSSU theory. A powerful paper that resolves the cause-of-causes paradox, explains the non-independent nature of time, and reveals the 'supreme advantage'. It includes a concise comparison with standard cosmology focusing on real-world viability.
Supplementary Discussion: The Primary Process

 


The Fundamental Process of Energy —A Qualitative Unification of Energy, Mass, and Gravity. (Abstract & Reviews & Links) … This article reveals the secret behind photon confinement. (Contains only a bare minimum of mathematics and mainly in one of the 14 sections.)
PART 1 published in Infinite Energy Magazine Issue #113 (Jan/Feb 2014)
PART 2 published in Infinite Energy Magazine    Issue #114 (Mar/Apr 2014)

Headlined as:
A "Conceptual Unification of Energy, Mass and Gravity"



Dynamic Cosmic Cell —The Structural Component of the DSSU —Animated image and discussion of the self-sustaining, self-balancing system.

Unified Gravitation Cells of the DSSU —Constructing the Universe with Cosmic Gravity Cells

Space Flow Equations and Expansion-Contraction Rates (pdf) —This paper explores the mathematical aspects of the two space postulates of DSSU theory —and uncovers some profound consequences.
 

ARTICLES on AETHER:

Documentary movie footage in which Einstein states, "There exists an aether"
High resolution .mpg video.
Low resolution .wmv video.


The Aether Experiments and the Impact on Cosmology —The aether has been detected at least 6 times in recent history. Its most recent "re-discovery", in 2001, led to the long-sought causal mechanism of gravity —a discovery which, in turn, is revolutionizing cosmology.

Michelson-Morley and the Story of the Aether Theory —Richard Milton's analysis of the historical details involving the misrepresentation, bias, and cover-up that hampered the Aether theory.

The History of the Aether Theory —The historic development of the aether as a scientific theory of space itself. What started as the "fifth element" of Antiquity becomes molded by theoretical constraints and experimental evidence into the dual-dynamic sub-quantum medium —the Essence of the Universe. (Updated 2016-2)

Relativity of Time in the Aether-Space of the DSSU —How intrinsic time and relative time are related.

DSSU Relativity –The Lorentz Transformations Applied to Aether-Space —Ranzan
Reprinted by permission of Physics Essays Publication, Physics  Essays Vol.23, No.3, p520. (2010). ABSTRACT

The Physical Nature of Length Contraction —the DSSU Theory of Length Contraction Induced by Absolute Motion.
An easy to follow examination of how the mode by which matter is “conducted” through luminiferous aether causes the matter to contract. A simple derivation of the mathematical expression for this physical phenomenon is presented. There is also a brief discussion of relevant historical aspects and of nonphysical length contraction.
Reviewer's comments: “This is amazing …”  “The paper is interesting …” –Applied Physics Research reviewer. Published in Applied Physics Research journal Vol.5, No.1 (2013 Feb).

Contradiction Divides Two Aether Theories —An exploration into the three parts of the speed-of-light postulate.
Reprinted by permission of PEP, from  Physics Essays Journal (Vol 24, No.3, Sept, 2011) ... ABSTRACT

Basic - level mathematical and graphical exploration of dynamic aether flow: PDF

Here is an external webpage with an extensive list of research papers on the aether-drift experiments, and the larger question of energy in space.

DSSU RESEARCH PAPERS:

DSSU Cosmic Redshift-Distance Relation (htm) —Converting the cosmic redshift into distance for our Cellular Universe using a simple and elegant equation.

Large Scale Structure of the Dynamic Steady State Universe (pdf)  How a dual-dynamic space medium sustains the cellular structure (published in AJAA in 2016).
  —Presents the postulates and implications of regional space-medium expansion and contraction.

Cosmic-Scale Structural Features Explained (pdf) (Chapter 2 of original DSSU Manuscript)
—The Spacing of Clusters
—Sheets of Galaxies
—Supernodes
—Right-angled Walls of Galaxies.


The Cosmic Background Radiation in the DSSU —The natural explanation of the microwave background radiation applicable to the natural Cellular Universe.

Ellipticity, Its Origin & Progression in Comoving GalaxiesAmerican Journal of Astronomy & Astrophysics, AJAA, Vol.3, No.2, 2015.
Local  high-resolution PDF.
HTML version available from AJAA here.

GRAVITY:

The Processes of Gravitation –The Cause and Mechanism of Gravitation by C. Ranzan –A revolutionary paper on gravity published in the Journal of Modern Physics and Applications Vol.2014:3  (2014).
( Abstract & Reviews & Links. Includes link to hi-resolution PDF) "Revolutionary".



Why Copernicus Did Not Need a Force of Gravity —Explores the question of why no one, except Newton, invoked a force. (Rev 2011-9)

First ever, journal-published paper featuring the DSSU:
The Story of Gravity and Lambda –How the Theory of Heraclitus Solved the Dark Matter Mystery –Ranzan

Reprinted by permission of PEP, from Physics Essays, Vol 23, No1, p75-87 (2010 Mar). ABSTRACT
This is the cure for the fallacious belief in cosmic-scale Dark Matter.

The Story of Gravity and Lambda –How the Theory of Heraclitus Solved the Dark Matter Mystery (Color version) Ranzan Considered "an excellent contribution to the [PE journal]" --professional reviewer.

Unified Gravitation Cells of the DSSU —Constructing the Universe with Cosmic Gravity Cells

 

RELATIVITY ARTICLES:

Why Einstein Did Not Receive the Nobel Prize for His Theory of Relativity (●Abstract ●Links ●Excerpts ●Extras) —“By 1922 Einstein had been nominated about fifty times —most were for his relativity theories.”

Einstein’s Simple Mathematical Trick –and the Illusion of a Constant Speed of Light  (Abridged version with links to Journal-published version. Posted July 2013)

Extended Relativity –Exploiting the Loopholes in Einstein's Relativity. A Logical extension of special relativity. Reprinted by permission of PEP, from Physics Essays Vol.25, No.3 (2012 Sept).
Abstract & Links & Reviews


The Three Components of the Speed-of-Light Postulate.  Published in Physics Essays journal Vol.26,No.1 (2013 March)
Local copy: The Three Components of the Speed-of-Light Postulate (pdf) Absolute vs relative. Variance vs invariance. Another instance of the Heraclitian "Harmony of Opposites." (Reprinted by permission of PEP, from Physics Essays, Vol.26, No.1, 2013).

Relativity of Time in the Aether Medium of the DSSU —Absolute Motion and Intrinsic Time

Resolving a Paradox in Special Relativity –Absolute Motion and the Unified Doppler Equation.
(Posted 2011, July). Reprinted by permission of PEP, from Physics  Essays Vol.23, No.4, p594 (2010). ABSTRACT

How DSSU Relativity Resolves the Speed Paradox (Introductory Discussion)   —Absolute Motion Resolves a (speed) Paradox in Einstein’s Special Relativity. (Supplementary Discussion)

DSSU Relativity –The Lorentz Transformations Applied to Aether-Space (Posted 2011, July). Reprinted by permission of Physics Essays Publication, Physics  Essays Vol.23, No.3, p520. (2010). ABSTRACT

The Key that Extends Einstein’s Relativity (Part 1) —Response to a reviewer critical of DSSU aether-space relativity
The Key that Extends Einstein’s Relativity (Part 2) —How to convert abstract-space equations into aether-space equations

Restoring the Physical Meaning of Energy
Published in Applied Physics Research journal Vol.5, No.2 (2013 May).
LOCAL COPY: Restoring the Physical Meaning of Energy —distinguishing between the apparent energy and the real energy of moving mass.
 

An Open Letter to the Scientific Community
(Published in New Scientist, May 22, 2004)

"The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory. ..."  continues ...
 

A devastating Declaration of opposition to Big Bang cosmology signed by more than 400 Researchers.

For the full text click on:
CosmologyStatement.org or alternate site.

INTELLECTUAL FREEDOM:
This website is mainly concerned with revisionism in cosmology. Those of us involved in replacing the unnatural expanding-universe paradigm are aware of the difficulties involved.
   However, other revisionists have unimaginable difficulties. Consider the ongoing persecution of revisionists in other fields of intellectual pursuit: 
"It makes you wonder —about the immense effort being made by State and State-sponsored organizations with budgets of tens of millions of dollars and thousands of employees and associates to smother and punish these few men and women. Every punishing instrument imaginable is used, every vicious slander conceivable, every flagrant and pervasive form of censorship that law allows, including the imprisonment of simple writers for thought crimes against the State. ... Makes you wonder."Bradley R. Smith (2011)


"Discussing truth is so controversial, so dangerous … In most of the world it is simply illegal.” Gordon Duff, Senior Editor, Veterans Today (2011)

DEDICATION: This website is solemnly dedicated to those individuals who have conducted research in their chosen field and have informed others of their inquiries and suffered the consequences when subpoenaed by the Inquisition or some variant thereof. The dedication extends to those individuals currently imprisoned, and those now facing trial and persecution simply for exercising their basic human right of freedom of expression supposedly granted to them under the UN Charter of Human Rights.
"Every year, hundreds of writers and other literary professionals around the world are imprisoned, prosecuted, persecuted, attacked, threatened, forced into exile or even murdered as a result of their work."

ALSO: Be aware of the continuing threat to our precious freedom of expression on the Internet. The threat is serious and relentless. It is described as “… the formal effort to mimic Communist China’s system of Internet censorship.” See The Secret Behind SOPA  (2012-Jan). Update.
More information on threats to internet freedom: https://battleforthenet.com/


Reporter-journalist Arthur Topham, Canadian victim of the Inquisition, arrested (2012) for posting his research.
“Arthur Topham faces prison time for daring to speak his mind on his own website, as he faces criminal charges under Canada’s hate crimes legislation contained in Section 318 - 320 of the criminal code.” –Rights and Freedoms Bulletin Issue No. 204 Feb 7, 2015.
VERDICT: Arthur Topham found “guilty” AND “not guilty” of hate speech by a brain-dead jury!
 –Dr. James Sears, reporting in “The world’s Largest Anti-Marxist Publication” (Issue 2015 December, http://www.yourwardnews.com/backissues.html)
2016 Update: Panel Discussion on The Trial of Arthur Topham



The persecution of Marc Lemire, for merely expressing his reasoned opinion, continues. On October 2, 2012, (Canadian) Federal Court Judge Mosley upheld the constitutionality of the repressive Sec.13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. This "Section 13" specifically hands over control of the Internet to the HRC thought police. “Marc Lemire Appeals outrageous ruling by the Federal Court on Section 13 censorship”
Two years later (2014), the abuse continues!
From a 2015 report of Marc Lemire’s 10-year struggle to preserve his right to freedom of speech: “Found guilty for publishing a document he did not write and didn’t even know existed on his website until he faced prosecution, Lemire faces a lifetime ban on his freedom of speech should he lose his last court appeal.” –Rights and Freedoms Bulletin Issue No. 204 Feb 7, 2015



The struggle for freedom and justice in Canada has lost its greatest champion, its most dedicated defender. On March 11, 2013, Douglas Christie passed away.

British Maverick Psychologist jailed for publishing his research. … “The ambivalence of librarians getting writers imprisoned quite defies comprehension.” –Simon Sheppard (2013)



The repression of free speech in Canada has degenerated to the point where …
■ A tenured professor has lost his position for revealing his research and views on history. This is unprecedented. Professor Anthony J. Hall at the University of Lethbridge, Alberta, has been suspended (2016 October 5) without pay.
■ A publisher/editor, for expressing his reality-based views, has been denied postal services. Dr. James Sears, publisher and editor of Your Ward News was stripped of Canada Post Mail Service by government order (2016 June).
■ A violin teacher and truth revealer, Monika Schaefer, for posting a video (an apology to her dead mother), has been attacked by various so-called community leaders.

The treatment of violinist Monika Schaefer signals the end of our free and democratic society.” –The American Herald Tribune, 2016 Sept



The Continuing Struggle for Freedom

A ray of hope in the ongoing struggle for freedom. Populist and nationalist movements around the world are gaining ascendancy over the New World Order’s effort to establish global governance and impose tyrannical control over every last square meter of the Earth’s surface. –The Barnes Review Vol.23 No.1 (2017 Jan p70)


For more on Freedom (and Objectivism),
visit: Just Right Media
(Website: http://www.justrightmedia.org)



... about the author ...



© Copyright 2005-2017 by
Conrad RanzanDSSU Research
All Rights Reserved
  For information regarding permission to reproduce selected material herein, please contact:

D S S U  Research
Niagara Falls, Canada
16th year on the Internet.
Most recent update:
2017 Mar 1

Visits since mid-2010 : Hit Counter

2017-3-1


Questions and Comments:

  1. Where, conceptually, did DSSU theory originate?
  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)
 

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

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 of intergalactic space that is causing 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:

"... However, let me suggest that you find a different name for your Doppler equations than 'DSSU'. The Big Bang Theory is the currently accepted theory and even if one doubts the BB theory, they [readers] will probably not think the evidence is overwhelming for a Steady State Universe much less a variation they've never heard of. Hence, tying your Doppler equations to DSSU brings immediate skepticism."
 

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 simply does not exist.

–C. Ranzan (2016-05)

 

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

2005 rev2016-12


Back to Top    Back to Home Page

Copyright © 2005-2016
All rights reserved.
  C. Ranzan Email:
DSSUresearch@CellularUniverse.org
  Site updated: 16-02-04

200902