- Where, conceptually, did DSSU theory originate?
1a. What is the difference: the historical
Steady State vs the Cellular Steady State?
- Why does space expand?
- If cosmic space is expanding, what is it expanding
- Why no Academic discussion?
- What is the difference between the vacuum and the
- What is the difference between the Hubble constant,
H, used in the DSSU theory and the one used in Big Bang theory?
- What does a redshift with a value
approaching infinity mean in the DSSU?
- Why do astronomers speak of
"Doppler equations" and
"recession motion" in connection to cosmic distance?
- 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?
- Why is dark matter unnecessary for holding a
cluster of galaxies together?
- A reviewer of one of the DSSU research papers
questions my use of the term “DSSU”
- Why the opposition to the publication of aether research?
- Aether Theory and Journal Publishing
- DSSU and Conservation Laws.
(Comments and questions from a 14-year old student.)
- Understanding Gravity
- The Unnecessary Assumption (within standard
- Physical Aether versus Mechanical Aether
- The process of energy and the connection to cosmology
- Have Einstein’s gravity waves been detected?
- Cosmology and the Test of Validity
- On the Existence of Aether
(Comment from a book author.)
- "So easy to understand" (comment from an Australian engineer)
- Gravity, aether, discussion groups, and the purpose of the DSSU website
- Gravity: photonic cause and “fluidic” conveyance
- How is the universe cellular? Does space warp? Does gravity push or pull?
- Galaxy age misinterpretation. Does cosmic distance have any relationship to a galaxy’s age?
- The Train Wreck of Modern Physics and Big Bang Mythology
- Response to a Fake Review of gravity-unification
- Where does the information in the universe come from?
- Can energy be extracted from aether?
■ “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; …"
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.”
Arturo Cuscó (2017-8-9)
[We share your excitement. … Let it be known, there is much more to come.
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:
… 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.
... Mac Rynkiewicz (Civil Engineer, retired – Ballarat, Victoria, Australia)
■ 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
–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]
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
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
In contrast, the DSSU is NOT an expanding universe.
For a comparison of all major universe models see: (www.CellularUniverse.org/UniverseModels.htm
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.
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
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
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.
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.
wishes –Tim M. (2014-02-19)
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.
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
Both are named after Edwin
Hubble the man who popularized the findings that higher redshifts relate to
greater distance of galaxies.
A: Theoretically, a galaxy (say a node galaxy) whose redshift approaches
infinity signifies a galaxy whose distance from us is near infinity.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
"... 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
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
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.
(Subsequent REPLY: “Thank you very much for your response. I fully agree with
you!” –Franck, 2014-03-21)
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
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
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.
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
–Trevor Wendt ( 2015-07-16)
Thank you for your interest in the CellularUniverse.org website and my research into the Dynamic SS
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”
- 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
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.
–Conrad Ranzan (2015-7-19)
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
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)
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
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
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:
Conrad (2011 July)
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
Again, thank you for the ideas and knowledge !
–Aziz Koulibaly (2015-12-25)
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
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
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.
Universe is. Period. Meanwhile, everything in and of the Universe is
continuously being formed (“created”) and transformed and destroyed (“terminally
Universe is the perpetual manifestation of renewing processes.
· The Big
Bang is essentially a mathematical model (therefore, it can call itself a
· 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.
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.
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.
it is still categorically a mechanical aether, for it does have discrete units.
aether is dynamic, because it has the ability to expand and contract (depending
· 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.)
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.
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
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
I look forward to your reply.
Best to you, –Anthony Santelli, Ph.D.
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
● 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
● Subquantum processes/interactions that eventually produce a real energy particle, namely
● 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
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
Abstract & links.]
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
● 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!
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
The miniscule wave motion that is being sought probably does
–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
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
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)
Request for comment: Dear Conrad Ranzan,
My name is Vladimir Netchitailo; I am a Doctor of Sciences in
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.
5D World-Universe Model. Multicomponent Dark Matter
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,
N. (2016-4-21, Irvine, USA.)
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
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,
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!
Comment from book author:
Subject: Irrefutable proof of the existence of
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.
Mohanlal, Bangalore (2016-7-8)
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
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)
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
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
In regards to the aether, you are on the right track. Aether
solves the problems of gravity (along with many other problems plaguing
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)
C & Q: Hello Conrad, Thanks for your reply, much
appreciated. Well done on your success in building your theory and gaining
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
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:
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)
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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?”
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
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
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.
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)
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
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
–CR (2018 November)
UPDATE: The article was subsequently published in a different journal:
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
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?
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
"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)
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
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 .
Updated 2019-4 (Postings started in 2005)