The  Dynamic  Steady  State  Universe

 Home        Contact       Under Construction

SEARCH THIS WEBSITE

NEW ITEMS:

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

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

Bafflement —the remarkable admission of a physicist

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

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

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

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

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

Gravity and Lambda --a Story of Opposites  ---A story of opposites in harmony. Key differences between the Conventional Cosmology and the New Cosmology are presented.

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

Why Einstein Did Not Receive the Nobel Prize for His Theory of Relativity —“By 1922 Einstein had been nominated about fifty times —most were for his relativity theories.” ... A story of the perils of ignoring absolute motion!
(Published in the December, 2009, issue of PHYSICS ESSAYS, a Journal published through the American Institute of Physics.)

Questions & Answers
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DSSU Relativity --The Lorentz Transformations Applied to Aether-Space ---To be published in the next issue of Physics Essays.

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

The Large Scale Structure of the Dynamic Steady State Universe (PDF)  (Chapter 1 of DSSU Manuscript) --- The postulates and implications of regional space expansion and contraction.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

© Copyright 2005-2010 by
Conrad Ranzan
and
 DSSU Research

All Rights Reserved
  For information regarding permission to reproduce selected material herein, please contact:

D S S U  Research

C. R. C.
Niagara Falls, Canada

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

Visits since 2010 July:

08-16

Theoretical Foundation and Pillars of the
Dynamic Steady State Universe

Conrad Ranzan
DSSU Research, Niagara Falls, Canada   www.CellularUniverse.org
 2008

Introduction ---A historical tour of universes culminating with the Natural Universe
 

The universe is endlessly speaking, forever sending signals.

Among the earliest people to listen and to ask questions of the universe were the Ancient Greeks. In some of the Greek states and Greek societies, the ones in which men were relatively free, knowledge expanded and philosophical schools flourished. The Pythagoreans, most eminently, developed expertise in mathematics, geometry and the numerical aspects of musical harmony. They advanced these studies into complex theories of numbers, geometry and music. When the Pythagoreans asked questions of the universe they were looking for geometric perfection, orderly motion, and harmony of the heavens. Notably, they believed there was a musical aspect to the universe. Based partly on their knowledge of the mathematics of sounds and partly on their studies of the orbital times of the planets, the Pythagoreans 'heard' the so-called 'music of the spheres' constituting the universe. The periodic motion of each planet was equated with a musical note on a musical scale extended by many octaves. The Pythagorean universe consisted of transparent spheres, each carrying a planet, and each rotating with mechanical perfection around the spherical Earth at the center. There were also spheres for the Moon, the Sun and an outermost sphere for the fixed stars; these likewise rotated about the Earth. The Pythagoreans sought harmony, symmetry, and numerical meaning in their astronomy and to their mystical delight heard the 'music of the spheres' of the heavens.

Divine Harmony.  During the early Christian era there was an emphasis on divinely ordained order. Men were looking for an unchanging and timeless world of perfect order. The perfect shape of the circle represented that order. Motion in the heavenly world must therefore run smoothly and uniformly in circles; perfect motion was the handiwork of an omnipotent god. These religious Men, like the earlier Greeks, heard the music and the harmony of spheres. The music conveyed not only geometric perfection but also a new theme. Since many of the concentric spheres were equated with various degrees of divinity, the music, to these listeners, was heavenly and angelic. The Christians recognized the Divine harmony of the Ptolemaic system of the world, built up, as it was, of circles. And so, the Ptolemaic Harmony became the Official Tune. For well over a millennium (for about fourteen centuries) no one dared change a note. Harmony heresy became punishable, and deafness to the deeper sounds of the Universe descended.

More 'music of the spheres'.  Many centuries later, and many years after Nicolaus Copernicus rediscovered the ancient Helicentric theory of Aristarchos of Samos, the famous astronomer Johannes Kepler (1571-1630), also searching for harmony, symmetry, and numerical meaning, heard the same music. Kepler was looking for some underlying regularity ---some evidence of divine design behind his newly discovered system of elliptical planetary motion. Science historian Colin Ronan relates how "His perseverance was rewarded, and in 1618 ... he published his Harmony of the World. This, to him, was his crowning achievement. He had discovered a relationship between the velocities of the planets in their elliptical orbits and musical harmony; he was able to relate the greatest and least velocities of each planet to the musical scale. This was Kepler's culmunating vision, the apotheosis of the 'music of the spheres' of Pythagoras and Plato."^[2]  Fortunately, to the benefit of natural cosmology, Kepler's Mysticism eventually led him to formulate his famous three laws of planetary motion.

The first sounds of expansion. In the early twentieth century astronomers were tuning in to a previously unrecognized sound. They found, to their wonderment, that the universe was speaking through the transformation (called redshifting) of light from distant galaxies. The greater the distance to the galaxy the larger was the transformation (redshift) of its light. Scientists heard the message loud and clear ---even elevated it to the status of a law, called the Hubble law. The redshift message had (and still has) three interpretations. The universe allows for three options for the cause of the proportional variation of galaxy redshift with increasing cosmic distance: (1) a Doppler-like recession motion, (2) a space-expansion comoving motion, and (3) a space-expansion effect but no galaxy motion. Under all three options the universe appears to be expanding ---like moving a magnifying glass slowly away from a specimen makes the specimen appear to be 'expanding'. But Scientists 'heard' more than what the actual redshift message contained! They thought they 'heard' that the universe ---the whole universe--- was actually expanding. And as every fully conscious person on our planet knows, they came up with the expanding universe.

The expanding-universe paradigm turned out to be a Pandora's box of misinterpretations. Surely the most outrageous was the primordial explosion of the universe. To some listeners, the universe was not merely speaking, it was convulsing and thundering.

As the twentieth century progressed new questions were being posed. Georges Lemaitre of Belgium was a trained expert of the heavens, both astrophysical and theological. Lemaitre was a theologian. When a religious man contemplates the Universe, his contemplation instinctively includes the Creator. When a religious man asks questions of the universe his main concern is 'how was it created?' And so when a religious man listens to the universe he expects to hear the sound of the Creation, or at least its theoretical replay. Lemaitre 'heard' the sound of the beginning of the universe and, what is more, he had constructed a supporting argument. He used Einstein's recently constructed theory of general relativity, and astronomical data, to show that the universe in the past was extremely dense and correspondingly much smaller; he was able to 'prove' that the universe had a hot big-bang Genesis. Lemaitre devoutly believed in his Creator. But let me be clear on this, Lemaitre's religious belief is not subject to criticism; it is his scientific belief that definitely is. His belief in the applicability of Einstein's theory was unfortunate and misguided. The theory of general relativity is a local theory of spacetime; it is a theory of local gravity; it cannot be a theory of the whole universe. The dynamic activity of the universe as a whole cannot be encompassed by one pair of equations. Lemaitre's Big Bang universe (1927-1929) is based on an unscientific extrapolation.^[3]

The fact that the exploding universe was an unscientific extrapolation was ignored, as the chronicles of cosmology testify by the conspicuous absence of any challenge to the legitimacy of a conclusion drawn from an overextended theory. Therein lies a gold mine for historians. ... Anyway, Albert Einstein had became the undisputed authority on gravity. His theory of general relativity had established the new rules for astrophysics and cosmology. Theorists learned those rules, adopted a new way of perceiving space and the universe, and explored the various implications. Lemaitre, by running the expanding-universe backward, had 'discovered' the birth of the universe. The question now was, would the universe continue expanding forever or would it collapse in on itself?! Although the question should have focused on validity (general relativity, after all, is an incomplete theory) and applicability (local, not universal).  It didn't.  Quite understandable. In the magic and excitement of exploring a dynamic model that does mysterious things like distort spacetime and blow itself apart and conceal its boundary, reality becomes a secondary consideration. As it happened, most astronomers assumed that the expansion of the universe would not continue forever but would gradually slow down because of the inward pull of gravity of everything in it.^[4]  The Cosmological Constant (an energy term in Einstein's equation), which could act as an anti-gravity effect, was believed to be either non existent or much weaker than gravity. Which means that with no meaningful opposition, gravity becomes the dominant force of the universe. Lo and behold, the world becomes a collapsing universe. They called it the Oscillating universe (also known as the Friedmann-Einstein model). From our perspective the scenario represents the audible convulsions of a universe speaking through a flawed theory.

Some years ago Isaac Asimov assembled the contemporary thinking in cosmology and came up with a popular work called “The Collapsing Universe” in which he describes the entire universe becoming a black hole as it collapses in on itself. Problem was, the real universe refused to corroborate theory; the evidence for a collapsing world has never been found.

Meanwhile, astronomers thought they detected the remnant ripples of a universe exploding. In the 1960s, with a more detailed theory (although still based on an unscientific extrapolation) and more sophisticated listening devices astronomers 'discovered' what they believe is the the echo of the Big Bang. Astronomers measured a steady flux of microwaves coming from all directions of the heavens. They called it the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) and interpreted it as the immensely weakened noise of the Big Bang event of 15 billion years ago. If I recall correctly, didn't Bishop James Ussher in the 17th century use the authoritative writings of the Bible to calculate that the universe began 4004 years before the Christian Era? ... Three centuries later, men guided by the authoritative expanding-universe-model calculated that the universe began 15 billion years before the Christian Era! ... "The universe is endlessly speaking" while scholars struggle with the translation.

The tempo quickens. For the past few years most astrophysicists claim that the universe is telling them that cosmic-expansion is accelerating! What sound does an accelerating universe make? We may get some idea from Harvard Universe astrophysicist Robert P. Kirshner and Dr. Saul Perlmutter (at the Lawrence Berkley National Laboratory in California) who have headed respective teams of experts that have listened to and decoded the message. The message comes from extremely distant type 1a supernovas. Decoded, it simply means the supernova events are about 25% dimmer than expected. It means that the supernova stars are farther away than their usually reliable redshift would indicate; it means the message did not agree with theory. These experts, never having been exposed to any meaningful alternate models, had little choice but to turn to the authority of expanding-cosmology for answers. They instinctively interpreted the data as the 'sounds' of an expanding universe in acceleration mode ---the sounds of a universe that is not only expanding but also speeding up its expansion. But to stop for a moment and consider that maybe the redshift-distance equation being used is wrong ... that would be discordantly inconceivable (outside their hearing range so to speak).

Rather than concede that there is a serious flaw in the theory, team members express reactions of disbelief, "amazement and horror," surprise that the universe would bother to accelerate itself, and surprise that the universe would be so extravagant! Team leader Robert Kirshner tells the whole story ---his lavish view of reality--- in his book, appropriately titled, The Extravagant Universe.^[5] The "Extravagant" modifier refers to the expanding-and-accelerating Big-Bang universe. As a modifier it is ironically well chosen. I can think of no better way to epitomize a universe, one that is based on an unscientific extrapolation, than to boldly name it 'Extravagant' ---a word that means not only lavish, excessive, and wasteful, but also "beyond the bounds of reason."

Think about this for a moment, the cosmology experts are using a model of the universe that notably failed to predict what is now claimed to be the biggest phenomenon of the BB universe next to the genesis-explosion itself. Such is a sure sign of a bad theory. Such is the legacy of the Pandorean box of expansion extrapolation.

One can't help but wonder if the professionals really believe what their paradox-riddled universe is telling them. Do they really believe that our universe is undergoing runaway expansion (as Donald Goldsmith calls it in his book “The Runaway Universe” ). Never mind the 'abundant evidence', the multi-decimal place precision, and the colourful computer-simulations all presented in support of an evolving universe. Forget the multi-media hype promoting the new-and-improved Big Bang (yet another version of the expanding universe) and forget the naïve excitement over re-inflation. One wonders. What do the experts really think? The famous nonagenarian scholar, Freeman J. Dyson (Professor Emeritus of Physics, Institute of Advanced Study at Princeton University) has this to say:

What about the big-bang creation hypothesis and the subsequent whole-universe evolution idea? ... German astrophysicist Henning Genz finds them unpersuasive.

To say that the standard Big Bang model is 'not persuasive' is to put it mildly. It is, in no uncertain terms, a preposterous universe! So says the American astrophysicist Sean Carroll.^[8]

These are strong words and deserve emphasis: The Big Bang staggers under the burden of its unnaturalness.

Unless the definition of 'preposterous', given in my Webster Dictionary, has subsequently been changed, Sean Carroll is telling us that the standard Big Bang model is "Contrary to nature, reason, or common sense; utterly foolish; absurd." Quoting from his research paper, Is Our Universe Natural?:

Incidentally, Carroll is is permitted to make such highly critical statements and publish his exposé simply because his faith is undeterred ---he remains a strong supporter of the Big Bang.

It never stops. The Universe ---the mysterious manifestation of existence--- continues to speak. Forever displaying the same phenomena, transmitting the same radiations, orchestrating the same processes. Men continue to listen, continue to filter the Universe's messages through the latest theory or hypothesis. It seems that as the process of matching messages with mathematical models becomes increasingly complex, the picture of the universe becomes ever more preposterous.

Currently there are many theoretical physicists who are tuned into the sound of strings. Physicist Brian Greene hears the vibrations of strings. In his universe, which he calls the Elegant Universe,^[11] he hears mathematical strings of string theory (and superstring theory). The fundamental constituents of his universe are not the point-like particles that are normally idealized as having no size but are ultramicroscopic strings and loops that vibrate like acoustic sources. Depending on the resonant patterns of vibrations, the strings are supposed to represent elementary particles and fundamental forces ---even mass and charge. The Elegant Universe, with its unnaturally large number of dimensions (ten dimension in the 'simple' version!) and without observational results, is a Platonic universe. It is purely mathematical and without experimental evidence, wholly in tune with Plato's teaching. The Brian Greene string universe is a mathematical universe; the cacophony of its strings has yet to be orchestrated into elegant music, or into anything meaningful.

Greene's 'Elegant Universe' may or may not be mathematically elegant. Not being a mathematician, I don't know. But I do know that when you invoke more than three spatial dimensions and a time dimension then you are speculating in a fantasy world ---you've crossed the boundary of reality. For those who have failed to decipher the messages of the real world, there is always the temptation to turn to some higher dimensional universe as an intoxicating escape from reality. For a model/theory to be called elegant it must, above all, embody inevitability. The Greene universe is not inevitable, not natural, not elegant.

There are others ---other escapees of Pandora's box of cosmic misconceptions. They include the historic Steady State expanding universe, the Milne universe (in which, strange as it may seem, the universe expands but space itself does not!), the Cold Inflation universe, and the Hot Inflation universe. The list continues with the Chaotic Inflation universe and the cancerous Self-Reproducing universe. The name 'Inflation' refers to the speculative notion that the early Big Bang universe may have undergone a period of extremely rapid expansion lasting only a fraction of a second. Instead of just a big bang, the 'inflation' event turned it into a supersonic bang; or more accurately a hyper-lightspeed big-bang. There are obvious problems. It relies on a mysterious inflationary field and a weird antigravity particle called an inflaton, neither of which has ever been detected.^[12]  Nevertheless, there are cosmologists who are convinced the universe is speaking the language of inflation. Inflation is now considered part of the standard hot big bang cosmology.

The Double Dark universe. During the last few years another strange construction has been crawling out of the Box. It's called the Double Dark theory of the universe. (I credit the name to Professor Primack.^[13]) For several years now, astronomers have been tuning in, reluctantly at first but now spiritedly, to the 'sound' of dark stuff ---dark energy and dark material. What makes this model so exciting (or rather preposterous) is that not only does it have an unknown source of energy but it also requires an invisible (that's why its called dark) mysterious kind of matter. Exciting indeed. The Double Dark theory brings together two unexplained mysteries in a bold (or desperate) attempt to resolve an even bigger mystery ---that famous phenomenon 'discovered' in the aftermath of the famous cosmology Crisis of 1998.

Let me explain.

Most physicists believe that the biggest unresolved problem facing Cosmology is the acceleration of Big Bang (BB) expansion as discussed earlier. The Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics in 2008 stated: "The fact that our universe seems to be accelerating at present has been one of the most remarkable and baffling findings of recent cosmological observations." The usual way of explaining it is with some variation of the Double Dark theory; that is, by postulating the presence of a Dark Energy and by invoking Dark Matter in an effort to modify gravity. The Double Dark theory is just another version of the BB; technically it is called the Lambda Cold Dark Matter (ΛCDM) model. I quote from the same Journal, "The ΛCDM model has become the most popular choice, being the most economical model that is consistent with most cosmological observations, but it is safe to say that no completely satisfactory or compelling explanation has yet emerged."^[14]

And no compelling explanation will ever emerge from BB cosmology regardless of the specific version. What makes the Double Dark universe unconvincing, even preposterous, is that a real phenomenon is being lumped together with a chimeral substance. The so called Dark Energy is simply the space-expansion effect, which is a long established fact (it is, in fact, the essential a priori process of the universe). But Dark Matter is pure speculation. It is not predicted by any meaningful theory, does not interact with ordinary matter, and, as we are repeatedly told, has never been detected. No place, no time, not ever. I would put it this way: If space-expansion is the cornerstone of modern cosmology, then the mysterious Dark Matter is its Philosopher's Stone. In the real world Dark Matter does not exist.

Acceleration is an aspect of the pen-and-paper mathematical universe, in which it is the derivative of the rate of BB coordinate expansion. In the real world, acceleration is but an illusion.

Unfortunately the acceleration issue is a major detraction from the really big problems in cosmology.

(1) Standard Cosmology is utterly unable to explain the existing large-scale non-homogeneity. Textbook writer David Layzer poses the problem: “Why is the distribution of matter in the Universe so clumpy? In the beginning, the cosmic medium was certainly gaseous and very nearly ---if not perfectly--- uniform. Why hasn’t it remained uniform?”^[15]  While only minor clumping is predicted, major clumping is observed!

(2) Standard Cosmology has no cause-independent process. It means there is an unresolved  cause-of-causes paradox.

(3) Standard Cosmology has no causal mechanism for gravity. (The fatal omission in all cosmology prior to the year 2002.)

The most serious and blatantly obvious of these is the missing causal mechanism for gravitation. Why is this so serious? Because NO theory of the universe will work properly without one. Furthermore, a workable cosmos theory requires a quantum theory of gravity. However, as Professor Primack points out, a "comprehensive theory of 'quantum gravity', which would encompass and thus supersede both quantum mechanics and general relativity, is still a dream of physics. Superstring theory is our current best hope of such a theory."^[16]

All I can say is that we have been hoping and waiting for a very long time. ... Indeed. ... While the world waits, and waits, for the "dream of physics" to become reality (and the hope of string theory to be fulfilled), let us do what the experts have long failed to do; let us take a close look at the Natural Universe.

Given the fact that the keystone^[17] of practically all modern cosmology is the process of the expansion of space, the Natural Universe necessarily consists of expanding space; and since it is also a stable universe it consists of a corresponding degree of contracting space.

A natural universe has only three spatial dimensions (and a dimension of non-existence).

A natural universe is not a universe of things but of processes. Even the attribute called mass is the manifestation of a process. A natural universe is a universe in which gravity has a clearly defined causal mechanism ---being, naturally, a process.

The Natural Universe is the one for which the necessity of logical simplicity leaves no freedom to be otherwise. The universe with only one pattern of self-organization.

The Natural Universe has four process (or four causes). They are represented in the figure below by the Four Pillars of the DSSU edifice.

	The Natural Universe has four causes —its four Postulates. The first two Pillars represent aether-space contraction and aether-space expansion; on the large scale, these two processes maintain a dynamic equilibrium. The third and fourth Pillars represent mass-energy particle formation, and mass-energy suppression-annihilation; on the large scale these processes also maintain a dynamic equilibrium. They rest firmly on a foundation of the essence ‘substance’ of the Universe ---quantized space--- and the infinite and perpetual nature of existence. The Four Pillars act in combination to sustain the cosmic cellular structure of the Natural Universe.

The Four Pillars as well as the axioms that form the conceptual foundation are detailed in:

Theoretical Foundation and Pillars of the Dynamic Steady State Universe. This is a 30 page PDF document with 9 drawings and 2 table. The two tables provide an excellent summary and comparison of the Natural Universe Cosmology and the Expanding Universe Cosmology.

But nothing captures the meaning of the Natural Universe more succinctly than its categorical description ---the Cellular Universe.

Let me give this assurance: what you are about to read in the linked research paper is unlike anything that has ever been published. The reason I can make this assurance is that, with one exception, all universe models that have ever been constructed have left out three essential components. Countless philosophers and scientists have attempted to make sense of our Universe. None of the scenarios they have constructed, as the foregoing historical review has argued, has been convincing. None has been free of paradoxes and logical gaps. The Men of today listening to the Universe have, for the most part, resigned themselves to the belief that we live in a Preposterous Universe. They find it embarrassingly difficult to understand why the universe seems so strange and "dramatically unnatural." The deeper the search for fundamental understanding, the more unnatural the universe seems to be. Nevertheless, propelled by a relentless determination, Men continue to listening and interpret. Sadly, the error of omission also continues. For instance, Professor Joel Primack, in his search for a deeper meaning to the universe and our extraordinary place in it, has written (coauthored) a book whose main purpose is to present what he calls the Meaningful Universe.^[18] And sure enough Primack's Meaningful Universe misses the three essential components: The causal mechanism of gravity is missing (instead it accepts Einstein's incomplete theory); the primary process is missing (Primack fails to recognize the necessity of a causeless process); intrinsic cosmic cell structure is missing (cell structure is considered to be merely coincidental to primordial inhomogeneity).  Primack's Meaningful Universe is a repackaging of the Preposterous Universe. The Preposterous Big-Bang Universe, in effect, is made meaningful through the active participation of us, Mankind, by our emotional, intellectual and cultural involvement. The result may be a cosmos with meaning, but it is still unnatural! The present research paper on the Natural Universe is unlike any other model or scenario of our Universe because it incorporates the noted essentials into its Four Causes.

In the long history of cosmology, during ages of listening to the Universe, there has never been anything comparable to the Natural Universe ---the Dynamic Steady State Universe.

Copyright © 2008 by Conrad Ranzan

Supplementary Discussion: The Primary Process

This is a brief discussion involving one of the four causes. It focuses is on what must surely be the most amazing aspect of the Postulate #1 process of the universe.

Notes and References

1. ^ Joel R. Primack & Nancy E. Abrams. 2006. The View from the Center of the Universe (Riverhead Books, New York. ISNB 1-95448-914-9) p36
2. ^ Ronan, Colin. 1982. Science: its History and Development Among the World Cultures (The Hamlyn Publishing Group Ltd, New York) p339
3. ^ Ranzan, C. 2008. The Case for a Cellular Universe ---The Story of How Modern Cosmology Devolved into a Deception (Published on Cellular Universe Website www.CellularUniverse.org/index/htm) Section 2
4. ^ Joel R. & Abrams, Nancy E. 2006. The View from the Center of the Universe  p108
5. ^ Robert P. Kirshner. The Extravagant Universe (Princeton University Press, 2003) [cfa-www.harvard.edu/hco/astro/people/homepages/kirshner.html]
6. ^ Dyson, Freeman J. 2007. A Many-Colored Glass (University of Virginia Press. ISBN 978-0-8139-2663-6) p93
7. ^ Genz, Henning.  1994. Nothingness, The Science of Empty Space (English translation edition, 1999; Perseus Books Publishing) p296
8. ^ http://preposterousuniverse.blogspot.com
9. ^ Carroll, Sean M.  From his 2001 paper The Cosmological Constant (astro-ph/0004075 EFI-2000-13)
10. ^ Carroll, Sean M. From his paper Is Our Universe Natural? (arXiv:hep-th/0512148v1 13 Dec 2005) p2
11. ^ Brian Greene, The Elegant Universe: Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions, and the Quest for the Ultimate Theory (W.W. Norton & Co., N.Y. 1999)
12. ^ Ferris, T. 1997. The Whole Shebang, A State-of-the-Universe(s) Report (Simon & Schuster, New York, ISBN 0-684-81020-4) p17-18
13. ^ Primack, Joel R. & Abrams, Nancy E. 2006. The View from the Center of the Universe (Riverhead Books, New York)
14. ^ Biswas, Tirthabir and Notari, Alessio.  ‘Swiss-Cheese’ Inhomogeneous Cosmology and the Dark Energy Problem --Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 06 (2008) 021 (http://stacks.iop.org/JCAP/2008/i=06/a=021) p2
15. ^ Layzer, David. 1991. Cosmogenesis, the Growth of Order in the Universe (Oxford University Press, New York. ISBN 0-19-506908-0) p145
16. ^ Primack, Joel R. & Abrams, Nancy E. 2006. The View from the Center of the Universe  p348
17. ^ It should be noted that the cosmological principle is often cited as the keystone of cosmology. The cosmological principle is important, of course, but it is more of an axiomatic element, rather than an active ingredient, to the main theory.
18. ^ Primack, Joel R. & Abrams, Nancy E. 2006. The View from the Center of the Universe
19. ^ Berlinski, David. 1995.  A Tour of the Calculus (Pantheon Books, N.Y.) p105

090408

Top of page            Back to DSSU Home Page