Models  of  the  Universe
~~  Historical  ~~  Expanding  ~~  Cellular  ~~

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

 

“…the universe itself acts on us as a random, inefficient, and yet in the long run effective, teaching machine. …our way of looking at the universe has gradually evolved through a natural selection of ideas.” —Steven Weinberg, Dreams of a Final Theory p158.

   At one time almost all the science professors were Aristotelians —the establishment supporters of the Earth-centered universe. The heretical revisionists were Copernicans —the revolutionary proponents of the Sun-centered universe.

   Today, almost all the science professors are Big-Bangers —the establishment supporters of the exploding universe. The modern revisionists know them to be wrong —profoundly wrong. And the revisionists, armed with a new cosmology, can prove it.

   The stage is set for the next revolution in cosmology.

The present article traces, in summary form, how our way of looking at the universe gradually evolved through a natural selection of ideas. It presents summary charts of various models of the Universe including the sub-categories for the Historical-, the Expanding-, and the Cellular- Universes. There is also a summary of Miscellaneous Models. Some commonly accepted ideas are examined and found to be seriously flawed. The primary emphasis is on that class of model neglected by mainstream cosmology: The class of the Cellular Universe.
Included in this article's collection of Universe Models is a precedent-setting entry with awesome predictive powers.

CONTENTS
1   Historical Models of the Universe
2   Expanding Universe Models 
3   Cellular Universe Models
4   Two Conflicting World Views
5   The Cellular DSSU Combines the Two Conflicting World Views

Appendix

    1   Historical Models of the Universe

   The following table outlines the significant historical models in chronological order.

   Notice that all the historic models possess one or more of the attributes of expansion, contraction, and stability. Each universe can be said to expand, oscillate between expansion and contraction, or do neither and just sit there maintaining a static or equilibrium state. None can be classified as cellularly structured. It seems that throughout history the cellular universe was never seriously considered.
 

    The Ptolemaic model was the Western world’s most popular and successful cosmology of all time, and represented the orthodox view for more than 1500 years. It was so firmly established that only a revolution could lead to dethronement. And as it happened the Copernican revolution took hold. An Ancient idea gained new life as Copernicus revived Aristarchus’ Heliocentric model and became wide-spread throughout Europe and beyond. The Ptolemaic cosmology was doomed. Nothing could save the established theory of the heavens: Not the vast power of the Church; not the Papal edicts; not the threats of the Inquisitors; not the torture of heretics; and not the burning of books.

   If the succession of the Ptolemaic universe by the Copernican universe represents the second cosmology revolution; then the overthrow of the Copernican world by the Big Bang (BB) universe represents the third cosmology revolution. Now let us draw a critical parallel between the most popular model of the past with the most popular model of the present.

   The Ptolemaic model placed the Earth at its center and used geometric elaborations involving circles within circles. It was a mechanically intricate complexity that actually managed to replicate the apparent orbital motions of the planets and make reasonably accurate positional predictions. The Ptolemaic model, however, seems almost simple when compared to the BB model. The BB uses geometric curvature, hot and cold dark matter, dark energy, inflation, acceleration (when not using deceleration), re-inflation (a repeat episode of the earlier hyper-expansion), and something called ‘open inflation.’ [Scientific American Jan 1999 p66]. In the archaic system, eccentrics, epicycles, and equants, served as the model’s mechanical adjustments that permitted its defenders to say, with a straight face, "See, the celestial objects are precisely where they should be." In the modern BB system we have a similar situation. Such unreal things as space-curvature, dark matter, dark energy, inflation, acceleration, and even 9-dimensional strings, have all been proposed to justify the similar claim, "See, the universe evolves precisely as our revised model says that it should."
   Ptolemy’s "eccentrics, epicycles, and equants" were found to have no basis in reality and were cast aside. Curvature, dark matter-energy, inflation, acceleration, and strings, are equally devoid of reality (as used in BB cosmology) and, in the fourth cosmological revolution, will suffer the same fate.

   Another popular historic model was the Hierarchical universe. With its endless progression of systems of increasing size filling infinite space, it seemed an elegant and simple construction. Unfortunately it could not survive an important finding of modern cosmology.
   Although the organization of matter into spherical and near spherical systems is the rule over virtually the entire astronomical hierarchy, the rule breaks down suddenly and dramatically when we reach the top level —the largest structures in the astronomical Universe. Witness the size progression: Gravitating bodies are spherical; planetary and binary systems are spherical; solar systems are spherical; star systems (globular clusters) are spherical; galaxies are, to varying degrees, spherical; and finally rich galaxy clusters are spherical. But there the rule ends. The clusters of galaxies are not grouped into anything resembling spheres. “Instead, they are strung out in filaments, which lie on the surfaces of huge bubblelike regions in which there are no clusters and few or no bright galaxies.” Instead, the clusters surround giant voids of empty space. [Layzer, David. 1991. Cosmogenesis, the Growth of Order in the Universe, p166]

 

2   Expanding Universe Models

   The 20th century was the golden age of the expanding universe. The philosophical and religious motivation for birth and rebirth cosmology had, throughout the ages, favored universes that grow and expand. But in the early years of the last century it was discovered (thanks to Vesto Slipher’s surprising redshifts) that the distant galaxies all appeared to be receding. Two interpretations emerged. The obvious idea was that the galaxies are actually in Doppler motion and moving away radially in all directions. The other view posited that space in general ---and the space between us and the “receding” galaxy in particular--- was somehow expanding. (Needless to say there was also a minority view in which the apparent recession was believed to be just that ---an apparent recession.)
   Then from the dominant views a simple, but fateful, extrapolation was made: If galaxies appear to be receding then the whole universe is probably expanding. If the evidence shows that space expands then the whole universe must be expanding. Cosmology took a major turn. What had for the most part been a stable universe was deemed, by the scientific community, henceforth to be an expanding universe. The third revolution in cosmology was a swift one. With the opposing sides coming to the same conclusion, in spite of their differences over the interpretation of the cosmic redshift, it is small wonder the revolution towards the expanding-universe concept became unstoppable.
   And so the 20th century became the age of discovery of the seemingly endless ways in which the universe could expand ---at least mathematically. Table 2 describes the most popular ones and those with some special significance. Notice that Big Bang cosmology is the main subclass of the expanding-universe cosmology.
 

SOME CLASSIFICATION NOTES

LAMBDA.   Lambda, Λ, when positive, is a force or effect that opposes gravity. Lambda is an intrinsic property of space itself.

AMBIGUITY OF INFINITY.    The ambiguity of the ‘INFINITE‘ designation of some models: If a universe has a point-like beginning and then progressively expands as it ages, how can it be infinite? Arguably, not in age! and certainly not in size!
   A universe that is said to have a true beginning precludes infinity of age. A universe that is said to expand precludes infinity of size. The reason is simply that only finite entities can logically be said to expand. To say that something of infinite size is itself expanding is unnecessary as well as meaningless, for that which is infinite is already fully expanded. Is not infinity the designation of uncompromising completeness where there are no holes or gaps yet to be filled?

TYPES OF EXPANSION.   Physicists have several methods for driving the expansion.
(1)  Expansion may be caused by curvature of space. This is the mathematical method. (Preferred by those who find comfort in confining that which is infinite.)
(2)  Expansion caused by the physical growth of space. The physical method; the plain-and-simple method. (Preferred by Objectivists.)
(3)  Expansion caused by something called inflation. The ‘save-the-appearance-by-any-means’ method.
(4)  Expansion caused by something called dark energy. The ‘dark-and-mysterious’ method.
(5)  There are other methods such as Kinematic expansion, Quintessence ...

TYPES OF UNIVERSE THAT MAINTAIN EQUILIBRIUM:
Static Universe: No expansion, no contraction —motionless.
                          Any contained objects can have peculiar motions and can evolve.
                          Therefore, its appearance may change.

Steady State Universe: May have expansion or contraction.
                                     Any activity that occurs must be perpetual and unalterable.

Static Steady State: No expansion or contraction.
                                Its appearance, on average, must never change.

Later we will see that a true cellular universe also maintains equilibrium.
 

COMMENTARY ON CRUCIAL ASPECTS OF THE EXPANSION PARADIGM

THE GRAVITY PROBLEM.   Einstein denied the existence of absolute space, but this did not stop him from giving non-existent space some suspiciously real properties such as geometric curvature and the dynamic ability to expand and contract. His unreal space even acquired the ability to order the very real motions of the planets, the stars and the galaxies.
   Edward Milne, at least, was more consistent. (See Table 2 entry.) He denied, just as Einstein had, the existence of absolute space, but then went further. Having made it clear that space “by itself has no existence” he refused to attribute to space any properties whatsoever —no curvature, no expansion, no contraction, no space-vacuum energy (no Λ). He rejected general relativity and the expanding space paradigm of which he said,

   Unfortunately Milne’s purist rejection of all properties of space, in favor of a Euclidean space, leads to the conclusion that his universe possesses a center and a cosmic edge —attributes which no realistic model may have.  The other models in Table 2 do not fare any better. It turns out that almost all of them share this problem.
   Cosmic center and cosmic edge are imperfect features a model-maker strives to expunge from his creation. And yet ... they persist ... they demand inclusion. If gravity is to be a part of the grand construction, which is almost always the case, then they demand some kind of inclusion.
   David Layzer at Harvard in 1954 updated the notion that gravity is impotent in a universe without center and edge. [--Layzer, D. On the Significance of Newtonian Cosmology, Astronomical Journal 59, p268-270 (1954 Aug)] The finding has profound significance for conventional cosmology. Categorically, the gravitational effect in expansion models is definitively not impotent (the DeSitter model is an exception). Gravity is actually one of the two most powerful and potent grand-scale effects in, and of, the Cosmos (Λ is the other). The conclusion is unavoidable. Concordant with Layzer’s research, all such models do have a center and a cosmic edge! And why is this so bad? ... It is nothing less than a gross violation of a fundamental principle of cosmology.
   The gravity problem may be stated this way: For gravity to be potent there must be some sort of cosmic center and some kind of cosmic boundary, but at the same time, while affirming gravity’s potency, there must be absolutely no violation of the cosmological principle!  While gravity requires some sort of preferred location(s), the cosmological principle prohibits preferred locations for the Universe!
   There is only one class of models with the potential of solving the Layzer gravity problem. Only one class. It is the cellular class, and will be described later.
 

THE FAILURE OF EXPANSION MODELS.  All the expanding universe models above (and others not listed) have one common flaw. They all violate an important axiom of cosmology —known as the containment principle. It demands that the universe includes or contains everything that is physical (everything measurable) and nothing else. In practical terms it means a universe can have no boundary that separates itself from some outer region that is not a part of itself.
   Any hypothesis that does not comply is burdened with a fatal flaw and is precluded from rising to the status of a theory. A noncompliant model carries a red flag; it labels itself as an implausible model. Astrophysicist Henning Genz sums up the situation:

   How is it that we are able to claim that all expanding models violate the containment principle (as well as the related cosmological principle)? ... Again, there can be NO such thing as a cosmic edge to the universe; a universe can have no limiting boundary. Despite claims to the contrary, the models of Table 2 are in violation. The easiest way to convince yourself that all expanding universes do have a cosmic edge is by asking one simple question: As the Big Bang universe (or any expanding universe) expands, what in the world (or whatever) is it expanding into? Furthermore, if it is expanding into a nothingness-void (or whatever), why isn’t that considered part of our universe? The ‘whatever’ region is a forbidden region beyond the cosmic edge.
   Conversely we might ask, in the case of the contracting phase of the oscillating models, what happens to the volume that the fully-expanded universe had previously occupied? Is it still there ready to be revisited during the next expansion phase? The answer: Unless we are willing to use the magic of mathematics as our guide to reality the only rational answer is to admit that expanding models are but sub-universes of a full-status Universe —one that is infinite in extent and nonexpanding.

MATHEMATICAL MAGIC.   True enough, mathematical hyper-dimensional space can conform to the above principles. Here, one should try to understand that (mathematically speaking) curved cosmic space can form a four-dimensional sphere called a hypersphere. If your imagination is good, think of ordinary three-dimensional space being analogous to the two-dimensional surface of an ordinary sphere: Such a universe is said to be finite and unbounded. Inside a four-dimensional sphere (hypersphere) one can travel indefinitely in any direction without reaching an edge; just as on the surface of a three-dimensional sphere. A universe hypothesized as a geometric hypersphere is a marvelous thing. It has no exterior to which we can point and say, ‘Hey, this outer region is not contained in your universe!’ No exterior to which light can ever escape! Yes, there are equations that, almost like magic, prove that light never leaves the confines of the hypersphere universe, but instead, curves in its path to re-emerge from the ‘edge’ of the hypersphere but now from the opposite direction. This means that in a universe of positively curved space if you could see far enough and wait long enough you would glimpse the back of your head —the light beam having circled the universe to arrive at the front of your telescope [Timothy Ferris The Whole Shebang p320]. The equations dictate that over the course of many billions of years light circumnavigates the universe.

    Welcome to the wonderful world of curved space. If you think the foregoing defies all common sense, you are not alone. Something doesn’t seem right; yet it would be pointless to argue with the logic of the formulation. Mathematically the Friedmann universe of positively curved space (and the Einstein 1917 universe, Table 1), which is based on the hypersphere, does not have a cosmic edge and does not violate containment. The ‘something’ that does not seem right is the connection with objective reality. We base our principles on reality  —a real universe cannot have a cosmic edge. Period. The question is, “is the hypersphere based on reality?"

   I present the reader with a choice: Accept the truth of the statement: If something is real (has a physical reality) then it can be represented mathematically. Or accept the truth of the converse: If something can be represented mathematically then it is real (has a physical reality).

   The validity of the first statement should immediately be self-evident. Anything that is physically real can be measured (length, width, height, time, speed, temperature, pressure, mass, force, energy, ... ). Measurements of course can be converted into numbers and numbers can be manipulated with mathematics. Now what about the converse statement, is it also true? ... It is not. It does not follow that if something can be represented mathematically then it must possess a physical reality. To make such a claim constitutes an error in logic known as the fallacy of the converse. The choices I offered are not logically equivalent.

   Reality is the master that restrains the applicability of mathematics. Mathematics does not dictate reality. It is physical law that determines the mathematical constructions; mathematical constructions do not necessarily determine the laws of physics.

   That the latter choice can lead to a dead-end is easily revealed. If mathematics ruled reality then the various string ‘theories’ that have occupied theorists for decades would long ago have been verified. String theory involves several branches of mathematics, elegant equations, kaleidoscopic symmetries, unfathomable complexity, and nothing else. Research into strings and membranes have so far shown that any and all hypotheses that require more than the basic four dimensions (3 spatial and 1 temporal) do not represent anything that is real in a physical sense.
   We must conclude that a 4-dimensional sphere is not something real. A universe based on the 4-dimensional sphere —whether the hypersphere of positively curved space or of negatively curved space— is not a real universe. Furthermore, we must recognize that higher dimensional geometry and topology when misapplied turns into a mathematical trick to circumvent the cosmic edge and cosmological principle.
 

UNIVERSAL EXPANSION AND INFINITE SIZE ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. All the expansion models (Table 2), although meticulously crafted, are speculative. Each uses its own mathematical construction in an attempt to dictate reality. Each fails a crucial reality check. The models of Table 2 all represent universes that expand and are, explicitly or implicitly, of finite size. These two properties are not coincidental. One cannot construct a universe predicated on universe-wide expansion, then expect to have unrestricted freedom of choice with respect to size —finite or infinite. If one claims that an entire universe expands, then it must necessarily be a finite universe. By that very activity of growing, it defines itself as a universe of limited extent.
   Now what is so bad about constructing a finite universe? ... Well, there‘s that cosmic-edge-and-forbidden-region problem once again. A universe of finite size has an ‘uncontained’ exterior into which it is expanding.
   Each expansion model fails because it neglects the reality that the Universe we live in has always been fully expanded. This universe is infinite and cannot expand!

   So as not to mislead the reader and give the impression that no expansion takes place in our universe let me state categorically: Space is expanding in the universe. Space expands as part of a ‘harmony of opposites’ as the Ancient Greeks would say. Space expands in a patterned equilibrium with opposing ‘contraction.’ Note the distinction: Expansion is in the universe, not of the universe.

   The historic Steady State models are classified as ‘infinite’ (Table 2); but as we have just seen this cannot be. One cannot claim that a universe is infinite in extent and simultaneously expanding (no matter how good your imagination). The two concepts are mutually exclusive. For it must be that an expanding universe, no matter how large, expands into some region that it does not already occupy; therefore it has a cosmic edge and cannot be infinite.


FEAR OF INFINITY.  If it is so easy to expose the failings of the expansion models, how then does one explain their persistent popularity? Think, for a moment, of mankind’s fallible selection of ideas. Everything else being equal, which hypothesis will grab more headlines, generate more excitement, motivate more recruits, elicit more government and corporate funding: on the one hand a scenario of universal expansion with a fire and brimstone genesis, or on the other hand a scenario in which nothing happened (just the usual local processes)? ... Exactly; the flashy award-winning Block-Buster theory will upstage the staid and steady presentation. Throw in the support, during the 20^th century, of the Western World’s dominant religion with its affinity for cataclysmic events and, behold, the expansion model becomes enshrined in reverence. It becomes a popular religiocultural icon. And to suggest that the sanctioned view-of-the-world is wrong is risky. Any alternate view becomes ungodly.
   If we wanted to proffer a deeper reason for the popularity of expansion models then the fear of the infinite would be a likely choice. All the models, arguably, avoid the dreaded concept of infinite size. Although the Bondi-Gold steady-state model claims to be infinite, the argument that was used above reveals otherwise. If one is willing to delve deeper, the fear of infinity can be found in diverse fields and throughout history ---in philosophy, in religion (let us not forget why Giordano Bruno was tortured to death), in mathematics, in science, and in modern cosmology.
 

THE LAWS OF PHYSICS ALLOW BOTH SPACE-EXPANSION AND SPACE-CONTRACTION.    So far, the discussion has focused on expansion —expansion of space, expansion of the universe. There is, however, another side to the story. Einstein wrote,
 

Cosmic expansion may be simply a temporary condition which will be followed at some future epoch of cosmic time by a period of contraction. The universe in this picture is a pulsating balloon in which cycles of expansion and contraction succeed each other through eternity.

   The significance of the dual expanding and contracting models is that astrophysicists acknowledge that if space can expand then it can also contract. The postulating of oscillating and cyclic models represents tacit admission that if space can expand then it can also contract. This is important to the DSSU theory which takes the unique and perfectly legitimate step of using both expansion and contraction. Moreover, it uses them simultaneously.

 

3   Cellular Universe Models

   In this section we deal with that class of model neglected by mainstream cosmology: The class of the Cellular Universe.

   It is rather surprising that the cellular concept has never been seriously applied to the universe. Consider that so much of the natural world divides itself into repetitive sub-units. Prominent in this tendency is the organic realm; all organisms are structurally divided into living cells. Entities such as viruses, classified as somewhere between living and non-living, are structured as cells. The inorganic realm as well, structures itself as cells: Ice under certain natural conditions becomes cellular and is referred to as candled ice; crystalline minerals are composed of unit cells of the fourteen Bravis Lattices. One of the most remarkable examples of molecular-scale formation of cells is the buckyball structure of molecular carbon C60 found in the rare coal-like mineral known as shungite. In their geometric perfection they are indeed remarkable. On a larger scale: sun-baked and dehydrated mudflats crack into polygonal cells; the tundra of the Canadian north, in response to the expansion-and-contraction effect of the freeze-thaw cycle, is shaped into large flat cells. Even the sun’s surface is divided into cells (called thermal convection cells). If one considers individual atoms and molecules as being cell-like, then all solids, liquids and gases are likewise cellular. ... Then why not the entire universe?
   It seems a reasonable proposal. It is natures preferred arrangement. The only necessary ingredients for cellularizing the universe are the ubiquitous processes of space expansion and space contraction —known processes, known to take place. Matter itself is ancillary. In this simplification, matter in the form of luminous stars and galaxies serves only to highlight the boundaries of the cells formed by the dynamics of space itself.
   Yet the concept, as applied to the universe, has been almost totally neglected (as the brevity of Table 3 reveals)! The table has only three entries: an antiquated one, an observational one, and a theoretical one.

   A search of the literature will find no true cellular models —only quasi-cellular ones. The construction of René Descartes (the Cartesian Vortex universe Table 3) is more of a historical model than anything else; it is probably the first attempt at a cellular design. The Descartes model uses a vortex hypothesis in an effort to explain the formation of astronomical structures such as stars, planets, comets, and planetary systems. With its aether-like space in dynamic motion it was definitely on the right track.
 

   The cell class is defined by the compartmentation of the Universe, the one and only universe that exists. The cellular type of universe should not be confused with what are popularly known as bubble universes. Bubble universes belong to the class of multi-verses (a class which also includes parallel worlds and multiple domains) and some of the better known are described in Table 4 Miscellaneous Universe Models, which appears in the Appendix.

   The Bubble model of Alan Guth and the Chaotic-Inflation (bubble) model of Andreï Linde, as Table 4 makes obvious, are highly speculative. With names suggestive of instability (think bursting bubbles) and chaotic randomness they are far removed from stable cellular organization and it comes as no surprise that they make no meaningful predictions. Their ability to explain the Universe and its phenomena are severely limited.
   Actually, there are many more bubble models; practically all are based on the concept of inflationary space. The list includes extended inflation, natural inflation, hybrid inflation and many others. The description Andreï Linde applies to one of his favorite, the self-reproducing inflationary universe, gives the impression that his universe is diseased with a chronic cosmic cancer: There are scalar fields that evolve to produce arrays of inflating bubbles, some of which make more bubbles, and so on ... ad infinitum. “In essence, one inflationary universe sprouts other inflationary bubbles, which in turn produce other inflationary bubbles.” [The Self-Reproducing Inflationary Universe, Scientific American Nov 1994, p38]  Models of this nature never achieve equilibrium, and cannot be  truly cellular.

   The quasi-cellular universe of Jaan Einasto is strictly an observational entry. By Einasto’s own admission it has no theoretical backing.

   The Dynamic Steady State Universe (DSSU) stands alone and appears to be the first true cellular universe. It is supported by the observations of veteran astronomer, Jaan Einasto. As a comprehensive model it incorporates the very cause, as well as the effect, of gravitation. No other model in mainstream cosmology makes such a claim.

   The Dynamic Steady State Universe has the distinction of being the first universe-model in the history of cosmology to incorporate the concept of a fully dynamic aether-space, which means, first and foremost, that space expands and contracts.
    In the DSSU model space expansion is a primary dynamic activity. But note carefully, space expands regionally. Simultaneously, space contracts elsewhere —again, regionally. Hence the cellular order that is inherent in this universe. Space expands as part of a ‘harmony of opposites’ as the Ancient Greeks would say. Space expands in a patterned equilibrium with opposing ‘contraction.’ The patterned equilibrium is shown in the schematic of Fig. 1.
   The model represents dynamic stability: Expansion is in the universe, not of the universe.
   The DSSU, being infinite, has no cosmic center and no cosmic edge (and no forbidden external regions). And yet, remarkably, gravity retains its potency!
   Gravity asserts its power regionally.
   This cellular model of the universe solves the Layzer gravity problem. It manages to maintain gravity’s potency by ordering the Universe into gravity regions (the cells) each with its own cosmic center and boundaries. See the popular article Gravity and Lambda --a Story of Opposite.
   The details of the gravity resolution and other aspects of DSSU theory are explored in several research papers by the author.

   Continuing with our overview of World models ...
 

4   Two Conflicting World Views

WORLD VIEWS.  It is possible to argue that the major world views, past and present, can be grouped into the perpetual, unchanging, universe on the one hand and the dynamic, tumultuous, even cyclical and plural, on the other —or simply, the steady-state view and the dynamic-state view.

   The early Chinese believed in a steady state ‘celestial sphere’ theory which was later (3^rd century AD) displaced by a weak dynamic system, conceived as an infinite empty-space universe in which astronomical bodies floated freely subjected only to a mysterious ‘hard wind’ force.

   The dynamic system (the Brahmanda, Table 1 & 2) of the Buddhists, in addition to having a plurality of universes, used lengthy time cycles of destruction and rebirth of the universe. The Cartesians (Table 3), in contrast, had their steady state universe which was filled with matter and in which the same amount of matter and motion is always conserved. Since we cannot think of any limit to the extent of space, it was argued, the Cartesian universe must be infinite.


WORLD VIEWS IN CONFLICT.   The scientific debate (using a rather broad meaning) between proponents of the unchanging universe and the defenders of a dynamic universe has existed for the most part of three millennia. Aristotle and Eudoxus’ crystalline celestial spheres were in opposition to Heraclitus and Anaximander’s perpetual change where nothing ever stays still and all things are processes —‘all things are in flux’ they claimed. The ancient steady-staters came out on top, the dynamic-movers had to bide their time.
   In another age, Copernicus (1473-1543) still believed in a rigid sphere of stars when he shifted the center of the universe. Thomas Digges (1543-95) probably felt that the system was too unchanging and opted for a theory in which stars extended infinitely into space, not fixed to a celestial sphere as Copernicus had believed. However, the church decreed that the heavens, once created, embody unchanging perfection; Giordano Bruno (1548-1600) did not entirely agree and suffered the Christian consequences of heresy.

   In the last century, Einstein’s delicately crafted steady state universe of 1917 (Table 1) was overturned by Lemaître’s violent primordial bomb (Table 2).
   In 1939, George Gamow, Ralph Alpher and Hans Bethe in the United States developed a version of the Big Bang that involved cataclysmic creation a ‘hot’ nuclear explosion. Within a decade it was countered by the Bondi-Gold continuous creation, constant density, steady state (SS) universe (Table 2); and by the very similar steady state model of Fred Hoyle (Table 2). Then in 1952 the world’s dominant Church was divinely inspired to proclaim the truth. The universe was no longer in a perpetual steady state of perfection, but rather a dynamic state of perfection; in the new version the universe had a primeval fireball genesis  and has undergone explosive expansion ever since. It may expand forever; yes, even to infinity —Giordano, your sin, your insight into infinity, has been forgiven. Given enough time, heresy becomes orthodoxy.

   With the discovery of the cosmic background radiation (CBR) and its misinterpretation as the creationists’ smoking gun, the Lemaître side claimed victory over the Steady State.   Thereafter, the SS model declined in popularity as Mainstream researchers turned their attention to the development of a bewildering variety of dynamic expansion models (overwhelmingly, variations of the big-bang theme). ... Although greatly weakened, the steady-state side never accepted defeat. The steady state concept was too beautiful to discard; it had the ingredients most desirable in any fundamental and valid theory: simplicity and inevitability. Work continued on the model. Hoyle, Burbidge and Narlikar introduced the Quasi-Steady State Cosmology in an attempt to allow for the evolution of the CBR temperature in a universe that is always the same over the very long term. A sinusoidal cycle is superimposed over the exponential growth of the scaling factor (a measure of expansion analogous to the radius of the universe). It is a universe with alternating cosmic periods of expansion and contraction. See Edward Wright's summary.  (If they had used simultaneous expansion and contraction they could have called it the Dynamic Steady State.)

   Sometimes one side or the other runs out of scientific arguments. The English physicist C. J. Isham argued in favor of the BB by questioning the atheism and psychological motivation of the advocates of the opposing Steady State. While on the opposing side, John Maddox, the editor of Nature, in 1989 argued against the BB and judged its cosmogony “philosophically unacceptable.” [Adolf Grünbaum. Creation in Cosmology, Encyclopedia of Cosmology p126]

   The mass-media and mass-culture of today interprets and presents ‘space science’ in the frame of the BB model. Any unexpected observations or inconsistencies that arise bring another adjustment to the BB model. This involves a Ptolemaic-like modification designed to “save appearances” and retain the model. The official establishment model is not allowed to fail. The formal scientific community feeds the media the establishment model, and the media amplify the message, while the Steady State is largely ignored. And worse, it is sometimes treated as though it had never existed. “It is telling that when Allan Guth, the young elementary particle physicist who first proposed the inflationary universe model in 1980, was asked about its relationship to the steady state model, his answer was ‘What is the steady state theory?’ ” [Helge Kragh. Steady State Theory, Encyclopedia of Cosmology  p635 ]
   The BB model gives all appearance of a solid and secure theory. Writers and spokespeople are relentless in emphasizing just how indubitably secure it seems with its observational successes and scientifically sound hypotheses. The 2006 Nobel Prize in physics was awarded for research into CBR, the phenomenon that is still interpreted as the remnant flash of a genesis event, affirming the establishment’s patronization of the dynamic world view —the BB model. It seems unassailable. And yet ...
 

   And so, the conflict of the world views continues. The attacks on the BB continue as the title of a currently promoted book makes clear —Astronomy On Trial: A Devastating and Complete Repudiation of the Big Bang Fiasco written in 1999 by Roy C. Martin. Another book, Seeing Red: Redshifts, Cosmology and Academic Science, by the veteran astronomer Halton Arp, is described as “a frontal assault on the standard model of the universe.”

 

5   The Cellular DSSU Combines the Two Conflicting World Views

   The DSSU theory manages to accomplish the seemingly impossible: it combines the world view of perpetual change with the other world view embracing the absence of change. It brings together both sides of the contentious issue that has divided cosmologists and philosophers for millennia. The cellular DSSU is both DYNAMIC and STATIC. And most importantly, this universe is both dynamic and static simultaneously and perpetually —not sequentially. It is simply a matter of scale.

   The Universe is dynamic on the scale of individual cells as shown in Fig. 1.
 

	Fig. 1.   DYNAMIC Unit-Universe. The hexagon is a 2-dimensional representation of a single cell of the DSSU. The red arrows represent the effect of Lambda. The blue arrows represent the effect of Gravity. (Highly schematic)

   The Universe is mainly static on the grand scale —on the limitless scale. See Fig. 2.

	Fig. 2.   Static Cellular Universe. Each hexagon represents a dodecahedral cell (about 300 million lightyears across) within an infinite and static cellular universe. (Again, highly schematic)

UNIFICATION OF MODELS.   It is ironic indeed that all the evidence indicates that the kinematic and dynamic expansion of the big bang and the perpetual uniformity of the steady state, when brought together, comprise a comprehensive cosmic theory. The research conducted in the preparation of the DSSU Manuscript found no evidence to the contrary. Our world is both an ever-changing dynamic universe and an unchanging steady-state universe. The DSSU is the triple amalgam of dynamic space, steady state processes, and static structure. One could call this the cosmic trinity.

   It has happened before. History records that there were two notable rival theories that claimed to describe the nature of light. One was known as the wave theory, the other the corpuscular theory (or stream-of-particles theory). After several contentious centuries there emerged a wave-particle duality theory of electromagnetic radiation. In other words, the explanation of light required both wave and particle theories. Remarkably, conflicting explanations became united to form a superior single theory.

   A functionally superior theory of the Universe requires features from the two conflicting world views. The explanation of our Universe requires dynamic space, steady state processes, and static structure.

THE DSSU IN THE COMPETITION OF SCIENTIFIC THEORIES.   The system for the selection of scientific truth involves lots of random scattered ideas and theories competing for survival. There follows the selection of the idea that seems to work best. One idea dominates, and this is followed by its amplification. [Heinz Pagels, The Dreams of Reason p138] ... But no theory, no matter how orthodox, is ever safe from competition.
 

   Now if a superior idea is omitted from the initial selection system, then an inferior idea may take hold —then reasonable people may be led astray. The superior idea —the cellular-universe idea with its dual nature (or triple nature)— has never been put forward. It has never been in the competition (and therefore has never been rejected). While the standard Steady State and others were rightfully rejected, the BB became dominant (by default), became amplified, and now rules under the sponsorship of the Academic Establishment. The only "debate" has been among different versions of the BB model. None of these versions is persuasive. The DSSU is now in the competition.

   The future of cosmology may very well lie not with a simplistic single-cell Big Bang but with a multi-cell, dynamic space, Steady State.  ٱ

Copyright © 2005-2010 by Conrad Ranzan         Email:  Ranzan@CellularUniverse.org

Appendix

   The Plasma Universe has a serious down side; it does not make sufficiently concrete predictions that would allow one to test and to judge the validity of the theory. A point of interest is that it postulates the existence of vast magnetic vortices which are reminiscent of René Descartes 17th century Vortex universe with its system of huge swirling whirlpools of fine matter.

   The originator of the multiverse concept is generally considered to be Hugh Everett whose 1957 Princeton doctoral thesis first presented what has come to be called the "many worlds" interpretation of quantum mechanics. But the concept is more a flight of fantasy than science —a mathematical fantasy spawned in “the century of mathematical universes.” Cosmologist Edward Harrison sums up this category nicely: "When postulating other universes [multi-verses] we quit the solid ground of empirical knowledge for the airy heights of unfalsifiable speculation." [--E. R. Harrison,  Masks of the Universe, p288]

   The Quasi-Steady-State Universe (QSSU) is an infinite universe that is steadily expanding and contracting on a time scale of about 10¹² years. In a later version the time scale of the expanding and contracting cycles is 40-50 Giga-years. The cyclic oscillations "involve maximum and minimum periods of compression and rarefaction" with creation activity in galactic nuclei being greatest in the periods of compression. It is a universe based on a modified version of Einstein's geometrized space and time.
   New matter formation takes place at active galactic nuclei where astronomers observe energy in the form of hot gas, relativistic particles, and coherent objects being ejected but nothing falling in. The traditional view of the black hole as representing the crushing collapse of matter is rejected. Ejection, not mass inflow, is the dominant mode of a black hole; and this is how new matter and energy, sometimes in the form of compact objects such as galaxies and quasi-stellar objects, is born. This is the cosmogony of small "big bangs" in which energy is created in regions of very strong gravitational fields in already existing systems. [G. Burbidge, An Alternative Approach to Cosmogony and Cosmology, J. Astrophys. Astr. (1997) 18, 349-351] Continuous matter creation events occur in regions of very strong gravitational fields in the centers of galaxies in a process supported by the Hoyle-Narlikar C-field theory which contains a modification of Einstein’s theory. Matter creation is balanced by negative kinetic energy (whatever that is). Unlike Einstein's cosmological constant, which has a positive value, the QSSU Λ is negative; and "does not represent the [vacuum] energy density of the quantum fields."
   The model uses a Machian theory of gravity in which mass and inertia arise from the interaction of a body or particle with all the other bodies in the universe. But like all Machian models it lacks a causal mechanism for gravitation.
   The QSSU can explain the abundances of the light elements and their isotopes. All elements are the product of stellar-based nuclear processes.
   Microwave background radiation is a local effect caused by space borne iron whiskers having favorable characteristics.
   Like all other theories of the universe, except the cellular class, the QSSU does not give a cause for the rotation of galaxies.
   Although it claims to be an alternative to the discredited BB model, the QSSU, amazingly, supports the expanding universe paradigm. The QSSU embraces the very same pillar that makes the BB model untenable! As we have seen so often in the comparative study of universe models, the unscientific extrapolation of the fundamental process of the Universe ---space expansion--- always leads to irresolvable problems.

*  *  *

2010 11     Copyright © 2005-2010 by Conrad Ranzan         Email:  Ranzan@CellularUniverse.org