Resources for Educators, Instructors, & New-Cosmology Enthusiasts

Cosmology Testing Part 2: Observational Features

Cosmology testing on the basis of what is observed.

Evaluating the validity of any universe model.

C. Ranzan

Published on the Cellular Universe website ( www.CellularUniverse.org ) 2019

This is a fully open-access article and may be used in whole, or in part, and distributed and reproduced in any medium; provided the original webpage address (www.CellularUniverse.org/Educators/CosmologyTestingPt2.htm), the website URL (www.CellularUniverse.org), and the originating author (Conrad Ranzan) are properly cited.

Contents:

1. Observational Features

Table of observational features and phenomena

Details, Clarifications, and Suggestions

2. Ultimate Test of Validity –The Observational Feature Extraordinaire

Arthur Stanley Eddington, it is said, used to tease his empirically-minded colleagues with the maxim, “Don’t believe an observation till it is supported by a theory.”
–D. Layzer, Constructing the Universe, p262

Observational Features

The previous cosmology-testing exercise (Part 1) dealt mainly with fundamental principles. The exercise here, in Part 2, is to see how well the model under investigation —the model the student or the class has selected— fits to the evidence.

Again we work with a chart listing the most important features; this time the focus is on the observational features. (Add additional features to the listing if desired.) The Table includes two well-developed cosmologies: One, the DSSU, succeeds on all counts and the other, the Expanding Universe, fails overall. The right hand column is provided for any contending model —for testing to see how well some other model fits to the evidence.

Table of observational features and phenomena; and how they are explained within the framework of a particular cosmology.

Observational Feature / Category	5^th Cosmology DSSU	4^th Cosmology Expanding Universe	[ Enter the details of your favorite Contending / Speculative model ]
			Hierarchical? Electric? Plasma? …
Obvious cosmic cell structure	Intrinsically cellular	Phenomenologically cellular	Example: Hierarchically cellular
Cosmic voids	Intrinsic aspect of cosmic cellular structure sustained by dynamic aether	Phenomenological
Right-angled walls of galaxies	Inherent in dodecahedral cellular structure	No explanation
Elliptical galaxies (the nonrotating galaxies)	Ellipticity has a well-understood cause (Ranzan, 2015)	No explanation for cause of ellipticity
Spiral galaxies (what causes their rotation?)	Rotation has a well-understood cause ([G2] Ranzan, 2010)	No clear explanation for cause of rotation
Non-or-negligible rotation of Supergiant galaxies	A consequence of stable nodal position in the cosmic cell structure	No explanation
Gravitationally collapsed structures	■ End-state neutron star. ■ Supermassive black regions. ■ NO singularity-type black holes.	Stellar and supermassive singularity-type black holes
Darkness of the night sky (Olbers’ Paradox)	Explained by cellular structure (Ranzan, 2016)	Explained by whole-universe expansion which causes a reduction in the distribution density of luminous objects
Detection of aether (Michelson and Morley, 1887; Miller, 1933; others.)	Recognizes the existence of aether	Ignores the detection of aether
Vacuum energy measures zero	The fundamental fluctuators that constitute the space medium (aether) are NOT energy oscillators	Major mystery. Contradicts prediction.
Cosmic redshift	Velocity differential redshift (Ranzan, AJAA 2014)	Doppler. Expansion-of-space is considered the primary cause.	Other examples: Tired light? Einstein’s gravitational shift?
Cosmic microwave background radiation	Extremely redshifted starlight: Thermal emission from ultra-distant stars	Explanation requires the biggest unscientific extrapolation in history!
Astrophysical emission beams (and jets)	The visible part of the key energy generating / amplifying mechanism of the universe. (The result of the amplification of radiant energy.) (Ranzan, 2018)	Part of the energy-transformation mechanism of neutron stars and black holes. (Involves the transformation of existing forms of energy in strict accordance with conservation laws.)
Extreme-energy neutrinos (PeV) detected by ICE-CUBE	Newly-uncovered mechanism involving end-state neutron stars (Ranzan, 2019)	No explanation
Abell 85 (Extraordinary pattern of galaxy clusters)	Inherent in cosmic cellularity (Ranzan, 2015)	Inexplicable “anomalous” configuration
_____________
_____________
On the balance of the evidence”:	Succeeds	Fails

Details, Clarifications, and Suggestions

Dark matter? Notice that this hypothetical stuff is not mentioned. Dark matter is not on the list because it has never been observed or detected. Proponents of this mysterious matter invented it to camouflage their complete lack of understanding of the mechanism of gravity, notably its causal processes.

Black holes. A. Einstein and A. S. Eddington, long ago, were right about the nature of gravitational collapse; no mass can collapse to the extent of bringing it to a radius below that of its Schwarzschild radius. The mass can never end up deep inside the Schwarzschild radius.

HOWEVER, what they never recognized was that mass can actually exist deep inside an event horizon (the familiar one-way lightspeed boundary associated with black holes). In fact, a super amount of mass can exist therein.

How can this seeming contradiction be resolved? How can the Einstein and Eddington restriction be valid and yet allow for the observed existence of supermassive “black holes”? [The answer is detailed in The Nature of Gravitational Collapse, 2^nd printing (DSSU Research, Niagara Falls, 2017)]

Olbers’ Paradox. Here’s a challenge. Try to solve Olbers’ Paradox (the night-sky-darkness conundrum) for an infinite universe with an infinity of radiating stars AND with no visibility limit, no horizon. Most people believe it can’t be done. Yet the seemingly impossible was accomplished in 2016. See the article “ Olbers’ Paradox Resolved for the Infinite Non-Expanding Universe” (published in the American Journal of Astronomy & Astrophysics Vol.4, No.1, 2016 January).

Detection of aether by Michelson and Morley (1887), Miller (1933), and by others. The 4^th Cosmology disputes the detection of this space-permeating medium; it, nevertheless, employs a space medium most often called “the quantum foam” and “the fabric of space”; Martin Gardner called it the “Mother Sea”; Brian Greene called it the “Higgs ocean”; Leonard Susskind described it as “a sea of virtual particles,” a “violently fluctuating sea.” … Enough. You get the picture. The point is, the 4^th Cosmology clearly has a space medium, as does, of course, the 5^th Cosmology. The really important difference is in the nature of the respective mediums. The difference is explained in the next Helpful Suggestion.

Vacuum energy measures zero: In the 5^th Cosmology the space medium is a nonmass, nonenergy fluid; the fundamental fluctuators that constitute the space medium (aether) are NOT energy oscillators. However, the medium employed in the 4^th Cosmology is a quantum foam of ENERGY fluctuations (virtual particles continuously jumping between existence and nonexistence). The essential difference is that one is a subquantum medium; the other is a quantum-physics medium. This makes all the difference in the world. It is a distinction that makes or breaks a universe model!

See the fatal flaw in the 4^th-Cosmology picture? … Yes, it is the huge disconnect between what is “observed” and what is predicted. Because the quantum foam is completely saturated with its ENERGY fluctuations, the energy content of the vacuum is predicted to be breathtakingly enormous. This is not an exaggeration. The calculation defining this energy represents the biggest, most embarrassing, mismatch in science. Ever! The simple observational fact is that the vacuum energy measures zero!

The take-away lesson is this: a PASS or REJECT is contingent on the Test Model having a space medium that, in its static state, must not itself possess mass or energy.

Redshift mechanisms. In general, and in the context of astrophysics, there are only five ways to alter the wavelength of light. They are: ■ Doppler; ■ space expansion (and contraction); ■ gravitational; ■ tired light (a very broad theoretical category); ■ velocity differential.

Cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR). The evidence of this microwave radiation is cited as the main proof of the expansion of the universe. It has been adopted as the main pillar of the Big Bang hypothesis. The argument is that the early light from the hot big bang was redshifted (had its wavelength stretched) by the expansion of space (the expansion the “quantum foam” vacuum) through which the light travelled over billions of years (following the initial bang) resulting in the much weaker radiation called CMBR. A bold, but simplistic, extrapolation of this space-expansion process leads directly to the conclusion that the entire universe had expanded.

However, a discovery, as remarkable as it was unexpected, published and proven valid, completely destroys the extrapolation-derived conclusion of that argument. In 2014 it was found that the redshifting of light occurs not just in regions of space-medium expansion but also in regions of space-medium contraction!!

Question: How in the world is this possible? —light waves stretching where the luminiferous aether is contracting! (Granted, it does seem highly counterintuitive.)

Once you understand how utterly simple the relevant redshifting mechanism is, address this follow-up question: How could the experts have missed it? … George Orwell’s words come to mind and may be helpful:

“To see what is in front of one’s nose requires a constant struggle.” –Tribune (Mar, 22, 1946)

But the words of author Stephen R. Covey are most relevant: “Each of us tends to think we see things as they are, that we are objective. But this is not the case. We see the world not as it is, but … as we are conditioned to see it.” –The 7 Habits of Highly Successful People (Simon & Schuster, 1990) p28

Extreme energy particles. Scientists have recorded the rare collisions of cosmic-sourced neutrinos possessing the energy of 10¹⁵ electron volts. They are called peta-electron-volt neutrinos (abbreviated to PeV). To get an idea of how much energy this represents, students are asked to compare it with a more familiar particle. Given that the atomic particle, the proton, has the mass energy of 10¹² electron volts, how many protons is the PeV neutrino equivalent to?

Abell 85. Abell 85 is the most extraordinary pattern of galaxy clusters ever discovered. In the bag of observational evidence it is special —very special. It is the kind of evidence that can make or break a universe model.

Ultimate Test of Validity –The Observational Feature Extraordinaire

In standard cosmology, Abell 85 stands as a most unexpected large-scale astronomical observation. It is without doubt the most inexplicable pattern of galaxy clusters ever observed.

What makes it so baffling for the experts is the order inherent in the pattern —a remarkable systematic spacing of galaxy clusters along a line of sight extending out to a staggering redshift distance of 63,000 km/s (expressed, in accordance with common practice, as cz) or about 3,500 million lightyears. According to the data, Abell 85 represents a void and cluster sequence that repeats 11 times, but probably extends much further, far beyond the range of our telescopes.

The ultimate test of validity: Any scientific model of the universe with the ability to predict such a pattern (void, cluster, void, cluster, etc.) and simultaneously predict the related observed pattern consisting of linear clusters (void, long cluster, void, long cluster) automatically gains validation. The model becomes the representation of the real Universe.

There is but one model that passes this ultimate test.

2019-10

Top of page Back to DSSU Home Page

C. Ranzan

Email:
DSSUresearch@CellularUniverse.org

Site updated: 24-02-13