The Processes of Gravitation –The Cause and Mechanism of Gravitation
●Abstract ●Reviews ●Links

Conrad Ranzan

Abstract: A heretofore unrecognized but essential process is introduced. This sine qua non process serves to endow matter with the property of mass and mass equivalence (in the case of “massless” particles), and simultaneously serves as the primary causal process of gravitation, with the latter leading to the secondary process of gravitation. Then, with the inclusion of the Lambda “force” as the tertiary process, a complete and clear picture emerges —a picture in which the three processes manifest as observable, verifiable, cosmic gravitation cells, a picture in which gravitation has an intrinsic scale.

By combining Einstein’s nonponderable aether, Williamson’s bound-radiation electron, Hubble’s space-medium expansion, and DSSU’s triple-process gravitation, an elegant and supremely powerful cosmology is constructed.

Full 24-page article: The Processes of Gravitation –The Cause and Mechanism of Gravitation (www.cellularuniverse.org/G6GravityProcesses-Ranzan.pdf)

Originally published in Journal of Modern Physics and Applications (JMPA) Vol.2014:3 (2014).
UPDATE note: It appears that this journal no longer exists.–CR, 2019

Contents:

Review from a DSSU Proponent
Review from “General Relativity and Gravitation”
Reviews from Entropy journal Special Issue on Gravity
Caught in a Catch Twenty-Two
New-Research Article? or Review-Type Article?
Journal of Gravity

The New Understanding of Gravitation (LINKS)

"Just as Lorentz's Aether Theory is the physical basis of Special Relativity, flowing space [aether] is the physical basis of General Relativity." –Henry H. Lindner

The Reviews

Review from a DSSU Proponent

After having spent many enjoyable hours reading and re-reading this extraordinary "Processes of Gravitation" paper, I must admit: it may well be the crowning jewel of the DSSU cellular universe. It is an important and revolutionary work that deserves a wide audience in the scientific community, particularly as it opens the door of unification and solves one of the most vexing problems in the history of science: Gravitation and the Aether. Its importance is truly far-reaching, since the author relates the gravity processes to the entire architecture of the universe from subatomic quantum to the realm of galaxies and beyond! No small feat and I stand in awe! It must find its way into the blood stream of current cosmology and sooner rather than later!

The author starts out with an informative historical sketch to place the age old problem of gravity, and its cause, into perspective. Especially interesting were the early segments dealing with the nature of the photon and the fundamentally prominent role it plays in particle physics —all of which delighted and stunned me. The amazing concept of photon confinement, supported by several illustrations and the brilliant work of J. Williamson, literally blew my mind! This beautifully written prelude on photon confinement was all part and parcel of a powerful integration of the aether-absorption-annihilation process and its relation to the three gravity processes: primary, secondary and tertiary; all landing on my delirious grey matter like an awakening flash of lightening! All of this coming together with the familiar Cellular Universe that I've come to support and understand after these many years.

The conclusion in Section 2 is that all particles in the universe consist of either free-state or confined-state photons. This is an extraordinary statement to make; so cosmically powerful, so relevant to particle physics and unification. The Section deserves an entire paper! It brings clarity and logic to bear on photon/particle characteristics: spin, charge, angular momentum, and the photonic origin of the property of mass! This encompasses all of the Standard Model but with the photon as the fundamental unit: a huge statement!

The discussion of the photon as being the excitation of essence fluctuators, as the transitory fleeting excitation of the aether, is fascinating. But then, combining the propagating excitation of aether with the “absorption-annihilation” of the affected aether, along the path of propagation, is unprecedented. Brilliant!

In connection with Secondary gravity, the concept of the Gravitation Amplifier is nicely presented and I like the leaky bucket analogy referring to inflow and intensity. It helps the mind to picture the funneling inflow of aether near a planet-like body, whereby “initial aether-contraction (absorption-assimilation) by mass, leads to acceleration; leads to secondary contraction; leads to more acceleration, etc.” Undeniably, this describes a Gravity Amplifier.

The section on "Tertiary Gravity" is one I looked forward to since it ties everything together and explains how primary, secondary, and tertiary manifestations of gravity are responsible for the DSSU cellularity structure. I found this to be the crowning moment in the paper —like arriving at a much anticipated train station! Figures 9 & 10 left no doubt. I now understand, better than at any previous time, the relationship between Gravity and Lambda, and the relevancy of the mantra: the natural harmony of opposites. Magnificent!

What is so astonishingly beautiful and revolutionary about this paper is the concept of “absorption-annihilation” as a form of conduction whereby “energy particles are conducted by aether and through aether.” Furthermore, the non-energy excitation fluctuators, the units that make up the essence space-medium, are “real and physical” only momentarily as they fall prey to absorption-annihilation. The author makes indelible the fact that the fluctuators themselves do not have mass. But they are involved in the acquisition of mass: “A photon in DSSU theory is a wave-like conduction-disturbance of aether” and exists by absorbing aether in a manner destructive of aether leading to the creation of mass equivalence and, in the case of a “confined” photon, leading to particle mass. With the mechanisms of energy and mass in hand, the author takes the discussion into the explanations of Direct and Secondary Gravity; and into the climatic Tertiary Gravitation. Revolutionary, and written with the joy of discovery throughout.

The presentation is eloquent and beautifully written, the ideas well organized and easy to follow. Much appreciated, as a useful roadmap of concepts, is the summary-of-ideas flowchart.

As I have said, I’ve read the paper several times, absorbed its scope and meaning. I see it as a tour-de-force revolutionary work that takes on the universe from its subquantum essence to its cosmic-scale cellularity and beyond to its infinite vastness. This is an astonishing achievement within the context of all prior cosmologies bar none!

Let me conclude by echoing and underscoring the title of the closing section, the implications for Cosmology are profound indeed.

–Roger Ferragallo (California, 2012-11)

Review from “General Relativity and Gravitation”

General Relativity and Gravitation (GRG) is a European journal (Springer, Netherlands) whose gravity-related subject matter, as their website claims, includes Astronomy, Astrophysics and Cosmology.

The editors-reviewers for this publication, unable or unwilling to come up with any scientific or logic arguments to disqualify the paper, simply decided they did not like the style, stating:

“This paper is not written in an acceptable scientific style, and thus cannot be considered for publication in GRG.”

–Per 2012-09-13 email from Roy Maartens, editor-in-chief, General Relativity and Gravitation

Reviews from Entropy journal Special Issue: “Modified Gravity: From Black Holes Entropy to Current Cosmology”

The author of this article attempts to devise a model to "explain" gravitation and the distribution of galaxies, claiming that the standard model of cosmology has failed to do so. However, for an article in a scientific journal it is not enough to just construct a graphical or somewhat mathematical model; it is essential to confront one's ideas with observations, to make sure that all known phenomena can consistently be encompassed, and ideally to make new testable predictions. The author has failed to fulfill any of these requirements. [These requirements are more than adequately fulfilled in several other DSSU papers. –CR] The model is not quantitative, except for brief manipulations of simple and well-known formulas. There are no new predictions. And instead of presenting a model consistent with known phenomena, the author has made several statements in clear conflict with observations. For instance, he claims that galaxy clusters are not moving apart. However, galaxy clusters are the largest bound objects in the universe and are known to follow the expansion of the universe. [The expansion of the universe is a myth. –CR] The author also claims that there is no cosmic expansion, but he does not say how he can explain the cosmic microwave background, among other things. [This paper is about the aether theory of gravity, not CMB! –CR] If he wants to contrast his construct with the standard model of cosmology, he should confront all the successes of the latter. [What success! The Big Bang is the biggest blunder in the history of modern science! –CR] Unfortunately, he has only picked a few of the ingredients to discuss, making the article incomplete, very likely to be wrong, and unsuitable for publication.

–Anonymous reviewer (2012-10-2)

Another review from another Big-Bang believer:

The article “The Processes of Gravitation – Cause and Mechanism of Gravitation” has two cornerstones. The first one is the work of Williamson (cited in References); a speculation that photons might be the most fundamental building blocks (in fact it is argued that photons are the constituents of quarks and leptons). While improbable, the hypothesis of Williamson is very well developed mathematically, and because of it has deserved publication. The second cornerstone is a particular kind of the aether postulated by the author, together with the conjecture that matter (immersed in the aether) absorbs-and-annihilates the aether. The author believes that gravitation can be explained by bulk motion of such aether. A serious shortcoming is that the presentation of the second cornerstone is very incomplete and the reader is directed to Reference #12. It seems to me that the work is artificially divided in two separate papers. [Two!? It is a single paper detailing three very distinct processes! –CR] The conclusions of the author contradict the Standard Model of Particles and Fields. For instance: (a) the author argues that gluons (apparently well established as mediators of strong interactions) do not exist and (b) the proposed aether is incompatible with the quantum vacuum in quantum field theories.

Of course, we must be broad minded. In principle I like speculations challenging the mainstream physics, however as a minimum in theoretical physics, the speculations must be supported by the convincing mathematical presentation, what is not the case in the present paper. The author uses the word “revolutionary” for his work, but I can’t see how such a colossal work as the Standard Model can be challenged with a dozen of equations in the framework of the elementary mathematics. I would be very happy if I am wrong.

In conclusion, this paper should not be accepted for publication.

–Anonymous reviewer (2012-9-30)

One reviewer, instead of commenting on the remarkably detailed and self-consistent explanation of the cause of gravitation, “suggest[s] that the author learns General Relativity” (2012-9-29). That, along with an outright rejection, was the reviewer’s only comment —nothing else. This anonymous victim of institutionalized indoctrination would prefer that the author, rather than use a natural mechanistic model for gravity and its cause, should instead, work with a mathematical theory (geometric General Relativity) devoid of a causal mechanism! … No wonder Physics is in a crisis (as headlined in Scientific American, 2014, May issue).

Caught in a Catch Twenty-Two

The following assessment comes from the journal ISRN Astronomy and Astrophysics:

Dear C. Ranzan,

After checking your Research Article 158292 titled "The Processes of Gravitation –the Cause and Mechanism of Gravitation," I regret to inform you that it was found unsuitable for publication in ISRN Astronomy and Astrophysics.

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to ISRN Astronomy and Astrophysics.

Best regards,
Sara Ibrahiem, Editorial Office (2013-01-30)

Unsuitable? What does this mean? Since my submitted paper is based on sound physics principles, definitely presents significantly new perspectives, and are written in flawless English, I was very curious to know why it was deemed to be “unsuitable.”

It turned out the paper had not even been reviewed!

Dear Mr. Ranzan, … Please allow me to clarify that we have not considered your manuscript 158292, as after checking your manuscript, we noticed that all of the references are not scientific articles published in academic Journals. …

Best regards,
Sara Ibrahiem, Editorial Office, (2013-2-3)

It’s a catch-22 situation: In order to publish a new discovery you are expected to provide proper referencing; but because it is a new discovery, there are no prior works available in the scientific literature to cite!! And so the paper, ostensibly, was rejected for not having establishment-approved references.

But the simple fact is there are no papers published on the processes of gravity that can be referenced. I know of no academic journals that have published papers on the topic of the aether-based processes of gravitation that I could refer to or use as citations! I don’t believe such papers exist. DSSU Research seems to be the only organization doing this kind of investigation.

The problematic referencing was just a pretext.

New-Research Article or Review-Type Article?

Editorial staff struggle to decide how to categorize the DSSU “revolutionary” processes-of-gravity paper.

Amira Abu Taleb from the Editorial Office of Hindawi Publishing Corporation questions the qualifying status of the DSSU paper The Processes of Gravitation –the Cause and Mechanism of Gravitation:

“After checking the content of your manuscript, I found that the manuscript type is more fitting to be a Review Article than a Research Article. According to our definition a Review Article provides an overview of the published literature in a particular subject area. …” (per email dated 2013-04-23)

My response to perplexed Amira:

I believe that you may have missed the key point of the Paper. It introduces a key process that appears nowhere in the scientific literature; the whole purpose of the Paper centers on this key process. It is the process that makes it possible, for the first time, to unify the mass-acquisition process with the gravitation process. It is the process that represents the long-sought-and-essential causal mechanism of gravitation. Since the Paper presents original research, I fail to see how it could be classified as a “review” article.

Furthermore, the Paper takes several existing theories and discoveries and assembles them, in a self-evident way, to produce an INTRINSICALLY cellular universe (as opposed to the conventional PHENOMENOLOGICALLY cellular construct). Never before has there been an intrinsically cellular cosmological model. Never before has the intrinsic size-scale-limits of gravitation been revealed. Never before has gravitation been divided into “primary,” “secondary,” and “tertiary.” This is definitely original research!

Thank you.
Warm regards, Conrad. (2013-4-24)

Two weeks later the question of New Research versus Review Article was decided:

Dear Dr. Ranzan, We have investigated the matter and the type of your manuscript 493651 will remain as "Research Article."

I am very sorry for the inconvenience.

Best regards, Amira
Amira Abu Taleb, Editorial Office, Hindawi Publishing Corporation (2013-05-09)

Finally, the reviews:

From my point of view I can only say this "new theory" refers to many untested and perhaps untestable external elements (as for instance the aether, the Lambda force) which complicate the general view. Provides no useful contribution to its area of research and should be rejected. [Has this reviewer/editor never heard of Einstein’s aether or Lambda-driven expansion of space? –CR]

–Editor #1

The next referee finds the ideas “interesting and intriguing” but does not want them to be seen by others:

This paper presents an interesting and intriguing essay on a possible new explanation for gravity based on a new cosmology known as the Dynamic Steady State Universe. While I think the ideas deserve at least some consideration by the general physics and astronomical communities, I cannot recommend the publication of this article, at least not in its current form. Overall the article is just not rigorous in substantiating either existing or new claims regarding cosmology and gravitation. In order to gain the acceptance of such a radically new idea, it is imperative to provide solid substantiation that is more than just speculation. [Seems this reviewer has it backwards: The Big Bang is the cosmology based on a radical speculation (and extrapolation); the DSSU is the cosmology based on sound natural processes. But what is most relevant is that the DSSU specifies a causal mechanism for gravity; Big Bang based on general relativity does not! –CR]

The entire DSSU theory is … undocumented in mainstream, peer-reviewed journals and hence is impossible to substantiate. [Here is that Catch 22 again. –CR]

The whole discussion of photon confinement contains not a single statement as the cause of confinement or unconfinement. Interesting states of being, but what causes them? [It is the fact of photon confinement that is relevant to the discussion of gravity. The cause of photon confinement is another story, one that is explored in several references. –CR]

Who are the authors of the confinement theory (no references given)? [Yes, authors and references are given; see #11 and #14. –CR]

There are statements that seem to deride the notion of the Higgs boson. How do recent experimental results that seem to indicate detection of the Higgs boson affect these statements? [I stand by the statements. Consider, what gives the Higgs particle its own self-masses!? –CR]

Reference 16 and the statements about Williamson's explanations are all based on conference presentations, not peer-reviewed articles in mainstream journals, which doesn't help substantiate any of these theories. [Williamson's paper, reference #11, is in a journal that IS peer reviewed. –CR]

First paragraph of Section 3: The author states that the fluctuators cannot be manifestations of energy is due to the definition of energy. How so? Please elaborate and explain. [See the Glossary provided in the paper. –CR]

The whole concept of the aether is intriguing, but of course completely untestable and hence unprovable, as are most of the ideas of the entire article. [And yet ever more evidence and proof is being found. –CR]

After detailing primary and secondary gravity, they never actually show mathematically how the two work together. [The paper purposely focuses on qualitative processes. –CR] Specifically, if primary gravity has a r^5 dependence, how does the addition of Secondary gravity get us back to the well-observed and documented r^2 dependence seen in the real world? [One third of the paper is devoted to how Secondary gravity accomplishes this. –CR]

Under "Cosmic Tension." Simply saying "as any astronomer will confirm" is not a legitimate reference for a statement about the cellular structure of the universe. We must have actual references. That's the way journal articles are done. [According to customary practice, well-established facts/observations need not be referenced. –CR]

–Editor #2 [Oddly, this reviewer did not mention anything from the second half of the paper. –CR]

And lastly:

The submission is very poor. In my opinion, it is. It should be rejected [As this is all the review stated, I am led to wonder if this editor/reviewer actually read the paper. –CR]

–Editor #3

Journal of Gravity

Somebody at this journal was kind enough to send me a personal invitation:

Subject: Invitation to Submit an Article

Dear Dr. Ranzan,

I am writing to invite you to submit an article to Journal of Gravity which provides a rapid forum for the dissemination of original research articles as well as review articles related to all aspects of gravity.

Journal of Gravity is published using an open-access publication model … The journal has a distinguished editorial board with extensive academic qualifications, ensuring that the journal maintains high academic standards and has a broad international coverage. A full list of editors can be found on the journal's website at www.hindawi.com/journals/gravity/editors/.
…

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions about the journal.

Best regards,
Shaimaa Saied, Editorial Office (Dated 2013-02-14)
Journal of Gravity [another publication of the Hindawi Corporation, www.hindawi.com]

Sounds good, “original research articles” and “all aspects of gravity.” It turns out, however, there is one aspect of gravity they are not interested in —its veritable cause!

Dear Dr. Ranzan,

After checking your Research Article 896738 titled "The Processes of Gravitation –the Cause and Mechanism of Gravitation," I regret to inform you that it was found unsuitable for publication in Journal of Gravity.

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to Journal of Gravity.

Best regards,
Badiaa Sayed, Editorial Office (Dated 2013-06-03)

Sorry, no reviews from the orthodox "gravity" professionals at the Journal of Gravity.

The New Understanding of Gravitation

In the end, the paper was published in the Journal of Modern Physics and Applications Vol.2014:3

Complete 24-page article: Download (high-resolution PDF).
The Processes of Gravitation –The Cause and Mechanism of Gravitation (www.cellularuniverse.org/G6GravityProcesses_Ranzan.pdf)

UPDATE NOTE: The original processes-of-gravity article is non-committal with respect to the status of the neutrino. But, it can now be shown that the illusive neutrino does fit into the framework of the DSSU particle model (whereby all particles consist of propagating photons or of confined photon configurations). The neutron is now understood to be a twin-photon structure. –CR, 2015

For a non-mathematical perspective on gravity see:

C. Ranzan, The Story of Gravity and Lambda –How the Theory of Heraclitus Solved the Dark Matter Mystery, Physics Essays Vol.23, No.1, pp75-87 (2010 Mar)

Full 13-page article: PDF Download (www.CellularUniverse.org/G2GravityLambda.pdf )

The new understanding of gravitation has profound implications for cosmology.

* * *

2015-8

Top of page Back to DSSU Home Page

C. Ranzan

Email:
DSSUresearch@CellularUniverse.org

Site updated: 24-02-13

The Processes of Gravitation –The Cause and Mechanism of Gravitation ●Abstract ●Reviews ●Links