A historical tour of universes culminating with the Natural Universe

Conrad Ranzan
DSSU Research, Niagara Falls, Canada

Published on the Cellular Universe website (www.cellularuniverse.org ) 2008 rev2015-8
URL: http://www.CellularUniverse.org/HistoricalTour-NaturalUniverse.htm

The Universe is endlessly speaking, forever sending signals.

Among the earliest people who listened and asked 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 which 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; such perfect motion was surely the handiwork of an omnipotent God. Religious men of this era, like the earlier philosopher 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), who was 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 culminating 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 three interpretations. The universe allows for three options for the cause of the proportional variation of galaxy redshift, the proportional variation with increasing cosmic distance: (1) a Doppler-like recession motion, (2) a space-expansion comoving motion, and (3) an unknown gravity effect that somehow weakens light during its cosmic journey. 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 of these 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 (1894-1966) 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 such a 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 constructed a supporting argument. He used Einstein's then recently constructed theory of general relativity, and contemporary 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. The chronicles of cosmology do testify to this negligence by the conspicuous absence of any challenge to the questionable legitimacy of a conclusion drawn from an overextended theory. Therein lies a gold mine for investigative journalists and 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 cosmic 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 had become 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 play along and corroborate the 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 believed to be 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 roughly 15 billion years ago. If I recall correctly, didn't Bishop James Ussher in the 17th century use the authoritative writings of the Old Testament to calculate that the universe began 4004 years before the Christian Era? ...  Three centuries after Bishop Ussher the time-scale was radically revised. The new high priests of cosmology carefully interpreted the CMR sounds, the echo of Lemaitre’s big bang, and calculated that the universe began 15 billion years before the Christian Era! ... And so we see, we understand, what is happening. "The universe is endlessly speaking" while priests and scholars struggle with the translation.

The tempo quickens. During the first decade of the 21st century, most astrophysicists were claiming that the universe was 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 have 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 redshift would indicate; it means the message did not agree with the reigning theory. These experts, never having been exposed to any meaningful alternate models, had little choice but to turn to the officially approved Expansion 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 is speeding up its expansion.  If only they had stopped for a moment and consider, maybe the redshift-distance equation being used is wrong. Maybe the acceleration interpretation is discordant with reality. But there was no escape from the long-established conceptual tunnel of cosmic expansion. To put a sensory twist on a familiar old saying: One hears only what one is trained to hear, what one is trained to expect to hear.

Rather than concede that there is a serious flaw in the theory, team members of the supernova investigations expressed 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 cosmic acceleration, failed to predict what is now claimed to be the biggest phenomenon of the Big Bang universe second only to the genesis-explosion itself. Such failure 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 colorful 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 (a fancy term for a renewed burst of expansion). 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) around the year 2007 had this to say:

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

According to the definition of “preposterous” as given in my Webster Dictionary, Sean Carroll is telling us that the standard Big Bang model is "Contrary to nature, reason, or common sense; utterly foolish; absurd." Here is another quote 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.

At the end of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st there were many theoretical physicists tuned into the sound of strings. Physicist Brian Greene is one; he has "heard" the vibrations of strings. In his universe, which he publicizes as the Elegant Universe,^[11] he promotes the reality of vibrating strings of mathematical 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, rather, 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 dimensions 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. Brian Greene's 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 or /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 were cosmologists convinced the universe is speaking the language of inflation. Inflation was eventually adopted as part of the standard hot big bang cosmology.

The Double Dark universe. During the last few decades another strange construction crawled out of the Box. It's called the Double Dark theory of the universe. (I credit Professor Primack for coming up with this name.^[13]) For many years, astronomers have been tuning in, reluctantly at first but ever more spiritedly as the years passed, 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 is why it's called dark) mysterious kind of matter. Exciting indeed. The Double Dark theory brings together two unexplained mysteries in a bold and 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 expansion as discussed earlier. The Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics in June 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 Big Bang; 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 Big Bang 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, or vacuum-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 Big Bang coordinate expansion. In the physical 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 practiced 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. Keep in mind that "space", sometimes called the vacuum, refers to the universal space medium and is properly called the aether. The terms are all synonymous.

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 —a mechanism that is, naturally, a process.

The Natural Universe is the one for which the necessity of logical simplicity leaves no freedom to be otherwise. It is the universe with only one pattern of self-organization, making it categorically a Cellular Universe..

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

The four Postulates (and the related axioms) and how they perpetually interact to manifest the natural Dynamic Steady State Universe, and how they sustain its cosmic cellular structure, are detailed in the following works:

• Guide to the Construction of the Natural Universe
  (DSSU Research, Niagara Falls, Canada, 2014) ISBN 978-0-9938823-0-2 (Book webpage)
• The Dynamic Steady State Universe.
  This is a 30 page PDF document with 37 figures and 1 table and list of references. The table and various flowcharts and graphs provide an excellent summary and comparison of the Natural Universe Cosmology and the Expanding Universe Cosmology. [Reprinted by permission of Physics Essays Publication: The Dynamic Steady State Universe. Physics Essays Vol.27, No.2, pp.286-315]

Three indispensable features. What is presented in the book and the research article is unlike anything that has ever been published. The reason I can make this assurance is that all universe models that have ever been constructed, with this one exception, have left out three essential components. Countless philosophers and scientists have attempted to make sense of our Universe. But 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 extends, the more unnatural the universe seems to be. Nevertheless, propelled by a relentless determination, Men continue to listen 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 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, according to Primack, 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! Meanwhile, the new perspective is unique. The Natural Universe, as detailed in the 2014 book and the summary article, is unlike any other model or scenario of our Universe —quite so, because it incorporates the noted essentials into its four Conceptual Pillars.

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.

2008 rev2015-8               Copyright © by Conrad Ranzan

This is an open-access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Notes and References

1. ^ Joel R. Primack & Nancy E. Abrams. 2006. The View from the Center of the Universe (Riverhead Books, New York) p36
2. ^ Colin Ronan. 1982. Science: its History and Development Among the World Cultures (The Hamlyn Publishing Group Ltd, New York) p339
3. ^ C. Ranzan. 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/Th1CellularUniverseArgument.htm) Section 2.
   C. Ranzan. 2009. The Story of Gravity and Lambda —How the Theory of Heraclitus Solved the Dark Matter Mystery, Physics Essays Vol.23, No.1, P75-87 (2010 Mar); doi:10.4006/1.3293983 (ArticleReprint)
4. ^ Joel R. Primack & Nancy E. Abrams. 2006. The View from the Center of the Universe, p108
5. ^ Robert P. Kirshner. The Extravagant Universe (Princeton University Press, 2003) (www.cfa.harvard.edu/~rkirshner/goldsmith.html)
6. ^ Freeman J. Dyson. 2007. A Many-Colored Glass (University of Virginia Press) p93
7. ^ Henning Genz. 1994. Nothingness, The Science of Empty Space (English translation edition, 1999; Perseus Books Publishing) p296
8. ^ http://www.preposterousuniverse.com
9. ^ Sean M. Carroll. 2001. The Cosmological Constant, Published in: Living Reviews in Relativity. Open access: https://link.springer.com/article/10.12942/lrr-2001-1
   Preprint version: (https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0004075 )
10. ^ Sean M. Carroll. 2006. Is Our Universe Natural? Nature 440, 1132; (arXiv:hep-th/0512148)  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. ^ T. Ferris. 1997. The Whole Shebang, A State-of-the-Universe(s) Report (Simon & Schuster, New York) p17-18
13. ^ Joel R. Primack & Nancy E. Abrams. 2006. The View from the Center of the Universe
14. ^ Tirthabir Biswas & Alessio Notari. 2008. ‘Swiss-Cheese’ Inhomogeneous Cosmology and the Dark Energy Problem --Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics Vol:2008, Issue:June, (https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1475-7516/2008/06/021/meta) p2
15. ^ David Layzer. 1991. Cosmogenesis, the Growth of Order in the Universe (Oxford University Press, New York) p145
16. ^ Joel R. Primack & Nancy E. Abrams. 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. ^ Joel R. Primack & Nancy E. Abrams. 2006. The View from the Center of the Universe
19. ^ David Berlinski. 1995.  A Tour of the Calculus (Pantheon Books, N.Y.) p105

2015 08

Top of page            Back to DSSU Home Page