The Case for a Cellular Universe
The Story of a Baffling Omission in Modern Cosmology

“We have to return to this foundation and start over again asking ancient but fundamental questions hoping that today we are in a better position to answer them.” –Johan Masreliez[1]

“Beneath the apparently haphazard motions ... may lie a formative tendency toward simplicity of form, order and regularity.” –Lancelot Law Whyte[2]

Opening premise: The Universe, of which we are a part, exists. The Universe exists. As rational beings, we all agree that it does. This is as self-evident as it could possibly be.

(Notice that the word “Universe” is capitalized to make it clear that we are referring to the one real Universe that actually exists. When uncapitalized, it refers to the model of our Universe or some hypothetical universe.)

1.   Is the Universe Finite or Infinite?

In the quest for a problem-free cosmology, the first task should involve deciding whether the Universe exists as a finite or an infinite cosmos. Is the Universe spatially endless or not? Is the Universe timeless or not?

If we unwisely choose to place limits on the Universe —as most cosmologies throughout history have done— we run into several major problems. The most obvious one is called the boundary problem.

The Boundary Problem

The boundary problem involves hypothesizing some sort of “cosmic edge” that bounds and limits the universe. The nature of the outer boundary of the universe has puzzled many of the ablest minds in the history of cosmology. Over the centuries, a variety of cosmic-edge boundaries have been proposed; none makes a compelling connection with reality; all represent attempts to tame the limitless.

One of the earliest attempts at a cosmic edge involved an enveloping boundary of nothingness. A 1^st-century-BC school of Roman philosophers, known as the Stoics, taught that the finite cosmos was surrounded by a void region that stretched to infinity.[3] The Stoics sought to restrict the size of their finite universe by surrounding it with an infinite universe! To the Ancients, the void represented absolute nothingness, and so it seemed reasonable to invoke the void as a way of dividing what is and what is not —a cosmic boundary of unimaginable nothingness. Modern astrophysicists, however, recognized that the void, or the vacuum, represents quasi-physical dynamical space. It had properties. And, of course, everything that is physical, or quasi-physical, belongs to —and is contained within— the Universe. As a strategy for a finite universe the barrier of endless nothingness was a failure.

A common conception was the belief in a wall-like cosmic edge —picture this by thinking of a cosmic egg shell. Johannes Kepler may be cited as a believer in a finite universe that was enclosed in a dark cosmic wall of unspecified nature.[4]

During the middle ages a spiritual boundary was adopted (and acceptance of it was strictly enforced). A spiritual cosmic shell, called the Realm of Heaven, was the outermost region enclosing a number of lower ranking concentric shells of the less pure and material universe. As one moved outward away from Earth the physical realm was progressively transformed into an aetheric or spiritual realm.[5] The spiritual cosmic edge itself —the extreme limit of the medieval universe— consisted of the convex outer limits of the sphere of this Christian Heaven.

Giordano Bruno boldly challenged the effectiveness of the barrier. He ‘explored’ the forbidden territory beyond the edge and found —to the horror of the Guardians of the Holy Truth— infinity. And as with most official doctrines, the more untenable the underlying idea the more ruthlessly it is enforced. Philosopher Bruno exposed the futility of a cosmic-edge idea when he advanced the argument, “... let the surface be what it will, I must always put the question: what is beyond?”[6] and paid the ultimate price: The terminal tax of heresy.

As if on some mission of vengeance, Bruno’s question lives on —haunting all who fear the unholy truth of infinity.

Before considering the modern cosmic boundaries we need to understand the relationship between space-and-time and the universe. Evidently the ancient view was that space and time contained the universe. The universe was pictured as an island surrounded by the void (space) and existing in independent time. The modern view is the converse: the universe contains space and time.[7] The old simplistic barriers have long been discarded; the new complex barriers of the mathematical genus were now embraced.

The first attempt at a mathematical boundary was made by the German astronomer Johann Zöllner, who was not so much motivated by a desire to confine the universe as by the intellectual demand to resolve the infamous gravity paradox.

“In 1887 ... Zöllner proposed a resolution of the gravity paradox that was a landmark in the history of cosmology. Inspired by [Georg Bernhard] Riemann’s work on curved space, he suggested that space was curved and finite, so that the total amount of matter in the universe was finite. ... This was a remarkable anticipation of the Einstein universe of 1917.” [8]

And as it happened, Einstein constructed the modern cosmic boundary. Einstein formulated (in his 1917 theory of the universe) the new boundary as the limits of a mathematical hypersphere of geometrized space.

The mathematical magic behind this geometric barrier may be described something like this: If the universe of spherical space were static, then as you approach its bounding surface (or cosmic "edge") you are "bounced" back towards the center of the universe but from the opposite end of the universe! You will have circumnavigated the finite universe of curved space! Science writer Timothy Ferris, in his book The Whole Shebang, gives a similar description of this bizarre effect using a light beam traveling towards the edge.[9]

Another piece of magic that can be accomplished with a mathematical universe is this: Even though the universe is bounded, and is therefore finite, it has no center. The center of Einstein’s construction (or any general-relativity universe for that matter) is anywhere and everywhere.  Models based on Einstein’s general relativity are abstract universes, not to be confused with the real Universe.

Philosophical Problems

Now consider the problems associated with temporal restrictions. Although a universe that is finite in time does not necessarily imply an end-of-time, it most definitely demands a beginning. Also, any universe that is both finite and evolving has, by implication, a beginning. The very notion that a universe evolves implies a "beginning" moment (and state) from which it evolved. Georges Lemaître understood this when he fashioned the original version of the Big Bang by explicitly including a genesis instant (the one associated with the Primordial Atom). However, Sir Arthur Eddington suggested a deeper understanding when he wrote in the journal Nature: “Philosophically the notion of a beginning to the present order of nature is repugnant to me.” [10] The philosopher Constantin Antonopoulos, critical of the beginning-of-time aspect of the expanding universe model, argues convincingly that the “idea of a first moment of Time is a self-contradictory one.” [11]

Trying to explain “a beginning” adds a vast new layer of complexity to any meaningful understanding of the Cosmos. A philosophical branch of cosmology called cosmogenesis deals with this complexity. It involves the search for the origin of the universe. But since a genesis involves an unsound and unnecessary assumption —a creation event— it is not good science. Postulating and explaining the creation of the universe is more a matter of faith than logic. Noble Laureate Hannes Alfvén sums up the point:

“There is no rational reason to doubt that the universe has existed indefinitely, for an infinite time. It is only myth that attempts to say how the universe came into being either four thousand years ago or twenty billion years ago.” [12]

And of course anyone who has done any thinking at all will have, at one time or another, asked, “What came before the big creation event?” Physicists recognize this for what it is —an invalid question since there was no "before" time. However, the related question has them scratching their heads.

“What caused the creation event?” Indeed, what did trigger the beginning?

The popular approach to resolve the beginning paradox is to invoke repeating cycles of creation followed by annihilation. It’s a clever solution. The beginning is redefined as a transformation event (or process) whereby the old universe is recycled into a new one. Each cycle is of finite time duration. However, since the cycles are endlessly repeating, such a universe must then be truly timewise infinite (provided there was no first cycle, no beginning cycle). By invoking endless cycles, a finite universe is successfully made into a paradox-free universe. But, if we think about it, the cycles are not at all necessary. We could, irrespective of cycles, with or without cycles, just accept that the Universe has always existed; and conclude that for an infinite universe there is no paradox (Flowchart 1).

A universe that is finite in time has always been philosophically objectionable.

Initial Conditions Problem

A true infinite universe is clearly a non-created universe. It did NOT start-out in some compact form and then transition to the infinite state. It is because it always was.

In contrast, a true finite universe is a created universe. The problem with a created universe, aside from the serious philosophical problems mentioned, is the determination of the physical laws of nature and the magnitude of the fundamental constants. How and why did Nature choose the laws and the constants? This is known as the initial conditions problem. How did the created universe end-up with its three or four fundamental forces when there could have been any number whatsoever?! Same goes for the various constants of nature and the collection of unique subatomic particles.  How were the menu items of universal rules and building components selected before there was a menu?

In Big Bang cosmology the initial conditions problem leads to the mystery of the primordial atom: The metaphysical assumption that the universe originated as an infinitely small primordial atom of infinite matter density is countered by the probability that for physical reasons a singular state of this nature is unattainable.[13] Nevertheless, this is what some versions of the Big Bang propose. Now think about this for a moment. A universe starts out as a singularity —an infinitely small speck of a point. Then this singularity grows to become a universe. Is there anyone who would deny that a speck of almost nothing that contains almost everything is a paradox?

A paradox, of course, is the worst kind of problem. It is the most effective way of destroying any hypothesis (and any theory).

Academic cosmologists tell us that “A universe that evolves from initial conditions, that has all its complexity implicit in a simple initial state, is a preferred universe.” [14]  But wait a moment. Aren’t the experts overlooking the fact that a universe that simply has NO initial conditions is actually the most preferred universe? ... They should be reminded that only an infinite universe presents such a situation; it has no initial conditions (simply because it was never in an infant state). Consequently, it has no genesis paradox and no singularity paradox.

Needless to say, regardless of the finite-infinite selection we are undertaking, the fundamental laws still need to be explained (why they are what they are) but this is not the purpose of the present article.

For most finite universes there is also the related problem of end-state conditions. It’s described as the mystery of the fate of the Cosmos. For example, will the Big Bang universe continue expanding forever or will it collapse back into that impossible singularity?

Two Natures of Existence

We must here distinguish between the nature of existence of the Universe, on the one hand, and of the existence of the objects-and-entities of (and contained in) the Universe, on the other. The existence of the Universe refers to the existence of its processes —the processes that manifest the Universe. Without Processes there can be no Universe. But the "things" of the universe have a secondary status. The existence of the discrete objects and entities are subordinate to the Processes that form them, sustain them, transform them, and terminate them. In other words the duration of the existence of particles and entities need not be the same as the existence duration of the Processes —the duration of the former may be shorter. That is what is meant by their subordinate status.

Universe and Processes are synonymous terms. And to avoid the "beginning" paradox we must accept the reality that the Processes (whatever they may be) are perpetual processes and, like the Universe, had no beginning.

The distinction between the two natures of existence is profound. It means that a universe can and must be infinite in its existence —infinite in spatial extent and temporal duration. And at the same time, every object and entity in, and of, a universe can have a limited duration of existence. Everything can be ontologically finite. That is to say, we can have an infinitely existing universe in which (or of which) no thing has infinite existence. We can have a universe with no beginning and no ending; and also have any, and all, of its objects-and-entities forming (beginning), interacting, transforming, and terminating (ending). We can have an infinite universe filled with finites!

In the opening discussion, we agreed on the existence of the Universe; we now recognize the full extent of its existence. Nothing less than an infinite universe is acceptable.

Although the argument in favor of an infinite universe is compelling, it does not diminish the extraordinary difficulty of grasping the conclusion’s totally uncompromising meaning and its power to out-scale anything imaginable into unimaginable insignificance. It is as though that which has no limiting barrier becomes itself a conceptual barrier of sorts. Ironic indeed. Infinitude becomes a barrier of the mind. ... We each deal with that issue as best we can.

The Universe is timeless and spatially endless because it has always been timeless and endless. It exists perpetually.

“Things are as they are because they were as they were.” –American physicist Thomas Gold[15]

And in its perpetual existence, it exemplifies the dictum called the perfect cosmological principle.[16]

	Flowchart 1.  Choosing between the finite class and the infinite class of universe.

We Choose “the Infinite”

Based on the above discussion, the reasonable choice is clearly the infinite universe. The Objective-reality view holds that the Universe is infinite.

Care to guess the Official Science view?

The Official View is succinctly expressed by Roger Penrose a leading expert on the Universe and “one of the world’s most knowledgeable and creative mathematical physicists,” [17]

“We do not know whether the universe as a whole is finite or infinite in extent —either in space or in time ...” –R. Penrose[18]

It may surprise you that Academic Science does not commit itself. Understand that Academia would like to embrace the finite concept but the accompanying problems are too blatant, too irresolvable. On the other hand, no matter how compelling the ‘infinity’ choice may be, Academia cannot accept it! I repeat, the infinite universe cannot be accepted into the Official View.  In the next section we make a simple choice for the space medium of our universe and in the selection process grasp the reason why Academia must preclude the limitless universe.

2.   The Space Medium of the Universe is Dynamic

Early in the 20^th century the theories and investigations of Einstein, Willem de Sitter, and Alexander Friedmann made it imperative that, whatever space is, it must posses a dynamic quality. Space could not be static; space had to be an active player in the universe. In other words, the nature of space was such that it had to expand or contract. In fact, DeSitter found that space was dynamic (specifically expansionary) even when space was completely empty, that is, when there was no mass present! With or without mass, “... in the general relativity picture the universe consists of expanding space.” [19]

Then came the hard evidence. Astronomers, most notably Vesto Slipher, followed in the 1920s by Carl Wirtz, and Edwin Hubble, found that all but the nearest galaxies appeared to be receding from our solar system and our Milky Way galaxy. Evidently the cosmic space between galaxies was expanding. It was the light from those galaxies that held the key. As the light from far-off galaxies radiates through expanding space the light waves are stretched —slowly, relentlessly, cumulatively. The resulting elongated light waves carry the measurable imprint of space expansion. The measurable imprint is called the redshift — the hard evidence.

The large scale expansion of space is commonly called the Hubble expansion in honor of Edwin Hubble.

Space expansion is also observable as the phenomenon called the Lambda effect (and means exactly the same thing). In fact, astrophysicists have for many years referred to space expansion as the Lambda effect, as well as the DeSitter effect. In the 1980s a hypothetical form of space expansion, called inflation, was introduced and became popular, particularly in explaining the earliest stage of Big Bang evolution.

The evidence that space actually expands was so overwhelmingly convincing that this dynamic process has been adopted as the main pillar of modern cosmology. You will find this process underpinning practically all the models of the last 100 years or so. The Einstein-DeSitter model —the basic textbook model— depends on space expansion. All the Big Bang models depend on space expansion. The various Inflation models depend on space expansion. Even the historic Steady State models required this expansion. (A rare exception is the Edward Milne model of kinematic relativity.) Cyclical and Oscillating universes use expansion for their current phase.

But expansion is only part of the dynamic story. Dynamic space also partakes in a process of contraction. The universe’s space medium has a contraction mode.

“Einstein’s theory ... predicts that a uniform, unbounded medium can’t be static; it must either expand or contract.” [20]

Einstein’s theory of gravity (general relativity theory) is a mathematical description of the contractile nature of space. According to his theory, space undergoes a contraction (relativists prefer the geometric phrasing and say that space curves positively) in the vicinity of mass and energy. As a simplified illustration, the Sun, is contracting the space of the Solar system, but since the Earth is (and the other orbiting bodies are) "falling" tangentially away from the Sun we do not notice the shrinkage. The Earth’s outward motion is balanced by the inward motion of space and our distance from the Sun remains more or less constant.

Space contraction is an observable phenomenon that is essential in the manifestation of the gravitational effect. In the study of Process Physics, researchers refer to the contraction process as the “self-dissipation of space.”  It means the same thing —space shrinks, space disappears.
 

So here’s what we have. Theory says space must contract or expand; observational evidence shows that space does both. The choice for our space medium is obvious, as shown in Flowchart 2.
 

	Flowchart 2.   It is a well established fact that space is dynamic. There are two basic modes whereby space reveals its dynamic nature —space may expand, space may contract. Which then means there are three ways to incorporate dynamic space into a model of the universe: (1) Space in the universe expands; (2) space in the universe contracts; (3) the universe contains both expansion and contraction.

Before examining the final and most interesting selection menu, allow me to explain the expanding-space trap in which Contemporary Cosmology has entangled itself. Rightfully convinced of the reality of space expansion, the overzealous participants then extrapolated the fact of the expansion-of-cosmic-regional-space into the highly speculative notion of the expansion of the entire universe!! Calling the extrapolation the Big Bang universe leaves no doubt about their belief in whole-universe expansion.

But now observe: Only a finite universe can, theoretically, expand. An infinite universe cannot. It would be utterly foolish and completely pointless to propose an infinite universe that could or would expand and become measurably bigger! If the concept of infinity means anything, it certainly means “already fully expanded” and the infinite radius (or diameter) cannot become more infinite!

And so, Official Cosmology must turn its back on the infinite universe concept, for it has committed itself a priori to the expansion paradigm. History tells us, the medievalists, prior to Kepler, had solemnly pronounced that the perfection of the universe was revealed in the perfect circular motions of the Heavenly bodies. Their modern counterparts now ordain that the perfection of the universe is patent in the universal Hubble expansion.

Having elevated the Hubble expansion as the defining feature of the universe (rather than restricting the defining feature to a property of space itself) Official Cosmology must equivocate on the issue of finite versus infinite. Otherwise, if it does the honest thing and declares the universe to be finite it will look foolish because of its inability to resolve the serious problems (associated with the finite universe) discussed in Section 1. If it submits to reality and declares the universe to be infinite it will look foolish because it’s sacred Hubble expansion will become impotent. There appears to be no way out.

Let me make this absolutely clear, the expanding universe paradigm (and I must emphasis here, expanding space and expanding universe are two totally different things), the very heart of the Official Cosmology, is scientifically untenable. The paradigm of universe-wide expansion has led Official Cosmology into a trap. It is trapped between the jaws of finitude and infinitude. The simple choice presented earlier in Flowchart 1 is forbidden.

Understand the nature of the trap and you understand the forces resisting meaningful change. It seems that when Academic cosmologists discuss the problem of finite-versus-infinite the main purpose is not to nail down a resolution in the interest of science, but rather to maintain a perpetual balance of views as if in the interest of fairness. If this is the game plan then it works wonderfully —Academia cleverly avoids making that fateful commitment. The Ptolemaic “saving the appearances” trumps the search for truth.

3.  The Five Combinations of Space-Expansion and Contraction

The chosen criterion is a universe with two opposing space dynamics. We may quickly conclude that there are only five possible ways to combine expansion and contraction. They represent five classes of universes; each class with generally defined combinations of space dynamics.

The Chaotic universe has no discernable order. Randomness reigns. There is a chaotic expansion and contraction of space; and the scale of this activity may depend on some unrestrained (similarly chaotic) variable. Theorists, like the Russian cosmologist Andrei Linde, have a field-day throwing together a seemingly endless variety of speculative models of this genre. Nature, however, reveals far too much order for this category to represent reality.

When the two processes occur simultaneously nothing of consequence happens (at least initially). Think of it as a leaky-balloon universe. As the quantity of air is "expanded" or inflated by pumping air into the balloon, there is a compensating dissipation of air via the pinhole leaks. With luck, a temporary equilibrium may be achieved. Anyway, metaphor aside, the end result is a nominally static universe —a universe balanced between runaway expansion and runaway contraction.

In 1917 Einstein constructed a mathematical version of the static universe. Not surprisingly, its state, and fate, was precariously balanced. The slightest disturbance between cosmological "inflation" and "dissipation" resulted in the unmistakable instability of feedback amplification. In other words Einstein’s model wouldn’t work. Einstein eventually abandoned it and in 1932 selected the universal expansion class instead. In the context of Flowchart 3, he switched from the 2^nd box to the 4^th box.

The Sequential combination (the third block from the left in Flowchart 3) leads directly to religio-cosmology offering universes of repeating bursts of creation and annihilation. This group is defined by the sequential and monolithic space expansion, then contraction, then expansion again, and so on. Every reader of popular science will recognize this as a cyclical Big-Bang Big-Crunch universe. Historically, this is known as the Oscillating universe and was the type favored by Alexander Friedmann. Interestingly, the oldest documented universe —the Brahmanda universe of Hinduism— belongs to this class.

The problems? The Sequential (or Oscillating) universe, as a more complex version of the Big Bang, has them in abundance.

The fourth combination involves Universal Expansion with Isolated Contraction. This, of course, is the Official View. Universal space expansion, which the Big Bang advocates call the Hubble expansion, causes the universe to expand; meanwhile isolated contraction tends to concentrate the otherwise randomly distributed galaxies, resulting in the formation of localized galaxy clusters. Unfortunately the model makes wrong predictions. For instance, a slowing-down of the big-bang expansion had been predicted, but in 1998 certain astronomical evidence was interpreted as the unexpected speeding-up of big-bang expansion. So in 1998, the decelerating Big Bang became the Accelerating Big Bang universe.

With its paradoxes, patches, and phantom components (like dark matter) the Official View is a problem plagued cosmology. A leading physicist, Sean M. Carroll, with the California Institute of Technology, makes it devastatingly clear. “...This scenario staggers under the burden of its unnaturalness, ...” [21]  In fact, and in bold print, he calls it “the preposterous universe.” [22]

Included in the fourth category is the hierarchical universe (often called the fractal model), a type of universe popular among some physicists. As is usually the case, there are many versions; but since they generally incorporate the characteristic universal expansion along with localized contraction, albeit of greater complexity, they may be included.

	Flowchart 3.   The five possible combinations of space expansion and contraction define five universe classes. The Regional class stands out: When, for an infinite universe, space expansion is fundamentally linked to compensating contraction, then a cosmic cellular structure necessarily manifests. The Regional category leads to the Cellular Universe which has consistently shown to be a problem-free cosmology.

The final combination involves the regional expansion of space and a compensating regional contraction. Now, if we apply this combination to the infinite universe (chosen in Flowchart 1) and recognize, as we did earlier, that an infinite universe neither expands nor contracts, then we must necessarily end-up with a cellularized universe. Furthermore, if the dual dynamics are in some way fundamentally linked to each other, then a stable equilibrium will exist between the processes of space expansion and contraction. More to the point, the cosmic cell structure will be more or less regular.

A perfectly natural picture of the Universe emerges. Naturally ordered regions of space expansion (regions called voids) are separated by enveloping regions of space contraction (regions called galaxy clusters).

In this balanced struggle between rival dynamics, the Greek philosopher Heraclitus would have recognized his own world view of “opposites in harmony” and of everything being in perpetual flux. We recognize it as a problem-free cosmology —a revolutionary new cosmology.

4.   Revolutionary Cosmology versus Official Cosmology

Two aspects of the Cellular Universe need to be explained. First, the adoption of the Cellular Universe model represents a true revolution in Cosmology. Second, it plays a leading role in a strange mystery of omission.

Revolution in Cosmology

In the chronicles of cosmology, great emphasis is placed on what is called the Copernican revolution. Although the principle that no place in the universe is special or central was of revolutionary importance, the Copernican world system was not a revolutionary new theory; it was, more precisely, the rediscovery of the ancient Aristarchos (of Samos) Heliocentric system from almost nineteen centuries earlier. By glorifying a recycled idea as a great revolution I suppose we assuage the Western World’s failure to equal the Ancients in their intellectual prowess and the Western World’s scientific stagnation during the many centuries of relative darkness before the appearance of the light of Copernicus, Kepler, and Galileo.

The chronicles of cosmology also describe the great 20^th-century revolution with the development of general relativity theory and the discovery of cosmic redshift, followed subsequently by the enthronement of the exploding-universe paradigm. The central idea had been called, derisively, the Big Bang but by the late 1960s it had become the official model.[23] Yet the model was a consistent failure and made no useful predictions. Truly devastating was that the Official Model could not account for the large scale structure in the universe —the deviation from homogeneity of galaxy count distribution.[24] Astronomers observed the grand-scale clumping in the Universe, but Academic theorists could give no reasonable explanation.[25]  And so the chronicles describe the Official Model’s long and fruitless search for missing dark matter —crucial for explaining the cohesion of galaxy clusters and networks. And at the same time there is a search for missing dark energy —crucial for explaining the acceleration of the Hubble expansion, as suggested by the famous supernovae, type 1a, observations.

The problems and failures of the Official Model are far too numerous to itemize here let alone go into the embarrassing details. The struggle to patch-up the model is ongoing. Researchers typically concentrate on one particular problem at a time; often the resolution attempts end-up exacerbating some other existing problem, or worse, creating new ones. Meanwhile, there is an audience that is growing impatient. Science writer Roy C. Martin, Jr. has been evaluating the performance, making it quite clear that it’s time for the curtain to come down. He presents the verdict in his popular book entitled, Astronomy on Trial: A Devastating and Complete Repudiation of the Big Bang Fiasco.[26] At the time of revising the present article (late 2014), the Book’s verdict continues to hold true.

While the Copernican revolution was successful; the Big Bang revolution was a failure.

Which brings us to the next cosmology revolution.

     Look at the flowcharts again. They include ALL the realistic possibilities. In the first chart only two possibilities exist; in the second chart only three; the last, only five. If I have, by some oversight, omitted any other such possibility I will immediately retract this article and make whatever inclusion is needed. In particular, give attention to the third chart which shows all the conceivable realistic ways (emphasis is placed on realistic so as to exclude the countless mathematical ways) that space can expand and contract. We know (we agreed earlier) it does both. Now for an explanation of why the distinct combinations are important.

Up to this point there has been very little discussion of the relationship between dynamic space and the material stuff in the universe. We now add this material, say in the form of galaxies, to the five model types; and observe. The observations will become the final arbiter of the validity of the model.

We have five combinations of space; giving rise to characteristic patterns. The pattern of the space dynamics will determine the distribution of the mass. For the chaotic space category, in the absence of more specific details, we would expect a random mass distribution. For the second category in which space simultaneously expands and contracts no noteworthy pattern would be expected. For both the sequential and the universal categories we would quite reasonably expect a high degree of homogeneous distribution of mass, but not an organized pattern. Only the regional class predicts a pattern with an orderly distribution of mass. Mass would concentrate at the interface bordering (and surrounding) the individual cosmic cells with their space expanding interiors. It is this cellular pattern formed by galaxies clustering according to regional space dynamics that solves the long-standing homogeneity problem.

The large departure from homogeneity that astronomers observe in our Universe is such a striking fact, that physicist Hannes Alfvén considered this as the main argument against the Big Bang (which, he points out, wrongly predicts a smooth distribution). To Alfvén, the cellular structure of the Universe was obvious; and the fact that the Official Model could not explain cellular structure, equally obvious.[27]

   At this point, I have to pause and wonder. ... What is preventing my learned colleagues from seeing the glaringly obvious solution?  May I respectfully suggest that the easiest way to explain the observed cell-like structure is to use a cellular model? Not a big-explosion model!

Strange it is how a revolution can hinge on something so self-evident.

In standard cosmology the observed lack of homogeneity is a mystery. For a new cosmology to be considered revolutionary, it must, as a bare minimum, solve the homogeneity riddle and thereby reveal the nature of our Universe’s conformity to the cosmological principle; it must make meaningful predictions that agree with actual observations; and it must share none of the serious problems and fatal flaws highlighted in Flowchart 1. The Cellular Universe model does this and much more. Its ability to resolve numerous other cosmology and astrophysics problems is detailed elsewhere. However, based solely on the three charts, the conclusion is unambiguous: The Universe is nonexpanding. The Universe is ordered. The Universe is cellular.

The cellular model represents a powerful theory with the ability to explain the deviation from simple homogeneity, overcome the initial conditions problem, resolve the genesis paradox, stabilize the universe, and conform to the uncompromising demands of astronomical observations. Remarkably, all is accomplished without any radical departure from standard physics! ... and without introducing any radical mysterious components. This is unprecedented in modern cosmology.

This is considered Revolutionary Cosmology.

The Omission Mystery

I now come to the most amazing aspect of the quest that led to the cellular universe. If I had not done the related archival research myself, I would have given almost no credibility to the following claim. I still find it hard to believe. According to the chronicles of cosmology, all of the models implicit in the third flowchart have been tested except for one. During the years and decades following the key realization, back in the 1920s, that space is dynamic, all possible variations of dynamic modes have been explored —with one exception.

   The cellular universe model has never been examined; there is nothing to be found in the literature. In fact, prior to 2002 there was no name or term for a universe in which space expands but the universe itself does not.[28] This oversight is arguably the most inexplicable omission confronting cosmology and astrophysics.

   Imagine the challenge of performing research in biology, crystallography, thermodynamics, and a number of other fields without the concept of cells and cell structure! Knowing that the macro-world tends to imitate the micro-world, knowing this, would it then not be basic scientific procedure to test this concept on the ultimate macro-world?

   The omission is not only inexplicable, it is inexcusable. Cellular structure is, after all, and regardless of scale, nature’s preferred expression of order.

Transformation of Official Cosmology

One can’t help but ask: What kind of science are researchers practicing in the relevant academic departments? When will the problems and paradoxes be resolved and the “preposterous universe” become less preposterous? Or how about the very simple but still unanswered questions, What causes some galaxies to rotate? What causes ellipticity in non-rotating galaxies? Big Bang cosmology cannot say.

   Twentieth-century cosmology has blundered badly. The evasion of the finite-infinite question, and the error of omission, and the paradoxes mentioned earlier are but a few of the many unresolved problems. The sad truth is that they are irresolvable without destroying much of the superstructure of the Official Model. However, unable or unwilling to address the serious issues, Official Cosmology blunders on. And so, patching the failing pieces of the model has become a never-ending project of “saving the appearances.” Again, sad. Rather than “... return to this foundation and start over again asking ancient but fundamental questions hoping that today we are in a better position to answer them,” [29] as physicist Johan Masreliez advises; rather than submit to the simple logic that cosmic cellular structure is surely best explained by a dynamic cellular model; rather than perform an elementary reality check, as our three charts exemplify and restore basic scientific principles; Academic Cosmology has devolved into a deception.

   The Official Cosmology has experienced so many failures and endured so many attacks that it has evolved an effective defense strategy: It has become ever more esoterical and mathematical in an effort to conceal the blunders. Furthermore, while maintaining the pretense of doing science, Official Cosmology has over the course of many decades transformed itself into Modern Mythology.

Objective Cosmology versus Modern Mythology

The Official Cosmology paints a picture of an evolving universe. But what it evolved from, we are told, is a complete mystery. A universe that evolves from a place or time outside the investigative reach of science is a universe that requires variable laws of nature. If the current laws break down for the very early Big Bang universe, then the laws must have been different at that time (or even non-existent). Again, this is what we are told. But a picture of an evolving universe, no matter how refined and detailed, is not a proper scientific representation.

“The big bang implied that the universe evolved over time, which implied that natural laws might also evolve over time. Such evolution would undermine the repeatability of experiments and so undermine the cornerstone of scientific method[ology].” –Corey Powell[30]

The Big-Bang universal-expansion view represents a denial of the scientific method.

If I had to choose a checkmate argument one that leaves no way out, and makes it clear why there is no way out, I would advance the following. The Official model (and all of its variants) uses variable physical laws, therefore it is unscientific. It represents a mythical universe. It cannot claim to represent a real universe.

That latter claim belongs to the 5^th category in Flowchart 3, a realistic objective model, the one with dual dynamic space, the one our quest has led to. The real Universe is the naturally ordered, harmoniously balanced, structurally stable, and perpetually existent —here it comes, as promised— Cellular Universe.     

© 2014 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 credited.

2008-3 rev2014-10a   --------------------------  www.CellularUniverse.org

References and Notes: