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.” –Dr. Johan Masreliez
“Beneath the apparently haphazard motions ... may lie a formative tendency toward simplicity of form, order
and regularity.” –Lancelot
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
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
If we unwisely choose to place limits on the Universe —as
most cosmologies throughout history have— we run into several major problems.
The most obvious one is called the boundary
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 first century B.C.
school of Roman
philosophers, known as the Stoics, taught that the finite cosmos was surrounded by a void region that stretched to
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
A common conception was the belief in a wall-like cosmic edge —think
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.
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.
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?”
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.
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
“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.” 
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
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.
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.” 
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.” 
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.” 
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
“What caused the creation event?” Indeed, what did trigger
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
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
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.
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.” 
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
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
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
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
And in its perpetual existence it exemplifies the dictum
called the perfect cosmological principle.
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,” 
“We do not know whether the universe as a whole is finite or
infinite in extent —either in space or in time ...” –R. Penrose
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 explain why Academia must preclude the limitless universe.
2 The Space-Medium of the Universe is
Early in the 20th 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
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 space expansion. (A rare exception is the Edward Milne model of
kinematic relativity.) Cyclical and Oscillating universes use space expansion
for their current cycle.
But space 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.” 
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. (Relativists use the
language of geometric and prefer to say that space curves positively.) 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.
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
Before entering into the final
and most interesting selection-round, 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
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
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.
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 2nd
box to the 4th 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 space-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
space-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 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, ...”
 In fact, and in bold print, he calls it “the
preposterous universe.” 
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 with localized contraction,
albeit of greater complexity, they are included here.
The five possible combinations of space expansion and space
contraction define five universe classes. The Regional class stands
out: When, for an infinite universe, space expansion is fundamentally linked
to space 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 space 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
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
Revolution in Cosmology
In the chronicles of cosmology great emphasis is
placed on what is called the Copernican revolution. Although the great
principle of this revolution, 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 20th
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.
Yet the model was a consistent failure and made no useful predictions. Truly
devastating is that the Official Model cannot account for the large scale
structure in the universe —the deviation from homogeneity of galaxy count
observe the grand-scale clumping in the Universe, but Academic theorists have
no explanation. 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 and 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 its 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. 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.
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 I draw your attention to
the third chart which shows all the conceivable realistic ways (I place the emphasis on realistic so as to exclude the countless mathematical ways) that
space can expand and contract. We know (we agreed earlier) it does both. I will
now explain 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
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 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.
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.
Continuing, 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
non-expanding. 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
This is considered
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.
This oversight is arguably the most
inexplicable omission confronting cosmology and astrophysics.
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
The omission is not only inexplicable, it is
inexcusable when you consider that 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,” 
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
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
“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
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 5th 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.
2008-03 rev2014-10 Copyright © by Conrad Ranzan E-mail: Ranzan@CellularUniverse.org www.CellularUniverse.org
References and Notes: