“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 selfevident 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 problemfree 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 cosmicedge 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}centuryBC 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 quasiphysical dynamical space. It had
properties. And, of course, everything that is physical, or quasiphysical,
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 walllike
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 cosmicedge 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 spaceandtime 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 generalrelativity 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 endoftime, 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 beginningoftime
aspect of the expanding universe model, argues convincingly that the “idea
of a first moment of Time is a selfcontradictory 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
paradoxfree 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 noncreated
universe. It did NOT startout 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 endup 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 finiteinfinite
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 endstate 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
objectsandentities 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 objectsandentities 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 outscale
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 Objectivereality 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 faroff 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 EinsteinDeSitter
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
“selfdissipation 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 expandingspace 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 expansionofcosmicregionalspace 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 wholeuniverse 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 universewide
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 finiteversusinfinite 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 SpaceExpansion 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 fieldday 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 leakyballoon
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 religiocosmology 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
BigBang BigCrunch 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
slowingdown of the bigbang expansion had been predicted, but in 1998
certain astronomical evidence was interpreted as the unexpected speedingup
of bigbang 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 problemfree 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 endup 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 problemfree 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 explodinguniverse 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 grandscale 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 patchup the model is ongoing. Researchers typically concentrate
on one particular problem at a time; often the resolution attempts endup
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
longstanding 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 celllike
structure is to use a cellular model? Not a bigexplosion
model!
Strange it is how a revolution can hinge on something
so selfevident.
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
macroworld tends to imitate the microworld, knowing this, would it then
not be basic scientific procedure to test this concept on the ultimate
macroworld?
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 nonrotating galaxies? Big Bang cosmology cannot say.
Twentiethcentury cosmology has blundered badly. The
evasion of the finiteinfinite 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 neverending 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 nonexistent). 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 BigBang universalexpansion 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 openaccess 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.
20083 rev201410a  www.CellularUniverse.org
References and Notes:
[1] Johan Masreliez: www.estfound.org/philosophical.htm
[2] Lancelot Law Whyte, as in The Mystery
of Matter. Edited by Louise B. Young (Oxford University Press, New
York, 1965) P538
[3] E. R. Harrison, Cosmology, the
Science of the Universe (Cambridge University Press, 1981) p103
[6] E. R. Harrison, Masks of the
Universe, Changing Ideas on the Nature of the Cosmos (2nd ed.
Cambridge University Press, 2003) p254
[8] E. R. Harrison, Cosmology, the
Science of the Universe, p281
[9] T. Ferris, The Whole Shebang
(Simon & Schuster, New York, 1997) p70 & p320
[10] Sir Arthur Eddington, quoted in Corey
S. Powell, God in the Equation (The Free Press, New York, 2002)
p134
[11] Constantin Antonopoulos, A Bang into
Nowhere, Comments on the Universe Expansion Theory (Aperion, Vol.10,
No.1, January 2003) p46
[12] Hannes Alfvén, as in The Big Bang
Never Happened, Discover magazine, June 1988
[13] E. R. Harrison, Cosmology, the
Science of the Universe, p229
[15] Thomas Gold, as in Timothy Ferris,
Coming of Age in the Milky Way (William Morrow and Co., Inc., New
York, 1988) p338
[16] The Perfect Cosmological Principle
states that the universe is uniform both in unlimited time and in
unlimited space; an extension of the cosmological principle.
[17] Roger Penrose, The Emperor’s New
Mind (Oxford University Press, New York, 1990) page v
[19] E. R. Harrison, Cosmology, the
Science of the Universe, p287
[20] David Layzer, Cosmogenesis, the
Growth of Order in the Universe (Oxford University Press, New York,
1991) p145
[21] S. M. Carroll, The Cosmological
Constant, Living Reviews in Relativity, 4:1 (2001)
Posted at: https://link.springer.com/article/10.12942/lrr20011
[22] Sean Carroll’s website: http://preposterousuniverse.com/
[23] Corey S. Powell, God in the Equation
(The Free Press, New York, 2002) p178
[24] Yurij V. Baryshev, Conceptual
Problems of Fractal Cosmology (arXiv:astroph/9912074 v1 3 Dec
1999) p3 & p15
[25] Jaan Einasto, The Structure of the
Universe on 100 Mpc Scales, in The Ninth Marcel Grossmann Meeting
(2000 July). Proceedings ed. V. G. Gurzadyan, R. T. Jantzen, & R.
Ruffini, p291300, 2002 (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002nmgm.meet..291E)
p89
[26] Roy C. Martin Jr., Astronomy on
Trial: A Devastating and Complete Repudiation of the Big Bang Fiasco
(University Press of America, Inc, Lanham, Maryland, 1999)
[27] As described in: JeanClaude Pecker,
Some Critiques of the Big Bang Cosmology (J. Astrophys. Astr.
1997 18, p323–333)
[28] The name Dynamic Steady State
Universe was chosen to designate an equilibrium universe in
which space expands but the universe itself does not. This name first
appeared in public at the 2002 International Munich Symposium.
[29] Johan Masreliez: www.estfound.org/philosophical.htm
[30] Corey S. Powell, God in the Equation,
p163
