Theoretical Foundation and Pillars of
Dynamic Steady State Universe
DSSU Research, Niagara Falls, Canada
Introduction —A historical tour of
universes culminating with the Natural Universe
"The universe is endlessly speaking. People ask the
universe the questions they are capable of conceiving and hear the
answers they are capable of hearing."
The Universe is endlessly speaking, forever sending signals.
Among the earliest people to listen and to ask questions of
the universe were the Ancient Greeks. In some of the Greek states and Greek
societies, the ones in which men were relatively free, knowledge expanded
and philosophical schools flourished. The Pythagoreans, most eminently,
developed expertise in mathematics, geometry and the numerical aspects of
musical harmony. They advanced these studies into complex theories of
numbers, geometry and music. When the Pythagoreans asked questions of the
universe they were looking for geometric perfection, orderly motion, and
harmony of the heavens. Notably, they believed there was a musical aspect
to the universe. Based partly on their knowledge of the mathematics of
sounds and partly on their studies of the orbital times of the planets, the
Pythagoreans 'heard' the so-called 'music of the spheres' constituting the
universe. The periodic motion of each planet was equated with a musical
note on a musical scale extended by many octaves. The Pythagorean
universe consisted of transparent spheres, each carrying a planet, and
each rotating with mechanical perfection around the spherical Earth at the
center. There were also spheres for the Moon, the Sun and an outermost
sphere for the fixed stars; these likewise rotated about the Earth. The
Pythagoreans sought harmony, symmetry, and numerical meaning in their
astronomy and to their mystical delight heard the 'music of the spheres' of
Divine Harmony. During the early Christian era there was an emphasis on
divinely ordained order. Men were looking for an unchanging and timeless
world of perfect order. The perfect shape of the circle represented that
order. Motion in the heavenly world must therefore run smoothly and
uniformly in circles; such perfect motion was surely the handiwork of an omnipotent
god. These religious Men, like the earlier Greeks, heard the music and the
harmony of spheres. The music conveyed not only geometric perfection but
also a new theme. Since many of the concentric spheres were equated with
various degrees of divinity, the music, to these listeners, was heavenly
and angelic. The Christians recognized the Divine harmony of the Ptolemaic
system of the world, built up, as it was, of circles. And so, the Ptolemaic
Harmony became the Official Tune. For well over a millennium (for about
fourteen centuries) no one dared change a note. Harmony heresy became
punishable, and deafness to the deeper sounds of the Universe descended.
More "music of the spheres." Many centuries later, and many years after Nicolaus Copernicus rediscovered the ancient
Helicentric theory of Aristarchos of Samos, the famous astronomer Johannes Kepler
(1571-1630), who was also searching for harmony, symmetry, and numerical meaning,
heard the same music. Kepler was looking for some underlying regularity
---some evidence of divine design behind his newly discovered system of
elliptical planetary motion. Science historian Colin Ronan relates how "His
perseverance was rewarded, and in 1618 ... he published his Harmony of the
World. This, to him, was his crowning achievement. He had discovered a
relationship between the velocities of the planets in their elliptical
orbits and musical harmony; he was able to relate the greatest and least
velocities of each planet to the musical scale. This was Kepler's
culminating vision, the apotheosis of the 'music of the spheres' of
Pythagoras and Plato." Fortunately, to the benefit of natural cosmology, Kepler's
Mysticism eventually led him to formulate his famous three laws of
The first sounds of expansion. In the early twentieth century
astronomers were tuning in to a previously unrecognized sound. They found,
to their wonderment, that the universe was speaking through the
transformation (called redshifting) of light from distant galaxies. The
greater the distance to the galaxy the larger was the transformation
(redshift) of its light. Scientists heard the message loud and clear
---even elevated it to the status of a law, called the Hubble law. The
redshift message had three interpretations. The universe
allows for three options for the cause of the proportional variation of
galaxy redshift, the proportional variation with increasing cosmic distance: (1) a Doppler-like
recession motion, (2) a space-expansion comoving motion, and (3) an unknown
gravity effect that somehow weakens light during its cosmic journey. Under all three options the
universe appears to be expanding ---like moving a magnifying
glass slowly away from a specimen makes the specimen appear to be expanding.
But Scientists 'heard' more than what the actual redshift message contained!
They thought they 'heard' that the universe ---the whole universe--- was
actually expanding. And as every fully conscious person on our planet knows,
they came up with the Expanding universe.
The Expanding-universe paradigm turned out to be a Pandora's Box of
misinterpretations. Surely the most outrageous was the primordial explosion
of the universe. To some listeners, the universe was not merely speaking,
it was convulsing and thundering.
As the twentieth century progressed new questions were being posed.
Georges Lemaitre of Belgium was a trained expert of the heavens, both
astrophysical and theological. Lemaitre was a theologian. When a religious
man contemplates the Universe, his contemplation instinctively includes the
Creator. When a religious man asks questions of the universe his main
concern is: How was it created? And so when a religious man listens to the
universe he expects to hear the sound of the Creation, or at least its
theoretical replay. Lemaitre 'heard' the sound of the beginning of the universe and, what is
more, he constructed a supporting argument. He used Einstein's then recently constructed theory
of general relativity, and contemporary astronomical data, to show that the universe in
the past was extremely dense and correspondingly much smaller; he was able
to 'prove' that the universe had a hot big-bang Genesis. Lemaitre devoutly
believed in his Creator. But let me be clear on this, Lemaitre's religious
belief is not subject to criticism; it is his scientific belief that
definitely is. His belief in the applicability of Einstein's theory was
unfortunate and misguided. The
theory of general relativity is a local theory of spacetime; it is a
theory of local gravity; it cannot be a theory of the whole
universe. The dynamic activity of the universe as a whole cannot be
encompassed by one pair of equations. Lemaitre's Big Bang universe
(1927-1929) is based on an unscientific extrapolation.
The fact that the exploding universe was an unscientific extrapolation
was ignored, as the chronicles of cosmology testify by the conspicuous
absence of any challenge to the legitimacy of a conclusion drawn from an
overextended theory. Therein lies a gold mine for historians.
... Anyway, Albert Einstein had became the undisputed authority on gravity. His
theory of general relativity had established the new rules for astrophysics
and cosmology. Theorists learned those rules, adopted a new way of perceiving
space and the universe, and explored the various implications. Lemaitre, by
running the expanding-universe backward, had 'discovered' the birth of the
universe. The question now was, would the universe continue expanding
forever or would it collapse in on itself?! Although the question should
have focused on validity (general relativity, after all, is an incomplete theory) and
applicability (local, not universal). It didn't. Quite understandable. In
the magic and excitement of exploring a dynamic model that does mysterious
things like distort spacetime and blow itself apart and conceal its
cosmic boundary, reality becomes a secondary consideration. As it happened, most
astronomers assumed that the expansion of the universe would not continue
forever but would gradually slow down because of the inward pull of gravity
of everything in it. The
cosmological constant (an energy
term in Einstein's equation), which could act as an anti-gravity effect,
was believed to be either non-existent or much weaker than gravity. Which
means that with no
meaningful opposition, gravity becomes the dominant force of the universe.
Lo and behold, the world had become a collapsing universe. They called
it the Oscillating universe (also known as the Friedmann-Einstein model).
From our perspective the scenario represents the audible convulsions of a
universe speaking through a flawed theory.
Some years ago Isaac Asimov assembled the contemporary thinking in
cosmology and came up with a popular work called “The Collapsing
Universe” in which he describes the entire universe becoming a black
hole as it collapses in on itself. Problem was, the real universe refused
to play along and corroborate the theory; the evidence for a collapsing world has never been
Meanwhile, astronomers thought they detected the remnant ripples of a
universe exploding. In the 1960s, with a more detailed theory (although
still based on an unscientific extrapolation) and more sophisticated
listening devices, astronomers 'discovered' what they believe is the echo of the Big Bang. Astronomers measured a steady flux of microwaves
coming from all directions of the heavens. They called it the cosmic
microwave background radiation (CMBR) and interpreted it as the immensely
weakened noise of the Big Bang event of roughly 15 billion years ago. If I recall
correctly, didn't Bishop James Ussher in the 17th century use the
authoritative writings of the Old Testament to calculate that the universe
began 4004 years before the Christian Era? ... Three centuries after
Bishop Ussher the time-scale was radically revised. The new high priests of
cosmology carefully interpreted the CMR sounds, the echo of Lemaitre’s big
bang, and calculated that the universe began 15 billion years before the
Christian Era! ... And so we see, we understand, what is happening. "The
universe is endlessly speaking" while priests and scholars struggle with
The tempo quickens. During the first decade of the 21st century,
most astrophysicists were claiming that the universe was telling them that
cosmic expansion is accelerating!
What sound does an accelerating universe make? We may get some idea
from Harvard Universe
astrophysicist Robert P. Kirshner and Dr. Saul Perlmutter (at the Lawrence
Berkley National Laboratory in California) who have headed respective teams
of experts that have listened to, and have decoded, the message. The
message comes from extremely distant type 1a supernovas. Decoded, it simply
means the supernova events are about 25% dimmer than expected. It means
that the supernova stars are farther away than their redshift would
indicate; it means the message did not agree with theory. These experts,
never having been exposed to any meaningful alternate models, had little
choice but to turn to the officially approved Expansion cosmology for
answers. They instinctively interpreted the data as the 'sounds' of an
expanding universe in acceleration mode —the sounds of a universe that is
not only expanding but also speeding up its expansion. If only they
had stopped for a moment and consider that maybe the redshift-distance
equation being used is wrong. Maybe the acceleration interpretation is
discordant with reality. But there was no escape from the long-established
conceptual tunnel of cosmic expansion. To put a sensory twist on a familiar
old saying: One hears only what one is trained to hear, what one is
trained to expect to hear.
Rather than concede that there is a serious flaw in the theory, team
members of the supernova investigations expressed reactions of disbelief, "amazement and horror," surprise
that the universe would bother to accelerate itself, and surprise that the
universe would be so extravagant! Team leader Robert Kirshner tells the
whole story —his lavish view of reality— in his book, appropriately
titled, The Extravagant Universe. The "Extravagant" modifier refers to the expanding-and-accelerating
Big-Bang universe. As a modifier it is ironically well chosen. I can think
of no better way to epitomize a universe, one that is based on an
unscientific extrapolation, than to boldly name it Extravagant —a word
that means not only lavish, excessive, and wasteful, but also "beyond the
bounds of reason."
Think about this for a moment. The cosmology experts are using a model
of the universe that notably failed to predict cosmic acceleration, failed
to predict what is now claimed to be
the biggest phenomenon of the Big Bang universe second only to the genesis-explosion
itself. Such failure is a sure sign of a bad theory. Such is the legacy of the Pandorean
Box of expansion extrapolation.
can't help but wonder if the professionals really believe what their
paradox-riddled universe is telling them. Do they really believe that our
universe is undergoing runaway expansion (as Donald Goldsmith calls it in
his book The Runaway Universe). Never mind the "abundant evidence", the
multi-decimal place precision, and the colorful computer-simulations
—all presented in support of an evolving universe. Forget the multi-media hype promoting
the new-and-improved Big Bang (yet another version of the Expanding
forget the naïve excitement over re-inflation. One wonders. What do
the experts really think? The famous nonagenarian scholar, Freeman J. Dyson
(Professor Emeritus of Physics, Institute of Advanced Study at Princeton
University) had this to say:
"I like to keep an open mind about the accelerating
model of the universe because there is a long history of astronomers
believing confidently in some particular cosmological model and then
changing their minds later. When I was a student fifty years ago,
everyone believed in a closed model that had the universe collapsing
into a big crunch after a finite time. then, twenty years ago, on the
basis of slender evidence, everyone believed in a decelerating model
that had distant galaxies moving away from us more and more slowly as
time went on. Then, ten years ago, on the basis of stronger evidence,
everyone believed in the linear model. And now, on the basis of
evidence collected during the last five years, everyone believes in
the accelerating model. Astronomers have a tendency to follow the
latest fashion. ... I still look at it with a skeptical eye."
What about the big-bang creation hypothesis and the subsequent
whole-universe evolution idea? ... German astrophysicist Henning Genz found
them to be unpersuasive.
"Let me stress that all these models of the development of the universe
from nothing at all ... have to be seen for what they are: models, devoid of compelling experimental verification. The scenarios
we develop from them are possible, and they illustrate various features we
can follow up on, but none is ultimately persuasive."
To say that the standard Big Bang model is not persuasive is to put it
mildly. It is, in no uncertain terms, a preposterous universe! So says the American astrophysicist
"This [accelerating big bang] scenario staggers
under the burden of its unnaturalness,"
These are strong words and deserve emphasis: The Big Bang staggers
under the burden of its unnaturalness.
According to the definition of “preposterous” as given in my Webster Dictionary,
Sean Carroll is telling us that the standard
Big Bang model is "Contrary to nature, reason, or common sense; utterly
foolish; absurd." Here is another quote from his research paper, Is Our Universe Natural?:
"If any system should be natural, it’s the universe. Nevertheless,
according to the criteria [of reasonable expectation] just described, the universe we observe
seems dramatically unnatural." 
Incidentally, Carroll is is permitted to make such highly critical
statements and publish his exposé simply because his faith is undeterred —he remains a strong supporter of the Big Bang.
It never stops. The Universe —the mysterious manifestation of existence— continues to speak. Forever
displaying the same phenomena, transmitting the same radiations,
orchestrating the same processes. Men continue to listen, continue to
filter the Universe's messages through the latest theory or hypothesis. It
seems that as the process of matching messages with mathematical models
becomes increasingly complex, the picture of the universe becomes ever more
At the end of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st there were many theoretical physicists tuned into the
sound of strings. Physicist Brian Greene is one; he has "heard" the vibrations of strings.
In his universe, which he publicizes as the Elegant Universe, he
promotes the reality of vibrating
strings of mathematical string theory (and superstring theory). The fundamental
constituents of his universe are not the point-like particles that are
normally idealized as having no size but are ultramicroscopic strings and
loops that vibrate like acoustic sources. Depending on the resonant
patterns of vibrations, the strings are supposed to represent elementary
particles and fundamental forces —even mass and charge. The Elegant
Universe, with its unnaturally large number of dimensions (ten dimensions in
the "simple" version!) and without observational results, is a Platonic
universe. It is purely mathematical and without experimental evidence,
wholly in tune with Plato's teaching. Brian Greene's string universe is a
mathematical universe; the cacophony of its strings has yet to be
orchestrated into elegant music, or into anything meaningful.
Greene's Elegant Universe may or may not be mathematically elegant.
Not being a mathematician, I don't know. But I do know that when you invoke
more than three spatial dimensions and a time dimension then you are
speculating in a fantasy world —you've crossed the boundary of reality.
For those who have failed to decipher the messages of the real world, there
is always the temptation to turn to some higher dimensional universe as an
intoxicating escape from reality. For a model or /theory to be called elegant
it must, above all, embody inevitability. The Greene universe is not
inevitable, not natural, not elegant.
There are others —other escapees of Pandora's Box of cosmic
misconceptions. They include the historic Steady State expanding
universe, the Milne universe (in which, strange as it may seem, the
universe expands but space itself does not!), the Cold Inflation universe,
and the Hot Inflation universe. The list continues with the Chaotic
Inflation universe and the cancerous Self-Reproducing universe. The name
"Inflation" refers to the speculative notion that the early Big Bang
universe may have undergone a period of extremely rapid expansion lasting
only a fraction of a second. Instead of just a big bang, the inflation
event turned it into a supersonic bang; or more accurately a hyper-lightspeed
big-bang. There are obvious problems. It relies on a mysterious
inflationary field and a weird antigravity particle called an inflaton,
neither of which has ever been detected. Nevertheless, there
convinced the universe is speaking the language of inflation. Inflation was
eventually adopted as part of the standard hot big bang cosmology.
The Double Dark universe. During the last few decades another strange
construction crawled out of the Box. It's called the Double Dark
theory of the universe. (I credit Professor Primack for coming up with
this name.) For
astronomers have been tuning in, reluctantly at first but ever more spiritedly
as the years passed,
to the "sound" of dark stuff —dark energy and dark material. What makes
this model so exciting (or rather preposterous) is that not only does it
have an unknown source of energy but it also requires an invisible (that is
why it's called dark) mysterious kind of matter. Exciting indeed. The Double
Dark theory brings together two unexplained mysteries in a bold (or desperate) attempt to resolve an even bigger mystery
phenomenon "discovered" in the aftermath of the famous cosmology Crisis of
Let me explain.
Most physicists believe that the biggest unresolved problem facing
Cosmology is the acceleration of Big Bang (BB) expansion as discussed
earlier. The Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics in June 2008 stated:
"The fact that our universe seems to be accelerating at present has been
one of the most remarkable and baffling findings of recent cosmological
observations." The usual way of explaining it is with some variation of the
Double Dark theory, that is, by postulating the presence of a Dark Energy
and by invoking Dark Matter in an effort to modify gravity. The Double Dark
theory is just another version of the BB; technically it is called the Lambda
Cold Dark Matter (ΛCDM) model. I quote from the same Journal, "The ΛCDM model has become the most popular choice, being the
most economical model that is consistent with most cosmological observations, but it is
safe to say that no completely satisfactory or compelling explanation has yet emerged."
And no compelling explanation will
ever emerge from BB cosmology regardless of the specific version. What
makes the Double Dark universe unconvincing, even preposterous, is that a
real phenomenon is being lumped together with a chimeral substance. The so
called Dark Energy is simply the space-expansion effect, which is a long
established fact (it is, in fact, the essential a priori process of
the universe). But Dark Matter is pure speculation. It is not predicted by
any meaningful theory, does not interact with ordinary matter, and, as we are repeatedly told,
has never been
detected. No place, no time, not ever. I would put it this way: If
space-expansion, or vacuum-expansion, is the cornerstone of modern cosmology, then the
mysterious Dark Matter is its Philosopher's Stone. In the real world
Dark Matter does not exist.
Acceleration is an aspect of the pen-and-paper mathematical universe, in
which it is the derivative of the rate of BB coordinate expansion. In the
real world, acceleration is but an illusion.
Unfortunately the acceleration issue is a major detraction from the
really big problems in cosmology.
(1) Standard Cosmology is utterly unable to explain the existing
large-scale non-homogeneity. Textbook writer David Layzer poses the
problem: “Why is the distribution of matter in the Universe so clumpy? In
the beginning, the cosmic medium was certainly gaseous and very nearly
—if not perfectly— uniform. Why hasn’t it remained uniform?” While only
minor clumping is predicted, major clumping is observed!
(2) Standard Cosmology has no cause-independent process. It means
there is an unresolved cause-of-causes paradox.
(3) Standard Cosmology has no causal mechanism for gravity. (The fatal
omission in all cosmology practiced prior to the year 2002.)
The most serious and blatantly obvious of these is the missing causal
mechanism for gravitation. Why is this so serious? Because NO theory of the
universe will work properly without one. Furthermore, a workable cosmos
theory requires a quantum theory of gravity. However, as Professor Primack
points out, a "comprehensive theory of 'quantum gravity', which would
encompass and thus supersede both quantum mechanics and general relativity,
is still a dream of physics. Superstring theory is our current best hope of
such a theory."
All I can say is that we have been hoping and waiting for a very long time.
... Indeed. ... While the world waits, and waits, for the "dream of
physics" to become reality (and the hope of string theory to be fulfilled),
let us do what the experts have long failed to do; let us take a close look
at the Natural Universe.
What do I mean by a 'Natural Universe' ?
Given the fact that the keystone of practically all modern cosmology is the process of the expansion
of space, the Natural Universe necessarily consists of
expanding space; and since it is also a stable
universe it consists of a corresponding degree of contracting space.
Keep in mind that "space" refers to the vacuum, or the space medium
properly called the aether. The terms are all synonymous.
A natural universe has only three spatial
dimensions (and a dimension of non-existence).
A natural universe is not a universe of
things but of processes. Even the attribute called mass is the
manifestation of a process. A natural
universe is a universe in which gravity has a clearly defined causal
mechanism —being, naturally, a process.
The Natural Universe is the one for which
the necessity of logical simplicity leaves no freedom to be otherwise. It
is the universe with only one pattern of self-organization, making it
categorically a Cellular Universe..
The Natural Universe has four
process (or metaphorically four causes). They are represented in the figure below by the
Four Pillars of the DSSU edifice.
The Natural Universe has four key
Processes —its four
They form the four great Pillars of the DSSU edifice and represent,
respectively, aether-space contraction,
aether-space expansion, mass-energy particle formation,
and mass-energy suppression-annihilation (also known as
Terminal Annihilation). They rest firmly on a foundation
of a discretized space medium and a causeless process permeating
infinite 3-dimensional space.
The four Postulates (and the related axioms) and how they perpetually
interact to manifest the natural Dynamic Steady State Universe, and how
they sustain its cosmic cellular structure, are detailed in the following
Theoretical Foundation and Pillars of the Dynamic Steady State
Universe (Temporarily unavailable. Currently being updated;
images being upgraded.)
- The Dynamic Steady
This is a 30 page PDF document with 37 figures and 1
table and list of references. The table and various flowcharts and graphs provide an excellent summary and comparison of the
Natural Universe Cosmology and the Expanding Universe Cosmology.
[Reprinted by permission of Physics Essays Publication: The Dynamic
Steady State Universe.
Physics Essays Vol.27, No.2, pp.286-315]
- Supplementary Discussion:
The Primary Process (htm)
This is a brief discussion involving one of the four Pillars. It focuses
on what must surely be the most amazing aspect of the Postulate One
process of the universe.
Let me give this assurance: What you are about to read in the linked
research paper is unlike anything that has ever been published. The reason
I can make this assurance is that, with one exception, all universe models
that have ever been constructed have left out three essential
philosophers and scientists have attempted to make sense of our
Universe. But none of the scenarios they have constructed, as the foregoing historical
review has argued, has been convincing. None has been free of
paradoxes and logical gaps. The Men of today listening to the Universe
have, for the most part, resigned themselves to the belief that we live in
a Preposterous Universe. They find it embarrassingly difficult to
understand why the universe seems so strange and "dramatically unnatural."
The deeper the search for fundamental understanding, the more unnatural
the universe seems to be. Nevertheless, propelled by a relentless
determination, Men continue to listen and interpret. Sadly, the error
of omission also continues. For instance,
Professor Joel Primack, in his search for a deeper meaning to the universe
and our extraordinary place in it, has written (coauthored) a book whose main purpose
is to present what he calls the Meaningful Universe.
And sure enough Primack's Meaningful Universe misses the three essential components: The
causal mechanism of gravity is missing (instead it accepts Einstein's
incomplete theory); the Primary process is missing (Primack fails to
recognize the necessity of a causeless process); intrinsic cosmic cell
structure is missing (cell structure is considered to be merely coincidental to primordial inhomogeneity). Primack's Meaningful Universe is a repackaging of the Preposterous Universe.
The Preposterous Big-Bang Universe, in effect, is made meaningful,
according to Primack, through the
active participation of us, Mankind, by our emotional, intellectual and
cultural involvement. The result may be a cosmos with meaning, but it is
still unnatural! The 2014 research paper on the Natural Universe is
unlike any other model or scenario of our Universe because it incorporates
the noted essentials into its four Conceptual Pillars.
In the long history of cosmology, during ages of listening to the
Universe, there has never been anything comparable to the Natural Universe ---the
Dynamic Steady State Universe.
"... regardless of what authority might affirm
or fashion dictate, there it is, out there,
objectively distinct, indifferent to human intervention, the universe, the
world itself, the commanding thing that we are meant to know."
–David Berlinski, philosopher and mathematician
Copyright © by Conrad Ranzan