Steady State Models of the Universe
and their Authors

Albert Einstein (03.14.1879 - 04.18.1955). In 1917 Einstein had introduced the static model of the Universe, which was eternal in time and finite in space, but it had no borders. In his equations Einstein wrote the additional cosmological lambda-coefficient as the additional constant under integration. In 1922 Friedman had received the solution for non-static world. In a several years Hubble had published the first results about discovered red shifts in the spectrums of distant galaxies, and it was possible to explain these red shifts as the consequence of the expanding of the Universe. In 1931 Einstein refused the lambda coefficient and entered to the camp of the supporters of the expanding Universe, which has the Beginning. Thus, Albert Einstein is one of authors of the Steady State Universe, and he could be added to the camp of supporters of this model, but only with the limited period of his life.

Erich Regener. He had predicted (1933) the intergalactic space temperature (2.8K) much earlier and much more precise than Gamow.

Walther Nernst. His model (1937) is static and homogeneous in large scale. He suggested the equation to explain the light absorption by cosmic dust or something similar, due to decrease of the luminous quantum of energy, resulting in the reddening of the photon: -d(hn) = H(hn) dt. At the page History of the 2.7 K temperature prior to Penzias and Wilson we can read the following: "...In fact, as early as 1921, I predicted implicitly the existence of red shift, based on my new conception..." Consequently, Walther Nernst predicted the red shift before the paper of Friedman had appeared, and he had discussed the cosmic background radiation much earlier than Gamow did that.

Fred Hoyle. (24 June 1915 - 20 August 2001) He collaborated with Hermann Bondi and Thomas Gold and in 1948 they published two papers about the steady-state cosmology. Fred Hoyle introduced a negative-pressure C-field into Albert Einstein's equations. Steady-state model were eternal but needed the constant creation of the new born matter.
Fred Hoyle straggled against the model of expanding Universe having the beginning. Laughed and shouted: "Big Bang!" Thus the Big Bang theory acquired its name. And in 1972 after a regrettable dispute and after Hoyle's premature retirement from Cambridge in 1972 he found himself in isolation from the broad academic community. His later scientific writings, which continued throughout the 1980s and 1990s, dealt with such topics as Stonehenge, panspermia, Darwinism, paleontology, and viruses from space. But he never lost his interest in cosmology: His book A Different Approach to Cosmology: From a Static Universe through the Big Bang towards Reality, coauthored with G. Burbidge and Narlikar, appeared in 2000.

Louis de Broglie.

Max Born.

P.A.M. Dirac (1902-1984). Big numbers.

Hannes Alfven ( 1908 - 1995). Eric J. Lerner wrote at the page "...Alfven was the founder of the modern field of plasma physics, the study of electrically conducting gases. Alfven's ideas and research in studying the behaviour of plasma are routinely used in the many applications of plasma physics, as is shown by the many concepts that bear his name- Alfven wave, Alfven speed, Alfven limit and so on. But Alfven's most significant contribution to science is his daring reformulation of cosmology, his critique of the Big Bang, and his posing of an alternative, the plasma universe-an evolving universe without beginning or end. Alfven was recognized for his contributions to the foundation of plasma physics by being awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1970. But his broadest contributions to cosmology and to the human view of our universe are not yet fully appreciated, since they still conflict with the dominant orthodoxy of the Big Bang and the mathematical-mythological approach to cosmology. In time, however, Alfven will be viewed as the Galileo of the late twentieth centuryЕ"

Finlay-Freundlich. He had noticed (1954) different types of stars, belonging to the same nebula give somewhat different red shifts. He proposed the hypothesis that light passing through deep layers of intense radiation field, loses energy - perhaps due to photon-photon interaction - and that the energy loss is proportional both to the density of radiation field and to the length of path of the light through the radiation field.

Nikolay Kozyrev. (08.20.1908 - 02.27.1983) He developed the model of Ever Young Universe. He had explained the energy sources, as the process of time absorption: the time is active; the space is passive. He had discovered the gas eruption on the Moon; predicted the volcanic activity of big planet's satellites.

Jayant Narlikar. He had solved (1977) the field equations for particle masses as a function of time, i.e. m=m(t). Jayant Narlikar had collaborated with Fred Hoyle and with Halton Arp.

Halton Arp. He discusses about the Le Sage gravity. Halton Arp had found several close objects with very different redshifts. He uses the idea of Jayant Narlikar about the cause of red shift. At the page he wrote: "ЕLarge redshifts differences are observed between whole extragalactic objects which are at the same distance. Intrinsic redshifts are required. But now what is the consequence of having low mass fundamental particles? It is simply that low mass electrons transitioning between atomic orbits will emit and absorb lower energy photons, i.e. they will appear redshifted compared to atoms with heavier particles"... On his web-site we can find: "Quasars are born with high redshift and evolve into galaxies of lower redshift"
"In the late 1950's when the prestigious Armenian astronomer, Viktor Ambarzumian was president of the International Astronomical Union he said that just looking at pictures convinced him that new galaxies were ejected out of old."

Andre Koch Torres Assis. He develops the model of steady state Universe without expansion. His Universe is infinite in space and eternal in time. He advocates the hypothesis of "tired light" about the red shift of light emitted by distant galaxies. A.K.T Assis explains the gravity force as the Weber-like force. The absorption of gravity leads to the exponential decay in the gravitational potential. The details one can find here:
The excellent history of predictions of cosmic background radiation is published by A.K.T Assis and M.C.D Neves УHistory of the 2.7 K temperature prior to Penzias and Wilson.Ф Look also: УThe redshift revisited

Eric J. Lerner. In the article he writes:
Е The implications of this work are fundamental to our understanding of the universe and its history. If the universe is not expanding and the FRW model is invalid, there was no big bang and the general cosmological model will have to be replaced with another approach. There are alternative cosmological models that can explain major features of the universe such as large scale structure, the light element abundances and the cosmic background radiation without a big bang or an expanding universe. For example, plasma cosmology, which assumes an evolving universe without an origin in time has provided such explanations and accurate predictions of new phenomenaЕ

C. Johan Masreliez. The excellent book about the Scale-Expanding Cosmos His Universe is equivalent at any time epoch. The virtuous math with tensors one can find here:

Nikolay Zhuck. He has developed the new model of the stationary (non-expanding) Universe with 3D space and 3D time on the basis of fundamental physics laws generalization. He has proved their adequacy for the real nature description and applied tasks solution. His papers are freely accessible on (International Physical Journal "Spacetime & Substance"), (Zhuck N. A., Moroz V.V and A.M. Varaksin. "Quasars and the large-scale structure of the Universe") and (articles in Russian).

What is of common in these models?

The main goal to create these cosmology models, probably, was the desire of the authors to put into correspondence the theory with the observations and logic, and to wipe the religious tendencies out of cosmology. The authors of these models deeply understand the Big Bang (BB) theory and it's contradictions. The BB hypothesis had become a dogma, supported by religious social circles. BB theory is stated in the textbooks as if it is absolutely true and was repeatedly tested. Astronomy teachers and professors must teach this dogma to their students even if they doubt in this hypothesis. They must lie about the first seconds and minutes of the Universe, about quark-gluon plasma and other ravings of a madman.

An Open Letter to the Scientific Community was published in New Scientist, May 22, 2004. Thirty-three researchers, well known in the world, signed it. Hundreds of reasonable scientists had joined themselves to the appeal. The Steady State models have one main common feature, - there was no divine beginning of the Universe. The act of creation is canceled. But in the different models this goal is achieved differently.

In the model of Hoyle, Bondi and Gold the Universe expands, but in order to make the Universe unchangeable in large scales, the authors concluded, that the new matter constantly is created, thus that average density of the Universe remains constant. It was a premature deed to throw this theory away. Who knows, may be tomorrow, we will find that the tightly closed bottle of water contain one atom more, then in contained yesterday. It is evidently, that this model violates the law of matter conservation, but the BB hypothesis does also violate it. Consequently, these both hypotheses must remain hypotheses. The time will show, which of them is the better.

Some models, mentioned above, I would name dynamical and some of them - kinematical. Let's look at first at the dynamical models.

Einstein's static model with cosmological term. Is it erroneous? I think, that the cosmological term corresponds to the cosmic background radiation. The light particles bring the straight pressure upon the ponderable mater of the Universe, and they bring the normal pressure upon the curved space metric of the Universe. The cause of this is hidden in the fact that light particles are forced to turn their direction constantly because of local and global curvature of the closed Universe. If Einstein would catch this idea in time, he would be able to predict both the cosmological red shift and the cosmic background radiation.

It seems that the models of Nikolay Zhuck and A.K.T Assis are dynamical and alike in some features. Nikolay Zhuck speaks about the finite radius of gravity interactions, comparing them with the Ukava-like forces. A.K.T Assis speaks about gravity forces as the Weber-like forces. In both models we can see the exponential "decay of the forces". I try to understand this decay as follows. Let's mention the Dirac's big numbers, the Mach's Principle. And let's imagine the latticed space-time. Let defect links of the space-time lattice jump from line to line and draw the quasi-closed circumferences. Proton will be drawn completely at the period equal to it's Compton-time exactly. The quantity of lines defect link had jumped at this time-period is equal to the square root of the Dirac's big number. These lines, after they have took part in the proton drawing, move further, and now they are shorter a little. The line's penetrating ability is huge, but nevertheless - finite. This ability is comparable to that of neutrino. Or may be the space-time lines are just some sort of virtual neutrinos. Because of the finite penetrating ability the quantity of lines of the fixed proton will be constantly decreasing. Lines that had interacted with another particle will be the signatures of this new particle, but not of the initial fixed proton. Consequently, the gravity force will be decreasing proportionally to the square of distance and it will obey to the exponential law of decay of proton's proper lines. Thus, the models of Nikolay Zhuck and A.K.T Assis contain the Mach's principle, because all lines, which had drawn the proton, had come from far cosmos. Every galaxy took part in the creation of the proton's mass. These models satisfy the Dirac's hypothesis about big numbers, since some part of lines, coming from some galaxy to fixed proton, had changed their initial direction of movement, because of interactions with intermediate particles. The interactions with the intermediate particles lead to partial screening. Both authors discuss this phenomenon. But it is impossible to exit without sacrifices.

Thus in the book "Cosmology" (Kharkov, 2000, in Russian) written by Nikolay Zhuck we can see that the velocity of light becomes dependent of the passed distance. But in the 2003 publications we can notice the new space-time transformations. The time becomes three-dimensional. What happened? Let's try to find the answer in another model. In his steady state model Johan Masreliez went to another sacrifice, - the progression of time is dependent of time. It seems, that the Zhuck's conclusion about the distance dependence of the light velocity and the Masreliez' conclusion about the progression of time have the common roots, but as we can see, the authors went by different philosophical ways.

Johan Masreliez also tries to expand the symmetry between the space and time. In his model he investigates not just the space expansion on the background of uniformly passing time, but the space and time are both expanding. As a result the Universe becomes equivalent itself at any time epoch. In the model of Masreliez the new phenomenon appears, - the cosmic drag. In the Zhuck's model this phenomenon was named gravitational viscosity (stickiness). Velocity of rectilinear motion decreases with the time in both models. But investigating the circular motion the authors come to different conclusions. According to the Masreliez's model, planets, moving by the spiral-like trajectories approach to the Sun. He found some evidences for this idea and tries to develop it further. In the model of Nikolay Zhuck we can see two forces, which were equaled, and as a result he received the stability condition of two objects, rotating around the common center of masses::

r = (GM/(Hc))1/2,

Where: M - mass of the central object, H - Hubble constant, c - speed of light. It is remarkable to note that I had received independently the analogues formula at the beginning of 1990-s. I also considered two forces, which were named "Laplace force" and "Hubble force". My Hubble force corresponds to their cosmic drag or gravitational viscosity. But in my formula at the place of M there is m, which is the mass of smaller object from the pair. Then I tried to find the Hubble constant from this formula. But all pairs of objects (Sun-Mercury, Sun-Venus, Sun-Earth...) give quite different value for Hubble constant. Why? I could not understand. Ten years passed before I solved the riddle.

Here is the solution of that problem. In 1999 I had received the Hubble constant, by using another method. The received value was quite precise: 73.3 km/(sЈMpc). In 2001 I had mentioned the old formula for stable radii, and put the Hubble constant into the formula. The results had surprised me extremely. Calculated values of planetary radii differed from the observable ones by integer numbers. Here are the received ratios: Mercury: 3.038 ~ 3; Earth: 5.0014 ~ 5; Mars: 1.0760 ~ 1, Saturn: 5,0914 ~ 5, Uranus: 0,99308 ~ 1. Venus, Jupiter, Neptune did not give integers, and it seems I know the cause.

In order to receive the results, similar to the above results, one must to start the roulette about one billion times with different reasonable values of Hubble constant. This leads to the following conclusions:

1. The value of Hubble constant equal to 73.3 km/(sЈMpc) is correct.
2. The Steady State model of Universe receives the second type of energy sources. It is clearly that the eternal Universe must have the energy cycle. And here we have one stage of it.
3. The Solar System has quantum properties. The quantum number of Earth is "5".

Moreover, the value 73.3 km/(sЈMpc) can be considered as prediction, because it was received in 1999. At that time the value of Hubble belonged to quite wide region: (35-90) km/(sЈMpc). The Final Results from the Hubble Space Telescope Key Project to Measure the Hubble Constant equal to 72+/-8 km/(sЈMpc) was published in 2000. And in the February 2003 the result of WMAP project was published: H=73+/-3 km/(sЈMpc).

In the above Steady State theories I did not found yet the process, describing how the energy, radiated into far cosmos, returns to the massive objects and their systems. Somebody presumes that the nuclear fuel is born inside the galaxy's nuclei. But this is only the presumption. Jayant Narlikar and Halton Arp assert that masses of elementary particles are changing with time. Is it possible? Their ideas have something in common with my idea about the particles winding space-cotton on a particle-reel. But I think that particle jumps from level to level and thusly its mass has a constant value. This transition reminds me the idea of Johan Masreliez about the quantum transitions, transforming the Universe into the new state, which is equivalent in large space and time scales to the former state. Masreliez speaks that those transitions occur with time interval equal to the Planck time. I think that those transitions occur with the time interval equal to the square root of the product of the Hubble time and Compton time of a proton. Moreover, for the objects of different scales this time interval can be different and can be deduced from the principle of cause and effect. I think that the quantum number of planet says us, how many times the planet jumps from the spiral, described by Johan Masreliez. It is possible to conclude that the Earth's orbit contain five gravithermal De Broglie waves. By knowing this number, we can compute, how many energy the system of two bodies receives from the cold cosmic vacuum, to sustain against the tidal friction. The Moon kneads (mashes) the Earth's core. It drives the huge amount of ocean water into the eternal movement. These movement of water and deformations of the Earth's body lead to the warming of the Earth and to the lifting of the Moon orbit. But the whole energy of a system is almost constant. It is logically to conclude that the whole energy of a system is slowly growing, because the mass of the Earth-Moon system is growing as a result of a their constant bombardment by meteorites and so on. Thus, the cold vacuum compensate not only the growth of the system, but also it compensates the losses of energy, spent on the tidal friction, successive warming, and final radiation of heat into the cosmos. Cold vacuum tries to accelerate the pair systems, but it's attempts lead only to the stability of the systems and to heat transition from cold vacuum to warm planets, their satellites and to extremely hot Sun. Cold vacuum performs these deals owing to "Laplace force". To understand the "Laplace force" let's remember that the light emitted by Sun passes to us eight minutes. If on the Sun we could see a big alarm-face, with readings: 11.52, then the readings of our watches would be 12.00. The line connecting us with the visible image of the Sun does not passes through the center of Earth-Sun masses. The line turned a little ahead. As a result we have accelerating force. Laplace tried to solve this problem and come to conclusion of almost infinite velocity of gravity. Some contemporary researchers also think that the velocity of gravity is much more then the velocity of light. The extremely strange result one can find in the Problem Book in Relativity and Gravitation, written by A.P. Lightman, W.H. Press, R.A. Teukolsky (Prinston, New Jersey, 1975). At the problem 12.4 the authors come to absurd conclusion about the different positions of the Sun: visible and gravity images of the Sun does not coincide.

Laplace does not know about the "Hubble force" and sacrifices the equality of gravity and light velocities.
The authors of the Problem Book have no scientific freedom and must seek the solution profitable for the BB dogma, and without any theory explanation they conclude that visible and gravity images of the Sun does not coincide.
Johan Masreliez investigates the "Hubble force" (cosmic drag) but does not see the "Laplace force" yet.
Nikolay Zhuck sees both forces, but made no conclusions.

But the conclusion is the revolutionary one for the cosmology: we have the eternal sources of energy in the eternal Universe. Simultaneously we have the explanation of the Solar System Stability.

Another eternal source of energy is the consequence of SR theory. Look my page Solar Energy.

Certainly, there exist another theories, describing the energy transition from cold vacuum to hot stars and planets. A.K.T. Assis in the article History of the 2.7 K temperature prior to Penzias and Wilson discusses the work of the Nobel Prize winner Walther Nernst, the author of the third law of thermodynamics. "In 1937 he developed this model and proposed a tired light explanation of the cosmological redshift, namely, the absorption of radiation by the luminiferous ether, decreasing the energy and frequency of galactic light".

Pay attention on the term "ether". At that time the gravity was explained as a process of the ether absorption by massive objects. Einstein spoke about the ether as a space. And Nernst spoke about the absorption of radiation by the ether. Here is the energy cycle in the Universe.

In my work I don't use the term "ether", because so many people imagine it as a jam of small solid balls. My ether is the complex space-time lattice subordinate to the main conclusions of SR, GR, QM.

In my model of the Universe the second law of thermodynamics is not applicable to gravity processes. The gravity is just the transition of energy from cold vacuum to the hot star's matter.

To index of Space Genetics

Ivan Gorelik.

My Curriculum Vitae.


Hosted by uCoz