John T. Cullen's revolutionary new theory of cosmology


to navigate page by page, use arrows at bottom; to flip through rapidly, click this image repeatedly

Page iv.

Short Introduction 2020

to navigate page by page, use arrows at bottom; to flip through rapidly, click this image repeatedly

This book is devoted to the idea that our universe is one of infinitely many, each of limited space and time in its extent, being born and dying according to definable standard processes.

I had to develop a small nomenclature for this vision, including the following:

Exogravitation: the simple, universal laws of gravitation already known, applied to larger structures; I also use the term ‘exograv’ for short;

Motherverse: for lack of an existing term, that would be the ultimate structure containing infinitely many universes, with the parenthetical caveat that, as Hubble and his team discovered in the 1920s, the Milky Way galaxy is not the entire universe, and in fact as scientists came to understand, there are even larger structures (e.g., walls of galaxies). Analogously, our universe is not the only or largest structure; and it is premature to posit whether there may be larger structures composed of something like ‘walls of universes’ or whatever within the ultimate Motherverse.

Note: I use the terms universe and cosmos interchangeably.

Gravitation Elements: the dark matter or sub-sub-particles that are common throughout the motherverse.

At times I may refer to these gravitational elements as go-dots or godots (not from Samuel Beckett’s 1948/9 play Waiting For Godot, but from my 2003 SF novels Mars the Divine and Orwell in Orbit 2084, in my Empire of Time SF series, where I first started processing these cosmological ideas; and the term godot is my own little nickname for the round game-pieces in the Japanese game of Go).

These godots do not possess attributes of ‘matter’ or ‘energy.’ Godots are infinitesimal, even in comparison with sub-atomic particles. Godots cannot really be called particles, nor energy; they only possess one characteristic, which is of a minute gravitational charge. This attraction-force causes them, in random Brownian Motion (analogous to molecules and small debris in a pond), to clump together in larger and larger units I call accretion spheres (C-1, C-2, and C-3). Of these, C-2 and C-3 embody the so-called Big Bang of the Standard Model. The letter C stands for ‘Critical.’ There are three major critical stages in this expanded, more complete and understandable Standard Model. The so-called Big Bang no longer comes uniquely out of nowhere, but has a standard before, during, and after phase as I will explain. The Big Bang (still a good term) is now part of a standard, explainable mechanism that happens infinitely many times across eternities of space in the motherverse.

Accretion Spheres. As already mentioned, the vast spherical shapes (universes, in the Motherverse) form out of dark matter (gravitation elements, or godots). These godots accrete by random Brownian Motion until sufficiently dense and heavy. At the C-1 critical phase, a sufficiently massive accretion sphere collapses along lines of the Standard Model to explode in a Big Bang that initiates a universe. These spheres go through three moments of change that I will describe (see the text) as C-1, C-2, and C-3 transitions, where C-3 is the Big Bang moment.

C-1 is the initial accretion sphere when enough gravitational elements have clumped together.

When the overall gravitational force of C-1 is robust enough to cause an inward collapse, the sphere shrinks suddenly and *implosively* to a tiny, compressed sphere. This is C-2, a moment that cannot last because the forces of implosion vectoring from all directions toward a single focal point are unsustainable or irresistible. C-2 explodes outward in all directions from the combined energy of the C-1 collapse and the C-2 compression, causing Big Bang C-3.

C-3 is the final creative moment when the forces of implosion reverse in a massive *explosion* of unimaginable power, spewing visible and invisible debris in all directions (a Big Bang).

Output will include massive spheres of clumped godot material (black holes) pulling visible matter and energy along to spin and form standard galaxies, as well as stray bits of intermediate material, and thirdly, loose gravitational element debris we have found in the form of ‘dark matter.’

Cosmopause: This is the out limit and the end of a universe’s life, the limit of expansion and attenuation. By analogy think of the solar-pause, that theoretical sphere at which the aggregate gravitational force of the solar system loses its ability to act upon an escaping object.

Summing up: a typical universe, like our own, goes through a life cycle that I describe, from a Critical (1-2-3) beginning (Big Bang is part of it) toward our currently observed stage of accelerating expansion. The universe is constantly attenuating as it expands, until it reaches a point I call the Cosmopause. At the Cosmopause, the universe disintegrates (better: vanishes) like a bubble, meaning that its foundational dark matter is all that is left, but not as an integral gravitational entity.

The residual gravitational matter (godot raw material) then drifts randomly in the larger motherverse, amid similar debris of infinitely many other universes. Some of these eventually clump to form other universes and thus endlessly reiterating the life cycle.

So again, as observed in my bookstore moment, each universe is pulled apart overall evenly by the ambient gravitation of the overall Motherverse. A universe ‘falls in all directions.’

As a general tendency, because of the enormous gathering power of each accretion sphere (which eventually collapses and initiates a Big Bang starting a new universe), and because of the explosive power of each Big Bang, it is unlikely that individual universes can form adjacent to each other. Right there, we have an instance of how it is possible to begin forming some suppositions about this nearly unknowable motherverse of which we are a part.

I suspect that the ambient gravitation, leading to accelerated expansion and pulling our cosmos apart, should tend to be fairly uniform overall.

That is a précis that sums up this work.

Please Note: in this 2020 (Vision Year) edition, I will skip further introductions and go directly to the heart of the matter.

In earlier editions, I chose to begin with a necessary review of cosmological ideas dating back to ancient Hellas (Greece). My reasoning was two-fold.

Overall, my idea was to show that a new revolution in cosmology, based on what I have since come to call Exogravitation (Exograv), has certain parallels in how scientific ideas evolve.

Only recently, 2020, I have become aware of the work of Thomas Kuhn (1922-1996) who, in his 1962 philosophical book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, independently echoes some of my own observations about how scientific ideas evolve over time and through structures of authority, consensus (including peer review), and acceptance (or not). My observations in the historical area are not meant to call attention to themselves per se. I am primarily interested in communicating my idea which I call Exogravitation; but I could not help in my investigations to learn some broad outlines of discovery that beg for notice. Again, I am eliminating a lengthy history of cosmology in this article so we can proceed to the core idea (Exograv or Exogravitation) but context is important, and therefore worth a few quick notes. And, I might add, my article over a decade ago, leading to the chapter on an exograv revolution in cosmological ideas, was part of my own learning process.

After developing my own ideas around 2006, which I communicate in this article, I had the fortune to get a reading from a leading cosmologist at a New England university.

In a brief e-mail exchange, his reaction to my theory was “I find it very compelling” but then he switched gears for safety, I suppose, and cut off communications after saying “I will stick with the Standard Model.”

Had we been able to converse a few moments longer (in Internet Time), I could have reassured him that my ideas do not in any way contradict the tenets or dogmata of the current view or Standard Model. In fact, to paraphrase the words of a man much more famous than I am:

“I have not come to destroy the Standard Model, but to fulfill it.”

My first manuscript thus had a lengthy lead-up to the Exograv material, citing relevant philosophical and historical points going back thousands of years.

The first element of those parallels is that the idea of a Copernican (heliocentric) universe dates at least to Classical times in the 5th and 4th Centuries BCE. Not surprisingly such ideas were treated as impiety (blasphemy) even in ancient Hellas in favor of more mythologically based notions of geocentrism. A similar dichotomy can be traced over the past 3,000 years in Solomon’s courtly literature.

The second, and more cogent, element in those parallels involves a concept of how revolutionary ideas evolve. I found the Ptolemaic model (Claudius Ptolemaeus, 2nd Century CE) of cycles and epicycles to be my most noteworthy example.

In the abstract, a given age will have an accepted view or standard model. As new observational data arise that appear to contradict or nullify that model, intellectuals and authorities (including religious) modify the existing model to adapt to changing experimental and experiental data. The Ptolemaic model, which envisioned spheres of heavenly layers, in which the planets (planetae, wanderers) moved in their tracks or cycles… that model was upset by the discovery during the Enlightenment (16th & 17th C CE) of apparent retrograde motions by Mars relative to Jupiter. The existing theory was modified to include a new layer of complexity, called epicycles, in which heavenly bodies moved in counter-directions. The net effect was to keep an ancient set of ideas alive a while longer, while delaying the movement to an entirely new understanding of the cosmos.

I saw a parallel to this in the 1920s-era discoveries by Hubble and his contemporaries, which finally laid to rest (for logical and scientific minds, not cultish literalists who persist to this day in primordial Mesopotamian worldviews that were already ancient in Solomon’s day) the last serious vestiges of heliocentric theory.

Big Bang theory is attributed to the Belgian Roman Catholic priest Georges Le Maitre,

One of the many astounding explosions of new insight from the age of Einstein and Hubble et al involved the immeasurable new dimensions of our universe. To wit, our ‘galaxy’ (Milk Road) is not the entire universe and, on top of that, our solar system is nowhere near the center of our galaxy, much less the universe. In other words, we were moving toward the concept of *larger structures* including walls of galaxies, while at the same time certain standard dynamics (galaxy containing more ‘dark matter’ than visible, revolving around a so-called ‘black hole’) demanded attention.

As recently as mid-20th Century, there appear to have been three prevailing views about the expansion of the universe, to which late 20th Century telescopic (telemetric) observations added the fourth and final one. Either the universe was still expanding but slowing down on a kinetic arc leading to its ultimate collapse; or (Fred Hoyle) it had reached stasis and was neither expanding nor contracting; or as remaining option, perhaps it was already contracting.

Then came the biggest wrench thrown into the works since Hubble’s discoveries about vast dimensions and non-uniqueness.

previous   top   next

NOW AVAILABLE: The book (article) by John T. Cullen is now available for purchase at and other sites or stores. Visit:



Browse or Buy at Amazon

The book linked at left is an e-book edition to browse; or buy & download from Amazon for your Kindle reader.
     The middle link is for the corresponding print edition. This short book is a standard 6x9" trim size. More info at
     Most print editions are also available at Barnes & Noble online; or call/visit your local bookstore to order.


intellectual property warning