arXiv:physics/9810051 26 Oct 1998

The New Redshift Interpretation Affirmed

Robert V. Gentry
The Orion Foundation
P.O. Box 12067
Knoxville, TN 37912
astro-ph/9810051

Abstract
In late 1997 I published (Mod. Phys. Lett. A 12 (1997) 2919;
astro-ph/9806280) the discovery of the New Redshift Interpretation
(NRI) of the Hubble relation and the 2.7K CBR, which showed for the
first time that it was possible to explain these phenomena within the
framework of a universe governed by Einsteins static-spacetime general relativity instead of the Friedmann-Lemaitre expanding-spacetime
paradigm. Recently Carlip and Scranton (astro-ph/9808021) claim
to have found flaws in this discovery based on the assumption that
the NRI represents a static cosmological model of the universe. This
assumption is incorrect, and I show their misunderstanding of this
fundamental point is what led them to come to erroneous conclusions
about the NRI. I show the NRI very definitely encompasses an expanding universe wherein galaxies are undergoing Doppler recession
according to the Hubble relation and, moreover, thatcontrary to
Carlip and Scrantons claimthat the NRI does yield the correct form
of the Hubble magnitude-redshift relation. Lastly I note that Carlip
and Scranton signally fail to respond to the general relativistic results wherein I show (gr-qc/9806061) that the universe is governed by

Einstein static-spacetime general relativity, and not the FriedmannLemaitre expanding spacetime paradigm on which Big bang cosmology
is critically hinged, and also the most embarrassing fact that the F-L
paradigm has always involved gargantuan nonconservation-of-energy
losses amounting to the mass equivalent of about thirty million universes, each with a mass of 1021 suns.

For almost seven decades cosmologists have assumed the universe is governed by Friedmann-Lemaitre expanding-spacetime general relativity, and
that both the Hubble relation and the 2.7K CBR have their origin in redshifts due to universal spacetime expansion. A widely accepted corollary of
this belief has been that no other explanation of the Hubble relation and the
2.7K CBR is possible except that due to expansion redhifts.
Despite its long acceptance, this corollary was recently shown to be incorrect when I reported the discovery [1] of A New Redshift Interpretation (NRI)
of the Hubble relation and the 2.7K CBR based on the premise that the universe is governed by Einsteins static-spacetime general relativity, rather than
Friedmann-Lemaitre expanding-spacetime general relativity. In the NRIs
Einstein framework the redshifts responsible for the Hubble relation and
the 2.7K CBR are a combination of relativistic Doppler and gravitational
effects rather than being attributed to Friedmann-Lemaitre spacetime expansion. The discovery of the NRI naturally raised the question of whether
the universe is governed by the Einstein static-spacetime paradigm, or by the
Friedmann-Lemaitre expanding spacetime paradigm.
To answer this crucially important cosmological question I subsequently
compared the general relativistic predictions of both paradigms, and made
a second discoverynamely, that the results of several general relativistic
experiments provide proof that the universe is governed by Einsteins staticspacetime general relativity, not Friedmann-Lemaitre expanding spacetime
general relativity [2]. As of early October 1998 I am unaware of any attempt
to refute this second discovery.
On the other hand, in their recent e-print [3], Carlip and Scranton (C&S)
have attacked the analysis supporting the first discovery [1]. Their e-print
lists several factors which they claim demonstrate the NRI is a failure. I now
2

demonstrate their conclusion results from both misunderstanding the NRIs

results and by mixing them with unwarranted assumptions, which in turn
lead to presumed contradictions.
Their first big misunderstandingwhich leads them to make several errors in their evaluationis their claim that the NRI is a new static cosmological model. This is wrong on two counts: The NRI is not a cosmological
model and definitely does not represent a static universe. On page 2921 of
my NRI paper we read the following: ...the NRI attempts to account for
the Hubble relation and the 2.7K CBR by using Doppler and gravitational
redshifts embedded in a universe governed by static-space-time general relativity. This quote shows that at present the NRI is only an interpretation
or description of the structure of the universe. As yet I have not presented
it as a cosmological model.
And it is definitely not a static description because galaxies are moving away from the Center according to the Hubble relation. Indeed, the
NRI is distinguished from all previous attempts to describe the universe in
that it describes galaxies that are experiencing Doppler expansion within
the framework of a universe governed by static-space-time general relativity.
Clearly, then, the NRI universe governed by static-space-time general relativity cannot possibly represent a static cosmological model. Thus when C&S
characterize the NRI as a static cosmological model in Sections 1, 3, 4 and
5, and use this erroneous assumption to claim the NRI fails several different
tests, they are in reality waging a war against a straw-man argument of their
own devising.
Their errors in Section 4 are specially egregious. Because of their erroneous claim of the NRI being a static model, they incorrectly conclude the
luminosity will have only one factor of (1 + z) in the denominator, and from
that incorrect deduction, they then conclude that the NRI will give predictions contrary to the Hubble diagram. Hence, they say, the NRI must be
a failure. However, if C&S had carefully read the NRI paper they would
have noted there are two redshifts which are combined in Eq. (2) of my NRI
paper [1], one due to gravity and the other due to Doppler recession between
source and the receiver. Thus, in the NRI, the flux of radiation received at
earth from any distant galaxy is spread over a sphere (area = 4r2 ), and
3

is diminished by one redshift factor at the point of emission. The energy

of each photon is decreased by 1 + z because of this redshift, and a second
redshift occurs because Doppler recession causes the rate at which photons
arrive at earth to be diminished by the same factor. The net result is that
in the NRI, which is based on Einsteins static-spacetime general relativity,
the flux we expect to receive from any distant source of luminosity L is
fluxNRI =

L
erg cm2 s1 ,
4r2 (1 + z)2

(1)

which is the actually the expression cosmologists use to relate the flux and
redshift on the assumption that the universe is undergoing Friedmann-Lemaitre
spacetime expansion [4]. And, following standard astronomical practice [4],
the foregoing expression enables us to define an effective luminosity distance
for the NRI framework as
dL = r(1 + z).
(2)
Given that the above definition applies to the NRI, we can then substitute
it in the definition for the distance modulus,
m M = 5(log dL 1),

(3)

m M = 5[log r(1 + z) 1]

(4)

to obtain
as being applicable to the NRI. The expression for m M in terms of z
can now be obtained by substitution of r in terms of z from Eq. (2) of the
NRI paper [1]. As C&S appropriately note, in the case for z < 1, a good
approximation for NRIs Eq. (2) is Hr/c z/(1 + z). In this case the above
expression becomes,
m M = 5[log cz log H] 5,

(5)

which is the simplified Hubble magnitude-redshift relation, minus the now

superfluous 0 term (see ref. [4], page 448).
Thus C&Ss dire prediction that the NRIs expression for z is way out of
sync with the observational data is not only wrong, we find just the opposite is
true. The fact is that the above relation shows the NRI does give the correct
4

expression for the Hubble magnitude-redshift relation once it is correctly

interpreted in terms of galaxies undergoing Doppler expansion combined with
gravitational redshifts.
Likewise, also in Section 4the section C&S claim is of greatest importance because it presumes to deal with observational datatheir assumption
of the NRI as a static cosmological model also leads them to erroneously ascribe their Eq. (23) to the NRI, whereas in fact this is not the case. More
specifically, in this instance C&S adopt the assumption of constant quasar
densityan assumption that is neither stated nor implied in the NRI paper
and from that proceed to apparently show how the redshift distribution of
quasars in the NRI compares poorly with that based on the flat FLRW model.
In actuality, all they did here was to again prove thatas with everything
else in lifeif you make a wrong assumption, you will surely come to a wrong
conclusion.
Now, concerning their discussion in Section 3 of the NRIs outer hydrogen
shell, and their claim of its instability, rapid evaporation and temperature
decline, the fact is that I envision the outer luminous, hot hydrogen shell as
being a thin spherical shell of overlapping galaxies, with a thickness of about
one galactic diameter. A thin shell of overlapping galaxies effectively resolves
the opacity problem as well as questions of short-time radiative cooling and
gravitational instability.
Next, concerning their criticism in Section 3 of the constant density assumption, this is at best ill-founded. Just as with the standard cosmology,
which they would hope to defend, they should easily have realized the constant density assumption in the NRI is a relative assumptionmeaning it is
assumed to be valid for the present epoch wherein the observations are being
made. Thus C&S err when they claim that their Eq. (9) is a problem for the
NRI; it becomes a problem only by the imposition of certain cosmological
constraints on the NRI, constraints which I do not accept and which are not
a part of the NRI framework [1]. In this respect it is also worthy to note
that C&S apparently overlooked the fact that in the NRI the main component of the total density is due to that of the vacuum; so it is evident that
a modern, infinitesimally slow decrease in the ordinary densityas per their
Eq. (8)has virtually no effect on the dynamics of galactic recession in the
5

NRI framework.
Thus, the failures that C&S describe do not represent what is in my NRI
paper. They represent instead C&Ss mistaken attempts to place my paper
into a mold of their own construction. Nowhere is this more evident than in
Section 1. There they identify the NRI with a static cosmological model as
the prime reason for concluding that the NRI is not consistent with general
relativity. Completely aside from their misidentifying the NRI as a static
cosmological model, it is ironic that they raise the issue of consistency with
general relativity because in gr-qc/9086061 I have already reported on two
matters of considerable importance considering this point.
First, among other things, my analysis fully exposes one of the best kept
secrets of Big Bang cosmologynamely, that the Friedmann-Lemaitre expanding spacetime paradigm has always necessitated gargantuan nonconservation of radiation energy losses the equivalent to thirty million universes
like our own, each composed of 1021 suns. Some cosmologists are aware of
this; some arent. But, to the best of my knowledge, none have ever chosen
to publish or publicize this most embarrassing fact. Thus, for all practical
purposes, only a tiny fraction of physicists in other fields are aware that
Big Bangs Friedmann-Lemaitre spacetime redshifts involve huge and continuing nonconservation of energy losses. For some reason C&S were not at
all inclined to increase that tiny fraction by making reference to my e-print
gr-qc/9806061, which details the specifics of this result.
Next, when C&S attempt to disprove the NRI by arguing that their Eq.
(24) represents the truth about z, H, and r, they do so using the implicit
assumption that the universe is formatted according to FLRW expanding
spacetime general relativity. (Earlier herein I showed the NRI does agree
with the Hubble magnitude-redshift relation.) The problem is that they
were aware that my e-print, gr-qc/9806061, documents experimental general
relativity results which I claim conclusively demonstrate that the universe is
formatted by Einsteins static-spacetime general relativity, and not FLRW
expanding-spacetime general relativity which is necessary for Big bang cosmology. For some reason, however, in their highly critical evaluation of the
NRI, C&S completely omit any discussionor even an acknowledgment of
the existenceof this result.
6

Now it has always been my understanding that when scientists undertake

to critique a colleagues results, they are under the highest obligation to fairly
consider all the evidence that bears on a controverted topic, even when that
evidence contradicts a position that has long been considered unimpeachable.
But in this instance C&S signally avoided dealing with the very experimental
evidence [2] that contradicts the fundamental basis of their attempt to discredit the NRI, evidence which at the same shows that the Big bang theory
is fallacious, and that the NRI, or some version of it, must be the correct
description of the structure of the universe. I can think of only two reasons
why they have thus far chosen to remain silent on such a crucially important topicnamely, that the evidence I cite in favor of the universe being
governed by Einsteins static-spacetime general relativity is truly unimpeachable. Second, at the close of their Section 4, C&S criticize the NRI for not
having a guiding principle to account for primordial nucleosynthesis, in contrast to what they say is the standard cosmologys successful prediction of
light element abundances. But what C&S dont say is that their portrayal
of a successful prediction is predicated on the existence of spacetime expansion redshifts, which in turn is predicated on our universe being governed
by expanding-spacetime relativity. By omitting mention of the overwhelming evidence that our universe is governed by static-spacetimeand hence
cannot possibly exhibit expansion redshiftsC&S have conveniently ignored
the very information which disproves their success story.
Having said this, I wish to close on a positive note. C&S emphasize that
the NRI is a finely-tuned description of the universe. I fully agree with this
emphasis. Indeed, how could it ever be otherwise? Surely a universe that is
so obviously fine tuned as ours, must necessarily require a description that
is equally fine tuned!

References
[1] Robert V. Gentry, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 12 (1997) 2919; astro-ph/9806280.
[2] Robert V. Gentry and David W. Gentry, gr-qc/9806061.
[3] Steven Carlip and Ryan Scranton, astro-ph/9808021.
7

[4] J. Silk, The Big Bang, pp. 447448, W. H. Freeman & Co., Revised
edition, 1989.