Host:   Is there anyone among you besides Dr. Hubble who is not convinced that galactic redshifts are Doppler velocity light shifts?

Dingle:   I am willing to go much further than that. For example, I am convinced that galactic redshifts are not primarily the same phenomenon of nature as the familiar Doppler velocity light shifts in the local space of the Milky Way.

Host:   That is quite a bold statement, Professor Dingle. What is the basis for your conclusion?

Dingle:   Actually, there are several reasons which I will discuss in due course. But the most fundamental reason why galactic redshifts are not primarily the same phenomenon of nature as familiar Doppler velocity shifts in the local space of the Milky Way galaxy, is something very obvious which everyone seems to have completely overlooked. It is the very existence of Dr. Hubble’s observed linear law of redshifts, which empirically establishes by observation the linear proportionality of galactic redshift magnitudes to the estimated distances of their light source galaxies.

This is the so-called “precise correlation” of “speed to distance” upon which Eddington and the other expansionists base their Doppler velocity interpretation of the galaxies. But even Dr. Hubble was disturbed by the fact that the “interpreted galactic ‘velocities’…were precisely correlated with distance.”

Host:   Dr. Hubble, why were you so disturbed by the precise correlation between the Doppler velocities interpretations of galactic redshifts and the estimated distance of their source galaxies?

Hubble:   Because there was no apparent reason why there should be such a precise correlation. In the Milky Way galaxy, the distance of a star from the observer is irrelevant to the magnitude of the Doppler velocity effect. Please see Figure 25.

I was disturbed because Eddington, Einstein and the other expansionists immediately interpreted my linear law of redshifts to be a linearly proportional Doppler velocity-distance correlation without any real analysis of the situation.

I was also disturbed by the fact that all of such expansionists seemed to refer to this “simple proportionality of speed to distance” as both the reason for their galactic Doppler velocity interpretations, and as the confirmation that the universe was linearly expanding in all directions.

But neither the interpretation nor the so-called confirmation is inherent in the Doppler velocity theory.bed by the fact that the “interpreted galactic ‘velocities’…were precisely correlated with distance.”

Thus, there did not appear to be any justification for these conclusions.

Host:   Please continue, Professor Dingle.

Dingle:   There is no doubt that the expansionists were interpreting these galactic redshifts to be the same phenomenon of nature as the familiar Doppler velocity shifts in local Milky Way space.

However, there is another monumental problem with interpreting galactic redshifts, which are observed as precisely proportional to distance, to be the same phenomenon of nature as familiar Doppler velocity shifts in local space.

Host:   Why is there a monumental problem?

Dingle:   As I began to state several minutes ago, for one simple reason: the magnitudes of familiar Doppler velocity redshifts in the local space of the Milky Way Galaxy are completely arbitrary and random. They are not at all proportional or correlated to the estimated distance of the observed light source (i.e. a star) in local space. In fact, there appears to be about the same number of blueshifts as redshifts within the Milky Way galaxy. Eight stars show redshifts, and seven stars show blueshifts, regardless of their very different distances from Earth. Please look at Figure 16.

Hubble:   Professor Dingle is correct. Please also look at Chart 17. The Doppler velocity-distance relationship in local Milky Way space between the 54 stars randomly chosen and the Earth is completely arbitrary and random. As observed from Earth, the Doppler velocities of such stars are not in any way proportional or correlated to their estimated distances from Earth. Twenty-five stars show redshifts and 29 stars show blueshifts, regardless of their very different distances from Earth. This arbitrary and random relationship is shown for Doppler velocities of -106.8 km/s (blueshifts) to +245.5 km/s (redshifts), and it continues for distances from 4.2 million light years out to 105 million light years from Earth.

In other words, the same magnitude of Doppler redshift in the Milky Way galaxy can be observed at a distance of 30 kilometers (a rocket), at a distance of 30 million kilometers (a planet), and at a distance of 30 quadrillion kilometers (a star). Even the rotation or the orbit of the same object (the Sun or a planet) or of the same system (two binary stars) often shows both blueshifts and redshifts (velocities toward and away from Earth) with respect to the same distance. Please see Figure 12 again.

There is absolutely no proportionality or correlation between these magnitudes of light shift and the distances of their material light sources in local Milky Way space. Many of these random ratios between local Doppler magnitudes of light shifts and the estimated distances to such local light sources can be confirmed independently by other methods such as triangulation, telescopic observation, or radar.

Host:   Back to you, Professor Dingle. I assume that you agree with Dr. Hubble?

Dingle:   Of course. Please see the next Chart 26. It shows many other Milky Way stars whose observed Doppler linear velocity toward or away from Earth has no correlation or proportionality whatsoever to their estimated distances from Earth. Chart 26 was compiled at random by a different person than the one who compiled Chart 17. Chart 26 contains 122 stars at various different distances from Earth: 60 of which are blueshifts and 62 are redshifts. The magnitudes of light shifts vary from -411 km/s to +320 km/s, and the distances vary from 2.2 to 121.9 k parsecs, all at random. Contrary to the assertions of Eddington, Einstein, and many others, there is no observed correlation whatsoever between the random Doppler velocity/distance relationships of stars in local space.

In other words, Eddington’s, De Sitter’s, Robinson’s and Einstein’s claim of a simple linear and proportional Doppler velocity/distance correlation of the distant galaxies outward from the Earth and throughout the Cosmos has no observational basis or confirmation in fact.

In addition, such an observed velocity/distance relationship would have to result from an entirely new never before seen phenomenon of nature, which is not very likely because there is no reason for such a correlation as Dr. Hubble expertly pointed out.

In effect, Professor Eddington’s and the other expansionists’ misinterpretation of galactic redshifts as the same phenomenon of nature as familiar Doppler velocity shifts in local space, was a monumental false interpretation and a monumental false premise upon which the false deduction of an expanding universe was entirely based.

Hubble:   Professor Dingle continues to be correct. For example, in local Milky Way space, a relatively large Doppler magnitude of redshift or blueshift can be observed from a planet in the Solar System or from a nearby star; whereas, a relatively small Doppler magnitude of redshift or blueshift can be observed from a much more distant planet or star. Thus, local magnitudes of Doppler light shifts empirically only indicate the linear separation or approach velocity of the light source (i.e. a planet or star) relative to the observer on Earth. They obviously do not also indicate the distance of the light source relative to the observer on Earth, as Eddington and everyone else has incorrectly asserted.

Host:   Professor Newton, what do you conclude from this discussion?

Newton:   The correct conclusion appears to be obvious to me. Contrary to Eddington, Einstein, and the other expansionists, galactic redshifts (which are observed to be precisely correlated to distance) cannot be the same phenomenon of nature as familiar Doppler velocity shifts in local space, which are not at all proportional or correlated to distance. In fact, Professor Zeilik confirms all of these facts and conclusions in his recent book, as follows:

“…the Doppler shift does not depend on the distance between the observer and the source, only on their relative linear velocities.”

Host:   Do Professor Dingle’s and Professor Zeilik’s conclusions also hold true with respect to Doppler light shifts received on Earth from the closest or so-called Local Group of galaxies?

Hubble:   The answer is yes. Please see Figures 14 and 14A & Chart 15. These figures and charts show the major galaxies included within the local group in the year 2001, and their distances from Earth. When the magnitudes of their light shifts are plotted on this Figure 14 we see the same random and arbitrary pattern of Doppler velocity redshifts and blueshifts that we observed for celestial objects within the Milky Way galaxy. There is no correlation between their Doppler velocities and the distances of their source galaxies from Earth.

It is only when we reach a distance in space of about 4 million light years from the Earth that we begin to detect a systematic pattern of redshifts (on average) which continues in a more or less linear direction from Earth. In other words, only at such distance from Earth do we begin to observe my law of redshifts linear correlation. That is, the correlation of magnitudes of redshifts as observed from Earth which are more or less proportional (on average) with respect to our estimated distances of such source galaxies from Earth.