Host: Professor Dingle, you previously stated that there are other reasons why galactic redshifts are not primarily the same phenomenon of nature as the familiar Doppler velocity shifts in local space. What are some of those additional reasons?
Dingle: Well, first of all, there is no logical, physical, or theoretical reason why galactic redshifts, which are observed to be proportional to the relative distance of their source galaxies, should be indicators of relative velocities, let alone Doppler velocity shifts. We have already discussed this fact.
On the other hand, there are numerous logical, theoretical and physical reasons for the alternate theory: that light quanta lose energy proportionally to the distance that they travel through space. Dr. Hubble and even Dr. Eddington have previously described some of these reasons.
Secondly, if such galactic redshifts were really a new Doppler-like relative velocity indicator, this would result in a completely new (never before observed) phenomenon of nature without any logical, theoretical, or physical justification to support it.
Thirdly, if one had to chose between two new phenomena of nature, one would certainly choose the phenomenon with logic, theory and physical justifications on its side (such as light losing energy proportional to its distance traveled). One would not choose Dr. Eddington’s new Doppler-like phenomenon which is devoid of any such justifications or confirmations, and which theoretically results in an impossible, very small and very young universe. Certainly, one would not choose Professor Lemaitre’s completely ad hoc expansion of space theory, which has no logical, theoretical or empirical foundation whatsoever.
Host: Dr. Eddington, based upon what you now know, which new theoretical phenomena of nature would you have chosen in 1933?
Eddington: Like I stated in my 1933 book, the reason I ultimately chose the Doppler velocity principle was because it seemed to apply to the observed galactic redshifts, and because it was a known and confirmed scientific phenomenon of nature.
But based on our discussion, I now know that I was mistaken, and that the Doppler principle could not be the primary cause of galactic redshifts, because there is obviously no correlation between any Doppler velocity and the distance of the two relatively moving bodies apart.
Therefore, I now acknowledge that the observed galactic redshifts must signify that the light quanta lose some (or even much) of their energy during the great distance that they propagate from the source galaxy to the observer on Earth. This energy loss can be accounted for without assuming any velocity of the source. As I concluded in my 1933 book:
“[T]he red-shift, misinterpreted as a velocity, should be proportional to the distance…which is the law actually found.”
To paraphrase Dr. Hubble on this subject: “the exact explanation of galactic red-shifts is not yet known, but the galaxies are obviously and sensibly stationary.” It is painful to acknowledge after all of this time has elapsed, but the universe cannot be expanding.
Host: Professor Dingle, do you have something else to add?
Dingle: Yes, there are also several other more complicated reasons why galactic redshifts cannot be Doppler velocity indicators. Rather than trying to explain them in the brief time that we have left, let me turn you over to Dr. Hubble who has discovered more obvious and easier to explain reasons why the universe cannot be expanding.
Hubble: After I read Professor Eddington’s 1933 book, The Expanding Universe, and other articles on the same subject, I became increasingly concerned about the Doppler velocity interpretations of galactic redshifts. I also became very concerned about the way the expansionists were using my name and my empirical observations in order to further their own dubious scientific agendas.
Therefore, during the mid-1930s, I organized and conducted detailed telescopic surveys of the heavens and in-depth studies of the data which my assistants and I collected. Based on all of these surveys and studies, I reached the following conclusions in 1937 and 1942.
The assumption that galactic redshifts are Doppler velocity shifts:
a) Results in a non-linear or curved law of redshifts, which in turn destroys the inference that they might be linear velocity indicators. Please see Figure 27.
b) Such Doppler velocity assumption also implied that the density of galaxies actually increases with their recession velocity. Please see Figure 28. But this inference violated our actual observations and our belief that matter is more or less evenly distributed throughout the universe. And then there is also the question: how could this increase in density occur in Einstein’s finite spherical universe?
d) What’s more, Professor Eddington’s velocity-distance linear relation and the bizarre density of matter that departed from homogeneity, actually deviated from linearity by the exact amount of the assumed recession velocities. One wonders: What could be the reason for this bizarre coincidence? On the other hand, if one does not assume any recession velocities, the bizarre density of matter disappears.
Host: Why is it assumed by everyone that the universe is finite and spherical?
Newton: I can answer that question. Eddington and the other expansionists use Einstein’s theoretically finite and spherical universe (which Einstein admittedly created to advance his General Theory), because a theoretically expanding universe requires that the real universe be finite and spherical. If the real universe was infinite like the universe which I described, how could it expand and become more infinite?
Host: Good point, Sir Isaac. Weren’t there theoretical ways to get around some of these problems, Dr. Hubble?
Hubble: Yes, but the only way to eliminate most of these anomalies of an expanding universe was to artificially add more curvature to Einstein’s finite spherical universe.
But when the necessary curvature was added, the size of Einstein’s finite spherical universe became incredibly small, its age decreased to about 1 billion years (much less than the age of our Sun), the distance from the Earth to a galaxy 4.8 million light years distant was reduced by an impossible 140%, and the matter required for such curvature was 1,000 times more than could be observed with our telescopes. One then wonders: Where is this “missing matter”?
Host: Haven’t the current theorists found all or at least most of the missing matter? I believe they call it “Dark Matter.”
Dingle: Dark matter and dark energy are very convenient conjectures for such relativistic theories. But unfortunately for the expansionists the concepts of dark matter and dark energy also depend completely upon the expanding universe theory, so we can’t get too excited about them. We could discuss all of those subjects in some detail at another time.
Host: That is an excellent suggestion. Please continue, Dr. Hubble.
Hubble: Finally, I concluded that the assumption of Doppler recession velocity of the galaxies leads to a universe that most people would reject as “highly improbable.” This accumulated information was so damaging to Einstein’s 1931 Expanding Finite Spherical Universe theory that it is difficult to imagine how it could be saved.
On the other hand, if we eliminated the assumption that the galaxies are expanding at ever increasing velocities depending upon their relative distances from Earth, then all of the oddities vanish. If galactic redshifts are not assumed to be primarily Doppler velocity shifts, the picture becomes simple and plausible, and there is no evidence of expansion. Without the false deduction of expansion there are no contradictions, and we are left with the familiar conception of the universe extending indefinitely in time and space. The exact explanation of galactic redshifts remains unknown, but the galaxies are sensibly stationary on a cosmic level.
Host: Professor Newton, do you have any comments at this point?
Newton: Yes. I agree with everything that the two of you have said, and I have yet another conclusion to add. As I previously stated, a finite space is theoretically necessary for any universe to expand, because how could an infinite universe like the one which I described in 1692 expand or get any larger? It is already infinite in size and it can’t get any larger than that.
This means that the expansionists were automatically committed to Dr. Einstein’s finite spherical universe. But Einstein’s finite universe was imagined out of thin air in order to mathematically advance his ad hoc theory of gravity (his General Theory of Relativity). It required an ad hoc new repulsive force to keep it stable (the so-called cosmological constant force) which even Einstein himself described as the worst mistake he ever made in his life. It was also based on a false premise: to-wit, that the Milky Way galaxy was in fact the entire universe. If these are not enough unsolvable problems, there is also one more. In order to make Einstein’s bizarre, very young and tiny universe even theoretically plausible, one would have to answer Bruno’s impossible question: what lies beyond Einstein’s finite universe? There can be no answer to this question. Therefore, since Einstein’s finite universe is theoretically impossible, how could it physically exist or ever expand?
Host: Would any of you like to sum up where we now stand on the Expanding Spherical Universe theory?
Dingle: Yes, I would be very happy to try. The misassumption that familiar Doppler velocity shifts in local space could be exactly proportional to the distance of their luminous source bodies was an extraordinarily careless false premise made by all of the expansionists. It led to 80 years of mistaken scientific belief that galactic redshifts primarily indicate the increasing recession velocities of their source galaxies. It also led to the false deduction that the entire universe was linearly expanding outwardly.
Dr. Eddington was correct on one point in his 1933 book. The theory of the expanding spherical universe was preposterous; it contained incredible elements, and no one except him should have believed in it! I might also add that today should be the day that the universe stops expanding for those of us sitting around this table, and for all of the viewers of this discussion.