Host:   Since we have decided that the universe cannot be expanding, what happens to the other theories that depend upon, and are deduced from, the Expanding Universe theory? Professor Newton?

Newton:   Well, Einstein’s 1931 Expanding Finite Spherical Universe theory obviously must be abandoned for several reasons. First, as Einstein himself told us in his book, Relativity: the observed galactic redshifts can only be interpreted as Doppler velocity indicators, so the expansion motion of the universe can hardly be doubted from a theoretical point of view. However, it is now obvious that the expanding part of Einstein’s 1931 theory was based upon a false premise.

Second, the finite part of Einstein’s theory was also based upon another false premise. Namely, that the finite group of stars which was observed in 1917 (i.e. the Milky Way galaxy) was the entire universe.

Third, there is the static (non-expanding or contracting) part of his 1917 theory that was based upon his ad hoc cosmological constant force which opposed gravity and prevented the entire finite system of matter from collapsing into the center. We now know that this cannot be correct, because even Einstein now admits that this ridiculous concept was invalid and the worst mistake that he had ever made in his life.

Fourth, there is the curved spacetime spherical cylinder part of his 1917 theory. Since we now know from the RelativityofLight.com that Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity was based upon multiple false premises, has no confirmations of any kind, and was merely a mathematical myth, any concepts based upon Special Relativity must also be empirically invalid. This includes Minkowski’s Spacetime geometry, by extension the curved spacetime geometry of General Relativity, and by further extension Einstein’s curved spacetime spherical cylinder universe.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, neither Einstein nor anyone else can answer Bruno’s impossible question: What is Einstein’s finite spherical universe contained in, and what lies beyond it? The only possible answer to Bruno’s question is that the static universe is spatially infinite in all directions, and that it has existed for an infinite period of time, i.e. eternity. In fact, this is the empirical picture of the universe that we now perceive as we look farther and farther out into space and backward in time. We may never know how all of the space and matter was created, but so be it.

Host:   Professor Dingle, have you any thoughts about the other theories that were dependent upon the existence of a finite spherical expanding universe?

Dingle:   Oh sure. Lemaitre’s imaginary theory, that it was actually the space itself that was doing the expanding, also must go away for several reasons. First of all, the only theoretical way to detect an expansion of space was to assume that all of the galaxies in such expanding space were systematically moving away from the Earth. Since the only empirical basis for such an assumption was the Doppler velocity theory, which has now been proven to be a false premise when applied to Galactic Redshifts, Lemaitre’s theory now has no theoretical or observational foundation. It was completely based upon pure ad hoc imagination.

Second, we must ask the foundational question: Since space is nothing, how could nothing expand and become more nothing? Lemaitre’s expansion of space theory was little more than an expanding universe theory by another name. It was invented in a desperate attempt to save Special Relativity and its finite speed of light at c, which theoretically cannot be exceeded by any material object.

Finally, space could only expand in Einstein’s mythical finite universe, because in Newton’s real infinite universe there is already an infinite amount of space, so how could space expand and become even more infinite? Lemaitre’s theory was also admittedly based upon Einstein’s finite spherical universe, which has now been demonstrated to be nothing more than an imaginary mathematical myth. Once Einstein’s finite spherical universe is abandoned, so also must Lemaitre’s theory which totally depends upon it.

This leads us to another ad hoc theory that is dependent upon the existence of an expanding universe. That is, the Special Relativity expansion-curve of galaxies that theoretically can never exceed the speed of light at c. See Figure 22 again. This artificial theory, which violates Hubble’s observed linear magnitudes of galactic redshifts, is also no longer necessary in order to try to save Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity. Why? Because Special Relativity has also been demonstrated to be an empirically invalid and meaningless mathematical theory.

Host:   Ok. Dr. Hubble, can you suggest any other theories that were dependent upon the existence of an expanding universe?

Hubble:   Yes, of course. We cannot forget the Big Bang theory which was first invented by Friedmann in the early 1920s, then embellished by Lemaitre in the early 1930s with his exploding atomic star theory, and then was resurrected by George Gamow in a different form about 20 years later. The name “Big Bang” was coined by Fred Hoyle during one of his “scientific” broadcasts on the BBC.

The Big Bang theory was also based upon Einstein’s Expanding Finite Spherical Universe theory, because Gamow metaphorically played the movie of the expanding universe backward to its beginning (a singularity that is less than the size of a pinhead) from whence it suddenly exploded in a Big Bang and caused the expanding universe, many exotic theoretical sub-atomic particles, etc., etc. In turn the Big Bang theory spawned many other dubious and/or ridiculous mathematical theories. They include: Hoyle’s steady state theory (where matter is continuously created out of thin air), Guth’s inflationary expansion theory (where Einstein’s newly born finite universe suddenly expands many billions of light years of distance in a split-second), dark matter and dark energy, which nobody has ever detected, particle physics, and the cosmic microwave background theory, among others. All of these aforementioned ad hoc theories have dominated the subject of cosmology for almost a century, and they still do. Perhaps its time to get back to observations and reality and leave the science fiction for the movie makers.

Host:   I’m afraid that we don’t have enough time during this discussion to explore the Big Bang theory and its related theories. However, I can assure you all that on another occasion we will devote an entire evening to discussing these other cosmological theories. Please see Chart 32.

But for now, we must say adieu. As Edward R. Morrow used to say: Good night and good luck.