dorsal/arxiv
View SchemaThe New Redshift Interpretation Affirmed
| Authors | Robert V. Gentry |
|---|---|
| Categories | |
| ArXiv ID | physics/9810051 |
| URL | https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9810051 |
Abstract
In late 1997 I reported (Mod. Phys. Lett. A 12 (1997) 2919; astro-ph/9806280) the discovery of A 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 Einstein's static-spacetime general relativity (GR) instead of the Friedmann-Lemaitre expanding-spacetime paradigm. More recently Carlip and Scranton (astro-ph/9808021; C&S) claim to find flaws in this discovery, while also claiming the standard cosmology is error free. Their analysis assumes the NRI represents a static cosmological model of the universe. This is wrong. My MPLA report clearly states the NRI encompasses an expanding universe wherein galaxies are undergoing Doppler recession due to vacuum density repulsion. C&S's confusion on this crucial point leads to serious errors in their analysis. Next, in claiming the standard cosmology is error free, C&S fail to respond to the contradictory evidence in my preprint, gr-qc/9806061. There I first show why the universe is governed by Einstein static-spacetime GR, and not the Friedmann-Lemaitre expanding spacetime paradigm on which Big Bang cosmology is critically hinged. Secondly, I note a most embarrassing fact about the F-L paradigm--namely, that it has always involved gargantuan nonconservation-of-energy losses amounting to the mass equivalent of about thirty million universes, each with a mass of 10^21 suns.
{
"annotation_id": "4215da2d-7c02-4aaf-ba01-2d37fdd30223",
"date_created": "2026-03-02T18:01:21.557000Z",
"date_modified": "2026-03-02T18:01:21.557000Z",
"file_hash": "ed8a5d31681a2c07455be17dbc5c4a7de489c544dffeb671ab15b08eca5d6a48",
"private": false,
"record": {
"abstract": "In late 1997 I reported (Mod. Phys. Lett. A 12 (1997) 2919; astro-ph/9806280)\nthe discovery of A New Redshift Interpretation (NRI) of the Hubble relation and\nthe 2.7K CBR, which showed for the first time that it was possible to explain\nthese phenomena within the framework of a universe governed by Einstein\u0027s\nstatic-spacetime general relativity (GR) instead of the Friedmann-Lemaitre\nexpanding-spacetime paradigm. More recently Carlip and Scranton\n(astro-ph/9808021; C\u0026S) claim to find flaws in this discovery, while also\nclaiming the standard cosmology is error free. Their analysis assumes the NRI\nrepresents a static cosmological model of the universe. This is wrong. My MPLA\nreport clearly states the NRI encompasses an expanding universe wherein\ngalaxies are undergoing Doppler recession due to vacuum density repulsion.\nC\u0026S\u0027s confusion on this crucial point leads to serious errors in their\nanalysis. Next, in claiming the standard cosmology is error free, C\u0026S fail to\nrespond to the contradictory evidence in my preprint, gr-qc/9806061. There I\nfirst show why the universe is governed by Einstein static-spacetime GR, and\nnot the Friedmann-Lemaitre expanding spacetime paradigm on which Big Bang\ncosmology is critically hinged. Secondly, I note a most embarrassing fact about\nthe F-L paradigm--namely, that it has always involved gargantuan\nnonconservation-of-energy losses amounting to the mass equivalent of about\nthirty million universes, each with a mass of 10^21 suns.",
"arxiv_id": "physics/9810051",
"authors": [
"Robert V. Gentry"
],
"categories": [
"physics.gen-ph"
],
"title": "The New Redshift Interpretation Affirmed",
"url": "https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9810051"
},
"schema_id": "dorsal/arxiv",
"source": {
"execution_id": "39f624ba-9f5a-4408-8fb9-a848643b4516",
"id": "arXiv Dataset IDs",
"type": "Model",
"variant": "snapshot-2026-03-01",
"version": "0.1.0"
},
"user_id": 1000002
}