which is the actually the expression cosmologists use to relate the flux and redshift on the assumption that the universe is undergoing FriedmannLemaitre 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
Given that the above definition applies to the NRI, we can then substitute it in the definition for the distance modulus,
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 NRI's Eq. (2) is Hr/c ≈ z / (1 + z). In this case the above expression becomes,
which is the simplified Hubble magnituderedshift relation, minus the now superfluous Ω_{0} term (see ref. [4], page 448). Thus C&S's dire prediction that the NRI's 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 expression for the Hubble magnituderedshift relation once it is correctly interpreted in terms of galaxies undergoing Doppler expansion combined with gravitational redshifts. Likewise, also in Section 4—the section C&S claim is of greatest importance because it presumes to deal with observational data—their 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 density—an 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 that—as with everything else in life—if you make a wrong assumption, you will surely come to a wrong conclusion. Now, concerning their discussion in Section 3 of the NRI's 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 shorttime radiative cooling and gravitational instability. Next, concerning their criticism in Section 3 of the constant density assumption, this is at best illfounded. 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 assumption—meaning 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 density—as per their Eq. (8)—has virtually no effect on the dynamics of galactic recession in the NRI framework. Thus, the failures that C&S describe do not represent what is in my NRI paper. They represent instead C&S's 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 grqc/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 cosmology—namely, that the FriedmannLemaitre expanding spacetime paradigm has always necessitated gargantuan nonconservation of radiation energy losses the equivalent to thirty million universes like our own, each composed of 10^{21} suns. Some cosmologists are aware of this; some aren't. 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 Bang's FriedmannLemaitre 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 eprint grqc/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 magnituderedshift relation.) The problem is that they were aware that my eprint, grqc/9806061, documents experimental general relativity results which I claim conclusively demonstrate that the universe is formatted by Einstein's staticspacetime general relativity, and not FLRW expandingspacetime 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 discussion—or even an acknowledgment of the existence—of this result. Now it has always been my understanding that when scientists undertake to critique a colleague's 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 time 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 topic—namely, that the evidence I cite in favor of the universe being governed by Einstein's staticspacetime 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 cosmology's successful prediction of light element abundances. But what C&S don't 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 expandingspacetime relativity. By omitting mention of the overwhelming evidence that our universe is governed by staticspacetime—and hence cannot possibly exhibit expansion redshifts—C&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 finelytuned 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!

[1]  Robert V. Gentry, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 12 (1997) 2919; astroph/9806280. 
[2]  Robert V. Gentry and David W. Gentry, grqc/9806061. 
[3]  Steven Carlip and Ryan Scranton, astroph/9808021. 
[4]  J. Silk, The Big Bang, pp. 447448, W. H. Freeman & Co., Revised edition, 1989. 