

Flaws in the Big Bang Point to GENESIS, a New
Millennium Model of the Cosmos: Part 5
Relativistic Operation of the GPS Exposes the Fatal Flaw in Big Bang's Cornerstone Expansion
Postulate
(arXiv:physics/0102096 28 Feb 2001) by Robert V. Gentry
Abstract
Twentieth century cosmologists mistakenly interpreted several
apparent agreements with big bang's predictions as a sufficient condition that the big bang was a valid physical theory. In fact, it was
only a necessary condition. This oversight led cosmologists to accept
big bang's cornerstone expansion postulate without testing it.
Indeed, such was their confidence that the big bang continued to be promoted
even while contradictions presented by the relativistic operation of
the GPS were ignored. That operation long ago showed unambiguously that
the universe is relativistically formatted in accord with the
Schwarzschild static spacetime solution of the field equations, not the
FriedmannLemaitre expanding spacetime solution. That one of the
preeminent theories of science is now discovered to have fatal flaws in its
cornerstone postulate is a circumstance that is unequaled in modern times.
It may yet become known as one of the greatest faux pas in the
history of science. And it raises the question of whether other prominent
modern scientific theories likewise have undetected flaws in their
cornerstone postulates.
The earlier papers in this series have shown the expansion
redshift hypothesis is internally inconsistent, that it requires large violations of
conservation of energy, and that its expanding balloon illustration
exhibits contradictions. However, these papers did not pinpoint the fatal flaw in the
spacetime expansion postulate. This is the focus of the present
paper.
The expanding spacetime paradigm stands alone among all the
theories of modern physics in that, even after many decades, cosmologists
have never reported a method to measure the cosmic expansion factor, ℜ.
Thus it has never been known whether the expansion redshift, given by the
theoretical expression z_{exp} = ℜ / ℜ_{e}
 1, where ℜ and ℜ_{e} represent the presumed values
of the expansion factors now, and at emission at some earlier
time, actually represents a tangible physical quantity, or instead just an
imaginary construct of a theory with a flawed cornerstone postulate.
This uncertainty is further reflected by MTW as on page 744 they
write [1], "Recognize that present measurements have not yet
provided a good, direct handle on the absolute dimension a(t) of
the universe." (Here the expansion factor is symbolized by a(t) instead
of ℜ.)
Now if measurements have not provided a good direct handle,
is it true they have provided a good indirect handle on the
expansion factor? If so we expect the authors would cite a reference to those 'present
measurements.' But no such citation appears on page 744, nor elsewhere in ref.
[1]. Moreover, since there have been no measurements of the expansion factor,
on what basis does ref. [1] refer to its present measurements?
Indeed, how can MTW speak of measurements at all without providing a
method of doing the measuring?
The impossibility of measuring ℜ reveals that
bigbang cosmology has always been critically dependent on a certain tenuous, ad hoc
assumption to bridge the vast chasm that separates it from realworld
astronomical and astrophysical measurements. That critical assumption is — as
discussed in Parts 1 and 2 — that, for high redshifts, the expansion
redshift, z_{exp}, is identical with the observed redshift, z_{obs} =
λ_{o} /
λ_{e }−
1,
where the subscripts refer to times of observation and emission. MTW use this assumption to
associate quasar redshifts with expansion redshifts rather than Doppler
shifts [1]. And bigbang cosmologists have long claimed the Hubble redshift
relation and the 2.7K CBR could be explained only by expansion redshifts [1].
However, the recent discovery of the New Redshift Interpretation (NRI) shows
this view is incorrect, revealing for the first time that astronomically
determined redshifts can be explained by Doppler and gravitational effects,
independent of spacetime expansion [2]. This fact, together with the
nonconservationof energy contradiction discussed in Part 4 of this series, makes it
imperative to probe the physics underlying the expanding spacetime
paradigm.
A method is needed to test whether expansion redshifts actually
exist. If they do exist, they must be the result of general
relativistic effects on light because expansion itself is presumed to originate with the
FriedmannLemaitre expanding spacetime solution to the Einstein field
equations. Thus, a clear test for expansion redshifts is whether their predicted
effects are identical with general relativistic effects on light. If they are
not, then the universe is not governed by spacetime expansion, and big bang's
cornerstone postulate is thereby falsified along with all of big bang
cosmology. The experiments that reveal how light is affected by general relativistic effects
are those based on the Einstein gravitational redshift [3(a,b)],
because these are the exact experiments which record how light is affected
relativistically.
It is wellknown that in the early to midsixties Pound and
Rebka (4) and Pound and Snider (5) used Mossbauer techniques to confirm
that gravitational effects do result in a frequency or energy difference in photons
that traverse a vertical distance between emission and reception.
Within experimental error this difference was found to agree with Einstein's
prediction [3(a,b)]. This much is certain. But this is not sufficient to
confirm big bang's expansion hypothesis. The critical question for big
bang cosmology is not simply whether the gravitational redshift exists but
instead whether the observational facts pertaining to the gravitational redshift
experiments are consistent with the requirements of the FriedmannLemaitre
expanding spacetime solution of the field equations. The other possibility
is an agreement with the Schwarzschild static spacetime solution of the field
equations. The critical question is: Do gravitational redshift experiments
agree with predictions of the FriedmannLemaitre expanding spacetime
solution or alternatively with the Schwarzschild static spacetime solution?
To find the answer we turn to cosmologists such as MTW [1],
Peebles [6], Longair [7], and Peacock [8] — to name a few — all of
whom describe expansion's effects as causing wavelength expansion while a
photon is inflight, with complete cessation of expansion's effects during
the emission and absorption processes. But why are expansion's effects
assumed to cease during emission? Most cosmology texts are silent on this. But
MTW opine it's because expansion is a general relativistic effect, and
emission is a special relativistic effect. The truth is this cessation assumption is
without any physical basis whatsoever. Yet it is absolutely essential that
it be invoked, for otherwise expansion would continue to operate so as also to
increase the emission wavelength, and this would immediately place the
hypothetical z_{exp} = ℜ / ℜ_{e}
− 1 expression in conflict
with the real world astronomical z = λ /
λ_{e}
− 1 expression, which does require
a constant λ_{e}.
Believing as they do in the big bang, it would not be surprising
to find that cosmologists would be inclined to interpret the physics of
PoundSnider [5] gravitational redshift experiments to agree with the
requirements of spacetime expansion redshifts. And this is exactly what has
occurred. Wald, for example, refers to the PoundRebka results and states [9]:
". . . we would expect the photon energy to be degraded as it 'climbs out of a
gravitational potential well.' " Robertson and Noonan [10] also cite
the PoundSnider results [5] as proving a photon's ". . . frequency decreases if
the light travels uphill." Similarly, on page 187 MTW claim [1]: "The
energy of the photon must decrease just as that of a particle does as it climbs out
of a gravitational field. . . . The drop in energy because of work done against
gravitation implies a drop in frequency and an increase in wavelength. .
. ."
Carlip and Scranton [11] apparently accept MTW's description, for they cite it in
their attempt to discredit the NRI [2]. But do the PoundRebka and
PoundSnider results actually prove that photons experience an inflight change in
wavelength, or energy, in passing through a gravitational potential gradient?
Careful reading of the PoundSnider article [5] does not confirm
the foregoing descriptions of photons changing energy in passing
through a potential gradient. The PoundSnider article reveals these experimenters
made no such claim. On the contrary, they stated that comparison of
coherent sources — meaning atomic clocks — at different potentials
would have to be made in order to decide whether gravity caused photons to change
energy in transit or whether the change in energy detected in the
experiments was instead due to the emission energy being affected by local
gravity [5].
The latter possibility was actually predicted by Einstein in
1916, before expanding spacetime solutions of the field equations were known.
At that time Einstein predicted [3(b)], "An atom absorbs or
emits light of a frequency which is dependent on the potential of the
gravitational field in which it is situated." Clearly, it has always been a
matter of importance for cosmologists to test Einstein's description of the
gravitational redshift because his description predicts gravity affecting light during
emission, in contrast to causing inflight wavelength change, as required by
the expansion hypothesis. In what appears to be one of the most significant
lapses in the history of science, there appears to be no record where
cosmologists ever sought to determine for a certainty whether photons
actually do experience an inflight change in wavelength while passing through a
gravitational potential gradient.
This failure to test expansion's prediction is unusual,
considering that Moller's 1972 theoretical analysis [12] showed the
gravitational redshift could be interpreted as resulting from the general relativistic effects
of gravity operating only during the processes of emission and absorption,
and not during a photon's flight, as required by the spacetime
expansion paradigm. Compounding this failure has been the failure to recognize that
Moller's alternate interpretation was very forcefully confirmed over two
decades ago during the setup of the GPS by the principal investigator, C. O.
Alley [13]. Quoted now are Alley's results in his own words [13]:
"A common mistake in dealing with relativistic time was
also made by one of the Air Force contractors in relation to the GPS. This is the notion that electromagnetic radiation changes
frequency (or a photon changes energy) as it propagates through a gravitational potential difference. If the physical clock
adjustments have been made as described above so that all clocks are keeping a common coordinate time, then there is no effect on
the frequency of radiation as measured in that coordinate time. However, the contractor had included in the computer programs
to operate the system just such a correction, effectively
correcting twice for the relativistic effects. Actual experience with test
GPS equipment in orbit was required to persuade some engineers and physicists of their error."
"We should not be surprised at such lack of
understanding of some of the fundamental concepts of General Relativity since the
subject is almost never taught to engineers and rarely even to physicists. Also confusion about these concepts is not
restricted to engineers and others who must deal with ultrastable clocks, but is widespread even among eminent physicists."
Alley's result — showing unambiguously that gravity operates
during photon emission, without producing any inflight change in λ
whatsoever, together with Moller's theoretical justification of it [12] —
is the death knell of big bang cosmology. It conclusively tells us the universe is
precisely formatted according to Einstein's static spacetime general
relativistic prediction of the effect of gravity on emission processes — namely, "An
atom absorbs or emits light of a frequency which is dependent on the
potential of the gravitational field in which it is situated" [3(b)]
— and not FL expanding spacetime general relativity, which predicts that relativistic
effects cause inflight wavelength expansion. It may be interesting to
speculate about a universe with these characteristics, but this has nothing to
do with the universe we inhabit.
Also, since GPS operation shows photons do not exchange energy
with the gravitational field when passing through a potential gradient
[13,14], this excludes all possibility of attributing expansion's
nonconservationofenergy loss to an exchange of energy with gravity, and hence negates
any attempt to reconcile expansion's energy loss with energy conservation.
Thus, as discussed above, if expansion had been a real characteristic of
the universe, it would have resulted in monumental nonconservationofenergy
losses, both past and present.
Alley's observation of widespread confusion among eminent
scientists on how photons interact with gravity is borne out by how they have
incorrectly portrayed the physics underlying the gravitational redshift. It
indicates how deeply this erroneous view is entrenched within the highest
echelons of general relativity and modern cosmology.
It is not altogether clear how the actual relativistic structure
of the universe could have remained undetected for so many decades. Obviously
there is evidence suggesting that a misunderstanding of the
PoundSnider gravitational redshift experiments may have been a contributing factor. What
may not have been fully understood by many cosmologists and
relativity theorists is that the underlying physics of the PoundSnider
gravitational redshift experiments is centered on the fact that two observers
at different potentials are comparing identical photons in reference frames
that have intrinsically different physical characteristics. In essence, if
you move to a different potential, you establish a different reference frame for
energy measurements of photons originating from outside your new frame. Comparing
your monoenergetic photons — those emitted in your new
position — with those coming from the reference frame you left, gives you a
measure of how your new energy standards differ from the old. It has nothing to
do with photons changing energy or frequency inflight.
Indeed, in what may be one of the most overlooked results in
gravitational physics, almost two decades ago Vera [15] showed that photon
energy exchange with a gravitational field has never been a valid
theoretical concept. His results, which show the reason an observer in a different
potential measures a photon energy different from that measured by the
observer at the point of emission, precisely accord with the explanation
just given; namely, the energy standards are different in the two locations.
This understanding is consistent with the gravitational redshift being an Einstein
staticspacetime effect [3(a,b)] that is consistent with energy
conservation [16,17].
Even though the implications of this fact generally escaped the
notice of bigbang cosmologists, it is certain that some physicists
understood it long ago. Leighton, for example, gave the correct understanding of
the gravitational redshift four decades ago [18]: "One of the simplest
applications of the principle of equivalence is the deduction that the rate of a
clock located in a region of high gravitational potential, V, will be
decreased by an amount
Δt
= t(ΔV)
/ c^{2} with respect to that of
a clock situated in a region of lower gravitational potential
V − Δ V." One can only wonder
what would have happened if years ago cosmologists had comprehended how
completely this description contradicts FriedmannLemaitre spacetime expansion.
Conclusion
Twentieth century cosmologists interpreted
several wellpublicized apparent agreements with bigbang predictions as a sufficient
condition for the big bang to be true; in fact, they were only a
necessary condition. These apparent successes led to acceptance of its
cornerstone spacetime expansion postulate, even though it was never tested.
Thus the big bang continued to be promoted despite its nonconservationofenergy
contradictions and its contradictions with the ongoing
relativistic operation of the GPS. That operation long ago showed unambiguously that
the type of general relativity governing the universe contradicts the
type corresponding to the FriedmannLemaitre expanding spacetime solution of the field
equations. That one of the preeminent theories of science is now
discovered to have fatal flaws in its cornerstone postulate is a
circumstance that is unequaled in modern times. And it raises the question of
whether other prominent modern theories likewise have flaws in their
cornerstone postulates that have yet gone undetected. In summary, the raison d'tre
of modern physics is that you first test the foundations of a hypothesis
before attempting to develop it into a theory. In my view the failure of
cosmologists to do this for the big bang ranks as one of the greatest faux pas in
the history of science. In any event, since Einstein's static spacetime
framework [3(a,b)] is also the relativistic framework of the NRI, it is certain
that GENESIS' astrophysical framework is fully in accord with general
relativity [19].
References
[1] C. W. Misner, K. S. Thorne, and J. A. Wheeler, Gravitation,
(W. H. Freeman & Company, 1973) pp. 187, 744, 767, 775778.
[2] Robert V. Gentry, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 12 (1997)
2919; arXiv:astroph/9806280.
[3] (a) A. Einstein, Ann. der Physik, 49, 769
(1916). English reprint in The Principle of Relativity, Dover Publications, pp. 111164;
(b) — RELATIVITY, The Special and General Theory, (Crown Trade Paperbacks,
New York) p. 130.
[4] R. V. Pound and G . A. Rebka, Phys. Rev. Lett., 4,
337 (1960).
[5] R. V. Pound and J. L. Snider, Phys. Rev. B, 140,
788 (1965).
[6] P.J.E. Peebles, Principles of Physical Cosmology (Princeton
University Press, Princeton, 1993), pp. 9698.
[7] Malcolm S. Longair, The Physics of Background Radiation,
in The Deep Universe, eds. B. Binggeli and R. Buser (Springer, Berlin,
1995) p. 369.
[8] John A. Peacock, Cosmological Physics, (Cambridge
University Press, 1999) pp. 7172.
[9] Robert M. Wald, General Relativity (The University Of
Chicago Press, 1984) pp. 136138.
[10] H. P. Robertson and Thomas Noonan, Relativity and
Cosmology (W. B. Sanders Company, 1968) pp. 169170.
[11] Steven Carlip and Ryan Scranton, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 14
(1999) 71; arXiv:astroph/9808021.
[12] C. Moller, The Theory of Relativity, (Clarendon
Press, Oxford, Second Edition, 1972) On pp. 405406 Moller states: "In the
preceding considerations, the Einstein effect has been explained as an effect of the
loss or gain of kinetic energy of the photon in its free fall
from point 1 to point 2. Another, perhaps even simpler interpretation is
obtained by considering the coordinate frequencies instead of the standard
frequencies . Since hv is a constant of the motion, no change of the
coordinate frequency of the photon occurs on its way from 1 to 2.
. . . Therefore, the coordinate frequency emitted in a definite transition of the
atom depends on the gravitational potential at the place of
emission. . . . According to this interpretation, the Einstein effect is due to the change
in the spectrum of total rest energies H_{o} when the atom in question is
moved adiabatically from one place to another with a different scalar
potential. . . . [T]he change of H_{o} in each stationary energy state is equal
to the nongravitational (coordinate) work that has to be performed
during the adiabatic transfer of the atom in this state. Since this
work depends on the proper mass of the atom, it will be different for
the different stationary states. This is the physical reason for the
dependence of ΔH_{o} = H_{o}
−
H_{o}, and therefore of v_{o}, on the position of
the source in the gravitational field." [Here H_{o} and H_{o} are
the rest energies of the atom in the gravitational field for the initial and final
stationary states respectively.]
[13] C. O. Alley, Proper Time Experiments in Gravitational
Fields with Atomic Clocks, Aircraft, and Laser Light Pulses, in Quantum
Optics, Experimental Gravity, and Measurement Theory, eds. P.
Meystre and M. O. Scully (Plenum Press, New York, 1981), pp. 363427.
[14] Neil Ashby and J. J. Spilker, Jr., Chapter 18 in The
Global Positioning System: Theory and Applications, Vol. 1, Eds. B. W.
Parkinson and J. J. Spilker, Jr. (American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics Inc, Washington, DC, 1995).
[15] R. A. Vera, Int. Jour. Theor. Phys. 20, No.
1, 19 (1981).
[16] Robert V. Gentry and David W. Gentry, arXiv:grqc/9806061.
[17] Robert V. Gentry, arXiv:physics/9810051.
[18] R. B. Leighton, Principles of Modern Physics (McGrawHill
Book Co., 1959) p. 55.
[19] Many thanks to Dave Gentry for very useful discussions.


