Sign up
Use your Facebook login and see what your friends are reading and sharing.
The Great 21st Century Scientific Watergate -- Part 2
Flaws In The Big Bang Point To GENESIS, A New Millennium Model Of The Cosmos: Part 6 — Ultimate Disproof Of The Big Bang Comes From Its Bizarre Prediction That Photons Are Permanently Inscribed With H’s Value At Time Of Origin
Robert V. Gentry The Orion Foundation P. O. Box 12067 Knoxville, TN 37912 gentryrv@orionfdn.org 28 February 2001
arXiv:physics/0102092 28 Feb 2001
arXiv:physics/0102098 28 Feb 2001
arXiv:physics/0102094 28 Feb 2001
arXiv:physics/0102101 28 Feb 2001
arXiv:physics/0102096 28 Feb 2001
28 February 2001
Abstract Cosmologists who have promoted the Hubble redshift relation and the 2.7K Cosmic Blackbody Radiation as virtual proof of the big bang have led the rest of the scientific community to consider it one of the outstanding scientific triumphs of all time. Witness, for example, the recent claim that the big bang is bang on because CBR measurements at z = 2.34 bracket big bang’s prediction of T = 9.1K. Despite this, some of history’s greatest surprises have occurred when apparently well-established scientific theories were overturned after long-overlooked critical testing revealed flaws in their cornerstone postulates. In this instance the scientific community at large has been unaware of cosmologists’ failure to verify big bang’s cornerstone postulates. This lapse may yet become known as one of the greatest faux pas in the history of science because this series of papers reveals that big bang’s cornerstone postulates have always been seriously flawed. Disproof of big-bang cosmology directs attention to GENESIS, a new model of the cosmos that has a nearby universal Center, one whose astrophysical framework is equally ‘bang on’ because its T (z) = 2.73(1 + z) prediction duplicates big bang’s predictions at both z = 2.34 and z = 0, plus accounting for the Hubble relation, but with Doppler and gravitational redshifts instead of F-L expansion redshifts.
arXiv:physics/0102093 28 Feb 2001
28 February 2001
arXiv:physics/0102095 28 Feb 2001
Robert V. Gentry The Orion Foundation P. O. Box 12067 Knoxville, TN 37912 gentryrv@orionfdn.org 28 February 2001
Robert V. Gentry The Orion Foundation P. O. Box 12067 Knoxville, TN 37912 gentryrv@orionfdn.org 28 February 2001
Robert V. Gentry The Orion Foundation P. O. Box 12067 Knoxville, TN 37912 gentryrv@orionfdn.org 28 February 2001
arXiv:physics/0102097 28 Feb 2001
Robert V. Gentry The Orion Foundation P. O. Box 12067 Knoxville, TN 37912 gentryrv@orionfdn.org
Robert V. Gentry The Orion Foundation P. O. Box 12067 Knoxville, TN 37912 gentryrv@orionfdn.org
Flaws In The Big Bang Point To GENESIS, A New Millennium Model Of The Cosmos: Part 4 — How Will The Scientific Community React To Big Bang’s Vast Nonconservation-of-Energy Losses?
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
Flaws In The Big Bang Point To GENESIS, A New Millennium Model Of The Cosmos: Part 7 — Discovery Of A Nearby Universal Center Is The Smoking Gun Signature Of GENESIS That Overturns Big Bang’s Cosmological Principle
Robert V. Gentry The Orion Foundation P. O. Box 12067 Knoxville, TN 37912 gentryrv@orionfdn.org 28 February 2001
+
Rapid Radioactive Alpha Decay of Polonium-218 in Molten Rock Slow Cooling of Molten Rock
=
No Primordial Po-218 Halos in Solidified Granite
Abstract Discovery of flaws in the expansion hypothesis reported in Parts 2 and 5 has led to the additional discovery of astronomical proof of a nearby universal Center. In particular, Part 5’s disproof of spacetime expansion invalidates explaining the Hubble redshift relation in terms of expansion redshifts, thereby exposing the Cosmological Principle as a fallacious concept. Without this Principle it is now evident that the spherical symmetry dictated by the Hubble relation must now be seen as proof of the existence of a nearby universal Center. This conclusion is overwhelmingly supported by the Galaxy also being at the center of the Gamma Ray Burster distribution, as well as by the unequivocal implications of certain cosmic inhomogeneities which have thus far received little attention, specifically meaning definite peaks in certain quasar redshift distributions. Confirmation of the New Redshift Interpretation’s postulate of a nearby universal Center validates its explanation of the Hubble redshift relation and the 2.7K CBR, thus explaining why the NRI has been adopted as the astrophysical framework of GENESIS.
Abstract Big bang’s pennies-on-an-expanding balloon illustration depicts ever increasing separation of galaxies predicated on the assumption that the universe is governed by Friedmann-Lemaitre spacetime expansion. There is a significant contradiction connected with the effects of this assumption. It concerns how spacetime expansion is portrayed to interact with gravity. On one hand, clusters of galaxies are pictured as separating to increasingly greater distances despite their large gravitational attraction. On the other hand, for some mysterious reason expansion is said to be unable to cause galaxies themselves to increase in size even though the gravitational attraction within them is smaller than between clusters. Analysis shows that if expansion ever existed it would have caused continuous, uniform expansion of all matter, in which case galaxies would not have formed. Thus the existence of galaxies provides two powerful Smoking Gun Signatures, the first being that our universe knows nothing of big bang’s spacetime expansion and, second, that the GENESIS of our universe must have occurred far differently than modern cosmology has ever envisioned.
Abstract The scientific community widely understands that expansion redshifts are the centerpiece of big-bang cosmology. What is generally unknown is the widespread confusion in the ranks of cosmologists as to exactly what they are. A minority equate them with Doppler shifts due to actual recession. A majority, however, claim: (i) “... the [expansion] redshift does not really have anything to do with velocities at all in cosmology,” (ii) “... it is common but misleading to convert a large redshift to a recession velocity using the special-relativistic formula 1 + z = (1 + v/c)/(1 − v/c) ,” and (iii) “The truth is that expansion redshifts are totally different from Doppler redshifts, and the velocities catalogued by astronomers are not the recession velocities used in the velocity-distance law.” Has the scientific community been victimized by astronomers as the foregoing implies? Or is it instead that the expansion redshift concept is flawed? This paper shows it’s the latter, that it was accepted without ever being tested. In fact modern physics knows nothing of expansion’s redshifts and their presumed origin due to expanding space rather than Doppler recession.
Abstract A noted cosmologist has utilized big bang’s expanding spacetime redshift expression, zexp = / e − 1, and the astronomical redshift expression, z = λ/λe − 1, to obtain an expression for the predicted present rate of photon wavelength change induced by expansion, here denoted by (dλ/dt)exp . When this expression is simplified in terms of the values of H, the present value of the Hubble constant, and He , its value at the time of emission of photons from distant galaxies, there results an expression showing the present rate of photon wavelength change depends on both the present value of the Hubble constant, as well as its value at the time of emission in distant galaxies, namely, (dλ/dt)exp = Hλ − He λe . This bizarre result requires two things: First, because of big bang’s homogeneity assumption, all photons in the universe must be simultaneously undergoing the changes specified by this expression; this is nothing less than on-going, instantaneous action-at-a-distance all throughout the universe’s thirty-billion-lightyear diameter. Second, the fact that it requires not only individual photons be initially imprinted with H’s value, corresponding to their respective times of origin, but also that this imprint should determine
Abstract In 1936 Hubble expressed his concern about astronomical redshifts and energy conservation: “Obviously since the product [energy × wavelength] remains constant, redshifts, by increasing wavelengths, must reduce the energy in the quanta. Any plausible interpretation of redshifts must account for the loss of energy.” The scientific community rightly expects that big-bang cosmology resolved this concern consistent with energy conservation. Surprisingly, this did not happen. Instead, cosmologists exempted the big bang from energy conservation, but without saying how much was lost. This paper shows that, since t = 1 second after the big bang, expansion redshifting of CBR photons would have resulted in nonconservation-of-energy losses amounting to at least thirty million times the mass of the visible universe; moreover, losses continue at the rate of about a galactic mass every millennium. These results prove the big bang fails to match the physics of the real universe, that its expansion redshift hypothesis is fatally flawed, and hence that the big bang never possessed the qualifications necessary for being classified as a modern scientific theory.
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.
In his article “The new physics — Physical or mathematical science? ” Oldershaw suggests [1], 1
This paper details the discovery of the fallacious nature of the Cosmological Principle and why proof of a nearby universal Center is a another smoking 1
Should We Believe the Big Bang Scenario? is the title of the side-bar in Martin Rees’s recent review of big-bang cosmology [1]. He has done 1
Previous papers in this series have detailed several lines of experimental evidence which contradict big bang’s fundamental spacetime expansion 1
Disney has noted many uncertainties in big-bang cosmology [1], but he did not question whether its basic postulates agree with known conservation laws. This fourth paper does this, specifically focusing on whether spacetime
The earlier papers in this series have shown the expansion redshift hypothesis is internally inconsistent, that it requires large violations of conser1
New Cosmic Center Universe Model Matches Eight of Big Bang's Predictions Without The F-L Paradigm (CERN Preprint EXT-2003-022)
CERN Preprint
+
8
=
Instantaneously Created Solid Granite Rock Permanent Primordial Po-218 Halos in Granite
Predictions of the Cosmic Center Universe Model Predictions of the Cosmic Center Universe Model 2 Predictions of the Cosmic Center Universe Model 3 Predictions of the Cosmic Center Universe Model Predictions of the Cosmic Center Universe Model
IV.
Predictions of the Cosmic Center Universe Model 6
−4
7 this is only a necessary condition for it to be identified with big bang’s relic radiation, not a sufficient condition. Indeed, the assumption that the CCU model’s outer shell’s galactic clusters are composed of pure H stars – which are assumed to have originated in a different epoch than those in the visible universe – also guarantees that the CBR must be Planckian (2)
New Cosmic Center Universe Model Matches Eight of Big Bang’s Major Predictions Without The F-L Paradigm
Robert V Gentry∗ Orion Institute for Astrophysics, P O Box 12067, Knoxville, TN 37912
I. INTRODUCTION — DISCOVERY OF NEARBY UNIVERSAL CENTER PRO-
Primordial Po-218 (t1/2 = 3 min) halos in granites worldwide proves these rocks were instantly created
is Idopp = F/∆Ω = Io (1 + zd ) , where ∆Ω is the solid angle subtended by the source at r [27]. By analogy, for the CCU,
VIDES THE OBSERVATIONAL FOUNDATION FOR A NEW COSMIC MODEL TO REPLACE THE BIG BANG
Peebles has added to this, saying [7], “Might we be at the center of an inhomogeneous but spherically symmetric universe?”, only to conclude shortly thereafter that, “... the best argument against a spherically symmetric inhomogeneous universe is that the Milky Way does not appear to be a special galaxy, nor does it seem to be in a special place.” That eminent cosmologists could openly describe the Cosmological Principle in such weak terms, and this without awakening serious discussion of this topic in astronomical and astrophysical journals, shows how deeply this hypothesis, and its parent, the F-L paradigm, have been entrenched in modern cosmology. An alternative to a F-L paradigm universe is one formatted according to Einstein’s original static spacetime solution of the field equations. A new cosmic model, the New Redshift Interpretation, based on this relativistic format was published in 1997 [8], and provisionally updated in 1998 [9]. In its initial form the NRI was demonstrated to provide an alternate explanation of the 2.73 K CBR and the Hubble relation. This model, now renamed the Cosmic Center Universe model, has now been considerably expanded to show it is capable of explaining at least eight of big bang’s major predictions.
Predictions of the Cosmic Center Universe Model
and the distance from C to the outer shell is R = 14.24 × 109 ly [8]. Within broad limits this temperature is an arbitrary parameter, a change in which produces only minimal change in ICCU = F/∆Ω = Io [(1 + z)(1 + zd )]−2 . this radius. Thus in the CCU the ripples in the CBR [23, 24] are preliminarily attributed to either regularly spaced voids between its galactic clusters and/or small temperature variations within the clusters. The latter might also account for the thus far unexplained hot spots in the 2.7 K CBR [25]. Moreover since all galaxies in the visible universe are backlighted by the outer shell, they will cast a shadow in local 2.7 K CBR measurements. This
Rapid Radioactive Alpha Decay of Polonium-218
to an equally high degree of precision in the CCU model.
Abstract
Accompanying disproof of the F-L expansion paradigm eliminates the basis for expansion redshifts, which in turn eliminates the basis for the Cosmological Principle. The universe is not the same everywhere. Instead the spherical symmetry of the cosmos demanded by the Hubble redshift relation proves the universe is isotropic about a nearby universal Center. This is the foundation of the relatively new Cosmic Center Universe model, which accounts for, explains, or predicts: (i) The Hubble redshift relation, (ii) a CBR redshift relation that fits all current CBR measurements,
A separate paper [1] has shown the exact calculation of the present F-L expansion-induced rate of photon wavelength change leads to a prediction of CBR temperature that seriously contradicts the measured 2.73 K. We conclude the universe is not governed by the F-L expansion paradigm, as generally believed. Disproof of the F-L expansion paradigm also eliminates its expansion redshifts, which in turn eliminates the basis for the Cosmological Principle. The universe is not homogeneous and isotropic. Instead the spherical symmetry of the cosmos demanded by the Hubble redshift relation proves the universe is only isotropic about a nearby universal Center. Thus the Hubble relation forms one part of the powerful
expansion’s galaxy-and-associated-heavy-element, z-dependent, creation timeline, and postulates instead that all galaxies interior to a very distant outer galactic shell, have a common time origin and heavy element abundances independent of z. Thus, the recently discovered z = 3.914 quasar [18] with a Fe/O ratio three times that of the sun directly contradicts big bang’s heavy element nucleosynthesis scenario, and shows that its underlying F-L expansion postulate is flawed. In contrast this observation fits easily within the CCU’s basic framework, and provides a strong foundation for its extraordinary postulate of a nearby cosmic Center (C) and corresponding denial of the Cosmological Principle (CP). One very great advantage of this new model is that it restores conservation of energy to physics, in stark contrast to the big bang, which involved gargantuan nonconservation of CBR energy losses amounting to more than thirty million times the baryonic mass of the visible universe [17].
THE COSMIC CENTER UNIVERSE MODEL — ITS USE OF VACUUM
ENERGY AND AN OUTER GALACTIC SHELL TO EXPLAIN THE COSMIC BLACKBODY RADIATION AS GRAVITATIONALLY REDSHIFTED CAVITY RADIATION
Utilizing the CCU’s total redshift factor [8], 1 + z = (1 + Hr/c)/ 1 − 2(Hr/c)2, along with its Doppler factor, 1 + zd = (1 + Hr/c)/ 1 − (Hr/c)2, allows fitting I solely in terms of z over the interval, 0 < z < 1, namely ICCU = Io /(1 + z)3.56 , (3)
VI. THE COSMIC CENTER UNIVERSE MODEL — ITS (m, z) RELATION CLOSELY APPROXIMATES BIG BANG’S m, z) RELATION FOR z < 1
for more information see: www.halos.com
A nearby C enables the CCU’s model to associate the 2.7 K CBR with cavity radiation instead of expansion-shifted big bang relic radiation. Cavity radiation exists in the CCU model because in it galaxies of the visible universe are enclosed by a thin, very distant outer shell of closely-spaced galaxies at a distance R from C. Years ago Misner et al [22] theorized, “The cosmic microwave radiation has just the form one would expect if the earth were enclosed in a box (‘black-body cavity’) with temperature 2.7 K.” While the MTW box resembles the CCU’s outer shell, the CCU’s vacuum energy and gravitational redshifts – and its use of the radial variation of gravitational potential within the spherical cavity [8] to
Turning now to the CCU’s (m, z) relation, using Equation (1) we utilize the usual luminosity distance definition, dL =
2
is a new interpretation of the Sunyaev-Zeldovich (S-Z) thermal effect [15]. The kinematic S-Z effect is treated separately [26].
which differs from the Tolman relation, Ibb = Io /(1 + z)4 . Interestingly, Lubin and Sandage [28], in reporting observations on 34 galaxies from three clusters with z = 0.76, z = 0.90, and z = 0.92, conclude the exponent on (1 + z) varies from 2.28 to 2.81 in the R band, and 3.06 to 3.55 in the I band, depending on qo ’s value. Further study is needed to assess the significance of the I band’s near agreement with the CCU result. Of course Lubin and Sandage were unaware of this possible agreement. ρ Instead they propose evolutionary effects could bring their results in agreement with the
L/4πF = rg (1 + z) = r(1 + z)(1 + zd ), which becomes
dL = r(1 + z) for z < 1. Here the CCU’s (1 + z) redshift factor is approximated by Hr/c ≈ z/(1 + z), which leads to dL = cz(1 + z)/H. Substituting into the distance modulus, m − M = 5(log dL − 1), we find (m − M)CCU = 5[log cz − log H + log(1 + z)] − 5 ≈ 5[log cz − log H] + 1.623z − 5, as a reasonable fit over 0 < z < 1, which compares closely with standard cosmology’s redshift prediction, (m − M)bb = 5[log cz − log H] + 1.086(1 − qo )z − 5 ≈ 5[log cz − log H] + 1.75z − 5, for the recent estimate of qo ≈ −0.75 [16]. If we write M = M − 5[log H − log(1 + z)] − 5, then Equation (4) reduces to m = M + 5 log cz, the Hubble relation for z 1. To investigate the expected brightness for z > 1 we adapt other parts of the analysis of Ellis [27] to obtain the specific intensity, iv = Fv /∆Ω, the specific flux per unit solid angle, for the CCU model. Let the source spectrum be represented by a function φ(νg ), where Lφ(νg ) is the rate at which radiation is emitted from the galaxy at frequencies between νg and νg + dνg , with φ(νg ) normalized so that
∞ 0
(iii) the recently discovered velocity dipole distribution of radiogalaxies, (iv) the well-known time dilation of SNe Ia light curves, (v) the Sunyaev-Zeldovich thermal effect, (vi) Olber’s paradox, (vii) a modified Tolman relation, (viii) SN dimming for z < 1, and for z > 1 an enhanced brightness
observational evidence supporting the discovery of the existence of the nearby cosmic Center. The equally powerful second and third parts come from: (i) Fishman and Meegan’s 1995 review of Gamma-Ray Bursters (GRBs), wherein they noted [2], “The isotropy and inhomogeneity of the [gamma-ray] bursts show only that we are at the center of the apparent burst distribution,” and (ii) Woosley’s 1995 review, wherein he noted [3], “The observational data show conclusively that the Earth is situated at or very near the center of the gammaray burst universe.” These evaluations occurred before GRBs were discovered to be at cosmological distances. Now that the cosmological distances to GRBs have been confirmed [4], it is obvious that GRBs unambiguously prove a nearby universal Center does exist. In one sense this discovery is not at all surprising considering that notable cosmologists have occasionally expressed rather strong doubts about the Cosmological Principle over the past few decades. In 1978 Weinberg described it as the [5], “...one great uncertainty that hangs like a dark cloud over the standard model.” A decade later Hawking made an equally frank admission, saying [6], “... it might seem that if we observe all other galaxies to be moving away from us, then we must be at the center of the universe. There is, however, an
V.
THE COSMIC CENTER UNIVERSE MODEL — ITS MODIFIED TOLMAN
RELATION CLOSELY APPROXIMATES BIG BANG’S TOLMAN RELATION FOR z < 1, AND THE COSMIC BLACKBODY RADIATION IS PREDICTED TO BE PLANCKIAN
(4)
that fits SN 1997ff measurements, (ix) the existence of extreme redshift (z > 10) objects which,
14 Apr 2003
when observed, will further distinguish it from the big bang. The CCU model also plausibly explains the z = 3.91 BAL quasar’s high Fe/O ratio which so directly contradicts big bang’s F-L paradigm. This leads to CCU’s prediction that similar high-ratio, high-z quasars which falsify big bang’s nucleosynthesis time line will also be discovered.
PACS numbers: 98.62.Py, 98.65.-r, 98.80.Es, 98.80.Hw, 98.90.+s
III.
THE COSMIC CENTER UNIVERSE MODEL — ITS USE OF VACUUM EN-
explain the CBR’s temperature-redshift dependence – clearly distinguish it from the MTW scenario. Thus the blackbody cavity radiation temperature, T (z), at any interior point, P, depends on the Einstein gravitational redshift between P and the outer shell, or between P and the nearby Center. If the vacuum pressure, pv , is negative, then the vacuum density, ρv , will be positive, and the summed vacuum pressure/energy contributions to vacuum gravity will be −2ρv . So, excluding the outer galactic shell at R, the net density throughout the cosmos from C to R would be ρ − 2ρv , where ρ is the average mass/energy density of ordinary matter. Beyond R both densities are assumed to either cancel or diminish to negligible values, which achieves for the CCU model what Birkhoff’s theorem did for standard cosmology. By including ρv and pv into the gravitational structure of the cosmos, together with appropriate boundary conditions, one obtains T (z) = 2.73(1 + z) K for the CBR temperature-redshift equation [8], which duplicates big bang’s prediction for all z, but without its F-L expansion. Thus, radiation emitted from the outer shell is gravitationally redshifted to become the 2.73 K blackbody cavity radiation here at the Galaxy [8], and 9.1 K at z = 2.34 and 10.97 K at z = 3.025, in accord with recent measurements of 6.0 K < T < 14 K [11] and T =
+1.7 12.1−3.2
ERGY REPULSION TO ACCOUNT FOR THE HUBBLE REDSHIFT RELATION II. THE COSMIC CENTER UNIVERSE MODEL — AN OVERVIEW OF ITS IN TERMS OF EINSTEIN GRAVITATIONAL AND RELATIVISTIC DOPPLER SHIFTS
To compare the CCU model with the Tolman relation we follow the treatment of Ellis [27] and let L be a galaxy’s intrinsic luminosity, and rg , the galaxy observer distance measured by an observer in the galaxy’s rest-frame. The proper flux measured locally would be Fg =
2 L/4πrg .
Tolman exponent, n = 4, which they assume is correct using the usual argument that no deviation in the CBR has been found to one part in 104 [29]. In fact, however, this argument is flawed. The problem begins with Lubin and Sandage’s assumption that the CBR is big bang’s relic radiation, on which basis they conclude that an initial blackbody spectrum would remain Planckian only if the normalization is decreased with redshift by (1 + z)−4 . They then reason that, since the Planck equation defines a surface brightness, a test of the Tolman surface brightness is obtainable from measuring the deviation of the photon number per unit surface area of the sky and by comparing observations with the normalization given by the Planck equation. They then say, correctly, that no deviation in the CBR has been found to one part in 10 . The problem begins with their assuming the CBR is big bang relic radiation; they conclude it must have experienced perfect normalization due to cosmic wavelength expansion, which in turn implies validity of the Tolman surface brightness factor. This article challenges this reasoning because: (i) Reference [1] presents factual disproof of the expansion hypothesis, (ii) the CCU provides an alternative explanation of the CBR
4
PREDICTIONS AND OTHER REASONS FOR DENYING THE COSMOLOGICAL PRINCIPLE AND THE F-L EXPANSION PARADIGM
(5)
However, CCU’s redshift expression [8] contains r, the observer area distance,
In late 1997, before the SNe Ia evidence for cosmic repulsion was published in early 1998 Bahcall [10] has enthused “The Big Bang is bang on” because Cosmic Blackbody Radiation (CBR) measurements [11] at z = 2.34 match its prediction of 9.1 K. This article proposes the relatively new Cosmic Center Universe (CCU) model [8] equally qualifies because it accounts for, explains, or predicts: (i) a T (z) = 2.73(1 + z) K relation that fits all current CBR measurements [11, 12], (ii) the recently discovered velocity dipole distribution of radiogalaxies [13], (iii) the (1 + z)−1 dilation of SNe Ia light curves [14], (iv) the SunyaevZeldovich thermal effect [15], (v) Olber’s paradox, (vi) a ∼ (1 + z)−3.56 modified Tolman relation, (vii) SN dimming for z < 1, and for z > 1 an enhanced brightness that fits SN 1997ff measurements [16], and (viii) the existence of extreme redshift (z > 10) objects which distinguishes it from the big bang. My earlier discovery, that ours is a universe governed by Einstein’s static solution of the field equations [17], forms the relativistic basis for the CCU. It therefore denies F-L [19, 20], I developed the Einstein-static-solution-based NRI (now CCU) model [8] which predicted that ours is a universe dominated by vacuum energy density, ρv
2 cm−3 and density parameter (ΩΛ )CCU = 8πρv G/3Ho
which is the galaxy’s quasi-Euclidean distance as measured by a stationary local observer [27]. Aberration gives rise to a reciprocity relation between distance measures [27] such that rg = r(1 + zd ), where 1 + zd is the CCU’s special relativistic Doppler redshift factor, and v is the galactic recessional velocity relative to a fixed local observer [8]. Thus photons arrive locally by a factor of (1 + z)−1 slower than emitted in the receding rest frame due to the combined relativistic Doppler and gravitational redshifts. This relative clock rate slowing accounts for the (1 + z)−1 broadening of SNe Ia light curves [14]. Additionally, each photon arriving locally will likewise have its energy diminished by this same redshift factor. Thus the flux, F , measured by a local observer would be L L F = = , 2 4πrg (1 + z)2 4πr 2 [(1 + z)(1 + zd )]2 (1)
8.9 × 10−30 g-
1. This compares to ΩΛ ∼ 0.7 from
SNe Ia observations [16]. The CCU accounts for the Hubble redshift relation in terms of Einstein gravitational and relativistic Doppler redshifts caused by vacuum gravity repulsion. Since the latter produces a true Hubble recession of the galaxies away from C, the CCU represents a physically expanding universe, but without big bang’s singularity and F-L expansion. Moreover, its nearby Center provides a unique understanding for the heretofore unexplained quantized redshifts and quasar redshift peaks [21], in particular that quasars in different spherical shells are grouped in different zi ± ∆zi intervals at cosmological distances. Additionally, a nearby Center implies that Earth’s motion through the CBR must result in a dipole velocity distribution of distant galaxies. This has recently been observed [13].
∗
rvg@*****
alternate explanation: the universe might look the same in every direction as seen from any 1 other galaxy, too. This, as we have seen, was Friedmann’s second assumption. We have no scientific evidence for, or against this assumption. We believe it only on grounds of modesty: it would be most remarkable if the universe looked the same in every direction around us, but not around other points in the universe ...”.
φ(νg )dνg = 1. The frequency, ν, measured
Typeset by REVTEX
SCIENCE Editor Donald Kennedy and AAAS CEO Alan Leshner Continue to Promote Evolution and Deny Genesis Creation, While Ignoring Robert Gentry's Multiple Publications in SCIENCE Showing His Discovery of Primordial Po-Halos in Granites, Proving Earth's Instant Creation and Disproving Geological Evolution
Reprinted from 15 October 1976, Volume 94, pp. 315-318
EXT-2003-022
by some stationary observer at r is related to the emission frequency, νg , in the galaxy’s rest frame by ν = νg /(1 + z), which implies dν = dνg /(1 + z). Following the treatment of Ellis
without cosmic expansion, and (iii) there is a failure to distinguish between necessary and sufficient conditions. That is, while the CBR is Planckian to a high degree of precision,
K [12]. after utilizing the rg = r(1 + zd ) substitution. If only Doppler effects are operational then, as Misner et al [22] show, the flux is Fdopp = L(1 + zd )−4 /4πr 2 and the bolometric intensity
True blackbody cavity radiation results from assuming the outer shell consists of regularly spaced galactic clusters with stars composed of pure H at uniform temperature 5400 K [8]. On this basis the gravitational redshift from the outer shell to C is 5400 K/2.726 K 2000,
Predictions of the Cosmic Center Universe Model [27] the flux expression becomes F = L 4π
∞ φ(νg )dνg ν ν 0 2 rg (1 + z)2
9 Predictions of the Cosmic Center Universe Model 10 Predictions of the Cosmic Center Universe Model
0.2 0 ∆(m−M) (mag) −0.2 −0.4 SN 1997ff −0.6 −0.8 Coasting (Ω=0) LCDM with Ω =0.35, Ω =0.65 M Λ NRI Model 10
−1
Predictions of the Cosmic Center Universe Model Predictions of the Cosmic Center Universe Model 11 Predictions of the Cosmic Center Universe Model dimming factors still results in large differences at high redshifts between the big bang’s prediction, (1 + z)−3 , and the CCU’s, which is Equation (8). The reason is that the (1 + zd ) term in the latter increases more slowly than does (1 + z) as r increases. For z = 5.74 big bang’s prediction is (1 + z)−3 ≈ 0.003, whereas the CCU’s – namely, (1 + z)−1 (1 + zd )−2 ≈ [(6.74)(1.9)(1.9)]−1 ≈ 0.04 – predicts a significantly brighter image. The more recent observation of Hu et al [33] of a galaxy at z = 6.56 yields ≈ 0.01 for the big bang and ≈ 0.15 for the CCU, assuming a 4.5 magnification [33]. The quasars at
10 z
0
15
SCIENCE
lem of quantitatively determining the 238 U/206Pb ratios, two important points deserve mention here: (i) if there was only a one-time introduction of U into the wood (2), these radiocenters date from that event unless subsequent mobilization of U occurred, and (ii) if U was introduced prior to coalification (1), then the 238U/206Pb ratios in these radiocenters also relate to the time of coalification. Another class of more sharply defined halos was discovered possessing smaller inclusions ( 1 to 4 µm in diameter) than the -active sites. These inclusions exhibit a distinct metallic-like reflectance when viewed with reflected light. Three different varieties of this halo exist: one with a circular cross section, another with an elliptical cross section with variable major and minor axes, and a third most unusual one that is actually a dual halo, being a composite of a circular and an elliptical halo around exactly the same radiocenter (see Fig. 3, a to c). Although the elliptical halos differ radically from the circular halos in minerals (6), the circular type resembles the 210Po halo in minerals and variations in the radii of circular halos approximate the calculated penetration distances ( 26 to 31 µm) of the 210Po particle (energy Ea = 5.3 Mev) in this coalified wood (7). Henderson (8) theorized that Po halos might form in minerals when Udaughter Po isotopes or their -precursors were preferentially accumulated into small inclusions from some nearby U source. Although this hypothesis was not confirmed for U-poor minerals (9), it did seem a possibility in this U-rich matrix. The EMXRF analyses (Fig. 2b) showed that the halo inclusions were mainly Pb and Se. This composition fits well into the secondary accumulation hypothesis for both of the U-daughters, 210Po (half-life, T1/2 = 138 days) and its -precursor 210Pb (T1/2 = 22 years), possess the two characteristics that are vitally essential for the hypothesis: (I) chemical similarity with the elements in the inclusion and (ii) half-lives sufficiently long to permit accumulation prior to decay. This latter requirement is dependent on the radionuclide transport rate. In minerals the diffusion coefficients are so low that there is a negligible probability that 210Po or 210Pb atoms would migrate even 1 µm before decaying, and thus the ori-
14
[37] Yahata N et al, Photometry and photometric redshifts of faint galaxies in the Hubble Deep Field South NICMOS field, 2000 Astrophys. J. 538 493 [astro-ph/0003310] [38] Totani T et al, Hyper extremely red objects in the Subaru deep field: Evidence for primordial elliptical galaxies in the dusty starburst phase, 2001 Astrophys. J. 558 L87 [astro-ph/0108145] [39] Cline D B, Matthey C, and Otwinowski S, Evidence for a galactic origin of very short gamma ray bursts and primordial black hole sources, 2003 Astropart. Phys. 18 531 [astro-ph/0110276] [40] Piro L et al, The bright Gamma-Ray Burst of February 10, 2000: a case study of an optically dark GRB, 2002 Astrophys. J. 577 680 [astro-ph/0201282] [41] See http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/2003/01/ [42] See Space Telescope Infrared Facility website: http://sirtf.caltech.edu/SSC/irac/
φ(ν)dν L . 4π r 2 (1 + z)(1 + zd )2
2
∞ 0
(6)
Radiohalos in Coalified Wood: New Evidence Relating to the Time of Uranium Introduction and Coalification
Robert V. Gentry, Warner H. Christie, David H. Smith, J. F. Emery S. A. Reynolds, Raymond Walker, S. S. Cristy and P. A. Gentry
Abstract. The discovery of embryonic halos around uranium-rich sites that exhibit very high 238U/206Pb ratios suggests that uranium introduction may have occurred far more recently than previously supposed. The discovery of 210Po halos derived from uranium daughters, some elliptical in shape, further suggests that uranium-daughter infiltration occurred prior to coalification when the radionuclide transport rate was relatively high and Even though the biological fossil record has been extensively documented, the rather abundant fossil record of radio-halos that exists in the coalified wood from the Colorado Plateau has remained virtually undeciphered. Jedwab (1) and Breger (2) have determined some important characteristics of such halos; in fact, earlier (1, 2) as well as present investigations on these samples (3) agree that: (i) the microscopic-size radiocenters responsible for halos (Fig. la) in coalified wood are actually secondary sites that preferentially accumulated -radioactivity during an earlier period of earth history when uranium-bearing solutions infiltrated the logs after they had been uprooted; (ii) although autoradiography shows some -activity dispersed throughout the matrix (1, 2), most of it is still concentrated in the discrete halo radiocenters; (iii) variations in coloration among radiohalos cannot necessarily be attributed solely to differences in the -dose because there is evidence that the coalified wood was earlier far more sensitive to aradiation than at present (1); (iv) halos that appear most intensely colored in unpolarized transmitted light also show evidence of induration; that is, when polished thin sections of’coalified wood are viewed with reflected light (Fig. ib), such high a-dose halos exhibit high reflectivity and pronounced relief; and (v) some areas of coloration are of chemical rather than radioactive origin Specifically, it was discovered that the halos (Fig. la) surrounding the -active sites are typically embryonic, that is, they do not generally exhibit the outer 214Po ring characteristic of fully developed U halos in minerals (4). Such underdeveloped halos generally imply a low U concentration in the radiocenter. However, electron microprobe x-ray fluorescence (EMXRF) analyses (Fig. 2a) show many such radiocenters contain a large amount of U with the amount of daughter product Pb being generally too small to detect by EMXRF techniques (Fig. 2a). Although we discuss below the application of ion microprobe mass spectrometer (IMMA) techniques (5) to the prob-
13
Nature 391 51 [21] Burbidge G and Napier W M, The distribution of redshifts in new samples of quasi-stellar
Defining the specific flux over the interval dν as Reference [27], Fv dν = Lφ(ν)dν/4πr (1 + z)(1 + zd ) , we obtain, after substitutions, the specific flux, Fv = Fg φ(ν)/r (1 + z)(1 + zd ) , from which it follows that Fv Fg φ(ν)/A Ig φ(ν) iv = = = , 2 ∆Ω (1 + z)(1 + zd ) (1 + z)(1 + zd )2 (7)
2 2 2
Predictions of the Cosmic Center Universe Model
X.
12
[4] M´sz´ros P, Gamma-Ray Bursts: Accumulating Afterglow Implications, Progenitor Clues, and e a
objects, 2001 Astron. J. 121 21 [astro-ph/0008026] [22] Misner C W, Thorne K S, and Wheeler J A 1973 Gravitation (New York: W.H. Freeman & Co.) pp 712, 783, 794 [23] de Bernardis P et al, Multiple peaks in the angular power spectrum of the cosmic microwave background: significance and consequences for cosmology, 2002 Astrophys. J. 564 559 [24] Lee A T et al, A high spatial resolution analysis of the MAXIMA-1 cosmic microwave background anisotropy data, 2001 Astrophys. J. 561 L1 [astro-ph/0104459] [25] Kowitt M S et al, A detection of bright features in the microwave background, 1997 Astrophys. J. 482 17 [astro-ph/9604155] [26] Gentry R V 2003 in preparation [27] Ellis G F R 1971 in General Relativity and Cosmology ed Sachs R K (Academic Press) p 144 [28] Lubin L M and Sandage A, The Tolman surface brightness test for the reality of the expansion. IV. A measurement of the Tolman signal and the luminosity evolution of early-type galaxies, 2001 Astron. J. 122 1084 [astro-ph/0106566] [29] Fixsen D J et al, The cosmic microwave background spectrum from the full COBE FIRAS data set, 1996 Astrophys. J. 473 576 [30] Perlmutter S et al, Measurements of Ω and Λ from 42 high-redshift supernovae, 1999 Astrophys. J. 517 565 [astro-ph/9812133] [31] Disney M, The case against cosmology, 2000 Gen. Rev. Grav. 32 1125 [astro-ph/0009020] [32] Hu E M and McMahon R G, An extremely luminous galaxy at z = 5.74, 1999 Astrophys. J. 522 L9 [astro-ph/9907079] [33] Hu E M et al, A redshift z = 6.56 galaxy behind the cluster Abell 370, 2002 Astrophys. J. 568 L75 [astro-ph/0203091] [34] Becker R H et al, Evidence for reionization at z ∼ 6: Detection of a Gunn-Peterson trough in a z = 6.28 quasar, 2001 Astron. J. 122 2850 [astro-ph/0108097] [35] Alexander D M et al, Exotic sources detected in the 1 Ms Chandra Deep Field North Survey, 2002 Preprint astro-ph/0202044 [36] Dickinson M et al, The Unusual Infrared Object HDF-N J123656.3+621322, 2000 Astrophys. J. 531 624
THE COSMIC CENTER UNIVERSE MODEL — POSSIBILITIES FOR CON-
Prospects, 2001 Science 291 79 [astro-ph/0102255] [5] Weinberg S 1997 The First Three Minutes (New York: Bantam Books) p 111 [6] Hawking S 1990 A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam Books) p 42 [7] Peebles P J E 1993 Principles of Physical Cosmology (Princeton: University Press) p 665 [8] Gentry R V, A New Redshift Interpretation, 1997 Mod. Phys. Lett. A 12 2919 [astroph/9806280] [9] Gentry R V, The New Redshift Interpretation Affirmed, 1998 Preprint physics/9810051 [10] Bahcall J, The Big Bang is bang on, 2000 Nature 408 916 [11] Srianand R, Petitjean P, and Ledoux C, The cosmic microwave background radiation temperature at a redshift of 2.34, 2000 Nature 408 931 [12] Levshakov S A et al, H2 , D/H and the CMBR temperature at z = 3.025 toward QSO 03473819, 2002 in New Trends in Theoretical and Observational Cosmology: Proc. of the 5th RESCEU Int. Symposium ed Sato K and Shiromizu T (Tokyo: Universal Academy Press) [astro-ph/0201043] [13] Blake C and Wall J, A velocity dipole in the distribution of radio galaxies, 2002 Nature 416 150 [14] Goldhaber G et al, Observation of cosmological time dilation using type Ia supernovae as clocks, 1997 in Thermonuclear Supernovae: Proc. NATO Adv. Study Inst. ed Ruiz-Lapuente P et al (Dordrecht: Kluwer) p 777 [astro-ph/9602124] [15] Grego L et al, The Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect in Abell 370, 2000 Astrophys. J. 539 39 [astroph/0003085] [16] Riess A G 2001 et al, The farthest known supernova: support for an accelerating universe and a glimpse of the epoch of deceleration, 2001 Astrophys. J. 560 49 [astro-ph/0104455] [17] Gentry R V and Gentry D W, The Genuine Cosmic Rosetta, 1998 Preprint gr-qc/9806061
FIRMING THE CCU’S HIGH-z PREDICTIONS WITH HUBBLE ACS, SIRTF IRAC, AND VIEWING THE z = 3.91 QUASAR’S FE/O RATIO AS AN AFFIRMATION OF ITS BASIC POSTULATES
where A is the surface area of the source and Ig φ(ν) = io is the surface brightness of the source at frequency ν (see Ellis [27], p 163). In the CCU (1 + z) ≈ (1 + zd ) for z < 1, in which case (iv /io )CCU ≈ (1 + z)−3 for this redshift interval, the same as big bang’s prediction of (iv /io )bb = (1 + z)−3 . But for higher redshifts 1 + z ∼ 1 + zd , in which case we must use = the full expression (iv /io )CCU = (1 + z)−1 (1 + zd )−2 :: (for z > 1). (8)
−1
Finally, Hubble’s Advanced Camera for Surveys’ recent observation [41] of the massive clusters in Abell 1689 points to the exciting prospect of testing the CCU’s prediction of the existence and detection of galaxies and other celestial objects with z > 10. The zoom lens effect of Abell 1689, together with ACS’s IMAX movie-quality sharpness, may have already revealed galaxies that are twice as faint as those in Hubble Deep Field, and this with only a 13-hour exposure. We propose that much longer ACS exposures of Abell 1689, or some other massive clusters, be carried out as soon as feasible, for we contend that these observations, combined with those from IRAC on SIRTF [42], may well show evidence of the high-z objects that will confirm the CCU’s unique predictions. The recent discovery [18]
z = 5.82, 5.99 and 6.28 [34], yield greater differences without magnification, and clearly favor CCU’s dimming factor. Moreover, in the big bang celestial objects do not even exist at z > 20, so until now there was no reason to search for such objects. But the CCU model has no such constraints. As its 1 + z = (1 + Hr/c)/ 1 − relation reveals, z √ increases without limit as r → c/ 2H. And, even though Equation (8) yields an enhanced 2(Hr/c)2 apparent brightness, it still accounts for Olber’s paradox because the CCU model represents a bounded universe, and hence a diminishing number density of high-z galaxies.
FIG. 1: Hubble diagram of SNe Ia minus an “empty” (Ω = 0) Universe compared to the LCDM model and the equivalent CCU model. This graph partially reproduces Figure 11 of Riess etal [19] The points are the redshift-binned data from the HZT (Riess etal [19]) and the SCP (Perlmutter etal [30]). Confidence intervals of 68% and 95% for SN 1997ff are indicated.
Fig. I. (a) Coalifled wood halos with U radio-centers in transmitted light (x 125) see (7)].
VII.
THE COSMIC CENTER UNIVERSE MODEL — ITS ∆(m − M )CCU PRE-
DICTION LIES WITHIN THE 68% DISTANCE MODULUS CONTOUR FOR SN 1997FF OVER THE REDSHIFT INTERVAL 0 < z < 2
Coasting (Ω = 0) model. Thus, ∆(m − M)CCU = 5 log dL /DL , where dL is defined above, and DL is defined by Riess et al [19]). At z = 1.7 the CCU produces an enhanced brightness relative to the Coasting model of 0.1 magnitudes compared to the LCDM enhancement of 0.2 magnitudes. This puts the CCU’s prediction within the 68% contour for the SN 1997ff distance modulus. Additionally, the proper CCU distance modulus traces the LCDM modulus quite well (within error bars) over the redshift interval 0 < z < 2.
IX.
THE COSMIC CENTER UNIVERSE MODEL — ASTRONOMICAL OBSER-
of the very high-z BAL quasar with z = 3.91 emphasizes the urgent need for this search. Even with its presumed ∼ 50 magnification, it is still one the most luminous objects in the universe, which fits the CCU model’s prediction. Even more definitive evidence supporting the CCU model is that this quasar’s Fe/O ratio is 2–5 times that of the Sun, which directly contradicts big bang’s fundamental theory of heavy element production because it is just the reverse of what the big bang predicts. In contrast, in the CCU model there is no constraint on the Fe/O ratio of high-z objects. This paper takes the position that continued searches will, in time, reveal other high-z quasars with perhaps even higher Fe/O ratios, and that these discoveries will unambiguously confirm the predictions of the CCU model.
VATIONS OF HIGH-z OBJECTS THAT EVEN NOW AGREE WITH THE CCU
Before showing how Equation (8) accounts for the apparent luminosity of some high-z galaxies, we turn attention to the CCU model’s prediction of SN Ia brightness enhancement. Figure 11 of Riess et al [16] compares predictions of several cosmological models with data obtained from the High-z Supernova Search team (Riess et al [19]), the Supernova Cosmology Project (Perlmutter et al [30]), and their own observations of SN 1997ff. Figure 1 in this article reproduces (with permission) Figure 11’s redshift data, including its point at z = 1.7 for SN 1997ff, along with the favored LCDM distance modulus curve, as well as Riess et al ’s 68% and 95% confidence contours for the SN 1997ff modulus. Additionally, Figure 1 also includes an equivalent plot of ∆(m − M)CCU . The protocol used for obtaining ∆(m−M)CCU was the same as for that used in Figure 11, which means that the value of ∆(m − M)CCU was computed by comparison against the
Observations that may distinguish between the big bang and the CCU are: (1) The exotic AGN sources detected by Chandra [35], some possibly with z > 6. (2) The unusual infrared object in HDF-N [36]. (3) The photometric redshift determinations of Yahata et al [37] of 335 faint objects in the HDF-S, who tentatively identify eight galaxies with z > 10, two with z ∼ 14 and one with z ∼ 15. Such redshifts are far beyond big bang’s predictions and, moreover, require standard dimming factors stretching from (1 + z)−3 ≈ 1/1300 to 1/4000, whereas the CCU model yields (1 + z)−1 (1 + zd )−2 ≈ 1/60 and 1/90 for z = 10 and 15 respectively. (4) The observations by Totani et al [38] of Hyper Extremely Red Objects, which they admit may be galaxies with z greater than about 10 instead of dust-reddened galaxies at z ∼ 3. (5) The CCU has no constraints on primordial black holes, so certain GRBs may originate from these sources [39]. Those with z > 20 should exhibit long duration pulses and be optically dark [40].
(1).
In addition to the above verifications, the studies reported here mark the first time that (I) radii measurements have been made to determine the type and stage of development of halos in coalifled substances and (ii) the radiocenters of such halos have been analyzed by modern analytical techniques. The dis(b) The same halos in reflected light. The coveries reported herein raise questions relative to when U was introduced into the bright central spot in each halo is the radio-center (X wood, the duration required for coalification, 125) and the age of the geological formations.
VIII.
THE COSMIC CENTER UNIVERSE MODEL — DIFFERS FROM THE
BIG BANG IN PREDICTING APPARENT ULTRALUMINOSITY OF VERY HIGH-z GALAXIES
Returning now to the apparent ultraluminosity of high-z galaxies, Disney [31] recognizes it is extraordinary that galaxies at z = 2 are observed at all given that their apparent brightness is reduced by the Tolman factor, in this instance (1 + z)−4 ∼ 10−2 . For the high redshift z = 5.74 galaxy [32], the Tolman factor is ∼ 5 × 10−4 . Use of heterochromatic
Copyright© 1976 by the American Association for the Advancement of Science
[1] Gentry R V, Discovery of a Major Contradiction In Big Bang Cosmology Points To The New Cosmic Center Universe Model, 2003 Preprint Submitted to CERN [2] Fishman G J and Meegan C A, Gamma-Ray Bursts, 1995 Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 33 415 [3] Woosley S E, Gamma-Ray Bursts – What Are They?, 1995 in Seventeenth Texas Symposium on Relativistic Astrophysics and Cosmology ed B¨hringer H et al (New York: New York o Academy of Sciences) p 446
[18] Hasinger G, Schartel N, and Komassa S, Discovery of an ionized Fe-K edge in the z = 3.91 Broad Absorption Line Quasar APM 08279+5255 with XMM-Newton, 2002 Astrophys. J. 573 L77 [astro-ph/0207005] [19] Riess A G et al, Observational evidence from supernovae for an accelerating universe and a cosmological constant, 1998 Astron. J. 116 1009 [20] Perlmutter S et al, Discovery of a supernova explosion at half the age of the universe, 1998
Discovery of a Major Contradiction in Big Bang Cosmology Points to the New Cosmic Center Universe Model (CERN Preprint EXT-2003-021)
CERN Preprint
Discovery of a Contradiction in Big Bang Cosmology
Nature Reports on Ginsparg/Cornell Censorship
12 December 2002
SCIENCE Rejects Gentry Comments on Po-Halos
Discovery Of A Major Contradiction In Big Bang Cosmology Points To The New Cosmic Center Universe Model
Robert V Gentry Orion Institute for Astrophysics, P O Box 12067, Knoxville, TN 37912
Discovery of a Contradiction in Big Bang Cosmology The observation of a BAL quasar at
2 Discovery of a Contradiction in Big Bang Cosmology 4
References
= 3 91 with a Fe/O ratio about three times that
Discovery of a Contradiction in Big Bang Cosmology from Equation (1) on the premise that
3 Obviously, both sets of predictions are severely contradicted by the presently observed
of the sun [1] , contradicts big bang’s nucleosynthesis prediction that it should be much less than the sun’s in the case of high- objects. Since this prediction is based on the assumption that the universe is governed by the Friedmann-Lemaître (F-L) expanding spacetime solution of the Einstein field equations, this discrepancy raises the question as to whether there is a previously undetected flaw in this basic assumption. We seek the answer by comparing the local Cosmic Blackbody Radiation (CBR) temperature with cosmic expansion’s prediction. In theory any CBR photon emitted with standard wavelength,
s, s
represents the exact laboratory standard emission
2 73 K. Thus, instead of present CBR observations confirming the most important predictions of big bang cosmology, we find they contradict them. It appears there must be a major flaw in big bang’s underlying postulate, which is the assumption that the universe is governed by the Friedmann-Lemaître solution of the field equations. Even more evidence of the very serious nature of this flaw comes from noticing the extraordinary implications of Equation (5). It reveals that the present rate of expansion-induced wavelength change of any photon depends on both the present value of H, and its value at time of emission, .
e e.
line value corresponding to , the present astronomically measured, redshifted wavelength. From this it follows that s is a constant for all times, and hence that Equation (1) leads to ˙ = ˙ s . Equating this quantity with the last expression in Equation (4) leads to ˙ =
s [(1
Abstract
The BAL = 3 91 quasar’s high Fe/O ratio has led to a reexamination of big bang’s spacetime 36000 instead of expansion postulate and the discovery that it predicts a CBR redshift of the widely accepted only
[1] Hasinger G, Schartel N, and Komassa S, Discovery of an ionized Fe-K edge in the
= 3 91
Nature 420, 597 (2002); doi:10.1038/420597b
The Great 21st Century Scientific Watergate
Broad Absorption Line Quasar APM 08279+5255 with XMM-Newton, 2002 Astrophys. J. 573 L77 [astro-ph/0207005] [2] Misner C W, Thorne K S, and Wheeler J A 1973 Gravitation (New York: W.H. Freeman &
GEOFF BRUMFIEL
Ousted creationist sues over website
+ )
1000 This result leads an expansion-predicted CBR temperature of
CBR
e]
(5)
Nature 428, 458 - 459 (01 April 2004); doi:10.1038/428458a
— News in Brief —
= 0 08 K, which is contradicted by the experimental
= 2 73 K. Contrary to long-
has since expanded so as to now exhibit a presently measurable wavelength,
held belief, these results strongly suggest that the F-L expanding spacetime paradigm, with its expansion redshifts, is not the correct relativistic description of the universe. This conclusion
, given by [2,3],
s
where ˙ represents, as earlier stated, the present rate of wavelength increase of any arbitrary photon that was emitted at e = ˙ e e and time, e , as measured after the big bang at = 0. In theory Equation (5) is a prediction that applies to all photons, those arriving from 0, and since a distant galaxy as well as those in the CBR. For an expanding universe ˙
1
Co.) pp 712, 783, 794 [3] Peebles P J E 1993 Principles of Physical Cosmology (Princeton University Press) p 95 [4] Weinberg S 1972 Gravitation and Cosmology (New York: John Wiley & Sons) pp 416, 451 [5] Peacock J A 1999 Cosmological Physics (Cambridge University Press) p 618 [6] Bennett C L et.al, First Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Preliminary Maps and Basic Results, 2003 Preprint astro-ph/0302207 [7] Gentry R V, New Cosmic Model Accounts For Eight Of Big Bang’s Major Predictions Without Using The F-L Paradigm, 2003 Preprint Submitted to CERN [8] Gentry R V and Gentry D W, The Genuine Cosmic Rosetta, 1998 Preprint gr-qc/9806061 [9] Gentry R V, A New Redshift Interpretation, 1997 Mod. Phys. Lett. A 12 2919 [astroph/9806280] [10] Gentry R V, The New Redshift Interpretation A rmed, 1998 Preprint physics/9810051
[WASHINGTON]
If this were true, then photons in the CBR must have retained a memory of the value of
e
=1+ = and
e e
(1) are, respectively, the expansion
e.
EXT-2003-021
agrees with the earlier finding (gr-qc/9806061) that the universe is relativistically governed by the Einstein static spacetime solution of the field equations, not the F-L solution. Disproof of
14 Apr 2003
at emission 13 7 × 109 yr ago, and moreover, in some unknown way, must now be able
A Tennessee creationist is suing the operators of a popular physics website that refused to publish his alternative Big Bang hypothesis. Robert Gentry, a lifelong Seventh-Day Adventist, filed the suit in the district court at Knoxville, Tennessee, against the operators of the arXiv preprint server, claiming that they refused a series of ten of his papers because of their religious content. Counsel representing the chief defendant, Cornell University in Ithaca, New York, says the claims have no merit and that the university has the right to choose what appears on the site. Gentry, who has a masters degree in physics from the University of Florida, had papers in nuclear geophysics published in journals, including Science and Nature, during the 1960s and 1970s. Those papers, he says, inspired him to come up with an alternative Big Bang hypothesis, which he submitted unsuccessfully to academic journals. He then tried posting his articles on the arXiv preprint server — a non-peer-reviewed website where physicists often post papers before submitting them to journals. When arXiv curators removed the papers and revoked his posting rights in 2001, Gentry complained, then filed the suit to regain access this August. "I'm a creationist and a believer in the Bible, but I want to know the truth. I want these papers to be tested by the scientific community," he says. Paul Ginsparg, a professor at Cornell and creator of the site, declined to comment, citing the ongoing suit. But Nelson Roth, Cornell's associate counsel in charge of litigation, says that the rejection was based on Gentry's lack of academic affiliation, not his beliefs. "The religious views of the plaintiff are completely irrelevant," he says. Even if the legal case makes no progress, it highlights some problems associated with websites whose content is not peer-reviewed, says Adrian Melott, a cosmologist at the University of Kansas in Lawrence. Melott, a co-founder of Kansas Citizens for Science, a group that has successfully lobbied against teaching creationism in the state's schools, says he's noticed a rise in "flaky" publications on the section of the arXiv server that he uses most. "We're coming to a crunch" over what can be published on open servers, he says.
where
is the present expansion redshift, and
for the various Friedmann models, then all photons presently measured locally
e
to process that memory on an instantaneous basis in order for Equation (5) to hold. Such a requirement is bizarre. Photons having a memory of the Hubble value at emission is in contradiction to all of modern quantum electrodynamics. Disproof of expansion redshifts removes the only support for the Cosmological Princi-
factors at present time, , and at time of photon emission, the expansion’s present rate of change of assumption of the temporal constancy of ˙ appx =
One method of calculating
expansion redshifts removes the only support for the Cosmological Principle, thus showing that the spherical symmetry of the cosmos demanded by the Hubble redshift relation can no longer be attributed to the universe being the same everywhere. The Cosmological Principle is flawed. Instead of the universe being both homogeneous and isotropic, instead it is only isotropic about a nearby universal Center. These results suggest that the new Cosmic Center Universe model, based on Einstein’s static spacetime solution of the field equations, deserves the attention of the scientific community. One significant advantage of the new model is that it restores conservation of energy to physics, in stark contrast to the big bang, which involved gargantuan nonconservation of CBR energy losses amounting to more than thirty million times the baryonic mass of the visible universe (gr-qc/9806061).
PACS numbers: 98.62.Py, 98.65.-r, 98.80.Es, 98.80.Hw, 98.90.+s
must obey the redshift condition, 1 +
e.
If we let =
, where
is
Retribution denied to creationist suing arXiv over religious bias
[WASHINGTON]
uses Equation (1) together with MTW’s [2] ) = ˙ = ˙ , or, e , to obtain ( = (1 + )
s
the elapsed time from photon emission to the present, we find
e
(6)
ple, thus showing that spherical symmetry of the cosmos demanded by the Hubble redshift relation can no longer be attributed to the universe being the same everywhere. The Cosmological Principle is wrong. Instead of the universe being both homogeneous and isotropic, instead it is only isotropic about a nearby universal Center. Thus we find that a new model of the cosmos is needed, one that is not based on the universe being governed by the F-L paradigm, but which is based on observational evidence of a nearby universal Center, and which can also account for the BAL = 3 91 quasar with
(2)
which is expansion’s prediction of the minimum redshift to be expected from the measurement of any arbitrary group of photons emitted with the same standard laboratory wavelength,
s,
A lawsuit that accused arXiv, a preprint server for physics and astronomy papers, of religious discrimination has been thrown out of court on a technicality. Robert Gentry, a Seventh Day Adventist and former Oak Ridge National Laboratory scientist, filed a suit in 2002 against arXiv after administrators removed his ten papers detailing an alternative hypothesis to the Big Bang. Gentry, a creationist, claimed that the open-forum preprint server had discriminated against him on religious grounds. The website's curators said that Gentry's papers had been removed because he lacked proper academic credentials (see Nature 420, 597; 2002). The suit was dismissed from a Tennessee court on 23 March because Gentry failed to show that the server, or its operators — Cornell University in Ithaca, New York, the National Science Foundation and Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico — had sufficient presence in the state to merit legal action. Paul Ginsparg, a physicist at Cornell who founded arXiv in 1991, described the ordeal as "irksome" but says that the suit has led to new policies at the website. Since January, anyone wishing to post to the website has had to win a referral from a current member. "We are trying to facilitate communication within professional communities," Ginsparg says. "The endorsement system makes that process more transparent and maintainable."
which agrees with the result obtained by Peebles [3]. The subscript in the above appears because Equation (2) is only an approximation due to the fact that it does not account for the temporal variation of e . The correct expression for ˙ is obtained from Weinberg’s [4] and Peacock’s [5] derivation of the exact expression for ˙ from Equation (1) by correctly including the temporal variation of =[
e( e, e e
and having a common origin at time
e.
Its unusual implications begin to
be evident when it is applied to objects with
6 But its most extraordinary implications
are even more evident when applying it to redshifts in the early stages of the CBR. For example, if we apply Equation (6) to the big bang’s CBR at time
e
whereupon,
e e )( e
= 1 s, when
)
e
( = ( ˙e
)]
2 e
(3)
the radiation temperature of its primordial photons is theorized to be
1010 K, we find the
its high Fe/O ratio. A new model with these properties has already been developed [7]. It is based on the universe being relativistically governed by the Einstein static spacetime solution of the field equations [8], which is the same relativistic format used to successfully construct the earlier, preliminary version of this model [9,10]. It now deserves the attention of the scientific community because of its ability to account for eight other major predictions of the big bang, but without its spacetime expansion assumption. One significant advantage of the new model is that it restores conservation of energy to physics, in stark contrast to the big bang, which involved gargantuan nonconservation of CBR energy losses amounting to more than thirty million times the baryonic mass of the visible universe [8].
elapsed time from then to the presumed time of decoupling, when the redshift is theorized [6] to be = 1089, is only 1000 s, or less than half an hour. This value sharply contradicts the 3 8 × 105 yr value recently reported by Bennett [6]. We can also use Equation (6) to find the expected present value of the CBR temperature by utilizing the most recent estimate [6] of the big bang at = 13 7 × 109 yr. On that basis ' 5 × 1017 s. Thus it follows that when the dynamic variation of
e
Both Weinberg [4] and Peacock [5] find ˙ = [( ˙ e )( )
, so the foregoing can be rewritten as
e
e )] = (1 + )
(4)
which, except for di erent notation, is equivalent to Weinberg’s Equation 14.6.23, and idenElectronic address: rvg@orinap.org
tical to that obtained in Peacock’s Problem 3.2. In both instances their calculations stop 1 with the expression for ˙ , and neither comment about any unusual implications of Equation (4). Here, however, we continue the calculation to find the exact expression for ˙ . To do this we first remember that redshift determinations of distant galaxies are always obtained
is correctly included
17
into the calculation of expansion’s e ect on CBR photons, we find the present CBR expansion redshift and the corresponding CBR temperature are predicted to be
CBR exp 8
5 × 10
e
and
2 × 10
K, respectively. Even if we just apply Equation (6) to the usual scenario 3000 K at decoupling when 0 08 K. = 3 8×105 yr
where the CBR temperature is predicted to be [6] we still find predictions of
exp
36000 and TCBR
ΒΑΣ. ΡΑΦΑΗΛΙΔΗΣ Eivai ano^UTa f>e"paio moc; 01 jdeioTOi TCOV (is^cov Kai TCOV onaScbv TCOV nap^ioTiKcbv KO|4iaTcov 5sv KttTaXapaivouY a%s86v TITTOTCI OTTO Hap^iojio KI ai)To 8r||iioupy£i i...
