

Flaws in the Big Bang Point to GENESIS, a New
Millennium Model of the Cosmos: Part 1
Is the Scientific Community in for a Big Surprise about the Big Bang?
(arXiv:physics/0102092 28 Feb 2001) by Robert V. Gentry
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 wellestablished scientific
theories were overturned after longoverlooked 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 bigbang 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 FL expansion redshifts.
1. The Big Bang: Scientific Truth Or Cultural Icon?
The recent Cosmic Blackbody Radiation (CBR) temperature
measurement at z = 2.34, reported [1] to be between
6.0K and 14K, is a tour de force experimental result that is capturing wide attention as
confirming big bang's prediction of 9.1K. Bahcall, for example, recently extolled the
big bang is
bang on because it has passed the crucial test of showing
the CBR was hotter much earlier in the history of the universe [2]. He emphasizes
the big bang would have been abandoned if a lower temperature had been
found. On the other hand, he laments that things have turned out so
well, saying both he and certain rebellious colleagues would secretly have
wished otherwise, because then it would have been more exciting to have begun to
look for a new model of the evolution of the Universe. Bahcall's
enthusiasm is understandable because for seven decades cosmologists have
engaged in the practice of affirming the big bang by pointing out the remarkable
agreements with its predictions. But has this practice led to a correct
conclusion? In particular, will Bahcall and his rebellious colleagues now be
equally excited to learn of even more definitive proof the big bang is flawed, if
it is also true that a new cosmic model is developed which can be identified with
a fairly recent Genesis creation?
If so, they should now be exuberant because in this series of
papers I herein document major flaws in bigbang cosmology and also have
reported that the New Redshift Interpretation (NRI), a relatively new
astrophysical model [3] capable of being identified with the literal Genesis
creation record, is equally "bang on" because its T (z) =
2.73 (1 + z) equation exactly duplicates big bang's 2.73K at
z = 0 and its 9.1K CBR at z = 2.34. In the
big bang this equation represents a temporal difference in
redshift conditions. In the NRI it results from a spatial difference. I could
also say the NRI is very much "bang on," first, because it has already been shown
to account for the Hubble redshift relation in terms of relativistic
Doppler and Einstein gravitational redshifts, all within the framework of a finite,
inhomogeneous, vacuumgravity universe with a nearby cosmic Center (C), and
second, because discovery of its vacuum density, ρ_{vac}
≃ 8.9 ×
10^{−30} g cm^{−3} —
which leads to Ω_{Λ} = 8πρ_{vac}G/3H
^{2} ≃ 1 — was
published in late 1997 [3], prior to the 1998 Type Ia supernovae reports of cosmic expansion and
Ω_{Λ} ≃ 0.7 [47]. Other compelling
reasons why the NRI is even more "bang
on" are given later in this series of papers. There, in addition to
responding to certain criticisms, I show how it duplicates six of big bang's
other major predictions.
In the NRI, vacuum gravity repulsion causes Hubbletype
recession of the galaxies away from C, which means it represents a genuine "expanding universe,"
even though the NRI's astrophysical framework
disavows big bang's cornerstone postulates. Could those postulates be
defective? What seems to have been overlooked is that our observations of the
cosmos are but a snapshot in time. A code is needed to decipher them. For the
big bang, that code consists of its linchpin assumptions — two of which
are (1) the universe is formatted, relativistically speaking, by the
FriedmannLemaitre spacetime expansion solution of the field equations and (2) the
Cosmological Principle. It is well known that many observations can be fitted
to a code's predictions, even if it is defective. Thus, the many
successes of the big bang are actually only a necessary condition for the code's
validity, not a sufficient condition. Sufficiency requires agreements that
specifically test the code's cornerstone postulates. And herein lies the fatal
defect in big bang cosmology.
In times past certain astronomers and cosmologists have come
tantalizingly close to identifying it. Trefil, for example, acknowledges modern cosmologists
strongly believe there is a rational,
mathematically expressible solution for every problem, even the creation of the universe
from an initial singularity [8]. But he cautions that in prior times others have
believed just as strongly in their assumptions, only to be disappointed when they later
were falsified. Disney's recent exposé of modern cosmology
showed it to be a tentative, unconfirmed hypothesis [9], but he did not question
its code. On the other hand, Ellis has warned against the cosmological
bandwagon effect and strongly suggested big bang's postulates should be tested
[10]. He did not describe how this should be done but did go so far as to
admit a new paradigm would be needed if they failed the tests [10].
I have followed up Ellis' suggestion and, surprisingly, have
discovered what appear to be two of the greatest faux pas in the history of
science. First, at no time during its seventyyear period of development
did bigbang cosmologists ever stop and confirm its cornerstone postulates.
Second, in testing these postulates I have discovered they are fatally flawed. In this
series of papers I enumerate these discoveries in the context of
unveiling some extraordinary contradictions about the big bang that long
ago should have alerted astronomers and cosmologists that something was
wrong.
A prerequisite for an undertaking of this magnitude is to lay
the foundation for what is to follow using terminology that the scientific
community at large should be able to comprehend. Therefore, before specifying
the contents of the papers themselves, it is expedient to first provide an
overview of the big bang and how it differs from the New Redshift
Interpretation [3], which now forms the astrophysical framework of GENESIS.
Such an overview has already been given in ref. [3]. Part of it is
abstracted here because it does provide, in rather easily understood terms, the scientific
and historical framework needed to understand the issues treated in
this series of papers.
2. An Overview Of The New Redshift Interpretation, Which Is GENESIS's Astrophysical Framework
(Adapted From Ref. [3])
In late 1997 I reported the discovery of a New Redshift
Interpretation (NRI) of the Hubble redshift relation and 2.7K CBR (3), without
assuming big bang's FriedmannLemaitre wavelength expansion hypothesis or
its Cosmological Principle, the latter being long acknowledged as [11] ". . .the
one great uncertainty that hangs like a dark cloud over the standard
model." Whereas the standard bigbang model and the NRI both interpret nearby
galactic redshifts as Doppler shifts, they differ significantly in their
interpretation of
distant redshifts. This difference can be traced to two
fundamentally different views of the cosmos. The big bang utilizes expansion shifts
based on a universe governed by expandingspacetime general relativity
whereas the NRI utilizes Doppler shifts based on a universe governed by staticspacetime
general relativity. A brief review of early twentiethcentury
astronomy and cosmology assists in focusing more precisely on the nature of
this difference.
In 1917 Einstein applied his newly developed staticspacetime
general theory of relativity to cosmology [12], and introduced a
cosmological constant to maintain the universe in what was then thought to be a static
condition. But Edwin Hubble's momentous 1929 discovery that
galactic redshifts increase in proportion to their distance challenged
the static universe concept [13]. His discovery confronted cosmologists with two
surprises, and they were initially unprepared to deal with either. First,
they were unaware of any staticspacetime redshift interpretation which could
account for increasing galactic redshifts in a real, finitedensity
universe. Secondly, if Hubble's results were interpreted as Doppler shifts they
implied omnidirectional galactic recession, which in turn implied the existence of a
universal Center near the Galaxy.
Whatever efforts cosmologists might have put forth to obtain a
staticspacetime interpretation of Hubble's discovery were effectively cut short
when their attention was soon directed to the potential
cosmological implications of the hitherto virtually unnoticed results of Alexander
Friedmann [14] and Georges Lemaitre [15], both of whom had found expandingspacetime
solutions of the Einstein field equations in the early and
mid1920s. (In this series of papers the staticspacetime and expandingspacetime
frameworks are distinguished as follows: In the former there is no spatial
coordinate expansion with time; in the latter the spatial coordinates are time
dependent.)
Friedmann and Lemaitre's results were attractive for two
reasons. First, it was thought that uniform spacetime expansion showed promise
for eliminating the implication of the Galaxy occupying a preferred position in the universe.
Hubble spoke for most cosmologists of his time
when he forthrightly admitted an extreme distaste for such a
possibility, saying it should be accepted only as a last resort [16].
Second, Lemaitre hypothesized that, apart from the wellknown
redshift due relative motion of source and observer, expandingspacetime
should cause photons everywhere to experience continuous, inflight
wavelength expansion proportional to the expansion itself [15]. Thus was born the
concept of spacetime expansion redshifts, given by z_{exp} =
ℜ_{o}
/ ℜ_{e} − 1, where
ℜ_{o} and ℜ_{e}
represent the magnitudes of the postulated
FriedmannLemaitre spacetime expansion factors at observation and emission [15].
Despite its critical role in bigbang cosmology, the foregoing
expression for z_{exp} is unique in that the physical existence of
ℜ has never been verified by experiment; the reason is that no method has yet been
proposed to measure ℜ, either past or present. Even so,
expansion redshifts have become the cornerstone of the standard model for two reasons — namely,
(1) because the experimentally determined Hubble redshift relation, z =
Hr/c, can be developed as a theoretical consequence of spacetime expansion
theory if the hypothesized expansion redshifts, z_{exp} =
ℜ_{o} /
ℜ_{e} − 1, are assumed to be identical
with z_{obs} = λ_{o} /
λ_{e} − 1, the
observed redshifts of distant galaxies, and (2) because of their key role in providing what has
previously been thought to be a unique interpretation of the 2.7K CBR. That
interpretation assumes the much earlier existence of a primeval fireball
radiation wherein matter/radiation decoupling occurred at about 3000K when the
expansion redshift was about 1000 compared to the present. It follows that
a 1000 fold redshifting of such a radiation by spacetime expansion
would result in the presently observed 2.7K CBR. The Hubble relation and 2.7K
CBR scenarios are widely understood as confirming the existence of
expansion redshifts. Part 5 of this series of papers will show that this
conclusion was premature, however, because the crucially important expansion
factor, ℜ,
was never experimentally verified.
Big bang's second fundamental assumption is known as the
Cosmological Principle — namely, that in the large scale the universe is
homogeneous and isotropic, or put in simpler terms, that it is everywhere
alike. This Principle was earlier noted to be [11] ". . .the one
great uncertainty that hangs like a dark cloud over the standard model." Uncertainty
exists because, even though the Hubble relation is powerful evidence for
largescale isotropy about the Galaxy, we simply cannot confirm universal
homogeneity because we lack knowing whether the Hubble relation would result
if redshift measurements were made from points of observation on other
galaxies.
Nevertheless the standard model requires homogeneity because in
it galaxies are assumed to be comoving bodies in expanding
spacetime. That is, since spacetime expansion is assumed to be uniform,
comoving galactic separation must likewise be uniform, which implies that all
observers, regardless of location, should see the same general picture of
the universe. This is what the standard model requires, and it is
observationally unprovable.
In summary, then, our minireview of twentieth century astronomy
and cosmology have revealed two reasons why we cannot be absolutely
certain of FriedmannLemaitre expansion redshifts and big bang's
cornerstone postulate of a nocenter universe governed by expandingspacetime general
relativity. First, the universal homogeneity required by standard model is
acknowledged to be observationally unprovable. Second, despite the fact that in theory all photons in the universe should be synchronously
experiencing inflight wavelength expansion in direct proportion to the
instantaneous value of ℜ, until now little attention has been given
to finding a method to test this prediction. More on this later in Part 5 of this
series. For the present we say only that the foregoing uncertainties are
sufficient to suggest the possibility that the universe may not be governed by
expandingspacetime general relativity required by the standard model. As far as is
known this paper is the first attempt to seriously explore the
cosmological and geophysical consequences of such a possibility and, as will
now be seen, the results do appear quite surprising.
The foregoing account provides the basis for understanding why
the NRI attempts to account for the Hubble relation and the 2.7K CBR by
using Doppler and gravitational redshifts embedded in a universe
governed by staticspacetime general relativity. Without expanding spacetime
there can be no Cosmological Principle, and without this Principle the
Hubble relation implies the existence of a Center in the NRI. In it the Hubble redshifts are
now interpreted solely in terms of relativistic Doppler and
Einstein gravitational redshifts, all cast within the framework of a finite,
nonhomogeneous, vacuumgravity universe with Universal center (C) near the
Galaxy.
The NRI framework assumes the widely dispersed galaxies of the
visible universe are enclosed by a thin, outer shell of hot hydrogen at
a distance R from the Galaxy. Thus, the volume of space enclosed by this
luminous shell — assumed, for ease of calculation, to have a nearly
uniform temperature of 5400K — would completely fill with blackbody cavity
radiation. But the radial variation of gravitational potential within this
volume means the cavity radiation temperature measured at any interior point
would depend on the magnitude of the Einstein gravitational redshift between
that point and the outer shell. By including relativistic vacuum energy
density, ρ_{v}, and pressure, p_{v}, into the gravitational structure of the
cosmos we can show how 5400K radiation emitted at R could be gravitationally
redshifted by a factor of 2000 so as to appear as 2.7K blackbody cavity
radiation here at the Galaxy [3].
In particular, if p_{v} is negative, then, as Novikov shows
[17], ρ_{v} will be positive, and the summed vacuum pressure/energy contributions to
vacuum gravity will be −2ρ_{v}. So, excluding the spherical
hydrogen shell at R, the net density throughout the cosmos from C to R
would be ρ − 2ρ_{v},
where ρ is the average mass/energy density. Beyond R both densities are
assumed to either cancel or exponentially diminish to infinitesimal
values, which effectively achieves for the NRI framework what Birkhoff's theorem did for
standard cosmology. This framework is sufficient to compute the
gravitational potentials needed to calculate both Hubble and 2.7K CBR
redshifts in the NRI [3], which is the astrophysical framework for
GENESIS. Reference [3] and Part 9 of this series provide more details on how the
NRI, or GENESIS, framework can account for: (i) the Hubble redshift
relation, (ii) the 2.73 CBR, (iii) a T (z) = 2.73 (1 + z)
CBR temperature variation with redshift, (iv) the (1 + z)^{−4} Tolman
effect,
(v) the (1 + z)^{−1}dilation of SNe Ia light curves, (v) the SunyaevZeldovich
effect, (vi) Olber's
paradox, (vii) observationally consistent (m, z) and (Δθ, z)
relations and, (viii) an apparent brightness relation which predicts that z > 2
galaxies will appear more luminous because of the NRI's I_{v} = I_{o} (1 + z)
^{−1} (1 + z_{dopp})^{−2} redshift dependence, instead of big bang's
(1 + z)^{−3} prediction.
It is expected that the foregoing Overview has provided a
sufficient basis for initiating a more indepth analysis of the big bang and
GENESIS. Reviewers who criticized the NRI performed a valuable service
for the scientific community in publishing their ideas [18], for otherwise I
would not have continued the investigation begun in ref. [3] and obtained
the results presented in this series of papers. Because each paper is
designed to be a more or less standalone entity, there is a degree of overlap
between those papers that deal with closely related topics. This reinvestigation purposes to
make new answers concerning the origin and history of the
Universe accessible to as wide a scientific audience as possible. To accomplish this
I have included considerably more explanatory material than required
for a readership composed primarily of astronomers, astrophysicists and
cosmologists [19].
References
[1] R. Srinand, P. Pettijean and C. Ledoux, Nature 408,
931 (2000).
[2] John Bahcall, Nature 408, 916 (2000).
[3] Robert V. Gentry, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 12, 2919
(1997); arXiv:astroph/9806280.
[4] P. M. Garnavich et al., ApJ 493, L53, (1998);
arXiv:astroph/9710123.
[5] B. P. Schmidt et al., ApJ 507, 46 (1998);
arXiv:astroph/9805200.
[6] A. G. Riess et al., Astronom. J. 116, 1009
(1998); arXiv:astroph/9805201.
[7] S. Perlmutter et al., Nature 391, 51 (1998);
arXiv:astroph/9712212.
[8] James Tre.l, The Dark Side of the Universe (Anchor
Books, New York, 1988) pp.1213.
[9] M. J. Disney, arXiv:astroph/0009020.
[10] G. F. R. Ellis, Innovation, resistance and change: the
transition to the expanding universe, in Modern Cosmology In Retrospect,
eds., B. Bertotti, R. Balbinot, S. Bergia and A. Messina (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1990), pp. 97113.
[11] Steven Weinberg, The First Three Minutes (Bantam
Books 1977), p 111.
[12] A. Einstein, Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Berlin, Sitsber.
142 (1917). English reprint in The Principle of Relativity, (Dover
Publications), pp. 177 198.
[13] E. P. Hubble, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 15, 168
(1929).
[14] A. Friedmann, Z. Phys. 10, 377 (1922). English
reprint in A Sourcebook in Astronomy and Astrophysics, Eds. K. R. Lang and
Owen Gingerich, (Harvard University Press 1979), pp. 838843.
[15] G. Lemaitre, Annales Societe Scientifique Bruxelles A47,
49 (1927). English reprint in A Sourcebook in Astronomy and Astrophysics,
Eds. K. R. Lang and O. Gingerich, (Harvard University Press 1979),
pp. 844848.
[16] E. P. Hubble, The Observational Approach to Cosmology (The
Clarendon Press, 1937), pp. 5051, 54, 59.
[17] I. D. Novikov, Evolution of the Universe, (Cambridge
University Press, 1983), pp. 5263.
[18] Steven Carlip and Ryan Scranton, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 14,
71 (1999); arXiv:astroph/9808021.
[19] Many thanks to Dave Gentry for very useful discussions.


