Collapse of Big Bang Cosmology and the Emergence of
the New Cosmic Center Model of the Universe
Robert V. Gentry
Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 56, 4 (December 2004)
Bob Gentry (M.S. in physics, University of Florida; DSc, Columbia Union
College) worked in the defense industry and college/university teaching. He spent
thirteen years as Guest Scientist at Oak Ridge National Laboratory and is now
research physicist with The Orion Foundation. He has authored over fifteen
research papers and a book Creation's Tiny Mystery.
He's a member of AAAS,
APS, AGU, Sigma Xi, NYAS, listed in Who's Who in America, and enjoys
presenting creation science seminars with wife Pat and son David, a nuclearmedicine
resident. His address is: PO Box 12067, Knoxville, TN 379120067. 


[Abstract:] It is good that respected theorist
J. Brian Pitts has contested my refutation of Big Bang
Cosmology (BBC).^{1} This gives opportunity to show that its huge nonconservationofenergy
losses are genuine, that its key spacetime expansion hypothesis is false, and that its expansion
redshifts are mythical entities, without any physical reality. In making these discoveries,
I point out that cosmologists committed modern science's greatest faux pas by decadeslong
promotion of BBC while, incredibly enough, never bothering to test its key spacetime
expansion postulate experimentally.^{2} These results invalidate BBC's explanation of the
Hubble redshift relation, its identification of the 2.7K Cosmic Blackbody Radiation (CBR) as
relic radiation, and show that its Cosmological Principle has always been science fiction.^{3}
This led to my discovery that the locally observed, spherically symmetric galactic redshift
distribution is unique and hence that a universal Center exists nearby.^{4} I identify it as the
location of God's eternal throne, as per Hebrews 810 and Revelation 20. Finally, I describe
my Cosmic Center Universe model that reproduces eight of BBC's major predictions.^{5}
Before
launching into my response to Brian Pitts'
article, the reader is entitled to understand just what
it is about my scientific work that he is challenging.
They are also entitled to know the philosophical basis of my work in order to
more intelligently evaluate my findings,
both those now under discussion, and those
obtained earlier. The Bible says God will not
give his glory to another. To me this means
he does not intend that his record of the
literal sixday creation and seventhday
Sabbath rest, as given in Genesis and in the
Fourth Commandment, to lapse into obscurity
and ridicule without providing the
scientific community and the world with scientific
evidence that affirms these records.
This approach necessarily means I believe
there are flaws in the current evolutionary
paradigms, and that part of revealing God's
glory of creation means exposing the scientific
flaws in these paradigms as well as
promoting those evidences of creation that
affirm the Genesis record. This is the philosophical
basis of my work, and I realize it is
a minority view, both scientifically and
within the Christian community. It is also
controversial; so Pitts has done the Christian
scientific community a great service by
attempting to expose what he thinks are its
defects. My scientific response to Pitts is
necessarily couched within the framework
of my philosophical view. I have done so in
a forthright manner, trusting that if I have
run the race by just beating the air, the readers
of this response will respond accordingly
and show me the errors of my ways.

God does not
intend that his
record of the
literal sixday
creation and
seventhday
Sabbath rest . . .
to lapse into
obscurity and
ridicule without
providing . . .
scientific
evidence that
affirms these
records.


In the last few years, I have reported
several discoveries that I claim either falsify
big bang cosmology directly or disprove its
fundamental postulates.^{6} Briefly these discoveries
are:
Big bang cosmology involves gargantuan
nonconservationofenergy losses equal to
the mass/energy contained in a universe
thirty million times the size of our own.^{7} This denial of
energy conservation on a universal scale proves that at
least one of the theory's fundamental postulates must be
fallacious and hence that the theory must be fallacious.
The universe is relativistically governed by Einstein's
static spacetime general relativity (GR) instead of the
FriedmannLemaître expanding spacetime postulate upon
which the big bang is critically hinged.^{8} Disproof of this
fundamental postulate proves that neither big bang's
spacetime expansion nor expansion redshifts even exist.
Without the latter, everything in the big bang collapses.
The decadeslong belief that the 2.7K Cosmic Blackbody
Radiation (CBR) is big bang's relic radiation is proven false
because the many hundreds of thousands of astronomers
and cosmologists who have promoted the theory over the
past fifty or more years committed one of the greatest
errors in the history of science when they failed to include
a critically important term in the equation they developed
to compute big bang's prediction of the present CBR
temperature.
When I discovered this missing term and modified the
resulting equation accordingly, then as shown herein,
I found two things of extraordinary consequence: First,
instead of big bang's temperature prediction of the CBR
agreeing with the experimentally determined 2.7K, actually
it is more than a million times less.^{9} This means what
has been thought of as BBC's greatest success is now
exposed as its greatest contradiction. Secondly, I found
big bang's hypothesized rate of expansioninduced photon
wavelength increase, which is the foundation of its
expansion redshifts, depends on both the present value of
H, the Hubble constant, and its hypothesized existence at
time of emission, H_{e}.^{10} On this basis, every photon in the
universe—whether having originated locally, or in distant
galaxies, or in the CBR—has a memory of the hypothesized
H_{e} at emission and, in some mysterious way, must be
instantaneously processing that value in order to universally
synchronize the rate of wavelength expansion for
every photon with the same value of H_{e}. For photons in the
CBR, which supposedly originated 13.7 × 10^{9} years ago,
this memory must stretch back that far and instantaneously
induce the same change wherever those photons
are in the cosmos now. Such a requirement is a bizarre
contradiction to all of modern quantum electrodynamics,
but actually no more bizarre than BBC's acceptance of
gargantuan nonconservationofenergy losses.
Thus, what appeared to be modern science's and big
bang's greatest twentiethcentury success has turned into
its worst twentyfirstcentury nightmare. This fatal contradiction
to its CBR temperature prediction—as well as its
demand for photons to be inscribed with H's value at time
of emission—falsifies the entire theory, thus proving it
never happened.^{11} And because the big bang never existed,
neither was there ever a Hubble constant different from
the present one. Furthermore, I found that disproof of
expansion redshifts opens up exciting new vistas both on
the structure of the universe as well as the biblical implications
of this structure. Without expansion redshifts the big
bang has no explanation of the Hubble redshift relation
and no explanation for the 2.73K CBR. A new model of the
universe is needed, not dependent on spacetime expansion
and expansion redshifts.
Instead of big bang's temperature prediction
of the Cosmic Blackbody Radiation
agreeing with the experimentally
determined 2.7K, actually [I discovered]
it is more than a million times less.

In particular, astronomers and cosmologists have long
promoted expansion redshifts to justify the idea that
observers on any distant galaxy would detect the same
spherically symmetric distributions of galaxies and quasars
as seen on Earth. But disproof of expansion redshifts
immediately invalidates the Cosmological Principle, which
led me to understand the universe is truly spherically
symmetric about only our point of observation, or some
point that is astronomically nearby.^{12} Obviously this location
must be none other than the Center of the entire
Universe.
My discovery of the nearby universal Center forms
the basis of my new Cosmic Center Universe (CCU)
model which postulates that the universe is relativistically
governed by Einstein static spacetime.^{13} In it galaxies are
physically receding from this nearby Center in accord with
the standard Hubble redshift relation, and the Hubble
constant has a new, welldefined meaning in terms of a
true measure of the rate of recession. In this new model,
galactic redshifts are attributed to a combination of relativistic
Doppler and gravitational redshifts. The force driving
galactic recession from the nearby Center is cosmic repulsion
due to the repulsive force of the vacuum. The 2.7K
CBR is shown to be gravitationally redshifted blackbody
cavity radiation from an ancientlycreated outer shell of
galaxies (see note 59) that circumscribes those of the more
recentlycreated (6,000 yr.) visible universe. This model
deserves scientific attention as a replacement for the big
bang because it matches eight of big bang's most prominent
predictions, as well as predicting the
existence of galaxies with redshifts >10,
which is far higher than that allowed by the
big bang. Additionally I herein suggest the
CCU model also deserves attention from the
biblical perspective as well, for I believe this
physical Center is also the Command Center
of the Universe, none other than the location
of God's eternal throne where, as described
in Hebrews 810, Christ is now ministering
his blood in behalf of all who are calling
upon him for salvation. On that basis, I
believe God created the visible universe,
that is within the ancient outer galactic shell,
so as to focus attention on this nearby Center
as a means of attracting even greater attention
to the divine ministry of Christ that is
now continuing there.

Thus, what
appeared to be
modern science's
and big bang's
greatest
twentiethcentury
success
has turned into
its worst
twentyfirstcentury
nightmare.
This fatal
contradiction
to its CBR
temperature
prediction—
as well as its
demand for
photons to be
inscribed with
H's value at
time of
emission—
falsifies the
entire theory,
thus proving it
never happened.


I believe these discoveries complement
my earlier ones in nuclear geophysics. Beginning
over three decades ago, I repeatedly
published evidence in the world's leading
scientific periodicals^{14} showing that polonium
radiohalos that originated with primordial
polonium left their worldwide
imprints in Earth's foundation rocks, the
granites. The brevity of the relevant polonium
halflives, stretching from the geologicallyshort
138 days for ^{210}Po, to the very
brief three minutes for ^{218}Po, to the virtually
instantaneous 164 microseconds for ^{214}Po,
provide unambiguous evidence that all of
these rocks were the result of God's divine
fiat creation of planet Earth. It is significant
in this respect that, in Heb. 1:10 and similar
passages, the Bible refers to Earth's foundation
rocks as those made in the beginning.
This proof of Earth's rapid creation—which
has remained unrefuted in the open scientific
literature for over three decades—disproves
evolutionary geology's claim that the
Earth formed by slow cooling over billions
of years. In my view, God purposefully
formed these creation halos—the Fingerprints
of Creation—to provide unambiguous
evidence that he called the Earth into
existence just as the Bible states in Ps. 33:6, 9.
And I believe he did so to glorify his name,
just as he left his Signature of Cosmic Creation—
the nearby universal Center—to
point to him as Creator and Sustainer of all,
and Author (John 1:13) of the literal sixday
Genesis record of creation, as affirmed in
Exod. 20:811.
Nonconservation of
Energy Is Recognized in
the Big Bang—Why Does
Brian Pitts Attempt To
Deny It?
I believe most scientists other than big bang
practitioners would agree that any theory
that is found to significantly violate energy
conservation must be badly flawed and
should be quickly relegated to the trash
heap, regardless of how highly esteemed it
may have been held prior to such a finding.
But in the big bang, things are different, and
I should think that Pitts would be aware
that its huge inconsistencies have long been
openly accepted and taught in prestigious
universities. Concerning energy in the big
bang, take, for example, renowned cosmologist
Edward Harrisons' widely used text
Cosmology: Science of the Universe.^{15} His frank
admissions concerning nonconservationofenergy
in the big bang appear in the section
entitled "Where has all the energy gone?"
There we find the following:
Radiation, freely moving particles, and
also gases lose energy in an expanding
universe. Where does the energy go?
We take for granted that light is
redshifted and usually do not concern
ourselves about where the energy has
gone (p. 275).
The conclusion, whether we like it or
not, is obvious: energy in the universe
is not conserved (p. 276).
Science clings tenaciously to concepts
of conservation, the most fundamental
of which is the conservation of energy
principle . . . The conservation of energy
principle serves us well in all sciences
except cosmology . . . To the question
of where energy goes in an expanding
universe and where it comes from in
an collapsing universe the answer is—nowhere,
because in this one case
energy is not conserved (p. 276).
Obviously these descriptions have been
in print in an authoritative format for over
two decades. During this period, there was
virtual silence about them. Neither Pitts nor
any other scientist brought this contradiction
of known physical laws to the focus
of attention in the open scientific literature.
I attribute this, first, to the fact that big bang
cosmology (BBC) is almost universally accepted as ultimate
scientific truth. With this mindset, it follows that
whatever the theory requires also must be true, irrespective
of how many contradictions it involves, even to
defying energy conservation. What may have awakened
Pitts to now attempt to defend energy conservation in
the big bang scenario is that in 1998, for the first time ever
in print, David and I published just how much energy was
lost in BBC's nonconservation scenario.^{16}
Big Bang's Cosmic Expansion
Is a Mirage That Leads to
Gargantuan NonconservationofEnergy
Losses
According to big bang theory, the universe is undergoing
spacetime expansion, and there supposedly exists at any
time what is known as the cosmic expansion factor, ℜ(t) =
ℜ. Despite its fundamental importance, the mysterious
thing about this expansion factor is that its value at any
point in time is unknown. In fact, no one has ever proposed
how it could be measured. So if big bang practitioners had
told the whole truth about it, they should have long ago
admitted they had no direct experimental evidence that
it has ever existed. The first thing we need to understand
about big bang cosmology is that it has always been based
on a huge leap of the imagination. But cosmologists and
astronomers have never admitted to this. Indeed, it is a
topic they have studiously avoided. Instead they introduce
an assumption that tends to cover up the imaginary
status of the cosmic expansion factor. Without any experimental
or theoretical justification whatsoever, or any direct
physical evidence that expansion even exists, they claim
cosmic expansion has an effect on photons.^{17} They hypothesize
that a photon that is emitted with some standard
wavelength, λ_{s}, at time, t_{0}, when the cosmic expansion
factor is ℜ(t_{0}) =
ℜ_{0}, will during its transit have had its
wavelength increased by cosmic spacetime effects until
it is absorbed. At that point, the expanded wavelength is
presumed to be given by the equation, λ = λ_{s}
(ℜ/ℜ_{0}),
where ℜ is the presumed—but unmeasurable—value of
the expansion factor at time of absorption. But since a photon's
wavelength is inversely proportional to its energy, v,
then wavelength expansion means energy lost during a
photon's transit.
This leads us to consider the magnitude of the nonconservationofenergy
loss of CBR photons as in theory
they were expansionredshifted from 3000K at decoupling
to the present 2.7K. Assuming a nominal universe volume,
V_{univ} of 15 billion ly radius, the
2.7K CBR having about
n = 410 photonscm^{−3}
with average energy of about ε_{2.7} =
10^{−15} erg, and the 3000K radiation with ε_{3000} = 1.13 × 10^{−12}
erg, and an equal number of photons,^{18} we compute the
total CBR expansion energy loss as E_{exp} = n
× (ε^{3000} − ε_{2.7}) ×
V_{univ} = 5.5 × 10^{75} erg. This is about three times the galactic
mass of a universe composed of 10^{21} solar masses. For an
initial fireball temperature of 3 million K, the total radiation
energy loss would be three thousand times the mass
of such a universe. Even more incredibly, since in theory
photon conservation extends back to a fireball temperature
of 30 billion K, in this case the theorized nonconservationofenergy
loss projects to be thirty million times the
mass of such a universe. These gargantuan energy losses
command our attention. If they are real, then certainly it
means that BBC's underlying premise of cosmic expansion
is badly flawed, and hence BBC is a falsified theory.
Despite its fundamental importance, the
mysterious thing about this expansion
factor is that its value at any point in
time is unknown. In fact, no one has ever
proposed how it could be measured.

Even though Harrison did not report this energy loss
calculation^{19} (as David and I did in 1998),^{20} we have proof
it commanded his serious attention, as shown by comments
in his book's second edition published in 2000.
There we find him sending out the following SOS on this
issue:
The energy in the cosmic background radiation,
once very large, is now quite small. Where has this
energy gone? Can you think of an answer that conserves
total energy? (The author has tried and failed.)
Do you think that the second law of thermodynamics
is a better conservation principle than the familiar
conservation of energy principle?^{21}
It is amazing that Harrison, one of the world's leading
cosmologists, frankly admits to not only finding no solution
to big bang's vast nonconservationofenergy losses,
but seeks answers from others far less qualified than himself,
even from students, who surely must be mystified
that a cosmologist of his stature would consider that any
of them might think of a way to solve what has escaped
a generation of cosmologists. After all, in their physics
classes they are taught that energy is conserved. How
could it be that in the big bang it is not conserved?
Exposing the Phantom
Link Between Expansion
Redshifts and
Astronomical Redshifts
This brings us
to the phantom
link whose
implications are
never discussed
in big bang
cosmology—
namely: If the
expansion
factor, ℜ,
is never
measurable,
then what
meaning
can the
hypothesized
equation
λ = λ_{s}
(ℜ/ℜ_{0})
possibly have
in the
real world?



Now Pitts does not challenge the above nonconservationofenergy
loss calculation.^{22}
But he quotes others to the effect that these
huge energy losses are compensated by
energy gained by gravity. Even though it
must be assumed that Harrison is familiar
with all the papers cited by Pitts, he obviously
had reasons for not discussing Pitts'
argument as a valid solution. And, of course,
I also have reasons which Harrison may not
have been aware of. In particular, as I have
previously shown, and will now show again
even more explicitly herein, a number of
gravitational redshift experiments of the
interactions of gravity with photons prove
there is no exchange of photon energy with
the gravitational field.
To understand what follows necessitates
we start with essential background information
given by three of the world's eminent
general relativity theorists, Misner, Thorne
and Wheeler (hereafter MTW), in Gravitation,^{23}
the book that for decades has been
considered the ultimate authority on the general
relativistic basis of BBC. Figure 29.1 on
page 776 shows BBC assumes GR expansion
processes operate on wavelengths while
photons are inflight, but not at emission.
What is so puzzling is that Pitts argues this is
not the case. He quotes Andrew Repp as saying
this is not a necessary condition because
the emission/absorption process is so short
that the wavelength would experience
almost no change even if expansion does
continue to operate during these periods.^{24}
Apparently both he and Repp fail to understand
that the ultimate reason for cosmologists
assuming cessation of expansion effects
during emission/absorption is that they
must do this in order to insure agreement
with the astronomical requirement of a fixed
standard emission wavelength, λ_{s}, in the
standard expression used to calculate astronomical
redshifts, which is z = λ/λ_{s} − 1. This
failure then led Repp to argue for the physical
reality of BBC's expansion redshifts when
in fact, as now to be shown, neither he, nor
Pitts, nor anyone else has ever verified their
existence. Thus, in essence Repp's argument
is only a repetition of BBC's mantra.
This brings us to the phantom link whose
implications are never discussed in big bang
cosmology—namely: If the expansion factor,
ℜ, is never measurable, then what meaning
can the hypothesized equation λ = λ_{s}
(ℜ/ℜ_{0})
possibly have in the real world? What prediction
could this equation possibly make
about what the expanded wavelength should
be at time of reception? The fact is that it
does not make a prediction because it cannot
make a prediction. The truth is that it is a
phantom equation that cannot be tested.
Thus for big bang cosmology to even get
off the ground, cosmologists had to invent
some plausibility argument to link the imaginary
effects of cosmic expansion with the
real world, and then make it appear that this
was a natural consequence of the theory.
This they did by first assuming the universe
was governed by the FriedmannLemaître
expanding spacetime solution of the Einstein
field equations and then ex cathedra pronouncing
that cosmic expansion would
cause galaxies to move apart as space itself
was presumed to move apart. Hence that
this expansioninduced motion of every
galaxy away from every other galaxy would
result in what they called cosmological redshifts.
In this fictional scenario, astronomically
determined redshifts of nearby galaxies
were still to be interpreted in terms of the
Doppler effect—true recession away from the
observer. But for high redshifts, cosmological
redshifts and something called the Hubble
flow were invented to portray distant galaxies
as uniformly moving apart, in which case
the universe was said to be everywhere the
same and everywhere moving apart.^{25} In
time this assumption of sameness was elevated
and called the Cosmological Principle,
when, in fact, there was no principle
involved. Obviously, if experiments show
the universe is not governed by FriedmannLemaître
expanding spacetime general relativity,
but instead by Einstein's static spacetime
solution, wherein spatial volumes do
not change in time, then it is impossible for
cosmic expansion and cosmological redshifts
to exist in our universe, which, of
course, leads to the collapse of BBC. Before
discussing the experiments which show
this, we first analyze Pitts' attempts to reject
BBC's nonconservationofenergy losses.
Pinpointing Brian Pitts' Three
Failed Attempts To Reject BBC's
NonconservationofEnergy
Losses
Two of Pitts' attempts to reject BBC's huge nonconservationofenergy
losses rely on lengthy General Relativity
(GR) discussions concerning gravitation and the total
energy content of the universe. Here he admits to be dealing
with a "messy subject." This is borne out by his discussion.
On one hand, he cites several GR authorities whose
results support the concept of the universe's total energy
being infinite. Then he cites other authorities in support of
the total energy being zero. He admits not knowing which
is true and is apparently not troubled by the possibility
that this infinite difference may suggest a tremendous flaw
in the underlying paradigms he uses to arrive at these
results. Or at least he does not mention this possibility.
Instead he says that whichever it is, nonconservation of
energy is not a problem for BBC. If the total energy is zero,
then not to worry; by definition it must remain zero.
On the other hand, if it is infinite, then again not to worry
because it will not make any difference how much energy
is lost since you will still have an infinite amount left.
I do not think these alternatives require much comment
from me except to say that his proposed solutions are quite
imaginative and beyond the scope of modern science to
test them.
Pitts' other method of rejecting BBC's monumental
nonconservationofenergy losses, as given above, is again
his reliance on the results of others. Like the other two
just discussed, he does not really contest the above calculation.
Instead he argues the cosmic energy lost would be
energy gained by gravity, in which case energy is conserved.
He recognizes this would require the interchange
of photon energy with gravitational energy and references
the work of Carlip and Scranton (C&S) to sustain this
view. Here is what they say:
Finally, let us briefly address one other issue raised
in references 2 and 19 [in this paper notes 2 and 3],
the problem of energy conservation in cosmological
expansion. Gentry notes, correctly, that the electromagnetic
energy of the cosmic microwave background
is not conserved during expansion: in a
volume expanding along with the universe, the
radiation energy goes as (1 + z)^{−1}, and the redshift
represents a genuine loss of photon energy. But there
is nothing particularly "cosmological" about this
loss—a photon rising in a static gravitational potential
experiences a similar energy loss. In the laboratory,
there is nothing mysterious about this
phenomenon, which simply reflects the need to
include gravitational potential energy in one's
accounting. Indeed, energy conservation can be used
to derive the redshift (see, for instance, section 7.2 of
Gravitation, by Misner, Thorne and Wheeler [note 23
in this paper]).^{26}
The above, first of all, affirms my claim that cosmic
expansion, if it exists, does represent a genuine loss of
photon energy. But C&S do not believe it represents nonconservationofenergy.
Instead they say this loss is compensated
by energy exchange with gravity, and Pitts cites
their result as being correct. But there are two big problems
here. The first flaw in their reasoning, which Pitts
obviously accepts, is their assumption that cosmic expansion
does exist. They accept it in spite of the fact that I had
already reported experimental evidence showing that
it does not exist.^{27} Secondly, they compare how cosmic
expansion is presumed to work to expand wavelengths
with how, in their view, photons lose energy rising in
a static gravitational potential. The second big problem is
that the same report that disproved the existence of cosmic
expansion is also the one that showed there is no photon
energy loss in that instance.^{28} That is, I have already shown
that comparison of atomic clock rates at two different
altitudes, as per the operation of the GPS, provides conclusive
experimental proof that no such interchange takes
place. Now it is certain Pitts knows of this particular result
because he cites this report in the general listing of a number
of my papers in his abstract. But he signally fails to do
so at this crucial point, thus leaving the distinctly erroneous
impression that C&S's contention is correct. As the
following analysis shows, however, it is not.
The Universe Is Governed by
Einstein Static Spacetime
General Relativity, Not the
Expanding Spacetime Paradigm
When we examine the many relativistic gravitational
experiments performed over the last few decades, we find
that, while those results conflict with the expansion paradigm's
basic assumptions, they are completely in accord
with the predictions of the staticspacetime theory of general
relativity as Einstein first proposed it in 1916. In that
seminal paper, he predicted that gravity should cause a
perfect clock to go
more slowly if setup in the neighborhood of ponderable
masses. From this it follows that the spectral
lines of light reaching us from the surface of large
stars must appear displaced towards the red end of
the spectrum.^{29}
In 1954 Brault's redshift measurement of the sodium D
line emanating from the sun's spectrum did succeed in
confirming the magnitude of the gravitational redshift that
Einstein had predicted.^{30} But this result did not settle the
question of its origin. More specifically, was Einstein correct
in postulating that different gravitational potentials at
source and observer meant that clocks at these locations
should run at intrinsically different rates,
and hence that this was the origin of the
gravitational redshift? Or did the measured
redshift instead have its origin in photons
experiencing an inflight energy exchange
with gravity as they moved in a changing
gravitational potential in their transit from a
star to the Earth?
On any rational
basis, . . . BBC's
underlying
spacetime
expansion
premise must be
fatally flawed . . .
all the foregoing
results show
the universe
we inhabit is
one governed
by Einstein's
staticspacetime
general
relativity, and
not by
FriedmannLemaître's
expandingspacetime
general
relativity, which
is the foundation
of BBC.



Even the 1964 PoundSnider experiments
did not settle this question.^{31} True, these
observers did find a Δv/v = −Δφ/c^{2}
= gh/c^{2}
fractional frequency difference between ^{57}Fe
gammas emitted at the top and received at
the bottom of a tower of height, h, separated
by a gravitational potential difference, Δφ,
and this result did more precisely confirm
the magnitude of the Einstein redshift. But it
did not settle its origin, for they could not tell
whether the redshift resulted from inflight
wavelength change as the photon passed
through a gravitational gradient, or whether
it was due instead to differences in gravity
affecting the relative frequency at the point
of emission. They did suggest, however,
this issue could be decided by comparing
coherent light sources operating at different
potentials.
As is now well known, atomic clock
experiments have repeatedly shown that a
clock on a mountain top does run faster
than its sea level counterpart by a fractional
amount Δv/v = −Δφ/c^{2}
= gh/c^{2}, which is exactly
the same shift found by Pound and Snider.
Although not generally recognized as such
until now, this result proved long ago that
the Einstein redshift is due to local gravity
operating to affect relative emission frequencies
as seen by an observer in a different
gravitational potential. Moreover, the basic
principle of local gravity affecting relative
emission frequencies is further confirmed
many thousands of times every hour in the
continuing operation of GPS atomic clocks.
Synchronization of those clocks utilizes the
Einstein staticspacetime paradigm with its
predicted effect of gravity on emission frequency
to calculate how much faster satellite
clocks will be expected to operate once they
are in orbit. Thus, prior to launch, satellite
clocks are preset to run about 38,400 ns/d
slower than the base master clock to compensate
for their faster rate in orbit.^{32}
The reason this result is exceptionally
important is that, as Carroll Alley noted in
setting up the GPS, it proves there is only
one redshift of the amount gh/c^{2} detected
between source and detector, and not two
times this quantity. He relates this was a
very great surprise to certain eminent general
relativity theorists engaged in setting
up the GPS.^{33} Before the experimental results
were in, they had strongly affirmed the
detected shift would be two times gh/c^{2}.
They so firmly believed there would be one
redshift due to difference in clocks operating
at a different potential, and another redshift
due to photons changing energy (frequency)
in transit, that they refused to believe otherwise
until the experimental results absolutely
proved there was no energy or
frequency change as a photon transits a
gravitational potential. Alley's experience
shows there is a widespread misunderstanding
of this critically important fact within
the community of general relativity theorists,
and it is doubtless this error that has led
Pitts, and Carlip and Scranton,^{34} and countless
others to erroneously believe they have
a sure foundation for expansion redshifts,
whereas in fact GPS experiments prove this
foundation is vacuous.
Another remarkable confirmation of gravity's
effect on emission frequencies comes
from Taylor's comparison of atomic clock
time with pulsar timing data. To synchronize
both data sets he found it necessary
to account for the change of local atomic
clock time due to the monthly variation in
the sun's gravitational potential at Earth. In
Taylor's own words:
Here is direct proof, based on a clock
some 15,000 light years from the solar
system, that clocks on Earth run more
slowly when the moon is full—because
at this time of the month we are deeper
in the gravitational potential of the
sun!"^{35}
Thus Einstein's 1916 predictions about
both the origin and the magnitude of the
gravitational redshift have been confirmed
by a variety of general relativistic experiments,
so as to obtain the following conclusions:
 The PoundSnider results show
there is only one gravitational redshift
between two points at different potentials,
and it is given by Δv/v = −Δλλ
= −Δφ/c^{2}, and
 this redshift does not originate with photons
exchanging energy with gravity during
transit through a potential gradient, but
instead originates in precisely the way that Einstein stated
it in 1916, and again in 1952—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."^{36}
This is further confirmed by Vera's theoretical work
showing there is no exchange between gravity and photon
energy.^{37}
There are two very significant conclusions which can
be drawn from the foregoing results, and they complement
each other. One is that this result disproves Carlip
and Scranton's assertion that cosmic energy loss could be
compensated by exchange with gravity, thus proving that
if cosmic expansion had existed at all, it would—as the
above calculations show—result in a nonconservationofenergy
loss equivalent to over thirty million times the
mass of the visible universe. On any rational basis, this
means BBC's underlying spacetime expansion premise
must be fatally flawed. And this indeed is the second conclusion
to be drawn because all the foregoing results show
the universe we inhabit is one governed by Einstein's
staticspacetime general relativity, and not by FriedmannLemaître's
expandingspacetime general relativity, which
is the foundation of BBC. And there is more.
Additional Disproof of BBC and
the Emergence of a New Cosmic
Center Universe Model
One of BBC's greatest presumed triumphs is the idea that
the 2.7K CBR is relic radiation from the big bang fireball.
In theory, cosmic expansion effects caused exceedingly
high energy photons in the fireball to diminish in energy
to become those now present in the CBR. However, we
have already seen that the universe is not governed by
FriedmannLemaître expansion; so it is impossible for this
scenario to be correct. Nevertheless the question arises as
to how can it be that BBC's temperature prediction is
supposedly exactly the experimentally observed 2.7K. The
answer is that it is not. I have discovered this prediction
is based on a badly flawed equation. And when that flaw
is corrected, it turns out that cosmic expansion's presumed
effects on photon wavelength expansion lead to a predicted
CBR temperature that is hundreds of millions of
times less than the experimentally observed 2.7K. The
details of this discovery now follow.
We seek to compare the local CBR temperature with
cosmic expansion's prediction. In theory any CBR photon
emitted with standard wavelength, λ_{s}, has since expanded
so as to now exhibit a presently measurable wavelength, λ,
given by^{38}
λ/λ_{s} = 1 + z = (?) ℜ/ℜ_{e}

(1) 
where z is the present expansion redshift, and
ℜ and ℜ_{e}
are, respectively, the expansion factors at present time, t,
and at time of photon emission, t_{e}. We remember that in
the above λ/λ_{s} = 1 + z is the standard astronomical redshift.
The question mark emphasizes that BBC's only attachment
to the real world is via the ad hoc practice of interpreting
astronomically observed redshifts, z_{obs} = λ/λ_{s} − 1
in Equation (1), with the mythical cosmological redshifts,
z_{cos} = ℜ/ℜ_{e} − 1.
Because the expansion rate is presumed
to be diminishing, the question arises whether longterm
redshift monitoring of light from a distant source might
provide evidence of this presumed change. Indeed, on
page 451 of his text Weinberg focuses attention on this
question^{39} and Peacock likewise focuses on it in his Problem
3.2, the first part of which reads as follows:
An object is observed at redshift z in a Friedmann
universe with density parameter Ω. Calculate the
observed rate of change of redshift of the object.^{40}
Now one method of calculating expansion's present rate
of change of λ, both for photons from galaxies or in the
CBR, uses Equation (1) together with MTW's assumption^{41}
of the temporal constancy of λ_{s} and
ℜ_{e}, to obtain (dλ/dt)/λ =
(dℜ/dt)/ℜ = H
(the Hubble constant, see note 13), or
dλ_{appx}/dt = Hλ = H(1 + z)λ_{s}

(2) 
which agrees with the result obtained by Peebles.^{42} 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 ℜ_{e} at time of emission. The correct
expression for (dλ/dt) is obtained using results from Weinberg^{43}
and Peacock^{44} of the exact expression for ℜ from
Equation (1). Both correctly include the temporal variation
of λ_{e}, dℜ_{e}/dt_{e},
when taking its time derivative,
z^{⋅} = dz/dt = [ℜ_{e}
(dℜ/dt) −
ℜ(dℜ_{e}/dt_{e})
(dt_{e}/dt)]/ℜ_{e}^{2}

(3) 
In this instance dt and dt_{e} refer to differential time increments
at present and at time of emission, respectively.
Both Weinberg^{45} and Peacock^{46} find dt_{e}/dt =
ℜ_{e}/ℜ, so the
foregoing can be rewritten as
z^{⋅} = [(ℜ/ℜ_{e})
((dℜ/dt)/ℜ) −
((dℜ_{e}/dt_{e})/ℜ_{e})]
= (1 + z) H − H_{e}

(4) 
which, except for different notation, is equivalent to
Equation 14.6.23 in Weinberg's text,^{47} and that obtained in
Problem 3.2 on p. 618 in Peacock's text.^{48} In both instances
their calculations stop with the expression for z^{⋅}, and
neither comment about any unusual implications of their
equivalents to Equation (4). Here, however, we continue
the calculation to find the exact expression for (dλ/dt).
To do this we first remember that astronomical redshift
determinations of distant galaxies are always obtained
from Equation (1) on the premise that λ_{s} represents the
exact laboratory emission line value corresponding to λ,
the present astronomically measured, redshifted wavelength.
It follows that λ_{s} is a constant for all times—which
again disproves Repp's assertion^{49} to the contrary—and
hence that Equation (1) leads to z^{⋅} = (dλ/dt)/λ_{s}.
Equating this quantity with the last expression in Equation
(4) leads to
(dλ/dt) =
λ_{s}[(1 + z)H − H_{e}] =
λH − λ_{s}H_{e}

(5) 
where λ represents, as earlier stated, the
observed present rate of wave length change of
photons that were emitted from some source
with wavelength λ_{s} at H_{e} =
(dℜ_{e}/dt_{e})/ℜ_{e},
and time, t_{e}, as measured after the big bang
at t = 0. Thus Equation (5) is a prediction of
BBC that applies to either a stream of photons
emitted from a distant galaxy, or to
those in the CBR, that BBC presumes originated
at its fireball. But since BBC does not
provide any data on H, then it is not possible
to directly test BBC using Equation (5) in
its present form. However, if we apply the
expanding universe condition, (dλ/dt) > 0 to
this equation, we discover some truly amazing
and very definitive predictions about the
values of the photons' redshift expected to
exist at present.
By remembering that Peacock's problem
deals with a Friedmann universe, we first
impose on Equation (5) the condition H ~ t^{−1}
for various Friedmann models.^{50} This leads
to the conclusion that local redshift measurements
of photons, either from galactic
sources or the CBR, must obey the redshift
condition, 1 + z > H_{e}/H = t/t_{e}.
If we let t = t_{e} + Δt,
where Δt is the elapsed time from photon
emission to the present, we find

This discovery
again proves
spacetime
expansion and
big bang's
expansion
redshifts are
nonexistent
mythical
constructs in
the universe we
inhabit. In turn
this means big
bang's
explanations of
the Hubble
redshiftdistance
relation, and the
2.7K Cosmic
Blackbody
Radiation (CBR)
as relic radiation
from big bang's
fireball, are
nothing more
than science
fiction.


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, λ_{s}, and having a common origin
at time t_{e}. Its unusual implications begin to
be evident when it is applied to photons
arriving from sources with z > 6. But its
most extraordinary implications are even
more evident when applying it to photons
in the CBR.
For example, if we apply Equation (6) to
the big bang's presumed fireball photons at
time t_{e} = 1 s, when the radiation temperature
of its primordial photons is theorized to be
~10^{10} K, we find the elapsed time from then
to the presumed time of decoupling, when
the redshift is theorized to be z = 1089,^{51} is
only Δt ~ 1000 s, or less than half an hour.
This value sharply contradicts the presumed
3.8 × 10^{5} year value recently reported by
Bennett.^{52}
We can also use Equation (6) to find the
expected present value of the CBR temperature
by utilizing the most recent estimate^{53} of
the big bang at t = 13.7 × 10^{9} yr. On that basis,
Δt ≃ 5 × 10^{17} s. Thus it follows that when the
dynamic variation of ℜ_{e} is correctly included
into the calculation of expansion's effect on
CBR photons, then from the expressions
z > Δt/t_{e} and T_{CBR}
= 10^{10}/t^{½}—where in this
instance t is measured in seconds from the
big bang^{54}—we find the present CBR expansion
redshift and CBR temperature are predicted
to be z_{exp} > 5 × 10^{17}
and T_{CBR} < 2 × 10^{−8}
K, respectively. This is a factor of one hundred
million less than the experimental
2.73K. Even if we just apply Equation (6) to
the usual scenario where the CBR temperature
is predicted to be ~ 3000 K at decoupling
when t_{e} = 3.8 × 10^{5} yr., we still find
predictions of z_{exp} > 36000 and T_{CBR} < 0.08 K.
Obviously, both sets of predictions are
severely contradicted by the presently
observed 2.73 K. Thus, instead of present
CBR observations confirming the most
important predictions of big bang cosmology,
we find they contradict them. It proves
there must be a major flaw in big bang's
underlying postulate, which is the assumption
that the universe is governed by the
FriedmannLemaître 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
expansioninduced wavelength change of
any photon depends on both the present
value of the Hubble constant, H, and its
value at time of emission, H_{e}. If this were
true, then photons in the CBR must have
retained a memory of the value of H_{e} at
emission 13.7 × 10^{9} years ago, and moreover,
in some unknown way, must now be able to
process that memory on an instantaneous
basis throughout the universe in order for
Equation (5) to hold. The idea of photons
having a memory of the Hubble value at
emission is bizarre and in contradiction to all
of modern quantum electrodynamics.
This discovery again proves spacetime
expansion and big bang's expansion redshifts
are mythical constructs in the universe
we inhabit. In turn this means big bang's
explanations of the Hubble redshiftdistance
relation, and the 2.7K CBR as relic radiation
from big bang's fireball, are nothing more
than science fiction. This result is a disaster of unimaginable
proportions, for it destroys decades of seemingly triumphal
efforts cosmologists put into showcasing the big
bang as a real event because its relic radiation was identifiable
as the 2.7K CBR. This particular disproof of big bang's
FriedmannLemaître paradigm and its expansion redshifts
removes the linchpin supporting big bang cosmology and
the Cosmological Principle (CP), 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 CP is fallacious.
Instead of the universe being both homogeneous and isotropic,
it is only isotropic about a nearby universal Center.
As note 13 explains, BBC's apparent success in explaining
the Hubble relation was, ironically, because in practice
cosmologists and astronomers actually employed the CCU
framework to explain the Hubble redshifts. That is why
big bang's fatal flaws went unnoticed for so many
decades. Thus a new model of the cosmos is needed, one
not indebted to the FriedmannLemaître paradigm and
its expansion redshifts, but one based on observational
evidence of a nearby Center, which can also account for
the z = 3.91 BAL quasar with its high Fe/O ratio.^{55} A new
Cosmic Center Universe model—an upgraded version of
the NRI model^{56}—has already been developed. It reproduces
eight of BBC's major predictions and for that reason
alone deserves close scientific inspection because I have
already responded to five categories of objections that were
lodged against the earlier version of this model.^{57}
This model may also be of interest to the Christian
scientific community, for I have already suggested this
nearby Center may be none other than the throne of God
described in Hebrews 810 and Revelation 4 and 20.
Hebrews 10 in particular describes the ministry of Christ
as our great high Priest officiating his blood in behalf of
sinners on the throne of the universe in the heavenly
Sanctuary. It is on this basis that I suggest the spherical
symmetry of the universe as seen from our point of observation
is not a cosmic accident,^{58} but instead a direct result
of God not only creating the visible universe on the literal
Day 4 of creation week,^{59} but of doing it so as to provide
unambiguous astronomical proof that a nearby universal
Center does exist, with the logical deduction that he intends
for Earth's inhabitants to reflect strongly on this fact as evidence
that he is both Creator and Ruler of the Universe
and Author of the Ten Commandments (Exod. 20:117).
Notes
 J. Brian Pitts, "Has Robert Gentry Refuted Big Bang Cosmology?
On Energy Conservation and Expansion," Perspectives on Science
and Christian Faith 56, no. 4 (December 2004): 2605.
 Robert V. Gentry, "Discovery of a Major Contradiction in Big Bang
Cosmology Points to the New Cosmic Center Universe Model,"
http://cdsweb.cern.ch/search.py?recid=612648.
These results mean that all theories of the cosmos that depend on spacetime
expansion, whether evolutionary or creationist, are just as badly
flawed as the big bang theory.
 Ibid.; and Robert V. Gentry and David W. Gentry, "The Genuine
Cosmic Rosetta," www.arxiv.org/abs/grqc/9806061.
 Gentry, "Discovery of a Major Contradiction in Big Bang Cosmology."
 Robert V. Gentry, "New Cosmic Center Universe Model Matches
Eight of Big Bang's Major Predictions without the FL Paradigm,"
http://cdsweb.cern.ch/search.py?recid=612649.
 Gentry, "Discovery of a Major Contradiction in Big Bang Cosmology";
and Gentry and Gentry, "The Genuine Cosmic Rosetta"; and
Gentry, "New Cosmic Center Universe Model."
 Gentry and Gentry, "The Genuine Cosmic Rosetta."
 Gentry, "Discovery of a Major Contradiction in Big Bang Cosmology";
and Gentry and Gentry, "The Genuine Cosmic Rosetta."
 Gentry, "Discovery of a Major Contradiction in Big Bang Cosmology."
 Ibid.
 Ibid.
 Gentry, "New Cosmic Center Universe Model"; and ______,
www.theorionfoundation.com/PosterSession/TenDocuments.htm,
"Flaws in the Big Bang Point to GENESIS, A New Millennium Model of the
Cosmos" (28 February 2001). On this date LANL staff removed
these ten papers from the eprint arXiv. Since then LANL, NSF and
Cornell Univ. have conspired to continue to prevent their release.
See www.theorionfoundation.com for details.
 Gentry, "New Cosmic Center Universe Model." The CCU model
accounts for, explains, or predicts a T(z) = 2.73 (1 + z) K relation,
velocity dipole distribution of radiogalaxies, the (1 + z)^{−1} dilation of
SNe Ia light curves, the SZ thermal effect, Olber's paradox, a
~(1 + z)^{−3.56} modified
Tolman relation, SN dimming for z < 1, and
brightening for z > 1, extreme redshift
(z > 10) objects > BBC predictions,
visible universe galaxies with highZ element abundances
independent of z, quasar redshift peaks with different
z_{i} ± Δz_{i}
intervals, a welldefined Hubble constant, H =
√(4πG(2ρ_{v} − ρ)/3),
where ρ_{v} and ρ are vacuum and ordinary mass densities, galaxies
receding from C at distances r with velocities v = dr/dt due to
vacuum gravity repulsion and redshifts given by 1 + z =
(1 + Hr/c)/√(1 −
2(Hr/c)^{2}),
where H = v/r = (dr/dt)/r. Thus, whereas
in theory, BBC cosmologists claimed to believe in their mythical
H = (dℜ/dt)/ℜ
expression, in practice they mimicked my CCU
model and envisioned galaxies receding with v = Hr from our location,
which is near the Center. Ironically then, they actually employed
the CCU model to explain the Hubble redshifts, and that is
why the big bang was able to impersonate the truth as long as it did.
 Robert V. Gentry, See Reports section of www.halos.com for my
reports in Science, Nature, Geophysical Research Letters, Annual
Reviews of Nuclear Science and Physical Review Letters, or the Appendix
of my book Creation's Tiny Mystery, as described on the same
website.
 E. R. Harrison, Cosmology: Science of the Universe, 1st ed. (Cambridge
University Press, 1981) 2756; and Ibid., 2d ed. (Cambridge University Press, 2000), 363.
 Gentry and Gentry, "The Genuine Cosmic Rosetta."
 Harrison, Cosmology: Science of the Universe.
 Joseph Silk, The Big Bang (W. H. Freeman and Company, 1995), 41729.
 Harrison, Cosmology: Science of the Universe.
 Gentry and Gentry, "The Genuine Cosmic Rosetta."
 Harrison, Cosmology: Science of the Universe, 363.
 Gentry and Gentry, "The Genuine Cosmic Rosetta."
 Charles W. Misner, Kip S. Thorne, and John A. Wheeler, Gravitation (W. H. Freeman and Co., 1973).
 Andrew S. Repp, "The Nature of Redshifts and an Argument by
Gentry," Creation Research Society Quarterly 39 (2002): 269;
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/39/39_4/Redshifts.pdf.
 Gentry and Gentry, "The Genuine Cosmic Rosetta"; Silk, The Big
Bang; and Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler, Gravitation.
 Steve Carlip and Ryan Scranton, "Remarks on the 'New Redshift
Interpretation,' " Modern Physics Letters A14 (1999): 71;
www.arxiv.org/abs/astroph/9808021, v. 2 (January 5, 1999).
 Gentry and Gentry, "The Genuine Cosmic Rosetta."
 Ibid.
 A. Einstein, "Die Grundlage der allgemeinen Relativitatstheorie,"
Ann. der Physik 49 (1916): 756. English reprint in The Principle of Relativity
(Dover Publications), 11164; See also Relativity: The Special
and General Theory (New York: Crown Trade Paperbacks), 130.
 J. W. Brault, Abstract, "Gravitational Redshift of Solar Lines," in
Bulletin of the American Physical Society 8 (1963): 28.
 R. V. Pound and J. L. Snider, "Effect of Gravity on Nuclear Resonance,"
Physical Review Letters 13 (1964): 53940.
 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, ed. P. Meystre
and M. O. Scully (New York: Plenum Press, 1981), 343424.
 Ibid. Alley writes:
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 program
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 of their error.
We should not be surprised at such lack of understanding of
some 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.
Consider the following excerpts from Relativity Reexamined by
Leon Brillouin (Academic Press, 1970): ".. . All the clocks at rest
in our inertial frame will give the same frequency definition
with or without gravity potential. The gravity shift is only due
to the motion of the photons" (Brillouin, pp. 834).
Our [Alley referring to his] experiments clearly contradict this
statement. To his credit, at another place in the book, he wrote:
". . . [ improved atomic clocks] would allow us to perform many
important experiments that would tell us definitely what to
think of relativity!" (Brillouin, p. 40).
If Professor Brillouin were still living, perhaps he would accept
our [Alley referring to his] experiments as convincing evidence
for the correctness of Einstein's views on time (Alley, p. 424).
 Carlip and Scranton, "Remarks on the 'New Redshift Interpretation.' "
 J. H. Taylor, "Astronomical and Space Experiments to Test Relativity,"
in General Relativity and Gravitation (Cambridge University
Press, 1987), 214.
 Einstein, Relativity: The Special and General Theory, 130.
 Rafael A. Vera, "A Dilemma in the Physics of Gravitational
Fields," International Journal of Theoretical Physics 2, no. 1 (1981): 19.
 Silk, The Big Bang.
 Steven Weinberg, Gravitation & Cosmology (John Wiley & Sons,
1973), 451.
 John Peacock, Cosmological Physics (Cambridge University Press, 1999), 99.
 Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler, Gravitation.
 P. J. E. Peebles, Principles of Physical Cosmology (Princeton: Princeton
University, 1993), 95.
 Weinberg, Gravitation & Cosmology.
 Peacock, Cosmological Physics.
 Weinberg, Gravitation & Cosmology.
 Peacock, Cosmological Physics.
 Weinberg, Gravitation & Cosmology.
 Peacock, Cosmological Physics.
 Repp, "The Nature of Redshifts and an Argument by Gentry."
 Silk, The Big Bang.
 Ibid.
 C. L. Bennett, et al., "First Year Wilkinson Anisotropy Probe
(WMAP) Observations: Preliminary Maps and Basic Results,"
www.arxiv.org/abs/astroph/0302207.
 Ibid.
 Silk, The Big Bang.
 G. Haisinger, G. Schartel, S. Komasa, "Discovery of an ionized
FeK edge in the z = 3.91 Broad Absorption Line Quasar APM
08279+5255 with XMMNewton," Astrophysics Journal L77 (2002):
573. See note 2 for details why this quasar directly contradicts
BBC's scenario for the properties of high redshift quasars.
 Robert V. Gentry, "A New Redshift Interpretation," Modern
Physics Letters A 12 (1997): 2919;
www.arxiv.org/abs/astroph/9806280.
 Robert V. Gentry, "New Cosmic Center Universe Model Matches
Eight of Big Bang's Major Predictions without the FL Paradigm."
My earlier model, first presented at the 1982 Santa Barbara AAAS
meeting, also involved a nearby universal Center. It is described in
"Radiohalos in a Radiochronological and Cosmological Perspective,"
Proceeding of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Pacific Division,
American Association for the Advancement of Science 1, Part 3 (1984):
38, which is reprinted on pages 26795 of the 4th ed. of my book,
Creation's Tiny Mystery (see
www.halos.com).
 Robert V. Gentry, "Election Implications of Censorship of Disproof
of Big Bang Cosmology (BBC)," Bulletin of American Physical
Society 49 (2004): 163. Depending on reader interest, I may yet post
on www.theorionfoundation.com,
proof of referee and editorial bias at the
highest echelons of Physical Review Letters and other journals in
suppressing publication of the discoveries described herein.
 I assume some readers will be interested in learning a few more
details about how I reconcile my faith with science. I believe the
Bible teaches God created all of the visible universe, including
Earth and all its life forms during the six literal days described in
Genesis and affirmed in Exod. 20:811, and that creation week
occurred only about 6,000 years ago. Evidence for Earth's recent
creation is given in my book
at www.halos.com. The other question
concerns how light from the most distant objects in the visible
universe—about 14 billion light years in my new Cosmic Center
Universe model—could have been seen by Adam and Eve on Day
6. I believe the record of glory coming from the Father to Christ on
the Mount of Transfiguration, as recorded in 2 Peter 1:1618, and
Paul's record of Stephen gazing into heaven and seeing Christ
standing at the right hand of the Father, as recorded in Acts 7:5456,
shows conclusively that the transit time of light from God's
throne—which I believe is at the universal Center within the
Galaxy—was exceedingly brief so as to accomplish the purpose at
hand. Likewise I believe God utilized a similar physical process
both during creation week and continuing thereafter to enormously
reduce the transit time of light from distant celestial
objects, so much so that I believe that light is arriving within a relatively
short time after emission, even from the most distant reaches
of the visible universe. This means we are seeing the universe
almost in real time. I suggest radial changes in vacuum properties
may cause light to tunnel rapidly from distant points to Earth.
Alpha particle tunneling through the nuclear potential barrier is
well known. The differences in time of arrival of light from different
images of lensed quasars do not contradict this because the
delays that are observed are differences in transit time, not a measure
of the transit time itself. Lastly I believe the outer galactic shell,
described in my CCU model as circumscribing the visible universe,
is referenced in the Bible as the ancient heavens (Ps. 68:32, 33; RSV
and NASB), which I believe are the result of a significantly earlier
creation that also included angels as well as many worlds in those
outer galaxies that were, like Earth, created to be inhabited by
unfallen intelligent beings. The latter I associate with the sons of
God referred to in Job 1:6 and 2:1. The fact that galaxies in the CCU
model are physically receding from the nearby Center agrees with
a universe that is described as being stretched out at creation
(Isa. 40:22; 45:12 and 51:13). More details will be given later.
