The frequency of an atomic clock is driven by the energy difference between excited states of an atom. Since the frequency of an atomic clock is a function of the gravitational potential, the energy difference must likewise be a function of the gravitational potential. Thus, the Pound-Rebka experiment rather than showing that a falling photon picked up energy, simply showed a higher frequency by comparison to a lower reference frequency. The frequency (energy) of a falling photon is unchanged. This shows that the General Theory of Relativity is wrong—gravity does not act on all forms of energy. This revision of gravitational effects is explored. Significant implications arise and potential explanations for significant ongoing problems in cosmology are developed.

A fallacy in the equivalence between acceleration and gravity effects is revealed. This fallacy undermines the general relativity theory (GRT), which is based upon that equivalence. It is shown that the real equivalence in local physical phenomena is between the effects of gravitational potential energy and those of kinetic energy. Using this new equivalence, a new theory of gravity is logically developed from known experimental results. This new gravity theory implies an absolute ether and, when embedded within a modified Lorentz ether theory, also satisfies the experiments usually explained by the special relativity theory. It is shown that the new theory satisfies all the classical tests satisfied by GRT. In addition, a number of previously unexplained physical phenomena are potentially explained by the new theory. Finally, a spacecraft test of the new theory is suggested.

A gedanken experiment is described that exposes an apparent conflict between the treatment of proper timekeeping on geodesics according to general relativity theory, as customarily understood, and empirical evidence such as that of the Global Positioning System. The paradox is resolved by noting that there may be many geodesics between two spacetime events, only one of which represents a global maximum of proper time. The cardinality of such nonuniqueness (which may be that of the continuum) at first seems to violate the property that a geodesic between two events always incurs a (local) extremum of proper time. However, to first order (hence to observationally significant order), all free-fall orbits that have the same period have the same proper time, so no first variations of the orbits within our solution set change the proper time—a consistency check on the geodesic (extremum) interpretation of such orbits.

A new technique for ambiguity resolution at long distances is described. It uses the code and carrier measurements on three frequencies in an unusual way. Specifically, it uses an averaging method to arrive at an accurate ambiguity-resolved and refraction-corrected measurement that largely overcomes the disadvantage of the close spacing between the L2 and the L5 frequencies. Of course, it works better when the second and third frequencies are farther apart, such as the Galileo L5 and E6 frequencies. The technique is unique in that there is no requirement to resolve the ambiguities of the fundamental L1, L2 and L5 carrier phase measurements. Instead a wide-lane, but noisy, refraction-corrected carrier phase measurement is formed from two of the three widelane carrier phase differences formed from the difference of pairs of the fundamental phase measurements. These differences are ambiguity resolved using ionosphericmatching code measurements and are then combined into a refraction-corrected composite measurement. While this wide-lane composite is quite noisy, it can be smoothed with a refraction-corrected, composite measurement with much lower noise.

The ambiguities of this low-noise composite measurement are not required since it is simply used to smooth the noise in the wide-lane refraction-corrected composite. By not requiring the stepping from one ambiguity-resolved carrier phase measurement to another, it is largely immune to clock differences at the different frequencies which can sabotage the stepped approach. In addition, because the initial ambiguity resolution is done with wide-lane combinations, the reliability of the ambiguity resolution is robust and relatively insensitive to the presence of small code-carrier biases.

The geometry-free approach of individually resolving the ambiguities removes the tropospheric refraction from the ambiguity resolution problem. Thus, the final smoothed, refraction-corrected composite measurement is insensitive to both ionospheric and tropospheric refraction effects. Though the smoothing process may require some minutes to reach the optimal accuracy level, the result should significantly extend the ranges over which RTK results can be obtained without requiring the modeling of the ionosphere.

The first major section looks at the equivalence principle in the light of “falling” electromagnetic radiation. In this first section the equivalence principle is defined and the arguments of Einstein, Feynman and Clifford Will are presented. Each of the arguments is refuted and the GPS evidence plays a significant role in that refutation. The section is closed with a strange quote from the “GPS Bible” regarding the equivalence principle. This quote is followed by a transitional argument to the next section using two clocks, fore and aft, in an accelerating rocket.

The second major section deals with the relationship of the equivalence principle to infinitesimal Lorentz Transformations (ILTs). Goldstein, Meisner Thorne and Wheeler, Muller, and Ashby and Spilker are quoted in support of ILTs. Goy provides a valid alternative to the ILTs. The difference between ILTs and the “clock hypothesis” of Goy is explored. Evidence from multiple sources (including GPS) is cited in support of the clock hypothesis. This evidence contradicts ILTs. The section is closed with the suggestion for a fairly simple experiment which could remove any doubt as to the validity (or lack thereof) of the ILTs.

The third major section returns to the “falling” electromagnetic radiation concept and looks at some of the huge implications which can be derived from the failure of the strong and weak equivalence principles. After exploring some of those implications, alternative apparent equivalences are proposed which are consistent with the evidence.

The paper concludes with a brief look at some experimental evidence which has not yet been explained in a manner consistent with main stream physics theories. Suggested solutions to the anomalous data are provided.