Big Bang Cosmic Titanic: Cause for Concern?

This abstract alerts physicists to a situation that, unless soon addressed, may yet affect PRL integrity. I refer to Stanley Brown's and DAE Robert Caldwell's rejection of PRL submission LJ12135, A Cosmic Titanic: Big Bang Cosmology Unravels Upon Discovery of Serious Flaws in Its Foundational Expansion Redshift Assumption, by their claim that BB is an established theory while ignoring our paper's Titanic, namely, that BB's foundational spacetime expansion redshifts assumption has now been proven to be irrefutably false because it is contradicted by our seminal discovery that GPS operation unequivocally proves that GR effects do not produce in-flight photon wavelength changes demanded by this central assumption. This discovery causes the big bang to collapse as quickly as did Ptolemaic cosmology when Copernicus discovered its foundational assumption was heliocentric, not geocentric. Additional evidence that something is amiss in PRL's treatment of LJ12135 comes from both Brown and EiC Gene Spouse agreeing to meet at my exhibit during last year's Atlanta APS to discuss this cover-up issue. Sprouse kept his commitment; Brown didn't. Question: If Brown could have refuted my claim of a cover-up, why didn't he come to present it before Gene Sprouse? I am appealing LJ12135's rejection.