Curvature Cosmology: new edition

Hi
Curvature-cosmology is a complete cosmology that is presented as an
alternative to the Big-Bang model. Scientifically it is a much better
theory as listed below.

A draft version of the second edition of Curvature Cosmology.
is freely available from my website
http://www.davidcrawford.bigpondhosting.com
It is a pdf file 161 pages and 1.18 Mbytes:

It contains two papers and referee's comments
"Type 1a supernovae agree with a static universe" arXiv:0901.4169
"No Evidence of Time Dilation in Gamma-Ray Burst Data" arXiv:0901.4172


It is elegant and mathematically much simpler.
It is refutable.
It obeys the perfect cosmological principle of being uniform in both
space and time.
It is additional to general relativity and quantum mechanics and does
not require any changes to either theory.

For homogeneous plasma, it has one free parameter - the density.

Hubble's constant is determined by the density.
Predicted: H = 64 km.s^-1Mpc^-1,Observed: H = 63.1 km.s^-1Mpc^-1

It predicts an accurate value for the temperature of the X-ray
background
radiation. Predicted: 2.56x10^9 K, Observed: (2.62±0.04)x10^9 K.

It predicts an accurate value for the temperature of the microwave
background radiation.
Predicted 2.18 K (up to 2.74 K with more heavier elements), Observed
2.725 K.

Analysis of Gamma-Ray Burst and supernovae data provides strong
evidence
that the universe is not expanding.
There is excellent agreement with many cosmological observations
without
the need to invoke ad hoc additional hypotheses such as evolution and
dark matter.
It can explain many minor observations such as the K-effect for bright
stars.
It accurately predicts the observed rate for the solar neutrino flux.
It can explain the Pioneer 10 anomalous acceleration.
Laboratory tests of curvature-redshift are possible.

I believe that one of the major reasons why I cannot get astronomers
to seriously consider my theory of "Curvature Cosmology" is that it
requires a major paradigm shift. Often they compare a measurement that
they are familiar with from their own work with my result and see that
there is poor agreement. This arises because although the raw
measurements may be identical the processing of those measurements
either explicitly or implicitly involves the use of a cosmological
model.

A trivial example of this is the determination of Hubble's
constant from Cepheid variables (Freedman et al 2000, ApJ, 553,
47). A simple analysis of 23 distances and velocities (I have
omitted NGC3031 since it seems anomalous) provides a ratio of
94 km/s/Mpc. However in curvature cosmology the universe is
static and the redshift is proportional to the integral of the
square root of the density of the medium along the light path.
Thus there will be a contribution to the "velocity" from the
halo of our galaxy and any halo in the host galaxy. A crude
method to eliminate this is to fit for a constant offset as
well as the Hubble ratio. The result for the same data is H =
74 km/s/Mpc with an offset of 47 km/s. Since the effect of the
halo and other inhomogeneties in the medium will seriously
change the local flow model and this result. Thus in a simple
situation where although the distances are small the assumed
cosmological model can have a significant effect. (Note that
the values provided are purely there to illustrate the effect
of a paradigm shift and not to be used as actual estimates of H).


Regards
David F. Crawford

On Mar 13, 2:11*pm, David Crawford wrote:

.... let's add in pertinent links:
http://arxiv.org/abs/0901.4172

http://arxiv.org/abs/0901.4169

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9904131

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9803009

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9407028

Authored by one person, no recorded review, not finding that these
documents are referenced in other papers.

I wonder how he gets "tired light" outside of "gravitationally bound"
systems, but not inside... Hmmmmm...

David A. Smith

"dlzc" wrote in message
...
On Mar 13, 2:11 pm, David Crawford wrote:

.... let's add in pertinent links:
http://arxiv.org/abs/0901.4172

http://arxiv.org/abs/0901.4169

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9904131

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9803009

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9407028

Authored by one person, no recorded review, not finding that these
documents are referenced in other papers.

I wonder how he gets "tired light" outside of "gravitationally bound"
systems, but not inside... Hmmmmm...

David A. Smith
===================================
I like the advertising bullets he writes:

It is elegant and mathematically much simpler.
Washes whiter.
It is refutable.
Colours stay fast.
It obeys the perfect cosmological principle of being uniform in both
space and time.
Cleaner fuel, cleaner engine, less air pollution.
Reduces your carbon footprint.
It is additional to general relativity and quantum mechanics and does
not require any changes to either theory.
Donate to prostrate cancer awareness. (I really love that one.
They want to me to pay for their advertising so that they can
make me aware.)