Challenge to Big Bang cosmology

This is a follow-up to my previous posts about my book
(Curvature Cosmology: BrownWalker Press)
Many people have told me that while they may be unhappy
with some aspects of Big-Bang cosmology such as inflation
and the failure to find dark matter, it has been so
successful in explaining the observations that they are
reluctant to abandon it until a much better theory is
shown to be valid. I believe that in Curvature Cosmology
I have such a theory that is much simpler than the BB
model and has very few free parameters. It is also easily
refutable.

I am asking for someone to read my book and show where
the theory is incorrect.

What is needed to disprove the Curvature Cosmology model
is to show either that:
1. it violates established physics
2. or my arguments or derivations are seriously wrong
3. or that my interpretations of the observations are incorrect
4. or that there are observations that I have not examined
that invalidate the model.

Since this is a complete cosmological theory it must be judged
within its own paradigm. For example I have been criticized for
suggesting that the background X-ray radiation (in the 10 to
300 kev region) is due to thermal bremstrahhlung because in BB
cosmology the required density is too large. However in Curvature
Cosmology this objection is shown to be groundless.

Although the book is very cheap (only $20) I am will consider
sending a copy to anyone who is willing to provide a complete examination.

I thank you for your consideration.

--
David F. Crawford
(Please remove the bird)
http://www.davidcrawford.bigpondhosting.com

On Mar 31, 9:12 pm, "David Crawford"
wrote:
This is a follow-up to my previous posts about my book
(Curvature Cosmology: BrownWalker Press)
Many people have told me that while they may be unhappy
with some aspects of Big-Bang cosmology such as inflation
and the failure to find dark matter, it has been so
successful in explaining the observations that they are
reluctant to abandon it until a much better theory is
shown to be valid. I believe that in Curvature Cosmology
I have such a theory that is much simpler than the BB
model and has very few free parameters. It is also easily
refutable.

I am asking for someone to read my book and show where
the theory is incorrect.

What is needed to disprove the Curvature Cosmology model
is to show either that:
1. it violates established physics
2. or my arguments or derivations are seriously wrong
3. or that my interpretations of the observations are incorrect
4. or that there are observations that I have not examined
that invalidate the model.

Since this is a complete cosmological theory it must be judged
within its own paradigm. For example I have been criticized for
suggesting that the background X-ray radiation (in the 10 to
300 kev region) is due to thermal bremstrahhlung because in BB
cosmology the required density is too large. However in Curvature
Cosmology this objection is shown to be groundless.

Although the book is very cheap (only $20) I am will consider
sending a copy to anyone who is willing to provide a complete examination.

I thank you for your consideration.

--
David F. Crawford
(Please remove the bird)http://www.davidcrawford.bigpondhosting.com

Other than the likes of myself, in Usenet your nifty theory or
whatever mindset is summarily screwed, regardless of whatever's the
physics or of evidence there is to behold, that is unless you're
sufficiently Jewish (in which case you can literally get away with
premeditated murder).
-
Brad Guth

David Crawford wrote:
This is a follow-up to my previous posts about my book
(Curvature Cosmology: BrownWalker Press)

Most of us have seen far too much silliness in the past, and few will
be motivated to spend much time on alternate cosmologies.

I believe that in Curvature Cosmology
I have such a theory that is much simpler than the BB
model and has very few free parameters. It is also easily
refutable.

You might get some response if you could sketch out a couple of your
postulates and some conclusions that differ from standard cosmology.
For example, where does the microwave background come from, and how
has its temperature changed in the past? Do you predict anything
different for supernova light curves or brightnesses? What age do you
get?

I have been criticized for
suggesting that the background X-ray radiation (in the 10 to
300 kev region) is due to thermal bremstrahhlung because in BB
cosmology the required density is too large.

I agree the theory has to be considered as a self-consistent whole.
However, I didn't think the X-ray background spectrum is consistent
with thermal brehmstrahlung. Isn't it a power law?

David Crawford wrote:
This is a follow-up to my previous posts about my book
(Curvature Cosmology: BrownWalker Press)

Most of us have seen far too much silliness in the past, and few will
be motivated to spend much time on alternate cosmologies.


I agree but in my case I have published most of the ideas in refereed
journals and
I believe that they are physically sound.

I believe that in Curvature Cosmology
I have such a theory that is much simpler than the BB
model and has very few free parameters. It is also easily
refutable.

You might get some response if you could sketch out a couple of your
postulates and some conclusions that differ from standard cosmology.
For example, where does the microwave background come from, and how
has its temperature changed in the past? Do you predict anything
different for supernova light curves or brightnesses? What age do you
get?


When I have done this the postulates are invariable taken out of context and
since they don't agree with big bang cosmology they are dismissed as being
wrong! My motivation for writing the book was to provide all of the
postulates
in the correct context. I repeat that most of the book is about how well the
theory fits all of the cosmological observations. There are full
explanations about
why the usual arguements that condem tired light models are incorrect in
this theory.
In addition the theory is elegant and the mathematics are much simpler than
big bang cosmology. The answers to your other questions is YES. If you look
at
some of my prvious posts in this newsgropu or in sci.astro.research you will
find
a brief summary of the book and a table of contents. Alternatively you may
visit
my website
http://www.davidcrawford.bigpondhosting.com
What i would like is for some serious comsideration. At the very cheap price
of $20
I did not publish the book (Curvature Cosmology: BrownWalker Press) to make
money.
It is available from Amazon and most online book stores.

I have been criticized for
suggesting that the background X-ray radiation (in the 10 to
300 kev region) is due to thermal bremstrahhlung because in BB
cosmology the required density is too large.

I agree the theory has to be considered as a self-consistent whole.
However, I didn't think the X-ray background spectrum is consistent
with thermal brehmstrahlung. Isn't it a power law?

Partly correct. The emission less than about 10 kev and above about 300 kev
is due to discrete sources. However this intermediate range is not well
explained
in big bang cosmology.

"David Crawford" wrote in message news
David Crawford wrote:
This is a follow-up to my previous posts about my book
(Curvature Cosmology: BrownWalker Press)

Most of us have seen far too much silliness in the past, and few will
be motivated to spend much time on alternate cosmologies.


I agree but in my case I have published most of the ideas in refereed
journals and
I believe that they are physically sound.


HAHAHA!
Like pomposity carries weight?
Oh well, at least *you* believe you.

[Potentially jumping into the middle of a discussion ...]
"DC" == David Crawford writes:

DC David Crawford wrote:
This is a follow-up to my previous posts about my book (Curvature
Cosmology: BrownWalker Press)

Most of us have seen far too much silliness in the past, and few
will be motivated to spend much time on alternate cosmologies.

[...]
I have been criticized for suggesting that the background X-ray
radiation (in the 10 to 300 kev region) is due to thermal
bremstrahhlung because in BB cosmology the required density is too
large.

[...] I didn't think the X-ray background spectrum is consistent
with thermal brehmstrahlung. Isn't it a power law?

DC Partly correct. The emission less than about 10 kev and above
DC about 300 kev is due to discrete sources. However this
DC intermediate range is not well explained in big bang cosmology.

Amplifying Steve's comments, you haven't answered his question. Your
prediction is that the spectrum has a certain shape. That's not what
Steve recalls (and I'm too lazy to look up the answer right now).
What is the shape of the spectrum in the 10--300 keV range?

More generally, this is one of the reasons that Steve indicates that
we've seen lots of silliness here. The Big Bang model makes
essentially no prediction about the 10--300 keV portion of the
spectrum. The Big Bang model is that the Universe was hotter and
denser in the past. That's it.

As we look back in time, we see a Universe that is hotter, as measured
by the cosmic microwave background. However, the CMB was generated at
a time when the Universe had a temperature of only a few eV, certainly
nowhere near 10 keV. No (electromagnetic) radiation can reach us from
the time when the Universe had a temperature of 10 keV.

What I suspect you mean is that, if the 10--300 keV part of the
spectrum is due to thermal brehmstrahlung, then the implied matter
density of the Universe is much larger than is allowed by other
measurements.

--
Lt. Lazio, HTML police | e-mail:
No means no, stop rape. | http://patriot.net/%7Ejlazio/
sci.astro FAQ at http://sciastro.astronomy.net/sci.astro.html