Banner
    Cosmology in context: A summary of big bang, inflationary cosmology.
    By Hontas Farmer | March 3rd 2013 07:45 AM | 20 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
    About Hontas

    Currently I am a adjunct professor in physical sciences at the City Colleges of Chicago with a MS from DePaul University. My research focuses on...

    View Hontas's Profile

    The technical details of Big Bang, inflationary cosmology, and selected alternative theories are on offer.  Popular accounts of the big bang theory, cosmic inflation, and the creation of the universe often leave out details a consumer of science would like to know.  Scholarly monographs published the old fashioned way can cost hundreds of dollars per copy, and too often are locked away in university libraries.  For general public availability, I present my monograph on the cosmology of the early universe.


    Cosmology in Context:current Studies of the Early Universe Through Astronomy and Particle Physics, Experiments, Observations, and Theories.   http://vixra.org/abs/1303.0010  (PDF )

    This is a comprehensive review of thepublished research in cosmology focusing on the time period from the big bang tothe last scattering of cosmic microwave background radiation. This is a periodof approximately 380,000 years. Theoretical, observational, and experimentalresearch with a bearing on cosmology will be covered. First, a time line of events from thebig bang to last scattering of CMB photons will be provided. Then, a review oftheoretical research related to the big bang, cosmic inflation, and baryogenesis will becovered. Next, a review of observational as well as experimental work on the cosmic microwavebackground, big bang nucleosynthesis, and efforts to directly detect gravitational waves. After that, alook at research on the edge of accepted cosmology such as loop quantum cosmology, and thepossible time variation of fundamental constants.


     Students of cosmology or those who justwant to be informed on a more technical level will find thiscomposition quite enjoyable.

    Only Appendix C, which I am trying to publish as a paper by itself is my original research.    The rest of this is secondary research.  I researched all of this , wrote it, and illustrated it as part of a possible masters thesis project at DePaul university.  For many reasons the project was abandoned in 2011.  Mainly different visions for what this should be and personality problems.    The university does not endorse this monograph, but let it be known without their resources  and the advice of faculty it could not have been written.    

    Since then I have been working on a second project which deals with massive star formation.  Massive star formation as traced by MASERs.  When it is ready to defend I will probably post about it here.   It will have the advantage of being defended and, if all goes to plan, passed.  It will have the disadvantage of being locked away in a university library.   There has to be a better way to do things. 

    I welcome any constructive suggestionsfor how to improve this work. A good thing about archiving on awebsite like Vixra and having the privilege of blogging at Science2.0 is that I can revise what I have written very easily and gettransparent and meaningful feedback.

    UPDATE:

    One person I mention and give credit to in my book is father George Lemaitre.  Lemaitre was one of the fathers of the big bang theory.  What strikes me hardest about his story is that he was a man of faith and science, and was not taken seriously for decades.  Then he was proven correct.  

    Comments

    Just a heads up. The first pary of your "link" really isn't a link. You must click on the vixra portion in order to get it to work.
    Thanks for the link also, and good luck in your further studies.

    Hfarmer
    Thanks for the tip.  I hadn't noticed. 
    Science advances as much by mistakes as by plans.
    Dr. Ari Brynjolfsson was the head of the Radiation facilities for the Danish Government, US Army, and trained thousands of nuclear inspectors for the IAEA. Today, he reviews papers on Plasma Spectroscopy and Astrophysical Redshifts for the National Science Foundation. His research into Ionic Spectroscopy combined with studies regarding the Electron Density of the Interstellar Medium and an understanding of the Brehmsstrahlung removes any and all support for the so-called Big Bang Inflation Theory of Lemaitre. Even Hubble & Zwicky believed that the so-called Redshift effect may be a result of a Compton-type Effect. Today, Plasma Spectroscopy has verified that the Redshift mechanism for Absorption & Emission lines directly correlates to the Electron Plasma Density.

    There is no axiomatic basis of support for Big Bang Inflation or Creation.

    http://plasmaredshift.org
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bremsstrahlung
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stark_effect
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_effect
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compton_scattering
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raman_scattering

    To learn more about Plasma Cosmology, check out head Plasma Los Alamos research Anthony Peratt's Physics of the Plasma Universe:
    http://www.amazon.com/Physics-Plasma-Universe-Anthony-Peratt/dp/1461276667/

    and also read Alfven's classic Cosmic Electrodynamics:
    http://ia600703.us.archive.org/23/items/CosmicalElectrodynamics/Alfven-C...

    Lerner's "The Big Bang Never Happened"
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/118229068/The-Big-Bang-Never-Happened

    Get the facts and put an end to Lemaitre's Creationism. Check out Plasma Cosmology & the Electric Universe.

    Hfarmer
    The basis for the Big Bang theory is not axiomatic.  It is based on observations of the redshifts of galaxies.  If a phenomena like the one you describe was the reason then they would not vary on cosmological scales in the regular and predictable way that they do. 
    Science advances as much by mistakes as by plans.
    Easy, they don't. The Quasar observations by Dr. Halton Arp have done more than enough to disprove the Redshift = Distance paradigm. Dr. Halton Arp produced a variety of different Astronomical Catalogs, recording hundreds, if not thousands or tens of thousands of observations of Galaxies that violate the Big Bang Creationist paradigm. The Quantum Effect of Plasma Redshift, shown by Dr. Ari Brynjolfsson. This research shows that the Electron Plasma Density surrounding stellar objects bestows an Intrinsic Redshift value and that the Electron Density of Interstellar & Intergalactic Space can be measured by Radio Telescope & X-Ray Telescope observations.

    The Hubble Distance relationship can then be derived as a function of the avg. Electron Plasma Density of the interstellar & intergalactic medium.

    The Plasma Theory of Hubble Redshift distance has been derived by world leading experts in spectroscopy.

    http://www.plasmaphysics.org.uk/research/redshift.htm

    Dr. Ari Brynjolfsson has shown how to derive the distance relationships and the Hubble Constant which have been validated by observations of the Electron densities of the interstellar & intergalactic medium as measured by an array of telescopes. The process has been experimentally verified in the lab.

    Tully-Fisher observations of redshift are accounted for by eMOND effects with gravitational changes as radial distance from the galactic center.

    Big Bang Creationism has no where left to hide, except in the Black Hole of extinction - Black Hole - also an effect of Plasma Electrodynamics... however has been stolen from them by the flawless logic of mathematician extraordinaire Stephen Crothers:

    pt. 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q185InpONK4
    pt 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHZ5O0jTH8A

    Dr. Brynjolfsson shows the Hubble Distance Relation derivation:
    (section 3)
    http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0411666.pdf

    For those interested in Laboratory verification of the Plasma Redshift effect, see Chen's laboratory research published in the International Journal of Electron Optics:

    http://journals2.scholarsportal.info/details.xqy?uri=/00304026/v120i0010...

    The basic axiom of the Big Bang Theory is that Redshift values results from the Doppler Effect. This has been proven not-true by Quantum Theory regarding the interactions of Photons & Electrons in Plasma. An Investigation for the Mechanism of Redshift in Absorption & Emission Lines and the differences between them as a result of the Elementary Process of Bremsstrahlung have been demonstrated thousands, if not millions of times in Plasma & Ionic Spectroscopy Labs.

    Hfarmer
    The problem with what you are saying is it does not explain why the red shift of galaxies increases with distance.  If this was just due to plasma physics why would distance from us matter at all? 
    Science advances as much by mistakes as by plans.
    Your statement is in error. Redshift increases with distance because it is being piped through an interstellar/galactic medium which is saturated with an avg. electron density. The longer the distance traveled through the electron medium, the greater the redshift. Please see my other replies for further resources.

    The redshift of the light is directly proportional to the distance traveled through the interstellar electron medium.

    The interstellar temperature of space is given off by the interaction of interstellar plasmas through the Bremsstrahlung mechanism which links the Cosmic Microwave Absorption Lines to the X-Ray Emission Lines. The Big Bang Creationism is no more responsible for the CMB as it is for the existence of Planet Earth. "The CMB is a product of the Big Bang" this is an assertion fallacy that contains as little an explanation as "The Earth is a product of the Big Bang" neither of these explanations provide any mechanism by which the formations naturally occur. Interstellar Space Plasma reacts with light through the process of Brehmsstrahlung emitting x-rays consistent with measurements of the Interstellar X-Ray Background Radiation. Big Bang Creationism has nothing to do with it.

    Gravitational waves, as ripples in spacetime... Gravitational forces are a 4th Order Electromagnetic Effect, best derived mathematically by Dr. Asis:
    http://www.ifi.unicamp.br/~assis/gravitation-4th-order-p314-331%281995%2...

    General effects and failures are satisfied easily by a variety of different eMOND theories (electically MOdified Newtonian Dynamics)

    Hfarmer
    If you read my book you will see the connection between the Big Bang and the CMB.  The impression you have comes from the very detail poor way the subject is covered in popular presentations. 
    Science advances as much by mistakes as by plans.
    "radiation" is emitted by an object. For instance, a sample of Uranium "emits" radiation. The H-alpha emissions of the CMB are likewise an emission. They are produced by plasma radiation effects. Atomic and Sub-atomic plasmas make up a real-life aether permeating all of space. Light from stars interacts with the plasma resulting in electron excitation. No origin myth is necessary for an explanation of the CMB or the CXRayB.

    Big Bang Creationism offers no satisfactory explanation for the Background X-Ray Radiation.
    Dr. Lerner provides a more than suitable refutation of the Creationism CMB paradigm, in his Cosmology Quest documentary.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L01PU3r6fmA

    The CMB was not a prediction of the Big Bang advocates. It was in reality, predicted by a Tired Light Theorist named Guillame and is sourced here by the head Plasma Physicist at Los Alamos National Labs here, if you speak french: http://plasmauniverse.info/downloads/Ch.Guillame.1896.pdf

    I do not see how it is possible for a Creationist like Lemaitre to derive a theory in the 1920s to predict the CMB when that theory was highly recognized as a proposal from 1896 by the famous scientist Guillame.

    Hfarmer
    Again, even if everything you have written were true, why would we observe a regular and predictable increase in red shift with distance?   
    Science advances as much by mistakes as by plans.
    Not sure if I need to respond to this post since I responded to others very similar to it already but just in case those were missed I'll respond again.

    The Red-Shift / Distance relationship results from a calibration which most commonly uses Cepheid Variables. Using these calibration parameters, we can derive the Hubble Distance relation for Cepheids & the like and show that Redshift is proportional to the distance traveled through the Interstellar Electron Medium. Dr. Byrnjolfsson and others produce a wonderful derivation at http://plasmaredshift.org//Article_Archive.html

    This way of interpreting Redshift allows for an Intrinsic Redshift component for objects with redshift anomalies like Quasars which defy explanation by Big Bang Creationists. Quasars obviously can not be expected to follow the same redshift rules as Cepheid Variables. They have a higher localized region of Electron Density that bestows an intrinsic redshift to them.

    Hfarmer
    The problem with your argument is that the distance calibrations can be done with many other phenomena.  
    i.e. type IA supernovae.  These can be detected at much greater distances than Quasars.  We can even detect these in relatively nearby active galaxies which gives us a way of knowing how far the quasars are.  

    I'm not convinced by your arguments.   They may prove to be partially true at some point. That does happen.  However the concept of the universe starting from a hotter denser state, which then transitioned to a less dense cooler state is not going away.  There is way WAY too much evidence for that. 
    Science advances as much by mistakes as by plans.
    What evidence? We've already disproved all of the evidence. We've shown that the evidence collaborates with natural explanations that don't require a creation event. In the posts in this discussion, we have already dismantled every assertion fallacy claim made by big bang creationism proponents. These things i have mentioned have already been scientifically confirmed and validated by observation in the lab and through telescopes. Popular acceptance of new discoveries always lags behind cutting edge research. Type IA supernovas are best accounted for by the Plasma Redshift phenomenon as well, these phenomenon say nothing about the creation of the Universe. Physical processes model the behavior of natural objects within the Universe, postulating about "the Universe" as a whole is an undefined entity with undefined boundaries in both time & space and is non-sense.

    Supernova IA observations confirm the Plasma Redshift and the Quantum Redshift mechanisms and present a very huge problem for the creation ex nihilo advocates of inflation and big bang. Allan Guth himself can not rescue this creation paradigm from its timely demise.

    Supernova IA corroborates Plasma Redshift observations confirmed in space & in the lab.
    http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0406437.pdf

    Hfarmer
    Well what can I say.  Not everything that makes it onto the ArXiv is golden. 
    The problem with that model is not only that it does not fit what we know about redshifts, it does not fit what we know about the CMB.  Which if you read my book was in fact predicted long before it was discovered.  

    How would one explain a uniform cosmic microwave background indicative of a very hot black body state a long time ago (or far away).  One which was gamma ray hot...those gamma rays then redshift down to the microwave spectrum.  Explain that.  Explain the CMB with your model.  

    Even VSL as strange as it is can do that. 
    Science advances as much by mistakes as by plans.
    Not everything that makes into Vixra is golden either. Before you criticize Dr. Ari, I must ask, how many Manhattan Project scientists trained you? How many Nuclear Weapon Stockpiles have you been placed in charge of?

    Ari is right. The science you are espousing is left over garbage from the 1920s.