$1000.00 reward...

wrote in
"|-|erc" wrote in
wrote
I posted this to sci/physics.relativity and got no response. This is a
serious offer.
Subject: $1000.00 reward...
From: (Dwhig265)
Date: 10/8/03 2:25 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:

... to the first person who can disprove or even offer a convincing
argument
against the main point of my theory (which follows), that the center
of the
universe is located at the center of gravity of our local group of
galaxies.

Because a fixed reference frame would make it theoretically possible to surpass the speed of
light.

A space ship starts at the center moving out and collects unlimited space dust which it ionises
for
propulsion using essentially unlimited nuclear power.

The space ship continuously accelerates. From the fixed reference point it appears to
reduce its acceleration to keep under the speed of light, even though its continuously
accelerating.

After 1 year an astronaut jetisons, while he and the spaceship are at 99.9% C. From the
astronauts
p.o.v. the ship continues to accelerate, after 1 year to another 99.9% C.

But with a fixed reference frame, and abiding by the C ceiling, the astronaut and space ship
will barely leave each other, despite the great impulse generated by the ship. No matter
how much the ships thrusters kick in the astronaut will be close by the ship (a contradiction),
as neither can move noticably faster away from the fixed reference frame.

Herc
paypal put dashes in a-s-t-r-o-n-o-m-y


Hi Herc,
Thanks for the reply. Before you can give me a convincing argument,
you must show why my contention that galaxies are moving away from us
far in excess of "c" as evidenced by IaSne observations, is in error.
Regards, Dwain W. Higginbotham

delegated to some groups that know the answer to that...

I'm not familiar with that one, a decade ago there were the observations of galaxy cores
ejecting matter moving aparently faster than light, but the conclusion was that the curvature
around the cores caused a lensing effect, an illusion of surpassing C.

The authors to the earliest set of replies that can answer this mans questions to his satisfaction
can have 10% of the reward each!

Herc

"|-|erc" wrote in message
...
wrote in
"|-|erc" wrote in
wrote
I posted this to sci/physics.relativity and got no response. This is
a
serious offer.
Subject: $1000.00 reward...
From: (Dwhig265)
Date: 10/8/03 2:25 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:

... to the first person who can disprove or even offer a convincing
argument
against the main point of my theory (which follows), that the center
of the
universe is located at the center of gravity of our local group of
galaxies.

Because a fixed reference frame would make it theoretically possible
to surpass the speed of
light.

A space ship starts at the center moving out and collects unlimited
space dust which it ionises
for
propulsion using essentially unlimited nuclear power.

The space ship continuously accelerates. From the fixed reference
point it appears to
reduce its acceleration to keep under the speed of light, even though
its continuously
accelerating.

After 1 year an astronaut jetisons, while he and the spaceship are at
99.9% C. From the
astronauts
p.o.v. the ship continues to accelerate, after 1 year to another 99.9%
C.

But with a fixed reference frame, and abiding by the C ceiling, the
astronaut and space ship
will barely leave each other, despite the great impulse generated by
the ship. No matter
how much the ships thrusters kick in the astronaut will be close by
the ship (a contradiction),
as neither can move noticably faster away from the fixed reference
frame.

Herc
paypal put dashes in a-s-t-r-o-n-o-m-y


Hi Herc,
Thanks for the reply. Before you can give me a convincing argument,
you must show why my contention that galaxies are moving away from us
far in excess of "c" as evidenced by IaSne observations, is in error.
Regards, Dwain W. Higginbotham

delegated to some groups that know the answer to that...

I'm not familiar with that one, a decade ago there were the observations
of galaxy cores
ejecting matter moving aparently faster than light, but the conclusion was
that the curvature
around the cores caused a lensing effect, an illusion of surpassing C.

The authors to the earliest set of replies that can answer this mans
questions to his satisfaction
can have 10% of the reward each!

Herc

It is possible for two objects in an expanding universe to be moving away
from each other at a rate greater than C. The rule in general relativity is
that an object cannot be moving locally faster than c. In other words, as
long as an object isn't moving faster than c through spacetime, it's fine.
There's no limit to how fast spacetime can expand, and so the separation
between two objects can increase at a rate greater than c globally, despite
the fact that neither object is moving anywhere near c.

And I wouldn't really count on him coming through on that reward.

"|-|erc" wrote in message
...
wrote in
"|-|erc" wrote in
wrote
I posted this to sci/physics.relativity and got no response. This is
a
serious offer.
Subject: $1000.00 reward...
From: (Dwhig265)
Date: 10/8/03 2:25 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:

... to the first person who can disprove or even offer a convincing
argument
against the main point of my theory (which follows), that the center
of the
universe is located at the center of gravity of our local group of
galaxies.

Because a fixed reference frame would make it theoretically possible
to surpass the speed of
light.

A space ship starts at the center moving out and collects unlimited
space dust which it ionises
for
propulsion using essentially unlimited nuclear power.

The space ship continuously accelerates. From the fixed reference
point it appears to
reduce its acceleration to keep under the speed of light, even though
its continuously
accelerating.

After 1 year an astronaut jetisons, while he and the spaceship are at
99.9% C. From the
astronauts
p.o.v. the ship continues to accelerate, after 1 year to another 99.9%
C.

But with a fixed reference frame, and abiding by the C ceiling, the
astronaut and space ship
will barely leave each other, despite the great impulse generated by
the ship. No matter
how much the ships thrusters kick in the astronaut will be close by
the ship (a contradiction),
as neither can move noticably faster away from the fixed reference
frame.

Herc
paypal put dashes in a-s-t-r-o-n-o-m-y


Hi Herc,
Thanks for the reply. Before you can give me a convincing argument,
you must show why my contention that galaxies are moving away from us
far in excess of "c" as evidenced by IaSne observations, is in error.
Regards, Dwain W. Higginbotham

delegated to some groups that know the answer to that...

I'm not familiar with that one, a decade ago there were the observations
of galaxy cores
ejecting matter moving aparently faster than light, but the conclusion was
that the curvature
around the cores caused a lensing effect, an illusion of surpassing C.

The authors to the earliest set of replies that can answer this mans
questions to his satisfaction
can have 10% of the reward each!

Herc

It is possible for two objects in an expanding universe to be moving away
from each other at a rate greater than C. The rule in general relativity is
that an object cannot be moving locally faster than c. In other words, as
long as an object isn't moving faster than c through spacetime, it's fine.
There's no limit to how fast spacetime can expand, and so the separation
between two objects can increase at a rate greater than c globally, despite
the fact that neither object is moving anywhere near c.

And I wouldn't really count on him coming through on that reward.

"Mark Palenik" wrote
It is possible for two objects in an expanding universe to be moving away
from each other at a rate greater than C. The rule in general relativity is
that an object cannot be moving locally faster than c. In other words, as
long as an object isn't moving faster than c through spacetime, it's fine.
There's no limit to how fast spacetime can expand, and so the separation
between two objects can increase at a rate greater than c globally, despite
the fact that neither object is moving anywhere near c.

And I wouldn't really count on him coming through on that reward.


The Truman trying to reach Eve has tried 5,000 plans already, no use doing
nothing and letting me get spied on for another 5 years for your free entertainment.

That type of movement only happens at opposite sides of the universe, and is
ALWAYS movement AWAY from ANYTHING, hence it cannot be OBSERVED
at faster than C, by nature of limits to speed of observations at C.

i.e. 2 trains moving away from each other, one sends a messenger to the other on
foot, it never reaches the other train. he claims the faster than C is observed.
faster than C EXPANSION would not be observable.

Here's the full post for anyone, I get half the grand!

Herc


************************************************** **
.... to the first person who can disprove or even offer a convincing argument
against the main point of my theory (which follows), that the center of the
universe is located at the center of gravity of our local group of galaxies. If
I get no response within 24 hours, I offer to put the theory and the money up
for debate before the moderated group and abide by the decision of the majority
of referees, providing that, in the absence of proof, the "convincing argument"
is made in plain English, understandable by anyone with average intelligence.
Dwain W. Higginbotham

ON AN ABSOLUTE REFERENCE FRAME
By Dwain W. Higginbotham

I believe there is an absolute reference frame with every intuitive bone in my
body. By "absolute reference frame" I mean one stationary spot in the universe
to which every particle in the universe relates motionwise. This spot would
have to be the center of the universe. I have been searching for this frame
about 40 years, and other people a lot longer, and none of us to any avail
until now. In my efforts I have discovered certain things regarding this quest
which I believe are known to no one else. The purpose of the following paper is
to copyright these ideas for myself and perhaps get some feedback from anyone
that has an interest. I started out agreeing with the concept of an expanding universe, but
disagreeing with the idea that the expansion had no center. I therefore
conceived of a big bang type universe that expanded from a definite center. I
initially conceived of it banging continually since a one time big bang leaves
the question "what came before" unanswered. I immediately got feedback
regarding entropy which caused me to incorporate the idea that the universe
recycles, and today with confidence I say that the universe is the only
"system" in existence and as such, cannot react with any other system,
adiabatically or otherwise. Zero net entropy in such a system is mandatory and
the universe must recycle and therefore is the only perpetual motion machine of
the second kind. To accomplish this recycling I envisioned the universe having
two aspects. The first being the material/spatial aspect we live in consisting
of less than 10% of the "stuff" of the universe. I called the second aspect,
consisting of more than 90% of the "stuff", the quantum aspect. The universe
recycles out of the quantum aspect into the material/spatial aspect through a
central white hole. This was somewhat prophetic in that today the consensus is
there is a "dark energy" part of the universe, in about the aforementioned
quantity. Everything went along just fine and I was able to make my conception
work swimmingly, agreeing with all observations, Including the fact that most
galaxies are "apparently" hurtling away from each other, most of them in excess
of light speed. I say apparently, because in my conceptual universe with a
definite center, the galaxies, after they formed up out of the H/He clouds
emerging out of the center would continue to accelerate away from the center
with the older ones going much faster than the newer ones relative to the
center and spreading out sideways as well. It was easy to conceive of the Milky
Way galaxy being far enough away from the center that everything looked
isotropic from our viewpoint. But in this scenario, looking back toward the
center we would not be able to see superluminally red shifted galaxies because
our galaxy would be outrunning EMR from galaxies in that direction and
conversely, in the opposite direction, superluminally red shifted galaxies
would be outrunning EMR produced by our galaxy and observers in those galaxies
would not be able to see us but we would be able to see them because we would
eventually run into EMR they emitted. Also, if this scenario were correct, we
would be able to tell the direction to the center was opposite to the direction
of the highest red shifted galaxies and the red shifts would decrease to about
90 degrees from the highest where no superluminal red shifts would be observable.
The fact is of course that the Hubble telescope has observed galaxies with
red shifts indicating speeds in excess of 5.8 times light speed in opposite
directions and both observed fields appear to be isotropic. The only scenario
compatible with these observations is that the center of the universe is at the
center of gravity of our local group and I believe I am the first person to
come to this realization. I got an argument when this was first written that
"z" numbers weren't percentages of light speed. IaSne observations give proof
positive that z of 120% and probably 170% are exact. I have every confidence
that as our telescopes see farther, greater values of z will be consistent. To
any who still maintain something else occurs at "relativistic" speeds I say, if
170% isn't relativistic, I don't know what is! Additionally, I imagine the "z"
term was around before the advent of our ability to find hundreds of supernovae
and I think it is remarkable that the estimates of speed according to the
amount of red shift were confirmed so dramatically.
This realization shoots down the idea of a continuously recycling white hole
but even better, it means periodic eruptions, incorporating "inflation", with
the last one being when our galaxy was born around 13 billion years ago. When
its time for another one the white hole instantly takes over an area about as
large as the space in the middle of our local group and through some sort of
built in DNA, the quantum aspect instantly changes some of its "dark energy" to
quarks, electrons, and the forces of nature which spontaneously form hydrogen,
helium, and a few light element atoms. We know of many examples where matter is
transformed into energy in tremendous explosions. I know of no instance where
tremendous amounts of energy are transformed into matter. I believe only Mother
Nature can accomplish this feat and I see no necessity for any sort of wasteful
explosion. I believe this process produces only enough heat for the newly
created atoms to exist in a gaseous form and hopefully, not vaporize previously
formed galaxies. It doesn't bode too well for us though, because the newly
formed H/He clouds will start expanding and displace us from the central perch
we have enjoyed for so many billions of years and when we start to approach
light speed relative to the center, Mother Nature may have some surprises in
store for us! CMBR in this case is not relict radiation from a hot big bang. I
believe it is an excitation of the quantum aspect background around galaxies or
bound groups, caused by gravitational energy and varies in temperature from one
group to another. For instance Coma, with a thousand galaxies in about the same
amount of space as our local group radiates at x ray wavelengths.
To continue, when the eruption of our birth occurred, the newly formed ball
of atoms started to expand with the outer layers moving faster than successive
ones and started to form galaxies earlier than the inner layers, or there may
indeed have been an "inflationary" epoch. Also, the material for forming
galaxies becomes less as you get to the center of the ball leaving only enough
for forty or so in our local group at the center, and contributing to the
"isotropic" effect.
We have a lot of work ahead in accurately determining the relationship between
red shift and age and distance. Red shift is an indication of the speed of
recession between an observer and a light emitting object. It tells you nothing
about the distance. If I understand it correctly, astronomers believe all
galaxies are receding from each other at the same rate which they call the
"Hubble constant". They then multiply this rate by what they think is the age
of the universe to arrive at a distance factor coupled with the red shift. I
think this system was devised because Einsteins' dictate was that the universe
looks the same to every observer in it wherever situated and I just got through
telling you, only galaxies near the center have the isotropic view we have.
Everyone else, if there even is anyone else, sees something different. There
have been many other machinations invoked to attempt to explain the universe in
conformity with Einstein. The most egregious being the dictate that nothing
exceeds light speed. Ia supernovae observations PROVE beyond the shadow of a
doubt that galaxies are receding from each other at many times light speed and
this fact does not change in the slightest even if the galaxies were standing
still and the space between them was expanding. I offer the following recent
evidence in support of my idea that the Hubble constant is useless. I want to
thank Nick Suntzeff, a member of one of the supernova teams, for supplying some
supernova data and my analysis follows. Astronomers are finding IaSne around z
= 1 are not behaving properly and appear brighter than expected. That means
simply that the calculated DISTANCE is in error and that the observed IaSn is
closer than expected. In 1998, the "discovery of the year" was that the
expansion of the universe was accelerating because IaSne at around z = .6 were
dimmer than expected. Here again using the useless Hubble constant yardstick.
The RATE of expansion of the universe has never changed. Its just picking up
speed the farther away from the center you go.
I eagerly await the HST revisitation of the DFS starting Sept 03 and ending
Feb 04. I predict we will see a gap between observations indicating an age of
13 billion years ( if that is the correct age of our galaxy ) and a dramatic
immediate resumption of observable radiation with an age indicating the date of
the previous white hole eruption!!! Say the central white hole develops and
erupts every 20 billion years. The local group of galaxies that were where we
are now before "our" eruption took place would currently be 33 billion years
old and is probably on the order of 18 billion light years (bly) away from us
and they are close to sister galaxies of ours only 13 billion years old. The
light from these co-mingled galaxies will not reach us for another 6 billion
years. The farthest light that is reaching us today was emitted when our sister
galaxies were only about 8 billion years old. If the new cameras on HST can see
beyond 18 bly they will not see any of our sister galaxies because they did not
exist in that epoch, but the first galaxies they will see at this distance will
be the 33 billion year old former local group, if any of their stars are still shining.
I have been publishing and copyrighting various versions of this theory
since 1990. This one is hereby copyrighted, all rights reserved, by myself,
Dwain W. Higginbotham, Miami, Fla. USA, 2 September 2003.

"Mark Palenik" wrote
It is possible for two objects in an expanding universe to be moving away
from each other at a rate greater than C. The rule in general relativity is
that an object cannot be moving locally faster than c. In other words, as
long as an object isn't moving faster than c through spacetime, it's fine.
There's no limit to how fast spacetime can expand, and so the separation
between two objects can increase at a rate greater than c globally, despite
the fact that neither object is moving anywhere near c.

And I wouldn't really count on him coming through on that reward.


The Truman trying to reach Eve has tried 5,000 plans already, no use doing
nothing and letting me get spied on for another 5 years for your free entertainment.

That type of movement only happens at opposite sides of the universe, and is
ALWAYS movement AWAY from ANYTHING, hence it cannot be OBSERVED
at faster than C, by nature of limits to speed of observations at C.

i.e. 2 trains moving away from each other, one sends a messenger to the other on
foot, it never reaches the other train. he claims the faster than C is observed.
faster than C EXPANSION would not be observable.

Here's the full post for anyone, I get half the grand!

Herc


************************************************** **
.... to the first person who can disprove or even offer a convincing argument
against the main point of my theory (which follows), that the center of the
universe is located at the center of gravity of our local group of galaxies. If
I get no response within 24 hours, I offer to put the theory and the money up
for debate before the moderated group and abide by the decision of the majority
of referees, providing that, in the absence of proof, the "convincing argument"
is made in plain English, understandable by anyone with average intelligence.
Dwain W. Higginbotham

ON AN ABSOLUTE REFERENCE FRAME
By Dwain W. Higginbotham

I believe there is an absolute reference frame with every intuitive bone in my
body. By "absolute reference frame" I mean one stationary spot in the universe
to which every particle in the universe relates motionwise. This spot would
have to be the center of the universe. I have been searching for this frame
about 40 years, and other people a lot longer, and none of us to any avail
until now. In my efforts I have discovered certain things regarding this quest
which I believe are known to no one else. The purpose of the following paper is
to copyright these ideas for myself and perhaps get some feedback from anyone
that has an interest. I started out agreeing with the concept of an expanding universe, but
disagreeing with the idea that the expansion had no center. I therefore
conceived of a big bang type universe that expanded from a definite center. I
initially conceived of it banging continually since a one time big bang leaves
the question "what came before" unanswered. I immediately got feedback
regarding entropy which caused me to incorporate the idea that the universe
recycles, and today with confidence I say that the universe is the only
"system" in existence and as such, cannot react with any other system,
adiabatically or otherwise. Zero net entropy in such a system is mandatory and
the universe must recycle and therefore is the only perpetual motion machine of
the second kind. To accomplish this recycling I envisioned the universe having
two aspects. The first being the material/spatial aspect we live in consisting
of less than 10% of the "stuff" of the universe. I called the second aspect,
consisting of more than 90% of the "stuff", the quantum aspect. The universe
recycles out of the quantum aspect into the material/spatial aspect through a
central white hole. This was somewhat prophetic in that today the consensus is
there is a "dark energy" part of the universe, in about the aforementioned
quantity. Everything went along just fine and I was able to make my conception
work swimmingly, agreeing with all observations, Including the fact that most
galaxies are "apparently" hurtling away from each other, most of them in excess
of light speed. I say apparently, because in my conceptual universe with a
definite center, the galaxies, after they formed up out of the H/He clouds
emerging out of the center would continue to accelerate away from the center
with the older ones going much faster than the newer ones relative to the
center and spreading out sideways as well. It was easy to conceive of the Milky
Way galaxy being far enough away from the center that everything looked
isotropic from our viewpoint. But in this scenario, looking back toward the
center we would not be able to see superluminally red shifted galaxies because
our galaxy would be outrunning EMR from galaxies in that direction and
conversely, in the opposite direction, superluminally red shifted galaxies
would be outrunning EMR produced by our galaxy and observers in those galaxies
would not be able to see us but we would be able to see them because we would
eventually run into EMR they emitted. Also, if this scenario were correct, we
would be able to tell the direction to the center was opposite to the direction
of the highest red shifted galaxies and the red shifts would decrease to about
90 degrees from the highest where no superluminal red shifts would be observable.
The fact is of course that the Hubble telescope has observed galaxies with
red shifts indicating speeds in excess of 5.8 times light speed in opposite
directions and both observed fields appear to be isotropic. The only scenario
compatible with these observations is that the center of the universe is at the
center of gravity of our local group and I believe I am the first person to
come to this realization. I got an argument when this was first written that
"z" numbers weren't percentages of light speed. IaSne observations give proof
positive that z of 120% and probably 170% are exact. I have every confidence
that as our telescopes see farther, greater values of z will be consistent. To
any who still maintain something else occurs at "relativistic" speeds I say, if
170% isn't relativistic, I don't know what is! Additionally, I imagine the "z"
term was around before the advent of our ability to find hundreds of supernovae
and I think it is remarkable that the estimates of speed according to the
amount of red shift were confirmed so dramatically.
This realization shoots down the idea of a continuously recycling white hole
but even better, it means periodic eruptions, incorporating "inflation", with
the last one being when our galaxy was born around 13 billion years ago. When
its time for another one the white hole instantly takes over an area about as
large as the space in the middle of our local group and through some sort of
built in DNA, the quantum aspect instantly changes some of its "dark energy" to
quarks, electrons, and the forces of nature which spontaneously form hydrogen,
helium, and a few light element atoms. We know of many examples where matter is
transformed into energy in tremendous explosions. I know of no instance where
tremendous amounts of energy are transformed into matter. I believe only Mother
Nature can accomplish this feat and I see no necessity for any sort of wasteful
explosion. I believe this process produces only enough heat for the newly
created atoms to exist in a gaseous form and hopefully, not vaporize previously
formed galaxies. It doesn't bode too well for us though, because the newly
formed H/He clouds will start expanding and displace us from the central perch
we have enjoyed for so many billions of years and when we start to approach
light speed relative to the center, Mother Nature may have some surprises in
store for us! CMBR in this case is not relict radiation from a hot big bang. I
believe it is an excitation of the quantum aspect background around galaxies or
bound groups, caused by gravitational energy and varies in temperature from one
group to another. For instance Coma, with a thousand galaxies in about the same
amount of space as our local group radiates at x ray wavelengths.
To continue, when the eruption of our birth occurred, the newly formed ball
of atoms started to expand with the outer layers moving faster than successive
ones and started to form galaxies earlier than the inner layers, or there may
indeed have been an "inflationary" epoch. Also, the material for forming
galaxies becomes less as you get to the center of the ball leaving only enough
for forty or so in our local group at the center, and contributing to the
"isotropic" effect.
We have a lot of work ahead in accurately determining the relationship between
red shift and age and distance. Red shift is an indication of the speed of
recession between an observer and a light emitting object. It tells you nothing
about the distance. If I understand it correctly, astronomers believe all
galaxies are receding from each other at the same rate which they call the
"Hubble constant". They then multiply this rate by what they think is the age
of the universe to arrive at a distance factor coupled with the red shift. I
think this system was devised because Einsteins' dictate was that the universe
looks the same to every observer in it wherever situated and I just got through
telling you, only galaxies near the center have the isotropic view we have.
Everyone else, if there even is anyone else, sees something different. There
have been many other machinations invoked to attempt to explain the universe in
conformity with Einstein. The most egregious being the dictate that nothing
exceeds light speed. Ia supernovae observations PROVE beyond the shadow of a
doubt that galaxies are receding from each other at many times light speed and
this fact does not change in the slightest even if the galaxies were standing
still and the space between them was expanding. I offer the following recent
evidence in support of my idea that the Hubble constant is useless. I want to
thank Nick Suntzeff, a member of one of the supernova teams, for supplying some
supernova data and my analysis follows. Astronomers are finding IaSne around z
= 1 are not behaving properly and appear brighter than expected. That means
simply that the calculated DISTANCE is in error and that the observed IaSn is
closer than expected. In 1998, the "discovery of the year" was that the
expansion of the universe was accelerating because IaSne at around z = .6 were
dimmer than expected. Here again using the useless Hubble constant yardstick.
The RATE of expansion of the universe has never changed. Its just picking up
speed the farther away from the center you go.
I eagerly await the HST revisitation of the DFS starting Sept 03 and ending
Feb 04. I predict we will see a gap between observations indicating an age of
13 billion years ( if that is the correct age of our galaxy ) and a dramatic
immediate resumption of observable radiation with an age indicating the date of
the previous white hole eruption!!! Say the central white hole develops and
erupts every 20 billion years. The local group of galaxies that were where we
are now before "our" eruption took place would currently be 33 billion years
old and is probably on the order of 18 billion light years (bly) away from us
and they are close to sister galaxies of ours only 13 billion years old. The
light from these co-mingled galaxies will not reach us for another 6 billion
years. The farthest light that is reaching us today was emitted when our sister
galaxies were only about 8 billion years old. If the new cameras on HST can see
beyond 18 bly they will not see any of our sister galaxies because they did not
exist in that epoch, but the first galaxies they will see at this distance will
be the 33 billion year old former local group, if any of their stars are still shining.
I have been publishing and copyrighting various versions of this theory
since 1990. This one is hereby copyrighted, all rights reserved, by myself,
Dwain W. Higginbotham, Miami, Fla. USA, 2 September 2003.