#1
|
|||
|
|||
$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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"|-|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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"|-|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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Stolen Telescope Notice - Reward | Jeff Morgan | Amateur Astronomy | 4 | September 1st 03 07:06 PM |