....to the first person to disprove or give a convincing argument against the
location of the center part of the following post:

The Center of the Universe by Dwain W Higginbotham 18 October 2003

Evidence for an expanding Universe is overwhelming. The idea that there is
no center to the expansion cannot be envisioned by the human, mind and cannot
be explained in any language including mathematics, and in my opinion is
therefore false. That being the case, the only possible scenario due to
observational evidence, is that the center of the universe is the only absolute
reference frame and is a point located at the center of gravity of our local
group of galaxies.
If this scenario is correct and there was a one time big bang about 13.5
billion years ago, the Hubble constant does not apply. Neither can the notion
that the galaxies are standing still and the space between them is expanding
be segued in here either. Also, whatever force is causing the expansion of the
Universe has nothing to do with the center at the present time, but is pulling
it apart from afar with strength inversely proportional to distance, since we
have stayed about 2.5 million light years from the center all these years.
IaSupernovae and Hubble telescope observations indicate the other galaxies are
flying away from us at speeds up to 5.8 times light speed in all directions.
That means, if all galaxies are approximately the same age, the most distant
ones now are 30 to 50 billion light years (bly) away. I would think this means
we could not see galaxies further away than the supposed age of the Universe,
in light years, so the present 4 month Hubble DFS mission shouldn't see much
more than it already has. Also, astronomers think the limit of our telescopes
at present is about 12 bly. If a galaxy at that distance has a red shift of 5.8
"z" how can they say said light was emitted when that galaxy was only 1.5
billion years old and less than 1 bly away from us at that time?
I don't actually believe the one time big bang part since I have stated in
other copyrighted papers that the Universe is the only perpetual motion machine
of the second kind and periodically recycles. But I have adapted the big bang
to the theory to show it doesn't make any difference and do most of the
thinking for you try to lure some unsuspecting person to bite for the $1000
reward and invariably call me names so I can pounce upon him.
Dwain W. Higginbotham

...to the first person to disprove or give a convincing argument against
the
location of the center part of the following post:

The Center of the Universe by Dwain W Higginbotham 18 October 2003

Read this:
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/HUBBLE/Hubble.html
The redshift is caused, so it says, by the abundance of H2 between galaxies
and clusters. My reward, please.

Evidence for an expanding Universe is overwhelming. The idea that there
is
no center to the expansion cannot be envisioned by the human, mind and
cannot
be explained in any language including mathematics, and in my opinion is
therefore false....
[...]
I don't actually believe the one time big bang part since I have stated
in
other copyrighted papers that the Universe is the only perpetual motion
machine
of the second kind and periodically recycles.

Gaw, funny thing is I have said **precisely** the same thing myself, in
copyright papers. Mine were published 1997. What about you?

From: "Tom M-G"
Date: 10/18/03 5:48 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:

...to the first person to disprove or give a convincing argument against
the
location of the center part of the following post:

The Center of the Universe by Dwain W Higginbotham 18 October 2003

Read this:
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/HUBBLE/Hubble.html
The redshift is caused, so it says, by the abundance of H2 between galaxies
and clusters. My reward, please.

IaSne observations prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that red shift is caused
by expansion. Please don't bother me again.


Evidence for an expanding Universe is overwhelming. The idea that there
is
no center to the expansion cannot be envisioned by the human, mind and
cannot
be explained in any language including mathematics, and in my opinion is
therefore false....
[...]
I don't actually believe the one time big bang part since I have stated
in
other copyrighted papers that the Universe is the only perpetual motion
machine
of the second kind and periodically recycles.

Gaw, funny thing is I have said **precisely** the same thing myself, in
copyright papers. Mine were published 1997. What about you?

1990

"Dwhig265" wrote in message
...
....to the first person to disprove or give a convincing argument against the
location of the center part of the following post:

The Center of the Universe by Dwain W Higginbotham 18 October 2003

Evidence for an expanding Universe is overwhelming. The idea that there
is
no center to the expansion cannot be envisioned by the human, mind and
cannot
be explained in any language including mathematics, and in my opinion is
therefore false. That being the case, the only possible scenario due to
observational evidence, is that the center of the universe is the only
absolute
reference frame and is a point located at the center of gravity of our local
group of galaxies.
If this scenario is correct and there was a one time big bang about 13.5
billion years ago, the Hubble constant does not apply. Neither can the
notion
that the galaxies are standing still and the space between them is expanding
be segued in here either. Also, whatever force is causing the expansion of
the
Universe has nothing to do with the center at the present time, but is
pulling
it apart from afar with strength inversely proportional to distance, since
we
have stayed about 2.5 million light years from the center all these years.
IaSupernovae and Hubble telescope observations indicate the other galaxies
are
flying away from us at speeds up to 5.8 times light speed in all directions.
That means, if all galaxies are approximately the same age, the most distant
ones now are 30 to 50 billion light years (bly) away. I would think this
means
we could not see galaxies further away than the supposed age of the
Universe,
in light years, so the present 4 month Hubble DFS mission shouldn't see much
more than it already has. Also, astronomers think the limit of our
telescopes
at present is about 12 bly. If a galaxy at that distance has a red shift of
5.8
"z" how can they say said light was emitted when that galaxy was only 1.5
billion years old and less than 1 bly away from us at that time?
I don't actually believe the one time big bang part since I have stated
in
other copyrighted papers that the Universe is the only perpetual motion
machine
of the second kind and periodically recycles. But I have adapted the big
bang
to the theory to show it doesn't make any difference and do most of the
thinking for you try to lure some unsuspecting person to bite for the $1000
reward and invariably call me names so I can pounce upon him.
Dwain W. Higginbotham

* * *

Australopithecus Afarensis replies:

This is because the universe has been expanding forever, and it will
continue to do so. There was a vague beginning, and there is going to be a
vague end. It is one of the most beautiful symmetries in nature. The
center of our universe has been lost infinite years ago.

Consider the Aether Stress Equation derived from Minkowski Space-Time
Equation,

c'^2 = c^2 + 2 U, where

c' = speed of light in galactic or interstellar space
c = speed of light under a gravaitional potential, U
U = G M / r, all parameters self explanatory

Then, on the subject of cosmology, we have the following.

- - -

Outside of our universe, the Aether does not exist. So, the event horizon
of our entire universe, Rh, has to be zero. Our universe cannot have
started out as a Black Hole. In fact, it is capable of expanding forever.
Because of Rh = 0, all matters in the universe can be compacted into a thin
shell just right outside the singularity (center of our universe and the
absolute zero-speed reference point) but still with a well-defined three
dimensions in the Euclidean space. With the event horizon problem now
solved, let's go back to the modified Newtonian Second Law with the
Principle of Relativity applied.

F = (d/dt) (m v) = (d/dt) (mo v / sqrt(1 - v^2 / c'^2)) = (d/dt) (mo B c' /
sqrt(1 - B^2)), where

F = force involved with the expansion of our universe
mo = rest mass at the edge of our universe
m = relativistic mass of mo
v = speed of mo, expansion if v 0
c' = speed of light inside our universe
B = v / c'

As the universe expands, the Aether stretches out. Since 1 / c' 2 = density
of the Aether, therefore,

c'^2 = G M W r^3, the Aether Expansion Equation, where

M = total mass of our universe
W = the Aether expansion constant
r = the radius of our universe, then

F / mo = (1 - B^2)^-3/2 ((1 - B^2) (c' (dB/dt) + B (dc'/dt)) + B^2 c'
(dB/dt)), or

(F / mo) (1 - B^2)3/2 = c' (dB/dt) + B (1 - B^2) (dc'/dt), since

c' (dB/dt) = c' (dB/dr) (dr/dt) = v c' (dB/dr) = B c'^2 (dB/dr) = G M W r^3
B (dB/dr), and

dc'^2/dt = 2 c' (dc'/dt) = 3 G M W r^2 (dr/dt), or dc'/dt = (3/2) G M W r^2
B, and

F / mo = (d/dr) (c'^2 / 2) = (3/2) G M W r^2, thus

G M W r^3 B (dB/dr) = ((3/2) G M W r^2) (1 - B^2)^3/2 - ((3/2) G M W r^2 B^2
(1 - B^2)), or

dB/dr = ((3/2) (1 - B^2) (sqrt(1 - B^2) - B^2)) / (B r), the Cosmological
Expansion Equation.

This is a very powerful equation. It explains the history and the fate of
our universe from the very beginning in the far past to the very end in the
far future. Contrary to what is the consensus today, the fate of our
universe is independent of how much mass, M, our universe has in the
beginning because gravitation works differently from outside of our universe
than inside due to the Aether as explained above.

As the Cosmological Expansion Equation indicates, the initial force at r =
0+ which is just asymptotically right outside the initial singularity is
tremendously repulsive. The Big Bang, as we know it, is absolutely
inevitable. Initially or shortly after matters started to form from cooler
temperature, B = v / c' = 1-, (asymptotically less than 1). As the universe
expanses and the speed of light, c', inside our universe increases from c' =
0+ (asymptotically greater than 0) due to the Aether being stretching out, B
becomes smaller. Eventually, B has to reach the condition that satisfies
the following equation.

sqrt(1 - B^2) - B^2 = 0, which is part of the Cosmological Expansion
Equation, or

B = v / c' = 0.786

Our universe will then expands at this (B = v / c' = 0.786) rate. Yes, our
universe has been expanding forever and will continue to expand forever. It
had a beginning asymptotically approaching the confinement of singularity
and will have an end asymptotically approaching the vastness of infinity.
Its age will always be infinite. Therefore, it does not make any sense to
talk about the age of the universe any more but the size of it. The unit of
measure, light year, which a photon, today, travels in one solar year is
only adequate in our species' very brief existence through out the history
of our universe because as we speak, c' is increasing because our universe
is expanding, and our universe will appear to accelerate its expansion
because (v / c' = 0.786).

Australopithecus Afarensis replies:

This is because the universe has been expanding forever, and it will
continue to do so. There was a vague beginning, and there is going to be a
vague end. It is one of the most beautiful symmetries in nature. The
center of our universe has been lost infinite years ago.

Consider the Aether Stress Equation derived from Minkowski Space-Time
Equation,

c'^2 = c^2 + 2 U, where

c' = speed of light in galactic or interstellar space
c = speed of light under a gravaitional potential, U
U = G M / r, all parameters self explanatory

Then, on the subject of cosmology, we have the following.

- - -

Outside of our universe, the Aether does not exist. So, the event horizon
of our entire universe, Rh, has to be zero. Our universe cannot have
started out as a Black Hole. In fact, it is capable of expanding forever.
Because of Rh = 0, all matters in the universe can be compacted into a thin
shell just right outside the singularity (center of our universe and the
absolute zero-speed reference point) but still with a well-defined three
dimensions in the Euclidean space. With the event horizon problem now
solved, let's go back to the modified Newtonian Second Law with the
Principle of Relativity applied.

F = (d/dt) (m v) = (d/dt) (mo v / sqrt(1 - v^2 / c'^2)) = (d/dt) (mo B c' /
sqrt(1 - B^2)), where

F = force involved with the expansion of our universe
mo = rest mass at the edge of our universe
m = relativistic mass of mo
v = speed of mo, expansion if v 0
c' = speed of light inside our universe
B = v / c'

As the universe expands, the Aether stretches out. Since 1 / c' 2 = density
of the Aether, therefore,

c'^2 = G M W r^3, the Aether Expansion Equation, where

M = total mass of our universe
W = the Aether expansion constant
r = the radius of our universe, then

F / mo = (1 - B^2)^-3/2 ((1 - B^2) (c' (dB/dt) + B (dc'/dt)) + B^2 c'
(dB/dt)), or

(F / mo) (1 - B^2)3/2 = c' (dB/dt) + B (1 - B^2) (dc'/dt), since

c' (dB/dt) = c' (dB/dr) (dr/dt) = v c' (dB/dr) = B c'^2 (dB/dr) = G M W r^3
B (dB/dr), and

dc'^2/dt = 2 c' (dc'/dt) = 3 G M W r^2 (dr/dt), or dc'/dt = (3/2) G M W r^2
B, and

F / mo = (d/dr) (c'^2 / 2) = (3/2) G M W r^2, thus

G M W r^3 B (dB/dr) = ((3/2) G M W r^2) (1 - B^2)^3/2 - ((3/2) G M W r^2 B^2
(1 - B^2)), or

dB/dr = ((3/2) (1 - B^2) (sqrt(1 - B^2) - B^2)) / (B r), the Cosmological
Expansion Equation.

This is a very powerful equation. It explains the history and the fate of
our universe from the very beginning in the far past to the very end in the
far future. Contrary to what is the consensus today, the fate of our
universe is independent of how much mass, M, our universe has in the
beginning because gravitation works differently from outside of our universe
than inside due to the Aether as explained above.

As the Cosmological Expansion Equation indicates, the initial force at r =
0+ which is just asymptotically right outside the initial singularity is
tremendously repulsive. The Big Bang, as we know it, is absolutely
inevitable. Initially or shortly after matters started to form from cooler
temperature, B = v / c' = 1-, (asymptotically less than 1). As the universe
expanses and the speed of light, c', inside our universe increases from c' =
0+ (asymptotically greater than 0) due to the Aether being stretching out, B
becomes smaller. Eventually, B has to reach the condition that satisfies
the following equation.

sqrt(1 - B^2) - B^2 = 0, which is part of the Cosmological Expansion
Equation, or

B = v / c' = 0.786

Our universe will then expands at this (B = v / c' = 0.786) rate. Yes, our
universe has been expanding forever and will continue to expand forever. It
had a beginning asymptotically approaching the confinement of singularity
and will have an end asymptotically approaching the vastness of infinity.
Its age will always be infinite. Therefore, it does not make any sense to
talk about the age of the universe any more but the size of it. The unit of
measure, light year, which a photon, today, travels in one solar year is
only adequate in our species' very brief existence through out the history
of our universe because as we speak, c' is increasing because our universe
is expanding, and our universe will appear to accelerate its expansion
because (v / c' = 0.786).

As far as I'm concerned you're blowing smoke up your own ass. You'll never get
any money from me with drivel like this. You'd think a substantial reward would
separate the kooks from the serious people on this forum, but it looks like
real physicists have had their brains fried by 98 years of Einsteinian bull
****, or they are so afraid of someone with some brains will upset their cushy
little apple cart that they conspire to keep good ideas down. I hereby offer
$2000 to anyone with a PHD in physics or related cosmological field that thinks
he can put me down and responds under his own name with a convincing argument
against my idea of the location of the center of the universe in a manner
understandable by any intelligent non physicist.
Dwain W. Higginbotham

"Dwhig265" wrote in message ...


Australopithecus Afarensis replies:


[snip Austro's garbage]


As far as I'm concerned you're blowing smoke up your own ass.

That is absolutely right. This poster is a complete idiot and he
must be the one with the biggest smoke blowing ass I have
ever seen.
He says he is an Aerospace Engineer and his mathematical
abilities show that he might be what he claims he is.
But as far as physics is concerned, he makes one silly mistake
after the other and he seems utterly immune to anything anyone
tries to explain.

You'll never get
any money from me with drivel like this.

Indeed.

You'd think a substantial reward would
separate the kooks from the serious people on this forum, but it looks like
real physicists have had their brains fried by 98 years of Einsteinian bull
****, or they are so afraid of someone with some brains will upset their cushy
little apple cart that they conspire to keep good ideas down. I hereby offer
$2000 to anyone with a PHD in physics or related cosmological field that thinks
he can put me down and responds under his own name with a convincing argument
against my idea of the location of the center of the universe in a manner
understandable by any intelligent non physicist.

Yes, you are right about Australopithecus.
The only thing is, I don't think you know why he is wrong.
So I hereby offer you $4000 if you manage to show what
exactly is wrong with his drivel: Why do you *think* he is
an idiot, and why do we *know* he is an idiot?
I'd think that a substantial reward like this would separate
out your ability to really take a close look at what people
are trying to tell you. Are you up to it?

Dirk Vdm

I'd think that a substantial reward like this would separate
out your ability to really take a close look at what people
are trying to tell you. Are you up to it?

Dirk Vdm

Please tell me what "people are trying to tell me". I'm such an idiot, I think
by their failure to give a convincing argument they're saying I'm a "fraud". Do
you think that's what they're saying? And do you think that as well? Be
careful! DWH

"Dwhig265" wrote in message ...
I'd think that a substantial reward like this would separate
out your ability to really take a close look at what people
are trying to tell you. Are you up to it?

Dirk Vdm

Please tell me what "people are trying to tell me".

That would be cheating, don't you think?
That is exactly what *you* have to do to earn the $4000.

Dirk Vdm

Dirty Venting Moron needs to offer some one $4000 to shoot holes in my
hypothesis because you are incapable of doing so. This is hilarious. Why
don't you offer $4,000 to every one else who can shoot holes in my
hypothesis. For $4,000, I just might go back to the bench and find
something seriously flawed with my own hypothesis.

* * *

"Dirk Van de moortel" wrote
in message ...

"Dwhig265" wrote in message
...


Australopithecus Afarensis replies:


[snip Austro's garbage]


As far as I'm concerned you're blowing smoke up your own ass.

That is absolutely right. This poster is a complete idiot and he
must be the one with the biggest smoke blowing ass I have
ever seen.
He says he is an Aerospace Engineer and his mathematical
abilities show that he might be what he claims he is.
But as far as physics is concerned, he makes one silly mistake
after the other and he seems utterly immune to anything anyone
tries to explain.

You'll never get
any money from me with drivel like this.

Indeed.

You'd think a substantial reward would
separate the kooks from the serious people on this forum, but it looks
like
real physicists have had their brains fried by 98 years of Einsteinian
bull
****, or they are so afraid of someone with some brains will upset their
cushy
little apple cart that they conspire to keep good ideas down. I hereby
offer
$2000 to anyone with a PHD in physics or related cosmological field that
thinks
he can put me down and responds under his own name with a convincing
argument
against my idea of the location of the center of the universe in a manner
understandable by any intelligent non physicist.

Yes, you are right about Australopithecus.
The only thing is, I don't think you know why he is wrong.
So I hereby offer you $4000 if you manage to show what
exactly is wrong with his drivel: Why do you *think* he is
an idiot, and why do we *know* he is an idiot?
I'd think that a substantial reward like this would separate
out your ability to really take a close look at what people
are trying to tell you. Are you up to it?

Dirk Vdm

Sounds like another idiot in the same league as Dirty Venting Moron
complaining his lack of intelligence.

* * *

"Dwhig265" wrote in message
...


Australopithecus Afarensis replies:

This is because the universe has been expanding forever, and it will
continue to do so. There was a vague beginning, and there is going to be a
vague end. It is one of the most beautiful symmetries in nature. The
center of our universe has been lost infinite years ago.

Consider the Aether Stress Equation derived from Minkowski Space-Time
Equation,

c'^2 = c^2 + 2 U, where

c' = speed of light in galactic or interstellar space
c = speed of light under a gravaitional potential, U
U = G M / r, all parameters self explanatory

Then, on the subject of cosmology, we have the following.

- - -

Outside of our universe, the Aether does not exist. So, the event horizon
of our entire universe, Rh, has to be zero. Our universe cannot have
started out as a Black Hole. In fact, it is capable of expanding forever.
Because of Rh = 0, all matters in the universe can be compacted into a thin
shell just right outside the singularity (center of our universe and the
absolute zero-speed reference point) but still with a well-defined three
dimensions in the Euclidean space. With the event horizon problem now
solved, let's go back to the modified Newtonian Second Law with the
Principle of Relativity applied.

F = (d/dt) (m v) = (d/dt) (mo v / sqrt(1 - v^2 / c'^2)) = (d/dt) (mo B c' /
sqrt(1 - B^2)), where

F = force involved with the expansion of our universe
mo = rest mass at the edge of our universe
m = relativistic mass of mo
v = speed of mo, expansion if v 0
c' = speed of light inside our universe
B = v / c'

As the universe expands, the Aether stretches out. Since 1 / c' 2 =
density
of the Aether, therefore,

c'^2 = G M W r^3, the Aether Expansion Equation, where

M = total mass of our universe
W = the Aether expansion constant
r = the radius of our universe, then

F / mo = (1 - B^2)^-3/2 ((1 - B^2) (c' (dB/dt) + B (dc'/dt)) + B^2 c'
(dB/dt)), or

(F / mo) (1 - B^2)3/2 = c' (dB/dt) + B (1 - B^2) (dc'/dt), since

c' (dB/dt) = c' (dB/dr) (dr/dt) = v c' (dB/dr) = B c'^2 (dB/dr) = G M W r^3
B (dB/dr), and

dc'^2/dt = 2 c' (dc'/dt) = 3 G M W r^2 (dr/dt), or dc'/dt = (3/2) G M W r^2
B, and

F / mo = (d/dr) (c'^2 / 2) = (3/2) G M W r^2, thus

G M W r^3 B (dB/dr) = ((3/2) G M W r^2) (1 - B^2)^3/2 - ((3/2) G M W r^2
B^2
(1 - B^2)), or

dB/dr = ((3/2) (1 - B^2) (sqrt(1 - B^2) - B^2)) / (B r), the Cosmological
Expansion Equation.

This is a very powerful equation. It explains the history and the fate of
our universe from the very beginning in the far past to the very end in the
far future. Contrary to what is the consensus today, the fate of our
universe is independent of how much mass, M, our universe has in the
beginning because gravitation works differently from outside of our
universe
than inside due to the Aether as explained above.

As the Cosmological Expansion Equation indicates, the initial force at r =
0+ which is just asymptotically right outside the initial singularity is
tremendously repulsive. The Big Bang, as we know it, is absolutely
inevitable. Initially or shortly after matters started to form from cooler
temperature, B = v / c' = 1-, (asymptotically less than 1). As the
universe
expanses and the speed of light, c', inside our universe increases from c'
=
0+ (asymptotically greater than 0) due to the Aether being stretching out,
B
becomes smaller. Eventually, B has to reach the condition that satisfies
the following equation.

sqrt(1 - B^2) - B^2 = 0, which is part of the Cosmological Expansion
Equation, or

B = v / c' = 0.786

Our universe will then expands at this (B = v / c' = 0.786) rate. Yes, our
universe has been expanding forever and will continue to expand forever.
It
had a beginning asymptotically approaching the confinement of singularity
and will have an end asymptotically approaching the vastness of infinity.
Its age will always be infinite. Therefore, it does not make any sense to
talk about the age of the universe any more but the size of it. The unit
of
measure, light year, which a photon, today, travels in one solar year is
only adequate in our species' very brief existence through out the history
of our universe because as we speak, c' is increasing because our universe
is expanding, and our universe will appear to accelerate its expansion
because (v / c' = 0.786).

As far as I'm concerned you're blowing smoke up your own ass. You'll never
get
any money from me with drivel like this. You'd think a substantial reward
would
separate the kooks from the serious people on this forum, but it looks like
real physicists have had their brains fried by 98 years of Einsteinian bull
****, or they are so afraid of someone with some brains will upset their
cushy
little apple cart that they conspire to keep good ideas down. I hereby offer
$2000 to anyone with a PHD in physics or related cosmological field that
thinks
he can put me down and responds under his own name with a convincing
argument
against my idea of the location of the center of the universe in a manner
understandable by any intelligent non physicist.
Dwain W. Higginbotham