$1000 reward...
Dwhig265
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 $1000
reward and invariably call me names so I can pounce upon him.
Dwain W. Higginbotham
Tom M-G
the
> location of the center part of the following post:
>
> The Center of the Universe by Dwain W Higginbotham 18 October 2003
Read this:
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/HUBBLE/Hubble.html
The redshift is caused, so it says, by the abundance of H2 between galaxies
and clusters. My reward, please.
> Evidence for an expanding Universe is overwhelming. The idea that there
is
> no center to the expansion cannot be envisioned by the human, mind and
cannot
> be explained in any language including mathematics, and in my opinion is
> therefore false....
[...]
> I don't actually believe the one time big bang part since I have stated
in
> other copyrighted papers that the Universe is the only perpetual motion
machine
> of the second kind and periodically recycles.
Gaw, funny thing is I have said **precisely** the same thing myself, in
copyright papers. Mine were published 1997. What about you?
Dwhig265
>Date: 10/18/03 5:48 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <o2jkb.1205$uG3...@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net>
>
>> ...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
>
>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
shit, 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
Dirk Van de moortel
"Dwhig265" <dwhi...@aol.com> wrote in message news:20031019101126...@mb-m18.aol.com...
> >
> >
> >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
> shit, 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
Dwhig265
>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
Dirk Van de moortel
"Dwhig265" <dwhi...@aol.com> wrote in message news:20031019132948...@mb-m10.aol.com...
> >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
pstowe...@ix.netcom.com
<fossi...@cox.net> wrote:
> Sounds like another idiot in the same league as Dirty Venting Moron
> complaining his lack of intelligence.
The issue is not intelligence or the lack of same. The issue is
one of objective rational arguments, and objective criteria as
to what constitutes a successful rebutal.
The argument proposed isn't sufficiently defined, nor have there
been an agreed upon neutral third party(ies) to evaluate rebutal
arguments against the ill-defined proposition.
IOW it's a TROLL...
If one really wanted to pay a $1000.00 then they'd place it in the
hands of a legal third party to be paid by a set date based upon
specific objective (as opposed to subjective) criteria that can be
evaluated by either the same third party or another that has no
vested interest in either 'side'. Somehow, I don't think so!
Paul Stowe
ghytrfvbnmju7654
> ...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.
See:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
You might also wish to read Ned Wright's cosmology tutorial,
which has many excellent pictures to help you visualize what's
going on.
Forget about that $1000. That is crankish. What you are
asking is a very common question that has been answered
time and time again on both the Internet and Usenet, for
no money at all.
Dwhig265
>complaining his lack of intelligence.
>
intelligence this time. I put you in the same class as Einstein. I don't think
much of his bull shit math either.Regards, Dwain Higginbotham
Dwhig265
> The issue is not intelligence or the lack of same. The issue is
> one of objective rational arguments, and objective criteria as
> to what constitutes a successful rebutal.
>
> The argument proposed isn't sufficiently defined, nor have there
> been an agreed upon neutral third party(ies) to evaluate rebutal
> arguments against the ill-defined proposition.
>
> IOW it's a TROLL...
>
> If one really wanted to pay a $1000.00 then they'd place it in the
> hands of a legal third party to be paid by a set date based upon
> specific objective (as opposed to subjective) criteria that can be
> evaluated by either the same third party or another that has no
> vested interest in either 'side'. Somehow, I don't think so!
>
> Paul Stowe
Thank you for your comments. I assure you I will do what I say. I have offered
to put my stuff on the refereed forum but they turned me down. What have you
lost if you prove to your own satisfaction that I am wrong even if I fail to
pay you? Please see my comments to the next poster. Regards, Dwain Higginbotham
Dirk Van de moortel
"Dwhig265" <dwhi...@aol.com> wrote in message news:20031020100551...@mb-m12.aol.com...
So you *really* don't see (and even want to look
for) the difference?
As I expected, you are throwing away a large
amount of money.
I'll raise my offer to $8000. Still not up to it?
Dirk Vdm
Dwhig265
>From: ghytrfvb...@mail.com (ghytrfvbnmju7654)
>Date: 10/19/2003 5:11 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <cb623e6.03101...@posting.google.com>
Thank you very much for your post. It gives me the opportunity to explain my
ideas further. You must not have noticed that I challenged Ned Wright for
saying that "z" numbers are not necessarily percentages of the speed of light
at "relativistic" velocities, whatever that means. At speeds up to z = 1.2 and
possibly z = 1.7 thay have been exactly correct, and that I saw no reason why
observations at greater speeds would not continue to reveal an exact
relationship percentagewise.
I am taking this opportunity to challenge him directly even though my theory
of the location of the center is tantamount to the same thing, regarding the
diagrams in the link you provided. They fall apart when the galaxies are moving
at superluminal speeds and I am, to my knowledge, the first person to realize
this and that is the reason for my theory.
Thanks again, D.W. Higginbotham
John Zinni
>
> Thank you very much for your post. It gives me the opportunity to explain
my
> ideas further. You must not have noticed that I challenged Ned Wright for
> saying that "z" numbers are not necessarily percentages of the speed of
light
> at "relativistic" velocities, whatever that means. At speeds up to z = 1.2
and
> possibly z = 1.7 thay have been exactly correct,
"exactly correct" ???
> and that I saw no reason why
> observations at greater speeds would not continue to reveal an exact
> relationship percentagewise.
This is because you have not done your homework and do not know were the
approximation comes from (and apparently do not understand that
approximations generally have ranges of applicability).
From http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_02.htm#MD
the relationship between z and v is given by ...
1+z = exp(v/c) [1]
Now ...
exp(x) = 1 + x + (x^2)/2! + (x^3)/3! + ...
Note that for "small" x the terms past x become very small
So, for "small" x we have
exp(x) ~ 1 + x ( were ~ means approximately)
Substituting this into [1] yields
1 + z ~ 1 + v/c were v/c is "small"
z ~ v/c were v/c is "small"
So were v/c is "small", z is approximately equal to v as a percentage of c
This is NOT true were v/c is not "small"
Dwhig265
>From: "John Zinni" j_z...@NOCRAP.sympatico.ca
>Date: 10/20/2003 12:08 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id:
> "exactly correct" ???
My information is that when the z = 1.2 or less the z number and red shift
agree to 120% of light speed and they may have matched it up to 170%, the
farthest IaSne seen so far.
>
>So were v/c is "small", z is approximately equal to v as a percentage of c
I don't think z = 1.7 (170% light speed) is "small" by any stretch and if 170%
light speed isn't "relativistic" I don't know what is. If you want to get a
response in the future, don't speak gobbledegook math.
Regards, DWH
Dwhig265
>From: ghytrfvb...@mail.com (ghytrfvbnmju7654)
>Date: 10/19/03 5:11 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <cb623e6.03101...@posting.google.com>
>
>dwhi...@aol.com (Dwhig265) wrote in message
>news:<20031018123030...@mb-m18.aol.com>...
>> ...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.
>
>See:
> http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
Just because Ned Wright and Einstein say there is no center does not make it
so. There is nothing like what Wright is explaining in Human experience and
would merit the title "miraculous" if true. I developed a scenario with a
center and much to my surprise discovered that if there is a center it has to
be where I say it is. So far the scenario agrees with all observational
evidence.
I deleted an earlier post to you because I had misspoken. Regards, DWH
John Zinni
ghytrfvbnmju7654
> Thank you very much for your post. It gives me the opportunity to explain my
> ideas further. You must not have noticed that I challenged Ned Wright for
> saying that "z" numbers are not necessarily percentages of the speed of light
> at "relativistic" velocities, whatever that means. At speeds up to z = 1.2 and
> possibly z = 1.7 thay have been exactly correct, and that I saw no reason why
> observations at greater speeds would not continue to reveal an exact
> relationship percentagewise.
> I am taking this opportunity to challenge him directly even though my theory
> of the location of the center is tantamount to the same thing, regarding the
> diagrams in the link you provided. They fall apart when the galaxies are moving
> at superluminal speeds and I am, to my knowledge, the first person to realize
> this and that is the reason for my theory.
> Thanks again, D.W. Higginbotham
Velocity in general relativity is a tricky beast,
and it can get one into many a meaningless
argument unless one makes clear precisely what is
meant.
In order to do analytic geometry on curved
spacetime, one must assign four numbers to each
event in spacetime. A way of doing this is
called a coordinate system. One can use any
coordinate system one wishes to and still get
the same physical results from general
relativity.
An easy way to define something like a velocity
would be to use <dx/dt, dy/dt, dz/dt> just like
one would in the usual rectangular coordinate
system of special relativity. But coordinate
velocity, as it is often called, is different.
The coordinate velocity of light, for example,
is not necessarily constant, and is not
necessarily the same in all directions. Thus,
one can easily have objects whose coordinate
velocities make them appear to be traveling
faster than light, although they really aren't.
But what about the ordinary relative velocity
one might measure with a ruler and a clock?
This velocity can't be faster than the speed
of light. So why can't one just define
velocities this way? Well, unfortunately, the
ruler-and-clock technique only works if one
is located near the object one wants to
measure.
But can't we see far-away objects? Can't we
use redshifting to determine relative
velocities? The trouble with defining
relative velocity using techniques like these
is that the answer one gets depends on the
path through spacetime the information about
the distant object's velocity takes. That
this effect occurs is, in fact, the meaning of
curved spacetime.
So there are many different ways to talk about
the velocity of a far-away object. One could
use coordinate velocity, in which case, in
order to speak meaningfully, one would need to
specify the particular coordinate system being
used. One could also use relative velocity
as compared via some path through space-time,
in which case one would have to specify the
path in order to speak meaningfully.
John Zinni
>
> Thank you very much for your post. It gives me the opportunity to explain
my
> ideas further. You must not have noticed that I challenged Ned Wright for
> saying that "z" numbers are not necessarily percentages of the speed of
light
> at "relativistic" velocities, whatever that means. At speeds up to z = 1.2
and
> possibly z = 1.7 thay have been exactly correct,
I would be fascinated to hear how you think that "they" were able to compare
z to v/c in order to determine that they are "exactly correct"???
Dwhig265
>From: "John Zinni"
>I would be fascinated to hear how you think that "they" were able to compare
>z to v/c in order to determine that they are "exactly correct"???
I didn't say that. In talking about high "z" numbers most people would know I
was talking about IaSne observations. A IaSn with a red shift indicating a
speed of recession of 120% of light speed was proven to have a "z" number of
1.2 .Go back to your gobbledegook math ass hole and don't bother me any more.
D.(doesn't stand for "dolt")W.Higginbotham
Dwhig265
>From: ghytrfvb...@mail.com (ghytrfvbnmju7654)
>Date: 10/20/03 4:36 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <cb623e6.03102...@posting.google.com>
DWH says:This thread has gotten a little fouled up because I realized I had
misspoken about Ned Wrights diagrams and reposted later on the previous thread.
You don't need to lecture me on relativity. If I thought it was worth
reading, I would have done so long ago. Any one who says there is no center to
an expanding universe gets no credence from me. You will say the opposite of
course so we are at an impasse since you can't prove you're right and
apparently no one can prove me wrong which is what I was really trying to find
out I guess. Thanks for posting in a civil manner.
Regards, Dwain W. Higginbotham
ghytrfvbnmju7654
> Just because Ned Wright and Einstein say there is no center does not make it
> so. There is nothing like what Wright is explaining in Human experience and
> would merit the title "miraculous" if true. I developed a scenario with a
> center and much to my surprise discovered that if there is a center it has to
> be where I say it is. So far the scenario agrees with all observational
> evidence.
> I deleted an earlier post to you because I had misspoken. Regards, DWH
Are there atoms in everyday human experience?
Are atoms miraculous? What you are calling
"miraculous" is consistent with general relativity.
While Einstein quite often was wrong, he appears
to have been right about this theory, at least to
a very good approximation. Observations of binary
pulsars offer some of the strongest support for
general relativity, and there is much more. The
standard, isotropic, homogenous model of the
universe is consistent with general relativity
and is supported by observations of the cosmic
microwave background. If you think you have
found a problem with the model, as you have said
before, please say specifically what the problem
is.
John Zinni
Dear Dolt.
Please provide a reference to whatever it is you're talking about above. I
would rather read it myself than try and make heads or tails of it after it
has been filtered through your cranium.
P.S.
Here is an interesting little tidbit ...
"It is very important to note that galaxy redshift surveys, when presenting
redshifts as radial velocities, always use the non-relativistic
approximation v = cz, even when it is not appropriate physically; eg.,
Fairall 1992."
http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Hogg/Hogg3.html
Dwhig265
>before, please say specifically what the problem
>is.
Like I said before, this thread has some problems. I think we have cross
posted. The problem is that I am certain the Universe has a center and have
offered a reward to any one who can prove me wrong in language that an average
person can understand. This has not been forthcoming and now I am upping the
offer to $5000 with the provision that the contender must have a PHD in a
cosmologically related field and use his own name. I hereby withdraw all
previous offers and put a 10 day time limit on this one. The idea being that
future technological advancements may well prove me wrong and vdm is not going
to back his way into the money! DWH
Minor Crank
news:LECkb.71240$vj2.39744@fed1read06...
> Dirty Venting Moron needs to offer some one $4000 to shoot holes in my
> hypothesis because you are incapable of doing so.
Unfortunately, your skull is made of mythical adamantium, the hardest
material in the universe. No logic, no carefully thought-out arguments are
capable of penetrating to reach your brain.
Minor Crank
Dwhig265
>Dear Dolt.
>
>Please provide a reference to whatever it is you're talking about above. I
>would rather read it myself than try and make heads or tails of it after it
>has been filtered through your cranium.
>>
>> I didn't say that. In talking about high "z" numbers most people would
>know I
>> was talking about IaSne observations. A IaSn with a red shift indicating a
>> speed of recession of 120% of light speed was proven to have a "z" number
>of 1.2
>>
I hate to bother with educating a jack off like you. Most people with degrees
in this stuff seem incapable of explaining anything in a straightforward
manner, like the one in the link you provided.
I am sure red shift has been around a lot longer than "z" numbers since
Hubble discovered it in 1929. I learned from Ned Wrights' tutorial that z
numbers were a percentage of the speed of light at least up to 75%. Then I
learned from corresponding with members of the high z supernova teams about the
rise time of the light curve of red shifted IaSne as compared with non red
shifted ones which take 21 days. They have a simple formula for determining the
z number which is: (1 + z) x 3 = r/t
and means, one plus the z number times three weeks (which is 21 days) equals
the rise time of the supernova. Working backwards, if the supernova light curve
time is 42 days (6 weeks) then the z number is one which is 100% of light speed
and matches the red shift that they had been using as a guesstimate previous to
the discovery of IaSne. I have never seen this explained in any text. DWH
John Zinni
>
> I hate to bother with educating a jack off like you. Most people with
degrees
> in this stuff seem incapable of explaining anything in a straightforward
> manner, like the one in the link you provided.
> I am sure red shift has been around a lot longer than "z" numbers since
> Hubble discovered it in 1929.
What on earth do you imagine "z" to be, if not the redshift???
> I learned from Ned Wrights' tutorial that z
> numbers were a percentage of the speed of light at least up to 75%. Then I
> learned from corresponding with members of the high z supernova teams
about the
> rise time of the light curve of red shifted IaSne as compared with non red
> shifted ones which take 21 days. They have a simple formula for
determining the
> z number which is: (1 + z) x 3 = r/t
Would you mind double checking this formula. It does not make sense.
Is "r" the observed rise time?
Do you have an extra "t" in there perhaps?
Dirk Van de moortel
"Australopithecus Afarensis" <fossi...@cox.net> wrote in message news:yy3lb.71713$vj2.60680@fed1read06...
>
> "Minor Crank" <blue_whal...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:812lb.322182$mp.2...@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...
> calling everyone else insane?
We have been witnessing two such cases.
One signs its messages with "Dwhig265"
The other one is using "Australopithecus Afarensis" nowadays.
Dirk Vdm
John Zinni
> >From: "John Zinni"
>
> >Dear Dolt.
> >
> >Please provide a reference to whatever it is you're talking about above.
I
> >would rather read it myself than try and make heads or tails of it after
it
> >has been filtered through your cranium.
>
> >>
> >> I didn't say that. In talking about high "z" numbers most people would
> >know I
> >> was talking about IaSne observations. A IaSn with a red shift
indicating a
> >> speed of recession of 120% of light speed was proven to have a "z"
number
> >of 1.2
> >>
>
> I hate to bother with educating a jack off like you. Most people with
degrees
> in this stuff seem incapable of explaining anything in a straightforward
> manner, like the one in the link you provided.
> I am sure red shift has been around a lot longer than "z" numbers since
> Hubble discovered it in 1929. I learned from Ned Wrights' tutorial that z
> numbers were a percentage of the speed of light at least up to 75%. Then I
> learned from corresponding with members of the high z supernova teams
about the
Who did you correspond with? Post what he/she sent you.
ghytrfvbnmju7654
> You don't need to lecture me on relativity. If I thought it was worth
> reading, I would have done so long ago. Any one who says there is no center to
> an expanding universe gets no credence from me. You will say the opposite of
> course so we are at an impasse since you can't prove you're right and
> apparently no one can prove me wrong which is what I was really trying to find
> out I guess. Thanks for posting in a civil manner.
> Regards, Dwain W. Higginbotham
I offer $100 to the first person who can _prove_ to me the existence
of terrestrial gravity; that is, that when I let go of something, it
will fall towards the ground. I have developed a theory that says
things won't fall, but will hover in midair. Anyone who says that
something will start moving without anything pushing it gets no
credence from me. Such an event would merit the title "miraculous"
if true. Note, of course, that I will not actually read responses
to my posts, especially if they attempt to explain to me what
gravity actually is. If I thought gravity was worth reading about,
I would have done so a long time ago. But thank you for your
civility in your followups (that is, if you actually are civil; I
won't know!).
Dirk Van de moortel
"ghytrfvbnmju7654" <ghytrfvb...@mail.com> wrote in message news:cb623e6.03102...@posting.google.com...
A little gem:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Gems/Offer100.html
Very nice :-))
Dirk Vdm