"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" escreveu na mensagem
...
Dear El Enrrabadore-mor:

"El Enrrabadore-mor" wrote in message
...

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" escreveu na mensagem
...
...
Put the theory written on paper aside.
Look only for real world experiments.

They are only experiments if Nature is
challeged / queried.

Does Hubble red shift (the expansion of
the Universe) hold as a good Nature
challenge? For instance.

Sure. Comparisons of intensity, duration of events, subtended size (over
some very limited distance), agree with redshift as a measure of distance.
Temperature of the CMBR at various ages agrees with expansion.

Real oddball is the "aged" objects close to the CMBR, but that will be for
another lifetime to work out. I suspect it is due to the very hot CMBR
increasing stellar temperatures by 2000 to 3000K (and hence aging rates),
just as temperature speeds up a chemical reaction.

We compare observation to what it would take local events to look like
that.

Dear David A. Smith :

I have here about 10 scientific papers, from
the "arXiv", relating the anomalous acceleration
with Hubble's Redshift.


If you're in trouble to find where the absolute
frame of reference is, call me and I'll tell you.

We've got 100+ years of experimental results,
and we have moved more than 946 billion
miles in that time. "Here and now" does not
really work as an "absolute frame".

So I am calling you.

Take Pioneer 11, for example.
Pioneer 11 experienced, during almost ten
years, a perfect constant acceleration (a
perfect straight line) directed towards the Sun,

Don't get hung up on "perfect", "straight line", or "constant". The error
bars do not support any of those. Sunward, constant to within our ability
to measure, OK.

When I say a "perfect" "constant" "straight line"
I mean exactly that, see last page of the
scientific article below (from the JPL scientist
responsible for the operation/investigation):
http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/b.../1/98-0979.pdf


whose mearured acceleration is exatly the
acceleration of Hubble constant.

It isn't. It at least has the wrong sign.

No, it has just the right sign to cancel out
what doesn't hold true - Universe expansion.


Hubble constant is an acceleration,

No, it is not. It is a rate of change of "dimension"... it is 1/t.
Distance factors out.

Such dimension is called "velocity".
The rate of change of "velocity" is called acceleration.
Your argument is nonsense.
Hubble constant is an acceleration, as everybody
knows.


since it's a velocity taken per a distance
(Megaparcec). So that, we know that during
the time it takes for light to travel that
distance (1 Mpc) the velocity of celestial
bodies increase 85 m/s - we have a "dv".
So the time it takes for light to travel the
distance of 1 Mpc can be calculated - it will
be our "dt". dv / dt = 85m/s / 1Mpc = Pioneer
11 acceleration.
It's a perfect match.

It is *not* perfect.

I call it perfect.
So perfect that it almost hurts.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/9808/9808081v2.pdf


Don't tell me it was blueshift.
I know it was blueshift.
What else could it be?

Thrust of Mankind's first photonic drive, powered by the RTGs. Radiated
out of the heat exchanger that "keeps the electronics cool" under a
constant power draw. Always pointed away from the Sun.

I don't know why people hang their entire belief system on a probe that
has fairly well understood *problems* in design. Casinni has travelled
some of the same "turf", and showed none of the requisite signs. It was
designed without those suspected problems.

Anderson, the number one JPL/NASA responsible for the
operation and the investigation, says otherwise:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/9906/9906113v1.pdf

Cassini went to a Saturn mission, which is inside the solar
system, and doesn't qualify to compare with Pioneer
10/10, Ulysses and Galileo, the only 4 spacecraft that
get out of the solar system.
All the 4 spacecraft confirm the anomalous acceleration.

Only blind religious cannot see evidence.

Some papers explaining Hubble's redshift based
on the Pioneer anomalous acceleration:
9808051
9809029
9809075
9810085
9906031
9907363
9910105
0005017


David A. Smith