Dear El Enrrabadore-mor:

On May 6, 8:10*am, "El Enrrabadore-mor"
wrote:
"N:dlzcD:aol T:com (dlzc)" escreveu na .. .
"El Enrrabadore-mor" wrote in message
...
...
Does Hubble red shift (the expansion of
the Universe) hold as a good Nature
challenge? For instance.
...
We compare observation to what it would
take local events to look like
that.

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

Anything by Anderson is well researched and thorough. Others may not
be.

...
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

OK. Now consider that the distance doubled, but the Sunward-
acceleration did not change. Hubble-effect is different at different
distances.

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.

What kind of black magic are you practising? Do you note that the
acceleration did not change with distance? Do you realize that there
are *no* "mundane" explanations for Hubble red shift, that agree with
all observations?

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".

No. Velocity requires distance.

The rate of change of "velocity" is called
acceleration. Your argument is nonsense.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Hubble constant is an acceleration, as everybody
knows.

km/sec / megaparsec = distance / time / distance = 1/time

You might want to start a study in "dimensional analysis". The 1700's
and 1800's were a productive time.

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

So funny that *you* are about to call *me* a religious nut...

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

He specifically identifies certain causes that he has discounted.
Radiation from the RTGs themselves sprays more or less uniformly in
all directions. Heat radiated from the electronics package itself
does not.

Cassini went to a Saturn mission, which is
inside the solar system,

Pioneer anomalous sunward acceleration was first noticed after it
passed Jupiter. Cassini applies.

and doesn't qualify to compare with Pioneer
10/10, Ulysses and Galileo, the only 4
spacecraft that get out of the solar system.

... and Anderson identified mechanical causes in two, and *expects*
mundane causes to yet be the cause of Pioneer's acceleration. And
like Uncle Al would say, "We Need To Look."

All the 4 spacecraft confirm the anomalous
acceleration.

Only blind religious cannot see evidence.

Only blind relgious belief juxtaposes a rate of change in time with
acceleration. And ignores the sign. And reads only selected text
from the papers he cites. And ignores other spacecraft that do not
express this same acceleration... as "incovenient".

Some papers explaining Hubble's redshift based
on the Pioneer anomalous acceleration:

And the ones by Anderson do not support your religious belief in this
case.

David A. Smith