Dear El Enrrabadore-mor:

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

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

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

"dlzc" escreveu na mensagem
...
Dear El Enrrabadore-mor:

On May 6, 8:10 am, "El Enrrabadore-mor"

wrote:

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.

Maybe I went a little bit to fast claiming "as everybody
knows". Even so, "Hubble acceleration" gives 730 hits
for an exact query.

And is horse**** still.

Horse****?
So far this one have passed 3 or 4 times.
You 're the first to insist that Hubble constant combined with
a constant speed of light doesn't
generate an "Hubble acceleration".

Sure, that same crowd that thinks that "Planck mass" is
meaningful. They failed "dimensional analysis", and seek to
confuse numerology with science.

Hubble constant is an acceleration because, as I've
already explained, it's a velocity taken per a
distance (Megaparcec).

So it is a velocity at a distance. It is also a
frequency change at a distance. But it is no
"acceleration".

Well, this is only a matter of putting neurons
working together.

I have tried to point you at "dimensional analysis" a few times
now. When will you get the point?

Your "mental gyrations" (snipped) show that you have no clue
about the topic. You have no answer for doubling the distance
but the effect is the same. You have no answer for Cassini not
showing the effect. You have no answer for a wrong sign. You
may or may not have an answer for planets not being affected.

If you are going to invent your own set of "magic numbers", you
don't need to play with me. I mistakenly thought that you wanted
to discuss physics.

David A. Smith