Dear El Enrrabadore-mor:

On May 7, 4:14*am, "El Enrrabadore-mor"
wrote:
"N:dlzcD:aol T:com (dlzc)" escreveu na ...
"El Enrrabadore-mor" wrote in message
...
...
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.

Dimensional analysis is fundamental.
Anything that doesn't meet dimensional
analysis is crap. That's why I told you
that the link you provided about
"The Rigid Rotating Disk in Relativity"
snip link now broken by GG
is horse dung.
I shall said BIG SMELLY HORSE MANURE in
Physiscs FAQ. The equation given:
d(tau)^2 = dt^2-dz^2-dr^2-r^2d(theta)^2/(1-r^2omega^2)
not even meets simple dimension requirements.

The analysis was done. t and tau are "time times c". Had you read
the page...

Why did you post such crap?

You asked about crap.

Do you some times require dimensional
analysis and some other times not?

Can you read?

...
snip you harping about what you do not know about dimensional
analysis, because you appear unable to read

...
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.

With constant acceleration you can double, triple, or
10^101 the distance, that nothing changes about the
acceleration caused by the effect.

With Hubble expansion, you double the distance, you double the
effect. If you want to apply it in some other fashion, you need
another model. You should know this. You Have No Model.

*You have no answer for Cassini not showing the
effect.

I've already told you it is a matter of distance.
Cassini didn't went that far, nor known data exists.
What else can I tell about that?

Cassini did not show the effect, when Pioneer (and others) did.
Pioneer showed the effect *before* it got as far as Saturn.

You have no answer for a wrong sign.

The wrong sign happens to be the right sign
for a non-existent effect computed in first
place.

So the Pioneer anomaly is just a math error?

You may or may not have an answer for
planets not being affected.

Planets orbit, don't go away.
The argument makes no sense at all.

You have an anomalous acceleration at some "place", starting just
before or just after the orbit of Jupiter. Yet these planets don't
accelerate anomalously, maintaining their orbits over hundred of
years.

What sense could your planets argument make?
Care to explain?

Pioneer and Saturn shared the same space. Pioneer linearly
accelerated Sunward, Saturn did not. Same story for all the other
outer planets.

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.

I've just presented a fact, coincidence or not,
the facts are that the anomalous acceleration
experienced by Pioneer spacecrafts is a PERFECT
MATCH when one combines:
- Hubble Constant
- Speed of light constant
That's all.

Which is not physics. It does not present a model. It does not allow
for falsifiability. It discounts what effects this "application"
would have on:
- the probe's size and internal processes
- on the fact that the effect does not vary by distance... required
when you invoke Hubble's constant.

So you play number games, and waste time. This is known as
"numerology".

David A. Smith