"dlzc" escreveu na mensagem
...
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...

Usually I don't read crap, but yes, I've read.

Even so, to get the dimension right you also need do
divide *r^2omega^2* per *c^2*, otherwise you get
the same horse manure, smaller, but manure anyway.

If I'm right, and it is *c^2* dividing *r^2omega^2*,
the formula is the trivial linear equation, written
in cylindrical coordinates.

And what about the missing 2pi term?
I smell a missing 2pi =6.28... term.
See, 2pi*r is the perimeter that gives w.

So, the length contraction is on "theta".
Let me guess! The circle doesn't measure 2pi
radians anymore?


Why did you post such crap?

You asked about crap.

I didn't say "rotating disk" anywhere, nor the
problem given has any kind of rigidity.

What I've asked in first place sounds impossible but can
be made very real, for smaller velocity and smaller
acceleration figures.
For instance, planets around the Sun have different
velocities and different gravitational fields, not only
from the sun, but also due to its own gravity plus the ...
....centrifugal force (here we go).
Imagine some perfect atomic clocks. Place one by each
of all planets of the solar system.
One day we go get all those clocks and bring then
to Earth again.
If you can predict the time clocks will show in this
real question, you can also answer my original question,
because the original question is just the limite case.


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

I don't need to read, I just smell it.

....
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.

If I double the distance, then I double the effect?
This one is very funny.
It is not Hubble constant a CONSTANT?
If it's a constant effect, how can it double?


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.

Are you sure?
(Of course you're sure. But remember Pioneer took about 18
Years to be known. And I guess no one want to loose the job.)


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?

Relativity and/or Hubble effect was in the computer program
in first place. Why shouldn't be?


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.

I know that you know. Now you are just kidding due to lack
of better arguments.
If planets feel such effect, then I presume the main consequence
will be that you compute wrong masses for planets.

Actually, my point is that Universe expansion is crap.
It should be you to explain why planets don't suffer
from universe expansion, but...never mind.


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.

Saturn feels happy to move where the sun gravity pull
equates the centrifugal force due to its angular speed.
If you increase the gravity pull, no problem, saturn
fall to a lower orbit and in the processes increases its
speed accordingly (since it's coming down).


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.

Not physics?
I've converted distance into time, like Physics had
converted the speed of light into distance to define
the meter standard, and you claim is not physics?

And I got dimension analysis right:
m/s /s = m/s^2 = acceleration


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.

A constant acceleration whose effect vary by distance is
a lovely argument.
Does anyone need a model to calculate the time it takes
for light to travel a distance of 1 Mpc? You are kidding
with me, for sure.


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

David A. Smith