(Daniel Weston) wrote in message ...
To Marcel: I am not married to the Big Bang Theory. But it seems to me
that to have a static theory, the first task is to seriously undermine
the redshift interpretation, i.e. redshift = expansion. When the BBT
was first proposed, a tremendous amount of energy and research was done
to dispel the redshift interpretation. Up to now it appears that all
such attempts have failed. When the BBT was first proposed, it met
almost universal distain and not a little scorn.

How do the static model proponents answer these questions?

What is the age of the universe, infinite?

What is the size of the universe, infinite?

What is a more compelling interpretation of the redshift?

I have proposed an interpretation in the article
PIONEER ANOMALY: NEW PHYSICS?, that can be found at
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/mluttgens/

Here is an excerpt from that article:

ARGUMENTS

John D. Aderson et al. [i]

- Conclude to the existence of a radial acceleration aP
aP = (8.74 +- 1.25) x 10^-8 in order to explain the observed
redshift deficit:

"Our previous analyses of radio Doppler and ranging data from
distant spacecraft in the solar system indicated that an apparent
anomalous acceleration is acting on Pioneer 10 and 11,
with supporting data from the Galileo and Ulysses spacecraft."

"The observed two-way anomalous effect may be expressed
by the following simple expression:
NUobs(t) = NUmodel(t) [1 - 2aP*t/c],
where NUobs is the two-way Doppler frequency shift of the
re-transmitted signal observed by a DSN antennae, while
NUmodel is the predicted frequency shift of that signal."

- But the so-called radial acceleration is not necessarily sunward:

"We only measure Earth-spacecraft Doppler frequency and, as
we will discuss in Sec. 8.1, the down link antenna yields a conical
beam of width 3.6 degrees at half-maximum power.
Therefore, between Pioneer 10's past and present (May 2001)
distances of 20 to 78 AU, the Earth-spacecraft line and Sun-spacecraft
line are so close that one can not resolve whether the force direction
is towards the Sun or if the force direction is towards the Earth.
If we could have used a longer arc fit that started earlier and hence
closer, we might have been able to separate the Sun direction from
the Earth direction."

They also wrote: "The anomalous acceleration is too large to have
gone undetected in planetary orbits, particularly for Earth and Mars."

In conclusion, the observed acceleration can be opposite the velocity
rather than sunward.

- Don't find a convincing explanation for the observed acceleration,
and consider that "the possibility remains that the effect
is real, and could even be related to cosmological quantities."

Indeed, it is in good accordance with cH, where c is the speed
of light and H a Hubble constant of 82 km/s/Mpc.

- Don't exclude that the anomly could lead to a new physics:

" If one has to consider new physics one should be open to both
points of view. In the unlikely event that there is new physics, one
does not want to miss it because one had the wrong mind set."

PROPOSED BASE OF A NEW PHYSICS

- The observed acceleration is real.

- It is equal to cH, hence it is a cosmological phenomenon,
that affects all moving bodies. In other words, it is related to
the Universe as a whole, not to the Sun or its environment
in particular.

- Consequently, planets experience a tangential deceleration,
and light undergoes a red shift in proportion to the distance
of its source.

- Assuming that the acceleration is constant, the simplest
explanation is that the Universe is Euclidian, homogeneous,
static and infinite, and that every point of the Universe is the
center of a sphere of radius c/H.

Marcel Luttgens