John C. Polasek wrote:
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 10:05:38 +0100, Bjoern Feuerbacher
wrote:


[snip]

What makes you think that the radius of the universe is 13 BLY?


Bye,
Bjoern

13 BLY or 1.23x10^26 m is generally recognized as the radius of the
universe.

No, it isn't. Where did you get that idea from?


It is the popularly accepted age in yrs x the speed of light
on the TIME axis.

What makes you think that the age of the universe times the speed
of light gives its radius?


It is part of my Dual Space theory

I.e. it is merely an assertion by you, not "generally recognized as
the radius of the universe".


and a little
diagram explaining this can be seen at http://www.dualspace.net.

You probably mean the diagram in
http://www.dualspace.net/uploads/Expansionofuniverseatwebsite.pdf.

Why do you think the "R" appearing in this diagram can be called
the "radius" of the universe?


This same theory is also capable of explaining the Pioneer 10 anomaly
on which topic relativity remains mute.

It's not clear if relativity is even required to explain it.

BTW, there are hundreds of cranks who claim to be able to explain it.
I see no reason to prefer your assertions over theirs.


But if you have another number for the radius, feel free to use it
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mystery_monday_040524.html


and
I think you will find the imputed galactic distance of 30,000 LY for
the Sun will still be an immeasurably low fraction thereof.

I won't dispute that.


Bye,
Bjoern