On Tuesday, April 11, 2017 at 3:46:47 AM UTC-4, wrote:
Il giorno lunedì 10 aprile 2017 13:55:22 UTC+2, Craig Markwardt ha scritto:
On Sunday, April 9, 2017 at 9:24:25 AM UTC-4, wrote:
Il giorno venerdì 7 aprile 2017 16:03:50 UTC+2, Craig Markwardt ha scritto:
On Thursday, April 6, 2017 at 4:18:06 AM UTC-4, wrote:
...
.. Mr. Craig seems to me an interesting competitor .. we shall try to speak completely (?) in one point, each time ...
.. first point : is quantitatively similar the magnitude of acceleration of Pioneer and Hubble constant ?
No

.. i don't know the paper of Anderson 2002 .. modestly i know that the acceleration in the International Sistem is given in meter each sec * sec .. ..: if i translate the Pioneer 'datas 8.7cm * 10^-8 sec*sec in meter , i get 8.7 m *10^-10 sec*sec

Yes

..: if i tranlate the Hubble 'datas 25 km sec * M y , i get 25*10^3 sec *sec/ 3.1 *10^6 * 10 *6 or 8.2 m*10^-10 sec*sec ...and so the two accelerations are , in absolute value , very similar ..(NB: i have forgotten the M. y. l. , the l. of 'light' because also in Pioneer datas , this quantity was forgotten..)

Don't forget it, it's important. Hubble constant is about 75 km/s/Mpc (Mpc = megaparsec) That is a velocity change of 75 km/s for each megaparsec of distance increase. Typical escape speed for Pioneers is about 12 km/s, so (75 km/s/Mpc * 12 km/s) = 2.9e-14 m/s^2. No way this is close to 8.7e-10 m/s^2.

Now if Pioneers were traveling at the speed of light, then yes, the numbers would be comparable, but that is not the case.
CM

..i refer to the paper arxiv : gr ..q../010406..
1) Turyshev wrote that an other people (like me) had noted the similarity of the quantity of the Pioneer acceleration and the Hubble constant ..
2) at page 32 of the paper , the formula 15 keeps at denominator the c ( migth that authorize to write M.y.l. only M.y. ?

There is no equation 15 on page 32 of 0104064.pdf, but if you mean equation 57 on page 44... This was a throwaway line in the paper, and unfortunately stimulated too many people. It is meaningless numerology.

3) of course , i take the datas from the arxiv'paper , but the measures of distance are done with signals coming of light'speed in the two cases ( Pioneer and Hubble)
.. the tipical escape'speed of 12 km.sec is not inside the question , because the anomaly is an extraspeed , out of the 12k.s. (initial speed) and the gravitational 'speed adjustments..

Nope. Problem 1 of course is that the Hubble expansion is an expansion which accelerates "outward" with increased distance, whereas the Pioneer effect is an acceleration "inward." So of course the direction is totally wrong.

But even then the explanation fails. If one takes the Hubble effect as it is conventionally understood, it is an expansion of space which carries objects along with it. Hubble expansion alone at a single distance could never lead to the Pioneer effect, because the Hubble effect is a constant velocity at fixed distance (i.e. no acceleration). Fail. However, Pioneer is moving from smaller distance to larger distance at about 12 km/s so it does sample regions of smaller, then large expansion. That *does* lead to differential Hubble expansion, i.e. acceleration, *but* the magnitude is too small as already noted.

Your appeal to light speed of the measurement is not founded upon anything known about the Hubble effect. The Hubble effect is still a amount of speed change *per distance*. The Pioneer spacecraft just doesn't have a large distance (and distance is not increasing at a large rate).

CM

.. my reference 'paper is arxiv:qr-qc/0104064 19Apr2001 ..page 32 chapter 5 -Original detection... at half-page we have : formula 15 .. . Vobs=Vmodel(t)*(1-2ap*t/c)... can be interpreted like a detection at light'speed?

No. "expressed to first order in v/c" means it is indicative of the sign and magnitude of aP but not used for any analysis. You can't just ignore a factor of c.

.. the distance of the Pioneers was considered in UA (in Km=space ) and in Hours/light'speed ( in time=space? ): they made the two things togheter and that could carry some confusion ..can i have right at 10% ?

Light time is more observable to radiometric analysts, which is why it is discussed. Distance is inferred from the best-fit trajectory. But this still does not allow you to ignore a factor of c.

..so we go to discuss the second question :the sign of de-acceleration .. then the third : is Hubble an acceleration ? .

The Hubble "flow" is faster at larger distances. An object traveling from nearer to farther will move from slower to faster Hubble flow. In effect an acceleration. But the "direction" of the acceleration is outward for a craft moving from nearer to farther, so it is not the explanation. The Pioneers' outward speeds were *slowing* more than expected based on the 2002 understanding of the physics, not speeding up.

CM