Anom Accel of Pioneer 10 for v>(GM/r)^1/2

In message , Aladar
writes
Jonathan Silverlight wrote in
message ...
In message , Lyndon Ashmore
writes
It shows that the shift in wavelengths (redshift) is not due to acceleration
but is due to an interaction of waves with matter. See 'ashmore's paradox'
www.lyndonashmore.com where I show that the Hubble constant at 64 km/s per
Mpc is nothing more than a combination of the parameters of the electron
multiplied by the planck constant. Therefore redshift cannot be due to
expansion, it must be due to an interaction with electrons.

An interaction that is completely independent of wavelength would be
quite a trick. That's why it's not considered as a cause of the Pioneer
effect (or of red shifts, come to that)
Aladar is the _only_ person who thinks the Pioneer affect is an excess
red shift - and the only person who thinks it's travelled 10 1/2 light
years, apparently!

Maybe I'm the _only_ person who freely voices that the Pioneer effect
is
an excess red shift - and the only person who thinks not that "it's
travelled 10 1/2 light years, apparently!" but that the residual
represents an
accumulated value, corresponding to the 10 1/2 years of light travel
time!

And it equals to the theoretical Hubble wavelength doubling time
constant
of 4.2 billion years or in linear approximation, for small distances
corresponds to a 'conventional' Hubble constant of 162 km/s per Mpc...

And please, Johnathan, allow me to formulate my position!

Sorry, but we've been here far too many times before. You can't equate
light travel time to the "arc" during which Anderson et al. collected
data.
And even if you could, your figure for the Hubble constant is
ridiculous. How do you explain the fact that it is more than twice the
various independent measurements? It doesn't even bear any relationship
to the anomalous acceleration.
--
Rabbit arithmetic - 1 plus 1 equals 10
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.