Missing Mass, Galaxy Ageing, Supernova Redshift, MOND and Pioneer (was: character sets)

[[Mod. note -- I have taken the liberty of changing the Subject:
header in 2 ways:
1. The usenet standard for changing subject from X to Y is
Subject: Y (was: X)
with "(" and ")" parentheses; somehow this thread managed to get
"[" and "]" square brackets instead, which will confuse some
threaded newsreaders.
2. Since we're back to discussing astronomy, not character sets, I've
made Y=astronomy and X=character sets. This way newsreaders are
more likely to abbreviate the thread in a way which suggests astronomy...
-- jt]]

In article , Charles Francis
writes:

I got to the square red shift law on theoretical grounds, by looking at
how I could used teleparallel displacement to get a consistent
mathematical model. But from the point of view of the paper discussed
here I am happy to treat it as phenomenological. It appears to me that
it actually does give a better match with data than the linear law
derived from parallel transport of light.

Segal sang the praises of a "quadratic Hubble law" for years, claiming
it was a better fit to the data. As many have pointed out, this is not
the case. (His model fails on many other grounds as well.) What
concrete data are better fit by your law than with the standard one?