Re: Pioneer Anomoly


"John C. Polasek" <jpolasek@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:so27b19lnlts1ullo690go18v21aoibp52@xxxxxxxxxx
>
> Furthermore, if we use the equation A_p = H*c we could get a better
> value for Hubble and for age 1/H.

Be careful, that is a noted numerical coincidence but
the applicable equation depends on the precise mechanism.
For example tired light predicts A_p = 2*H*v where v is
the speed of the craft so is wrong by four orders of
magnitude. I thought I'd have a look at your ideas before
posting this but ...

> I have the Pioneer 10 anomaly explained in paper #4 on my website. Of
> course it uses new physics. There is no explanation in relativity or
> other of current theory.
>
> John Polasek
> http://www.dualspace.net

"4. PIONEER 10 ANOMALY EXPLAINED BY DUAL SPACE THEORY"

Has the following in the abstract: "Not included below
are developed extensions to this theory that explain
.... the cause of the Pioneer 10 anomaly." which is
correct, there is nothing in the document that tries
to explain Pioneer.

Where can I see why the equations of your theory predict
an acceleration which is independent of distance? What
is the predicted value?

George


.