|
Local space
expansion measured via NASA data (pdf).
Abstract
The anomalous and constant accelerations
observed acting on spacecrafts are compared to a value obtained from a
well-known astrophysical effect. The frequency shift method applied to the
frequency ranges of spacecraft communications confirms the compatibility
of the data with the known astrophysical data, to the point that, when
combined, they give a much higher precision for the parameter known as the
Hubble constant. Through this method the constant is narrowed down to
(75.0 + 0.4, - 0.3) km/s-Mpc. Earth-bound experiments are suggested to
confirm the validity of this approach. The fact the Hubble effect is not
observed in our neighborhood is explained from spatial energetic
considerations.
[Article submitted to Elsevier's Planetary
and Space Science Journal Feb. 14th 2004. Revised upon comments on May 1st
due to referees pointing out a misunderstanding of the data leading to an
incorrect analysis- conclusion remains the same. Final rejection comment
below given later. Revision with discussion of why the Hubble effect is
not observed in our galaxy submitted to Frontier Perspectives on May
26th.]
Here is the referee's comment that
has shut down the publication via Elsevier:
“The main idea of the paper is flawed, because inside dense
and gravitationnally bound systems, such as our own Galaxy, there is no
Hubble expansion, and the Hubble constant cannot be determined at all
(the paper of Rosales [ gr-qc/0401014 at www.arXiv.org] is also wrong).
Our galaxy has an average density much larger (by 5 orders of magnitude
at least) than the critical density required for a Big-Crunch. And the
local space of course is perturbed by this, light rays included, as for
example around a black hole (for an extreme example). Apart from the
rotation and evolution of the Galaxy, distances inside our Milky Way are
fixed and not expanding, only at Mpc scales can we hope to see signs of
Hubble expansion.” This judgement is based on a theory, not on
facts from Nature. For him, and many like him, human theory tells the
truth while Nature can lie. He did not even think about testing Nature via
an experiment (as the paper proposes) to see for himself before believing
a mathematical theory. The paper asks NASA to make another experiment
besides Pioneer, which would confirm/infirm the theory once and for all.
This "Swiss cheese" cosmology theory mentioned by the referee is
well-known to be based on unphysical assumptions in order to proceed with
the chosen formalism. (For example, it is based on the
Robertson-Walker-Freedman model, which sees “pressure” in a “galaxy dust”
by assuming the speed of light as infinite, a most unphysical assumption
unless space is taken as a mathematical form with no physical substance,
and this against Einstein's view of space as a physical entity.)
The
article from Rosales, that the referee considers wrong also, was
considered by NASA-JPL and ESA in a workshop held in Bremen in the middle
of May (Elsevier was informed of that fact). The key question is why
the Hubble effect is not seen within our galaxy, while the blueshift
Pioneer effect is seen. The paper above answers that question by
taking space as an electromagnetic entity exchanging energy with e-m
waves.
[See the latest article above on the
Many-Hypersphere Model of the Universe for a cosmology explaining not only
the “Pioneer effect” but also galactic speed curves (which led to the
“dark matter” hypothesis) and the supernovae anomalous redshifts (which
led to the “dark energy” hypothesis), all this within an observed flat
universe and a physical space per Einstein's view, without the need for
unobserved dark things. Occam's Razor is in action here.]
February
2004 (revised May 26th 2004)
|