>Oz wrote:
>

>>
>> Charles Francis' proposal (gr-qc/0604047 backed by gr-qc/0604047, gr-
>> qc/0605127) places the shift as a correction due to quantum gravity
>> since photons are essentially quantised. The same effect modified by
>> being seen "edgeways on" produces a shift that matches the doppler shift
>> that mond seeks to explain but with this explanation the galaxies rotate
>> in a newtonian manner when the doppler shift is properly interpreted.

>
>So where does this leave Dark Matter if Francis' explanation for the
>accuracy of MOND is correct?

> Dirk Bruere at NeoPax gmail.com> writes

>> Oz wrote:
>>

>>> Charles Francis' proposal (gr-qc/0604047 backed by gr-qc/0604047, gr-
>>> qc/0605127) places the shift as a correction due to quantum gravity
>>> since photons are essentially quantised. The same effect modified by
>>> being seen "edgeways on" produces a shift that matches the doppler shift
>>> that mond seeks to explain but with this explanation the galaxies rotate
>>> in a newtonian manner when the doppler shift is properly interpreted.

>> So where does this leave Dark Matter if Francis' explanation for the
>> accuracy of MOND is correct?

>
> Normally I wouldn't reply on such august newsgroups discussing someone
> else's model, given my well-known level of ignorance.
>
> However Mr Francis has said elsewhere that he is in process of moving
> and will be off-line for several weeks.
>
> Basically Francis' proposal slightly alters the way redshift is ...

>Given this, why don't I read about this all across the media as 'Dark
>Matter' is debunked? Especially given the contortions that
>astrophysicists are putting themselves through to try and explain what
>it is, and apparently having to come up with multiple bizarre
>properties? Just Occam's Razor would suggest that Francis' proposal
>should be preferred. So, what's the problem with it?

>Given this, why don't I read about this all across the media as 'Dark
>Matter' is debunked? Especially given the contortions that
>astrophysicists are putting themselves through to try and explain what
>it is, and apparently having to come up with multiple bizarre
>properties? Just Occam's Razor would suggest that Francis' proposal
>should be preferred.

>So, what's the problem with it?

>Oz wrote:

>> Dirk Bruere at NeoPax gmail.com> writes

>>> Oz wrote:
>>>

>>>> Charles Francis' proposal (gr-qc/0604047 backed by gr-qc/0604047, gr-
>>>> qc/0605127) places the shift as a correction due to quantum gravity
>>>> since photons are essentially quantised. The same effect modified by
>>>> being seen "edgeways on" produces a shift that matches the doppler shift
>>>> that mond seeks to explain but with this explanation the galaxies rotate
>>>> in a newtonian manner when the doppler shift is properly interpreted.

>>> So where does this leave Dark Matter if Francis' explanation for the
>>> accuracy of MOND is correct?

>>

>
>Given this, why don't I read about this all across the media as 'Dark
>Matter' is debunked? Especially given the contortions that
>astrophysicists are putting themselves through to try and explain what
>it is, and apparently having to come up with multiple bizarre
>properties? Just Occam's Razor would suggest that Francis' proposal ...

>> I don't understand your formula a_P = 2 * H0 * v. If I understand the
>> conventional analysis, this is a local calculation in a non-expanding
>> reference frame, the frame of the solar system. Expansion of the
>> universe makes no difference to that calculation because it is simply a
>> coordinate change.

>
>My understanding of GR is limited so I should say it
>isn't clear to me whether there should be an effect
>or not but on balance I suspect it is possible.

> Thus spake George Dishman briar.demon.co.uk>

>>> I don't understand your formula a_P = 2 * H0 * v. If I understand the
>>> conventional analysis, this is a local calculation in a non-expanding
>>> reference frame, the frame of the solar system. Expansion of the
>>> universe makes no difference to that calculation because it is simply a
>>> coordinate change.

>>
>>My understanding of GR is limited so I should say it
>>isn't clear to me whether there should be an effect
>>or not but on balance I suspect it is possible.

>
> Actually this is fundamental to gtr. Changes in coordinate systems make
> no difference to physics. As a result, standard gtr does not allow the
> possibility of a local detection of expansion within the solar system.

> Oh No wrote:

>> No, lets ignore classical acceleration affects like gravity which are
>> already well modelled. All I was refering to here is that if d is
>> constant in solar system coordinates it cannot be stationary in
>> coordinates moving with Hubble expansion.

> george@briar.demon.co.uk wrote:

>> Oh No wrote:

>

>>> No, lets ignore classical acceleration affects like gravity which are
>>> already well modelled. All I was refering to here is that if d is
>>> constant in solar system coordinates it cannot be stationary in
>>> coordinates moving with Hubble expansion.

>
> I think I have already covered a relevant point here in my responses to
> Uncle Al's recommended reading.
> In coordinates moving with Hubble expansion, you get clocks running
> slower with increasing distance (by definition).

>george@briar.demon.co.uk wrote:

>> Oh No wrote:

>

>>> No, lets ignore classical acceleration affects like gravity which are
>>> already well modelled. All I was refering to here is that if d is
>>> constant in solar system coordinates it cannot be stationary in
>>> coordinates moving with Hubble expansion.

>
>I think I have already covered a relevant point here in my responses to
>Uncle Al's recommended reading.
>In coordinates moving with Hubble expansion, you get clocks running
>slower with increasing distance (by definition). Hence an apparent
>sunward acceleration caused by Pioneer not participating in that
>expansion will not result in the observed blue shift. It will result in
>the same frequency as classically predicted...