CBR has the answer

Tifft's redshift period is about 1/137 of 450 M lt yr. If these two fluctuations in the Hubble parameter, are of equal amplitude (like white noise) then the amplitude of fine variation with direction, of the CMB temperature should be about 1/137 of the CMB dipole (as measured in the galactic frame, which really differs little from the sun's - see above). I.e., 1/137*370/300,000=0.9*10^(-5).

The magnitude (equal to the acceleration which, applied to photons, would cause the Hubble redshift - A. Stolmar; see also my unpublished article of 2002) of the anomalous sunward acceleration of the Pioneer 10&11, Galileo and Ulysses probes, is constant, so the sun doesn't determine the magnitude. The direction (toward the sun) is constant, so the probe doesn't determine the direction or the magnitude.

The Hubble parameter isn't an expansion, (cm/s)/cm, it's an acceleration, (cm/s)/s, like a coefficient of friction of the ether. The magnitude of this acceleration can be determined either from intergalactic photons, or from accurately tracked, spin-stabilized interplanetary probes. Zwicky was half right: relativity causes gravity to drag photons. However, this determines only the direction (i.e., parallel to gravity), not the magnitude of their deceleration. The planets do not show this acceleration, because they are large enough that the field is directed, to a first approximation, toward their centers, not toward the sun. Somewhat more accurate measurements of the orbital period of Mars, or of Mercury, Ceres or Phobos, might show the acceleration.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Joe Keller</i>
<br />The magnitude (equal to the acceleration which, applied to photons, would cause the Hubble redshift - A. Stolmar; see also my unpublished article of 2002) of the anomalous sunward acceleration of the Pioneer 10&11, Galileo and Ulysses probes, is constant, so the sun doesn't determine the magnitude.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
No, the "anomalous acceleration" appears only beyond 5 UA, is maximal at 10 UA, and seems to decrease at larger distances. The gravitational frequency shifts are well known and taken into account in the computations.
"Anomalous (noisy) accelerations" appear if the path of the radio crosses the corona and in a few other consitions: it depends clearly on the path of the light, generally beyond 5 UA.
Beyond 5 UA, the solar wind cools, producing excited, neutral atomic hydrogen (in particular metastable 2S), in which a CREIL effect transfers energy from the Solar light (which is redshifted) to the radio waves (CMB and emissions of the Pioneers) which are blueshifted.

Thus the "anomalous acceleration" does not exist, it is simply a blueshift of the radio waves, an elementary physical effect.

Why looking for complex explanations while it is elementary physics ?

Hi JMB!

SG Turyshev, JD Anderson et al have an article on the "Anomalous Acceleration", on arXiv.org dated 9 Mar 1999. They say the acceleration was 7.94+-0.11*10^(- cm/s^2 before about 1990, 8.39+-0.14 from 1990 to 1992, and 7.29+-0.17 after 1992.

They also say, "We detect no long-term deceleration changes from mid-1992 to mid-1998." Grammatically this sentence is ambiguous. It means that the deceleration didn't change, not that there was none. I saw the graph for those years, in another article by JD Anderson et al, which appeared in Physical Review.

The 9 Mar 1999 article gives a best estimate of 7.5*10^(- cm/s^2. That's equivalent to 77 km/s/Mpc if applied to a photon. According to my theory of a spatially sinusoidally varying Hubble parameter, the Key/NASA result (roughly, volume-averaging in a sphere of radius 225 M lt yr, getting 72 km/s/Mpc) implies 75 km/s/Mpc locally. So the 1999 Turyshev/Anderson best estimate of the anomalous acceleration, is within 3% of the best available estimate of the local Hubble parameter.

- Joe Keller

Intragalactic red/blueshifts are mainly not due to motion, but they are traditionally expressed as such. To correct for the sun's "motion", I referred to Godlowski et al 2006 (also Guthrie & Napier 1991). I found current mainstream values for apparent radial velocities (r.v.'s) of Local Group galaxies; for M31 & M33 I found three, close together, and averaged them. Hodge's text on M31, shows a speed graph with a symmetry line at 290 km/s; I averaged this value in, too. I chose middle-of-the-road mainstream distance values, and used 75 km/s for the Hubble parameter.

After correcting for the sun's "motion" and the Hubble redshift, the net radial motions were:

M31
-164 km/s (or -153; see below) = -144 -20 (or -9)
M32
- 67 = - 72 + 5
M110
-115 = -144 +29
M33
- 87 = - 72 -15
LMC
+ 72 = + 72 + 0
SMC
- 5 = 0 - 5
SagDwf
+132 = +144 -12

For Tifft quantization in multiples of 72 km/s, the expected sum of absolute differences from the nearest multiple, is 126, with a standard deviation, for seven summands, of 27.5. The observed sum was 86, borderline statistically significant. Using 290 km/s for M31 (a value based on the apparent center of rotation, therefore perhaps free of M31's intragalactic red/blueshift) reduced the sum to 75; 40% of that was from M110, whose light passes over the pole of M31. The most accurate r.v.'s & distances, LMC & SMC, contributed only 5 to the sum.

The quantized red/blueshifts are intrinsic "companion redshifts" described by Arp. Tifft's law arises if galaxies tend to be spaced so that Hubble redshifts cancel intrinsic blueshifts.

The remainder indicates roughly 0 and 25 km/s co-revolution speeds for the LMC and SMC, resp. This assumes revolution about the Milky Way's axis in a plane parallel to the Milky Way. Sagittarius Dwarf can't be calculated, because the effective galactic center, almost directly between it and the sun, can't be estimated accurately enough.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Joe Keller</i>
<br />... the 1999 Turyshev/Anderson best estimate of the anomalous acceleration, is within 3% of the best available estimate of the local Hubble parameter.
- Joe Keller
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
But it corresponds to a blueshift, not a redshift.
The CREIL explains it simply: the temperature of a beam being given from Planck's law, in a convenient refracting madium, the energy flows from hot (generally light,redshifted) to cold (generally radio, blueshifted).
The periodicity multiple of z=0.062 is explained by the CREIL effect while light propagates in "cold" (10 000-40 000 K) hydrogen, it is observed in the quasar and close objects spectra. Tifft's periodicity is probably produced by a propagation in H2+.