But while you're preening about how up to date you are; why don't you wow us with your brilliant explanation of the "Pioneer Maser Effect, (Blueshifting)," observed by JPL in the 80's regarding the Pioneer and other spacecraft.
Drawing any conclusion about proving the supposed Big bang all depends on what emphasis you place on any one of these effects.
For example, if you are a physicist, you can calculate their actual magnitude. And if you are a creationist, you can make stuff up and not notice that you're wrong 'cos of knowing damn-all about physics. And this will indeed affect what "emphasis" you place on these effects.
As for the warping of space-time, it stands as an icon of empirical evidence. It is the rock on which shatters fantasies like Quantum gravity or the fictitious Higgs Boson. I mention the Boson here because it is also a casualty of General Relativity in that it cannot impart mass to a black hole.
You know that same Black hole that is the stumbling block to unification and man’s pride.
Once again I have to wonder whether you compose your posts by drawing words at random out of a hat.
Since Scheffer,( E- Print arXiv:gr-qc/0107092; gr-qc/0108054), and Katz and Murphy, ( Phys. Rev. Letters 83) long ago ...
Why bother with what was done "long ago" when what I presented was based on newly discovered data?
Perhaps because you have a canned answer to what was said long ago, but not to what was just recently proved?
Scheffer's Model predicted that the thrust from these thermal sources should have declined by 11.8% from "Period I" (10/1988) through "Period III" (7/1995) due to a decline in available spacecraft power and changes in the types of experiments being carried out. instead a much smaller rate of decrease in "acceleration" is seen.
Did you write that correctly? You seem to be saying that the explanation is more than enough to explain the phenomena. In which case you'll have to reverse the nature of the supposed anomaly.
So you see even if they now are saying they've accounted for it, their behavior makes me doubt it.
Their behavior, eh? Rather than their data and their calculations?