🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 15:34:14 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
<paul.b.andersen@guesswhatuia.no> wrote:

>Dr. Henri Wilson skrev:
>> On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 15:15:00 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
>> <paul.b.andersen@hiadeletethis.no> wrote:
>> 
>>> Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 14:39:01 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
>>>> <paul.b.andersen@hiadeletethis.no> wrote:
>> 
>>>> Where is your evidence that a radio signal increases frequency as it falls to
>>>> Earth? You have none, have you Paul?.
>>> Of course gravity prope A is no believable experiment.
>>> You can't beat Wilsonian thinking:
>>>   "Since gravitational blue shift of EM-radiation would falsify
>>>    the BaTh, and the BaTh _must_ be correct because I think it is,
>>>    the only possible conclusion is that any experiment observing
>>>    gravitational blue shift _must_ be false and not believable."
>> 
>> Where is your evidence that a RADIO SIGNAL increases frequency as it falls to
>> Earth? You have none, have you Paul?.
>> 
>>>>>>> But that's OK, because according to Wilsonian thinking,
>>>>>>> every phenomenon has its own set of laws of nature.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Right? :-)
>>>>>> BaTh laws are surprisingly consistent.
>>>>> Yet you hope they are different for different phenomena.
>>>> A generated wave like RF, based on varying photon density, should not
>>>> experience a frequency shift when falling. Any change would be difficult to
>>>> detect and I doubt if anyone has seriously looked.
>>> Of couse not.
>>> Because, according to Wilsonian thinking:
>>>   "Since gravitational blue shift of EM-radiation would falsify
>>>    the BaTh, and the BaTh _must_ be correct because I think it is,
>>>    the only possible conclusion is that any experiment observing
>>>    gravitational blue shift _must_ be false and not believable."
>>>
>>> Gravity probe A can thus not be considered a 'serious look'.
>> 
>> It emitted IR photons, not RF.
>
>SIC!
>
>Why don't you read the references you are given?
>
>Is it because you don't have to know anything about
>the experiment you are claiming to be wrong, because according to
>Wilsonian thinking:
>"Whenever the experimental evidence is contrary to my faith,
>  my faith takes precedence, and there is no reason to study
>  the experimental evidence when I know it _must_ be wrong
>  since it falsifies my belief."
>
>Not much point in discussing an experiment with someone
>who knows nothing about it.

What a useless experiment.

Doppler ranging indeed.....:)

Tell me, how much does the finely tuned cavity change in free fall?



Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Einstein's  Relativity is easy to understand if one has the IQ of a parrot and a gullibility index >0.95.