🚀 go-pugleaf

On Feb 17, 11:45 am, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 13:38:22 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
>
>
>
> <paul.b.ander...@guesswhatuia.no> wrote:
> >Dr. Henri Wilson skrev:
> >> On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 14:58:42 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
> >> <paul.b.ander...@guesswhatuia.no> wrote:
>
> >>> Dr. Henri Wilson skrev:
> >>>> There is a simple reason why the GR redshift is the same as the BaTh one.
> >>>> Along with the rest of its insanity, GR distorts space so that falling light
> >>>> retains a constant light speed whilst BaTh does not promote such a delusion.
>
> >>>> The end result is naturally the same....so are the equations.
> >>> PBA:
> >>> | You can't make a continuous wave increase its frequency
> >>> | by speeding it up. It is the wavelength that will change.
>
> >>> HW:
> >>> | Correct, I demonstrated that with my animation
> >>> |http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/fallingwave.exe
>
> >>> PBA:
> >>> | So you agree that "falling light" and the BaTh can't explain
> >>> | the gravitational frequency shift.
>
> >>> HW:
> >>> | Yes...for individual photons but not radio signals.
>
> >>> That's why it is _blatantly_ obvious to anyone with some measure
> >>> of intelligence that since frequencies and wavelengths factually
> >>> are gravitationally shifted, Galilean relativity is falsified.
>
> >> Where is the believable evidence that radio signals are doppler shifted due to
> >> 'falling'? You have none.
>
> >And the reason why the observed gravitational frequency shift
> >of the radio signals from gravity probe A isn't 'believable' is:
>
> >> How many band pass filters are accurate to 10^-11.
>
> >.. the bandpass filters in the gravity probe A experiment
> >changed the frequency of the received signal.
> >Wonderland fairies in the filters inserted extra cycles.
> >Right? :-)
>
> >Keep it up, Henri.
> >I am sure you can do even better.
> >The sky is the limit! :-)
>
> How much does the 'finely tuned cavity' change in free fall?
>
> Certainly more than 1 in 10^10
>
> 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.

I agree with Henri alot.
I'm disinclined to criticize AE, as he
is not available to defend himself, I
mean let's show a bit of respect Henri.
Ken S. Tucker