🚀 go-pugleaf

On Feb 17, 12:01 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam...@vianet.on.ca> wrote:
> 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.

That's because you are an idiot.

> 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