🚀 go-pugleaf

Dr. Henri Wilson skrev:
> On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 20:28:30 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
> <paul.b.andersen@guesswhatuia.no> wrote:
> 
>> Max Keon skrev:
>>> "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@guesswhatuia.no> wrote in message
>>> news:47B0B5D6.5080404@guesswhatuia.no...
>>>> Max Keon wrote:
>>>>> Eric Gisse wrote:
>>>>>> Max Keon wrote:
>>> ---
> 
> 
> 
>>>  http://members.optusnet.com.au/maxkeon/redshft2.html
>>>   (Image dimensions can only be specified in html)
>>>
>>> That's another impossibility that is _blatantly_ obvious to
>>> anyone with some measure of intelligence, by the way. Perhaps
>>> you should think about that too.
>> Sure, if you postulate that Galilean relativity applies,
>> it is indeed _blatantly_ obvious impossible.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> You seem to have a lot in common with Henri Wilson. :-)
> 
> 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.

-- 
Paul

http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/