🚀 go-pugleaf

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.

-- 
Paul

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