🚀 go-pugleaf

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.
They accelerate according to BaTh and are doppler shifted.


>> 
>> It should be sensitive to photons that are doppler shifted as a result of
>> accelerating while falling.
>
>I infer from your answer that you still don't know how
>a detectopr based on the Mossbauer effect works.

It uses gamma particles, so what?


>>> You would obviously calculate what the theory "the speed of
>>> light remains constant" predicts for the outcome of an experiment
>>> which is sensitive to the speed of light.
>>> That is, you would assume that the speed of light remains constant,
>>> and calculate the consequences of that assumption. Then you do
>>> the experiment, and see if the result is in accordance with
>>> the predictions of the theory "the speed of light remains constant".
>>> There is nothing circular about that.
>>> The assumption "speed of light remains constant" doesn't force
>>> the measurements of the experiment to show what the theory predicts.
>>> If the assumption was wrong, the measurements would simply be
>>> different from the prediction, and the assumption is proven wrong.
>> 
>> the same result would be obtained if the speed of light was assumed to vary as
>> it falls.
>
>Obviously, because according to Wilsonian thinking, this is a general rule:
>   "Any assumption can force the outcome of an experiment to
>    be in accordance with the assumption. Thus, when the predictions
>    of a theory (based on a set of assumptions or postulates)
>    are calculated, the outcome of the experiment is forced to
>    be in accordance with those predictions. Any test of any
>    theory is thus circular.
>
>> The experiment proved nothing.
>> It certainly supports BaTh.
>
>Indeed.
>Because, according to Wilsonin thinking:
>   "Exceptions from this general rule are the assumptions of the BaTh.
>    These assumptions doesn't seem to be able to force the outcome
>    of experiments, they tend to differ from the predictions of the BaTh.
>    This proves that the BaTh isn't a circular theory. The BaTh is thus
>    proven right."

YOU people are the ones claiming BaTh is wrong. YOU have to demonstrate that.
You have never done so.
'GR redshift' is just another instance of a relativist sacred cow being
slaughtered.
 

>>> It is indeed interesting to note that my assumptions
>>> can force you to state what I assumed you would. :-)
>> 
>> The experiment has two basic errors that cancel each other out.
>> It proves nothing except that BaTh explains the phenomenon perfectly well.
>
>Of course, Henri.
>According to Wilsonian thinking, this is a general rule:
>   "Any assumption can force the outcome of an experiment to
>    be in accordance with the assumption. Thus, when the predictions
>    of a theory (based on a set of assumptions or postulates)
>    are calculated, the outcome of the experiment is forced to
>    be in accordance with those predictions. Any test of any
>    theory is thus circular.
>    Exceptions from this general rule are the assumptions of the BaTh.
>    These assumptions doesn't seem to be able to force the outcome
>    of experiments, they tend to differ from the predictions of the BaTh.
>    This proves that the BaTh isn't a circular theory. The BaTh is thus
>    proven right."
>
>Thus gravity probe A falsifies GR and confirm the BaTh.

It does not falsify either theory....since GR is just a moronic way of
regarding light's acceleration down a gravity well.
 




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.