🚀 go-pugleaf

On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 21:16:40 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
<paul.b.andersen@guesswhatuia.no> wrote:

>Dr. Henri Wilson skrev:
>> On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 16:05:09 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
>> <paul.b.andersen@hiadeletethis.no> wrote:

>>>> So: v = gh/c
>>>>
>>>> f1/f_0 = (c+v)/c = [c + (gh/c)]/c = 1 + gh/c^2
>>>>
>>>> Strange, eh?...and much, much simpler than Einstein's nonsensical method of
>>>> inserting a gradient into space in order to maintain a constant light speed.
>>> No it isn't strange at all, quite the contrary.
>>> Of course the kinetic energy must increase by the difference
>>> in gravitational potential whether you use GR or NM.
>>> So if you assume that a photon has a (unspecified) mass, and that
>>> the kinetic energy is the Newtonian one, then this is the obvious
>>> answer.
>> 
>> Corrrect. This IS the obvious answer.
>> ....derived in four lines as against hundreds with YOUR method... plus a year's
>> indoctrination in fairyland fantasies.
>
>And then we have the interesting situation that different laws
>of nature must apply to EM-radiation depending on the frequency.
>Gamma rays are gravitational blue shifted, radio frequencies are not.

I hope that's true....where's your evidence?

>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.

>>> In the Pound & Rebka experiment gamma rays are used.
>>> They are very "particle like", and we have no continuous wave.
>>> Sure the Pound & Rebka can be explained by "falling light".
>>> (If you insist that the Mossbauer effect only detect the photons
>>>  going exactly at c.)
>> 
>> Why is that important? The effect detects frequency shift...the same for BaTh
>> and GR.
>
>Read about the Mossbauer effect, and the Pound & Rebka
>experiment, and you will understand why.
>http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuclear/mossb.html
>http://luth2.obspm.fr/IHP06/lectures/mester-vinet/IHP-2GravRedshift.pdf

I did. It essentially detects a very small energy increase.
It agrees completely with BaTh.

>>> But other experiments are made.
>>> In gravity probe A, a hydrogen maser was used as a clock.
>>> It transmitted a continuous wave with frequency ca. 1.42 GHz.
>>> This frequency can easily be, and was, directly measured
>>>from the ground. Every cycle was received.
>> 
>> I should hope so....but I doubt if anyone counted them just to make sure.
>> 
>>> (The received frequency was compared to the frequency of
>>>  a signal reflected off the probe, to compensate for
>>>  Doppler effect. The gravitational shift was thus measured.)
>>> The rocket with the maser was launched straight up, and was
>>> inertial for most of the journey. It reached an altitude of 10000km.
>>> The relative gravitational frequency shift of the EM-radiation from
>>> that altitude was ca. 4.2E-10.
>> 
>> The speed and position of the rocket was based on the doppler shift of its
>> signal. 
>
>No.
>The speed and position was _not_ determined by the Doppler shift
>of the signal from the on-board H-maser. Of _course_ it wasn't!
>It was determined by - in principle - a Doppler radar.
>The uplinked signal was returned by a transponder where
>the transmitted frequency was a fixed ratio of the received
>frequency. Thus the frequency of the received signal was given
>by the speed only, any gravitational frequency shift will cancel.
>This is a variation of Doppler radar - a very precise way of determining
>the speed and thus the position of the probe.

...assuming light speed remains constant.

You are trying to use it to confirm that light speed remains constant.

You logic is clearly circular.
....But that's typical relativist behavior.

>You obviously don't know the experiment. Read and learn:
>http://luth2.obspm.fr/IHP06/lectures/mester-vinet/IHP-2GravRedshift.pdf
 I have.

>>> Look at my animation:
>>> http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/Satellites.html
>>> Scenario: "Two ballistic rockets"
>>> The path of the red one is almost identical to gravity probe A,
>>> and the result is as observed by the probe.
>>> (Pause it at the top, read the rate.)
>>>
>>> Explain that with "falling light". No fairies, please!
>>> Of course you can't, because it simply doesn't add up.
>>> You can't make a continuous wave increase its frequency
>>> by speeding it up. It is the wavelength that will change.
>> 
>> Correct, I demonstrated that with my animation
>> http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/fallingwave.exe
>
>So you agree that "falling light" and the BaTh can't explain
>the gravitational frequency shift.

Yes...for individual photons but not radio signals.

>>> So what do you do?
>>> Insist that gravity prove A was no "believable" experiment,
>>> of course. As if it were a matter of belief!
>>> It's hard evidence. Facts!
>
>Was I right, or was I right? :-)

If you first assume you were right, you can then prove you were right.

>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."
>
>Right? :-)
>Yes:
>> Do you really believe that the exact timing of the rocket's turnaround was
>> sufficiently accurately determined, USING DOPPLER SHIFT, to measure the exact
>> doppler shift at that point?
>> Of course not. 
>> The experiment is a circular  joke.
>
>You are again demonstrating that you don't even know
>the experiment you label as 'unbelievable'.
>
>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."
>
>Right? :-)

Paul, you are trying to use an experiment that ASSUMES light speed is constant
to PROVE that light speed is constant.

can you see the flaw in that?

>>> Gravity probe A was a very precise experiment, and the results
>>> were in accordance with the predictions of GR.
>> 
>> It was so 'precise' that it assumed constant light speed, for a start.
>> 
>> hahahahhaahaha!
>
>Quite.
>Your pathetic attempt to discredit a very well
>designed and precise experiment is indeed laughable.
>
>And what a wonderful demonstration of Wilsonian thinking! :-)

I think so.



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.