🚀 go-pugleaf

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

>Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
>> On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 21:53:42 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
>> <paul.b.andersen@guesswhatuia.no> wrote:

>>> How did you arrive at this remarkable conclusion?
>>> It is wrong.
>>>
>>> f_h/f_o = (1-(GM/r)/c^2)/(1-(GM/R)/c^2)~= 1-(GM/r)/c^2 + (GM/R)/c^2
>>> where:
>>>   f_h = frequency of gamma photon at the top of the tower
>>>   f_o = frequency of gamma photon at the bottom of the tower
>>>   r = the distance centre of the Earth - top of tower
>>>   R = radius of the Earth (at the bottom of the tower)
>>>
>>>  r = R + h, h = height of tower
>>>  f_h/f_o ~= (1 + ((GM/R)/c^2)(1 - R/(R+h))
>>>  When h/R << 1 :
>>>  R/(R+h) ~= (1-h/R)
>>>
>>>  f_h/f_o ~= 1 + ((GM/R)/c^2)(h/R)
>>>  g = GM/R^2
>>>
>>>  f_h/f_o ~= 1 + gh/c^2
>> 
>>>  Which is in accordance with the Pound & Rebka experiment.
>> 
>> ...which is exactly in acordance with BaTh.
>> 
>> PE (per unit mass) at top = gh.
>> Increase in KE as light falls = [1/2(c+v)^2]-[1/2c^2]  = ~ cv
>> 
>> 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.

>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.

>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. 

>
>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 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!

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.
 
>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!

>"Falling light" can't explain it.
>Which means that it is falsified.
>By gravity probe A and innumerable other experiments.



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.