sci.physics.relativity

On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 13:38:22 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
<@> wrote:

>Dr. Henri Wilson skrev:
>> On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 14:58:42 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
>> <@> wrote:
>>
>>> Dr. Henri Wilson skrev:
>>>> 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
>>> | /hewn/
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>
>> Where is the believable evidence that radio signals are doppler shifted due to
>> 'falling'? You have none.
>
>And the reason why the observed gravitational frequency shift
>of the radio signals from gravity probe A isn't 'believable' is:
>
>> How many band pass filters are accurate to 10^-11.
>
>.. the bandpass filters in the gravity probe A experiment
>changed the frequency of the received signal.
>Wonderland fairies in the filters inserted extra cycles.
>Right? :-)
>
>Keep it up, Henri.
>I am sure you can do even better.
>The sky is the limit! :-)

How much does the 'finely tuned cavity' change in free fall?

Certainly more than 1 in 10^10



Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
/hewn/

Einstein's Relativity is easy to understand if one has the IQ of a parrot and a gullibility index >.