Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Why digital data representation doesn't require "numbers"...
106 views
Skip to first unread message
William Sommerwerck
Jun 23, 2012, 11:39:29 AM6/23/12
to
I recently gave a real-world example of this, which anyone whose brain
wasn't clogged with techno-gunk should have immediately understood. That no
one responded means I have to shove it down your throats again. I refuse to
be "polite" with people who cannot accept the possibility that there
//might// be contradicting points of view which are correct.
There's a recent New York Times article that shows an overwhelming majority
of Americans continue to believe things that are either objectively untrue,
or for which there is little hard evidence. These //do not/ include
believing that life on Earth is the result of divine creation, rather than
evolution. (An incredible 60% believe that.)
I've been accused of not writing clearly, so I'll go through this
step-by-step.
I assume most of you are familiar with switching -- so-called class D --
amplifiers. D //does not// refer to digital, though many people incorrectly
refer to them as digital amplifiers, because they believe pulses = digital.
Some //are// digital, but most are analog.
Here's an article that shows their basic operation. (By the way, the
material in the Terminology section is almost completely wrong. It reads as
if it had been written by someone from rec.audio.pro.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switching_amplifier
The output transistors are operated as switches -- all-on or all-off. The
amplifier works by varying the duty cycle of the switching. As the signal
becomes more-positive, the output device connected to the positive rail is
turned on for a longer period of time, the device on the negative rail a
shorter period of time. And vice-versa.
The "Signal modulation" section describes the basic method of generating the
pulse-width modulation drive signal. It should be obvious that if the
amplifier's input is analog -- that is, its value varies continuously --
that the information conveyed by the PWM drive signal //must also// be
analog, because the pulse widths necessarily vary continuously.
This is FACT, inherent in the definitions of analog and digital data. It is
not open to discussion or interpretation. As friendly Professor Schickele
says "Truth is truth. You can't have opinions about truth."
There are other ways to generate the PWM drive signal. One way is to the use
the I2S digital output of DSP devices. The I2S data is quantized (right?),
ergo, the pulse widths must be quantized. Therefore, the PWM drive signal is
a //digital// representation of the original signal (just as the I2S data
were).
Now... you tell me... Where in the digital PWM drive signal are the
"numbers" you say are necessary for the digital representation of the
original signal?
<tapping foot in annoyance> Well?
I can't wait to hear your asinine, lunatic, self-serving, intellectually
self-deluded responses.
PS: You might ask why someone as stupid as I uses the following quote as his
e-mail signature:
"We already know the answers -- we just haven't asked the right
questions." -- Edwin Land
wasn't clogged with techno-gunk should have immediately understood. That no
one responded means I have to shove it down your throats again. I refuse to
be "polite" with people who cannot accept the possibility that there
//might// be contradicting points of view which are correct.
There's a recent New York Times article that shows an overwhelming majority
of Americans continue to believe things that are either objectively untrue,
or for which there is little hard evidence. These //do not/ include
believing that life on Earth is the result of divine creation, rather than
evolution. (An incredible 60% believe that.)
I've been accused of not writing clearly, so I'll go through this
step-by-step.
I assume most of you are familiar with switching -- so-called class D --
amplifiers. D //does not// refer to digital, though many people incorrectly
refer to them as digital amplifiers, because they believe pulses = digital.
Some //are// digital, but most are analog.
Here's an article that shows their basic operation. (By the way, the
material in the Terminology section is almost completely wrong. It reads as
if it had been written by someone from rec.audio.pro.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switching_amplifier
The output transistors are operated as switches -- all-on or all-off. The
amplifier works by varying the duty cycle of the switching. As the signal
becomes more-positive, the output device connected to the positive rail is
turned on for a longer period of time, the device on the negative rail a
shorter period of time. And vice-versa.
The "Signal modulation" section describes the basic method of generating the
pulse-width modulation drive signal. It should be obvious that if the
amplifier's input is analog -- that is, its value varies continuously --
that the information conveyed by the PWM drive signal //must also// be
analog, because the pulse widths necessarily vary continuously.
This is FACT, inherent in the definitions of analog and digital data. It is
not open to discussion or interpretation. As friendly Professor Schickele
says "Truth is truth. You can't have opinions about truth."
There are other ways to generate the PWM drive signal. One way is to the use
the I2S digital output of DSP devices. The I2S data is quantized (right?),
ergo, the pulse widths must be quantized. Therefore, the PWM drive signal is
a //digital// representation of the original signal (just as the I2S data
were).
Now... you tell me... Where in the digital PWM drive signal are the
"numbers" you say are necessary for the digital representation of the
original signal?
<tapping foot in annoyance> Well?
I can't wait to hear your asinine, lunatic, self-serving, intellectually
self-deluded responses.
PS: You might ask why someone as stupid as I uses the following quote as his
e-mail signature:
"We already know the answers -- we just haven't asked the right
questions." -- Edwin Land
Don Pearce
Jun 23, 2012, 11:42:59 AM6/23/12
to
with you and your inability to grasp basic science.
d
William Sommerwerck
Jun 23, 2012, 12:00:03 PM6/23/12
to
> William, just do everybody a favour and fuck off. I've lost
> patience with you and your inability to grasp basic science.
Why, then, was I accepted at MIT, Case Western, and Caltech?
> patience with you and your inability to grasp basic science.
Don Pearce
Jun 23, 2012, 12:18:00 PM6/23/12
to
Imperial College if you really feel the need to trade credentials.
d
None
Jun 23, 2012, 12:27:50 PM6/23/12
to
"William Sommerwerck" <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:js4nv7$n9t$1...@dont-email.me...
to bluster and pretend your smart and important and superior.
No response has nothing to do with whether anyone understood,
or whether anyone agreed or disagreed, or whether you were
right or wrong. You use pure egocentricism to "reason" to your
defective conclusion.
Maybe nobody responded because you're a consummate asshole,
or because trying to engage in a technical discussion with you
is a waste of their time,
> I refuse to
> be "polite" with people who cannot accept the possibility that there
> //might// be contradicting points of view which are correct.
>
> There's a recent New York Times article that shows an overwhelming
> majority
> of Americans continue to believe things that are either objectively
> untrue,
> or for which there is little hard evidence. These //do not/ include
> believing that life on Earth is the result of divine creation, rather than
> evolution. (An incredible 60% believe that.)
>
> I've been accused of not writing clearly, so I'll go through this
> step-by-step.
Condescending and pedantic rambling isn't' writing clearly,
especially when it's interspersed with repeated references
to your own overbloated opinion of yourself, and your imaginary
superiority over everyone else.
> <SNIP condescending and pedantic rambling interspersed
> with repeated references to your own overbloated opinion
> of yourself, and your imaginary superiority over everyone else.
> <tapping foot in annoyance> Well?
<Laughing at the asshole who thinks people give a flying fuck about his
foot-tapping?
> I can't wait to hear your asinine, lunatic, self-serving, intellectually
> self-deluded responses.
You've provided plenty of asinine, lunatic, self-serving, intellectually
self-deluded responses; I don't think anyone's about to surpass it for you.
> PS: You might ask why someone as stupid as I uses the following quote as
> his
> e-mail signature:
>
> "We already know the answers -- we just haven't asked the right
> questions." -- Edwin Land
PS: You might ask yourself why nobody gives a fuck. If you do
ask, and you accidentally stumble across the right answer like
a blind pig finding an acorn, you're not going to like the answer,
so you'll just reject it.
news:js4nv7$n9t$1...@dont-email.me...
> I recently gave a real-world example of this, which anyone whose brain
> wasn't clogged with techno-gunk should have immediately understood. That
> no
> one responded means I have to shove it down your throats again.
The reason you're repeating it is all about your own need
> wasn't clogged with techno-gunk should have immediately understood. That
> no
> one responded means I have to shove it down your throats again.
to bluster and pretend your smart and important and superior.
No response has nothing to do with whether anyone understood,
or whether anyone agreed or disagreed, or whether you were
right or wrong. You use pure egocentricism to "reason" to your
defective conclusion.
Maybe nobody responded because you're a consummate asshole,
or because trying to engage in a technical discussion with you
is a waste of their time,
> I refuse to
> be "polite" with people who cannot accept the possibility that there
> //might// be contradicting points of view which are correct.
>
> There's a recent New York Times article that shows an overwhelming
> majority
> of Americans continue to believe things that are either objectively
> untrue,
> or for which there is little hard evidence. These //do not/ include
> believing that life on Earth is the result of divine creation, rather than
> evolution. (An incredible 60% believe that.)
>
> I've been accused of not writing clearly, so I'll go through this
> step-by-step.
especially when it's interspersed with repeated references
to your own overbloated opinion of yourself, and your imaginary
superiority over everyone else.
> <SNIP condescending and pedantic rambling interspersed
> with repeated references to your own overbloated opinion
> of yourself, and your imaginary superiority over everyone else.
> <tapping foot in annoyance> Well?
foot-tapping?
> I can't wait to hear your asinine, lunatic, self-serving, intellectually
> self-deluded responses.
self-deluded responses; I don't think anyone's about to surpass it for you.
> PS: You might ask why someone as stupid as I uses the following quote as
> his
> e-mail signature:
>
> "We already know the answers -- we just haven't asked the right
> questions." -- Edwin Land
ask, and you accidentally stumble across the right answer like
a blind pig finding an acorn, you're not going to like the answer,
so you'll just reject it.
None
Jun 23, 2012, 12:28:48 PM6/23/12
to
"William Sommerwerck" <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:js4p54$u90$1...@dont-email.me...
>> William, just do everybody a favour and fuck off. I've lost
>> patience with you and your inability to grasp basic science.
>
> Why, then, was I accepted at MIT, Case Western, and Caltech?
Perhaps they thought you could be taught to grasp basic science.
>> patience with you and your inability to grasp basic science.
>
> Why, then, was I accepted at MIT, Case Western, and Caltech?
If so, they were mistaken.
None
Jun 23, 2012, 12:32:59 PM6/23/12
to
"Don Pearce" <sp...@spam.com> wrote in message
news:4fe6ebd5...@news.eternal-september.org...
Note that he was spewing imaginary "credentials" as if acceptance
to a college decades ago somehow indicates that a middle-aged
loser is smart. It's actually pretty pathetic.
Pass the popcorn!
news:4fe6ebd5...@news.eternal-september.org...
to a college decades ago somehow indicates that a middle-aged
loser is smart. It's actually pretty pathetic.
Pass the popcorn!
Don Pearce
Jun 23, 2012, 12:34:45 PM6/23/12
to
d
Randy Yates
Jun 23, 2012, 12:39:26 PM6/23/12
to
"William Sommerwerck" <grizzle...@comcast.net> writes:
> [...]
First I would distinguish between quantization in time and quantization
in amplitude. I am not sure which process (or maybe neither) you are
discussing.
It is certainly true that you can quantize in time without using
numbers. A simple example is a CCD: the device samples an array of
analog voltages at a specific time. The output is an array of analog
voltages (NOT numbers).
Is that what you're referring to (e.g.)?
--
Randy Yates
Digital Signal Labs
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com
> [...]
First I would distinguish between quantization in time and quantization
in amplitude. I am not sure which process (or maybe neither) you are
discussing.
It is certainly true that you can quantize in time without using
numbers. A simple example is a CCD: the device samples an array of
analog voltages at a specific time. The output is an array of analog
voltages (NOT numbers).
Is that what you're referring to (e.g.)?
--
Randy Yates
Digital Signal Labs
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com
Randy Yates
Jun 23, 2012, 12:41:55 PM6/23/12
to
know.
Not to poo-poo your credentials, Don, but just to say a piece of sheep
skin doesn't necessarily mean anything...
--Impressed by your credentials!
Don Pearce
Jun 23, 2012, 12:49:54 PM6/23/12
to
my doctorate has resulted in me being chief engineer in a satellite
design facility. Audio, acoustics and recording are a hobby for me.
I preferred the floppy hat to the sheepskin, btw.
d
Message has been deleted
Mxsmanic
Jun 23, 2012, 1:23:02 PM6/23/12
to
Digital representation is based on the use of symbols. The symbols need not be
numbers.
numbers.
Mxsmanic
Jun 23, 2012, 1:24:49 PM6/23/12
to
Randy Yates writes:
> First I would distinguish between quantization in time and quantization
> in amplitude.
Neither is the same as digital representation of information. Quantization is
> First I would distinguish between quantization in time and quantization
> in amplitude.
always part of an analog/digital conversion.
Randy Yates
Jun 23, 2012, 2:03:15 PM6/23/12
to
Mxsmanic <mxsm...@gmail.com> writes:
> Randy Yates writes:
>
>> First I would distinguish between quantization in time and quantization
>> in amplitude.
>
> Neither is the same as digital representation of information.
OK, so at the University of Mxsmanic, how is "digital representation"
> Randy Yates writes:
>
>> First I would distinguish between quantization in time and quantization
>> in amplitude.
>
> Neither is the same as digital representation of information.
defined and how is "information" defined?
May I suggest that you consider the definitions put forth by Oppenheim
and Schafer [discretetime], in which on p.8 they state:
The term signal is generally applied to something that conveys
information.
and also on p.8:
Digital signals are those for which both time and amplitude are
discrete.
So if I may be so bold as to make the jump that "digital representation"
is equivalent to "digital signal," we see that a digital signal is an
information source that is quantized both in time and amplitude, of
which I had stated up front we must be cognizant of.
--Randy
@BOOK{discretetime
title = "{Discrete-Time Signal Processing}",
author = "{Alan~V.~Oppenheim, Ronald~W.~Schafer, with John~R.~Buck}",
publisher = "Prentice Hall",
edition = "second",
year = "1998"}
William Sommerwerck
Jun 23, 2012, 4:31:13 PM6/23/12
to
> First I would distinguish between quantization in time and
> quantization in amplitude. I am not sure which process
> (or maybe neither) you are discussing.
> It is certainly true that you can quantize in time without
> using numbers. A simple example is a CCD: the device
> samples an array of analog voltages at a specific time.
> The output is an array of analog voltages (NOT numbers).
Correct.
> quantization in amplitude. I am not sure which process
> (or maybe neither) you are discussing.
> It is certainly true that you can quantize in time without
> using numbers. A simple example is a CCD: the device
> samples an array of analog voltages at a specific time.
> The output is an array of analog voltages (NOT numbers).
> Is that what you're referring to (e.g.)?
Mxsmanic
Jun 23, 2012, 4:58:46 PM6/23/12
to
Randy Yates writes:
> OK, so at the University of Mxsmanic, how is "digital representation"
> defined and how is "information" defined?
Digital representation is symbolic. Symbols represent the information based on
> OK, so at the University of Mxsmanic, how is "digital representation"
> defined and how is "information" defined?
a predetermined method of encoding.
Information is generally useful data, as opposed to noise, which is useless
data.
> May I suggest that you consider the definitions put forth by Oppenheim
> and Schafer [discretetime], in which on p.8 they state:
>
> The term signal is generally applied to something that conveys
> information.
>
> and also on p.8:
>
> Digital signals are those for which both time and amplitude are
> discrete.
can be examined from multiple viewpoints.
> So if I may be so bold as to make the jump that "digital representation"
> is equivalent to "digital signal," we see that a digital signal is an
> information source that is quantized both in time and amplitude, of
> which I had stated up front we must be cognizant of.
Quantization is what transforms a continuous, analog signal into discrete
digital symbols, but it is not the digital representation itself.
William Sommerwerck
Jun 23, 2012, 7:14:06 PM6/23/12
to
>> May I suggest that you consider the definitions put forth by
>> Oppenheim and Schafer [discretetime], in which on p.8 they
>> state:
>> The term signal is generally applied to something that conveys
>> information.
>> and also on p.8:
>> Digital signals are those for which both time and amplitude are
>> discrete.
> They are entitled to their opinions.
"Unfortunately", their opinions happen to be the truth.
>> Oppenheim and Schafer [discretetime], in which on p.8 they
>> state:
>> The term signal is generally applied to something that conveys
>> information.
>> and also on p.8:
>> Digital signals are those for which both time and amplitude are
>> discrete.
> They are entitled to their opinions.
> Quantization is what transforms a continuous, analog signal into
> discrete digital symbols, but it is not the digital representation itself.
on rejecting.
Trevor
Jun 23, 2012, 7:35:16 PM6/23/12
to
"None" <no...@nospam.org> wrote in message
news:etWdnY6f3pcYc3jS...@earthlink.com...
> "William Sommerwerck" <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote in message
<more crap>
> Maybe nobody responded because you're a consummate asshole,
> or because trying to engage in a technical discussion with you
> is a waste of their time,
And they have had enough and done the smart thing by kill filing him. I
> or because trying to engage in a technical discussion with you
> is a waste of their time,
suggest you do the same and save yourself the grief.
Trevor.
geoff
Jun 23, 2012, 8:43:13 PM6/23/12
to
William Sommerwerck wrote:
I can think of a digital representation that doesn't require a number.
geoff
I can think of a digital representation that doesn't require a number.
geoff
geoff
Jun 23, 2012, 8:44:01 PM6/23/12
to
geoff
Trevor
Jun 24, 2012, 12:17:16 AM6/24/12
to
"geoff" <ge...@nospampaf.co.nz> wrote in message
news:rs6dnYMNVLBO_3vS...@giganews.com...
>
> I can think of a digital representation that doesn't require a number.
Does it involve the middle finger? :-)
> I can think of a digital representation that doesn't require a number.
(of course that's one, and if the index finger is also used, that's two :-)
Trevor.
John Williamson
Jun 24, 2012, 2:01:05 AM6/24/12
to
--
Tciao for Now!
John.
Mxsmanic
Jun 24, 2012, 2:04:27 AM6/24/12
to
William Sommerwerck writes:
> "Unfortunately", their opinions happen to be the truth.
The truth is that it depends on the viewpoint from which the question is
> "Unfortunately", their opinions happen to be the truth.
answered. There are multiple ways to distinguish between digital and analog.
They are concepts, not physical realities.
Mxsmanic
Jun 24, 2012, 2:04:42 AM6/24/12
to
geoff writes:
> I can think of a digital representation that doesn't require a number.
Text.
> I can think of a digital representation that doesn't require a number.
William Sommerwerck
Jun 24, 2012, 7:00:47 AM6/24/12
to
Jonathan Swift said "When a true genius appears in the world, you may know
him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
I'm no genius, "true" or otherwise. I'm hardly at the level of Swift or
Voltaire or Newton or Gauss or Goethe. (Now there was a polymath! I'd settle
for his mind and Manny Puig's body.) But there are plenty of dunces out
there. All you have to do to make them pop out of the woodwork is to say
something that, although true, might not be immediately obvious, or worse,
conflicts with some widely held erroneous belief. We've seen the result of
that. (And no, I'm not bothered that I talk like Frasier Crane.)
I think I know the difference between knowing something, and understanding
it. Most people don't. Most people think if they believe something, it must
be true.
Why do you think (but you don't, of course) the world is so screwed up? A
lot of it is because of "people like you", who lack the ability to think
critically. About anything. Your stupidity is arrayed, not against me -- but
against yourselves, and against humanity.
"As if your ape brains could contain the secrets of the Krell!"
Almost all the world's ills are the result of poor values, and of a failure
to think carefully. People are their own worst enemies. I know that from my
own experience.
I'm owed multiple apologies, but the most-important is for calling me a
liar. I applied to Caltech, Case Western, and MIT in my senior year
(1964-1965), and was accepted by all. You're welcome to check. For what it's
worth (which isn't much), my IQ is at the 99th percentile. And Marilyn vos
Savant makes occasional mistakes that are lulus.
Remain behind the bars of your zoo cages, and keep laughing and gibbering at
those outside.
PS: If you'd like to see some real scientific idiocy/garbage, take a glance
at Terence Witt's "Our Undiscovered Universe". This is one of those books of
pseudoscientific crap that appear every twenty years or so. Instead of just
attempting to describe the way things are, Witt wants to give a "reason".
He's so incompetent, that in at least one of his equations, the units on the
left don't match the units on the right.
him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
I'm no genius, "true" or otherwise. I'm hardly at the level of Swift or
Voltaire or Newton or Gauss or Goethe. (Now there was a polymath! I'd settle
for his mind and Manny Puig's body.) But there are plenty of dunces out
there. All you have to do to make them pop out of the woodwork is to say
something that, although true, might not be immediately obvious, or worse,
conflicts with some widely held erroneous belief. We've seen the result of
that. (And no, I'm not bothered that I talk like Frasier Crane.)
I think I know the difference between knowing something, and understanding
it. Most people don't. Most people think if they believe something, it must
be true.
Why do you think (but you don't, of course) the world is so screwed up? A
lot of it is because of "people like you", who lack the ability to think
critically. About anything. Your stupidity is arrayed, not against me -- but
against yourselves, and against humanity.
"As if your ape brains could contain the secrets of the Krell!"
Almost all the world's ills are the result of poor values, and of a failure
to think carefully. People are their own worst enemies. I know that from my
own experience.
I'm owed multiple apologies, but the most-important is for calling me a
liar. I applied to Caltech, Case Western, and MIT in my senior year
(1964-1965), and was accepted by all. You're welcome to check. For what it's
worth (which isn't much), my IQ is at the 99th percentile. And Marilyn vos
Savant makes occasional mistakes that are lulus.
Remain behind the bars of your zoo cages, and keep laughing and gibbering at
those outside.
PS: If you'd like to see some real scientific idiocy/garbage, take a glance
at Terence Witt's "Our Undiscovered Universe". This is one of those books of
pseudoscientific crap that appear every twenty years or so. Instead of just
attempting to describe the way things are, Witt wants to give a "reason".
He's so incompetent, that in at least one of his equations, the units on the
left don't match the units on the right.
Scott Dorsey
Jun 24, 2012, 11:24:44 AM6/24/12
to
"Digital" literally means "numbers." Well, fingers anyway, which are the
same thing for some people.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
same thing for some people.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Luxey
Jun 24, 2012, 12:07:10 PM6/24/12
to
субота, 23. јун 2012. 18.39.26 UTC+2, Randy Yates је написао/ла:
> "William Sommerwerck" <grizzle...@comcast.net> writes:
> > [...]
>
> "William Sommerwerck" <grizzle...@comcast.net> writes:
> > [...]
>
> Is that what you're referring to (e.g.)?
I think he is. I do not know if nobody really understood it, or they just pretend not to, in order to bash this pompous smallerdick ass. Ther's no need to go far in electronics, or science to observe digital without numbers, just watch a second arm on two different watches. One is flowing around the clock, while the other jumps from one point to the next one. Quantized in time, that is.
Gary Eickmeier
Jun 24, 2012, 12:48:52 PM6/24/12
to
news:js6s00$dsn$1...@dont-email.me...
But hey - if you are a genius, tell me just one thing: Why does Einstein say
that we cannot observe a change in the speed of light when the red shift is
well known?
Gary Eickmeier
> Jonathan Swift said "When a true genius appears in the world, you may know
> him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
Sommerwerck - you've got a lot of spunk. I hate spunk.
> him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
But hey - if you are a genius, tell me just one thing: Why does Einstein say
that we cannot observe a change in the speed of light when the red shift is
well known?
Gary Eickmeier
PStamler
Jun 24, 2012, 1:26:36 PM6/24/12
to
Bill:
Please get some professional help, and soon. I'm afraid you've crossed
a line into a very risky place.
Peace,
Paul
Please get some professional help, and soon. I'm afraid you've crossed
a line into a very risky place.
Peace,
Paul
Gary Eickmeier
Jun 24, 2012, 1:36:28 PM6/24/12
to
"PStamler" <psta...@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:13f0fa62-edec-453d...@d17g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
> Bill:
>
> Please get some professional help, and soon. I'm afraid you've crossed
> a line into a very risky place.
No no - I am not Sommerwerck - I am Eickmeier
>
> Please get some professional help, and soon. I'm afraid you've crossed
> a line into a very risky place.
William Sommerwerck
Jun 24, 2012, 2:01:29 PM6/24/12
to
> Please get some professional help, and soon. I'm afraid
> you've crossed a line into a very risky place.
It's called "UseNet".
> you've crossed a line into a very risky place.
William Sommerwerck
Jun 24, 2012, 2:03:58 PM6/24/12
to
> "William Sommerwerck" <grizzle...@comcast.net>
wrote in message
> news:js6s00$dsn$1...@dont-email.me...
>> Jonathan Swift said "When a true genius appears in the
>> world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces
>> are all in confederacy against him."
> Sommerwerck -- you've got a lot of spunk. I hate spunk.
wrote in message
> news:js6s00$dsn$1...@dont-email.me...
>> Jonathan Swift said "When a true genius appears in the
>> world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces
>> are all in confederacy against him."
Do I look like Mary Richards? Well, do I, punk?
> But, hey -- if you are a genius, tell me just one thing:
First of all, I said I was not a genius. At least not compared to real
geniuses, a few of which I named.
> Why does Einstein say that we cannot observe a change
I think you're misstating the question. Special Relativity states that all
inertial frames of reference are equivalent. That means the measured speed
of light does not vary with direction, or else you'd be able to tell you
were moving with respect to some absolute frame of reference. There is no
such frame. (I think that's the right way of saying it.)
Please read up on the Michaelson-Morley experiment, and related issues, and
if you still feel confused, come back, and I and others will try to
straighten it out.
By the way, Doppler Shift exists regardless of whether the velocity of the
wave varies with the speed of the observer. There are two Doppler Shift
formulas -- one for waves whose velocity varies with the speed of the
observer (such as sound), and one for waves whose velocity does not vary
(electromagnetic radiation).
Soundhaspriority
Jun 24, 2012, 3:22:51 PM6/24/12
to
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message news:js4nv7$n9t$1...@dont-email.me...
Is this the room for arguments?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdoGVgj1MtY
Is this the room for arguments?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdoGVgj1MtY
Gary Eickmeier
Jun 24, 2012, 4:53:41 PM6/24/12
to
news:js7kpd$25h$1...@dont-email.me...
> By the way, Doppler Shift exists regardless of whether the velocity of the
> wave varies with the speed of the observer. There are two Doppler Shift
> formulas -- one for waves whose velocity varies with the speed of the
> observer (such as sound), and one for waves whose velocity does not vary
> (electromagnetic radiation).
"Now you're talking shit to me. Don't you EVER talk shit to me!" (Al
Lettieri as Frank Renda to Charles Bronson in Mr. Majestyk). If the star
takes on a red shift going away from us, then we can tell that the light
waves are arriving to our frame of reference slower than light speed.
Makin ya nervous?
Gary Eickmeier
>> "William Sommerwerck" <grizzle...@comcast.net>
> wrote in message
>> news:js6s00$dsn$1...@dont-email.me...
> wrote in message
>> news:js6s00$dsn$1...@dont-email.me...
>> Why does Einstein say that we cannot observe a change
>> in the speed of light when the red shift is well-known?
>
> I think you're misstating the question. Special Relativity states that all
> inertial frames of reference are equivalent. That means the measured speed
> of light does not vary with direction, or else you'd be able to tell you
> were moving with respect to some absolute frame of reference. There is no
> such frame. (I think that's the right way of saying it.)
>
> Please read up on the Michaelson-Morley experiment, and related issues,
> and
> if you still feel confused, come back, and I and others will try to
> straighten it out.
Yes, that's what I am talking about. I read up on that in high school.
>> in the speed of light when the red shift is well-known?
>
> I think you're misstating the question. Special Relativity states that all
> inertial frames of reference are equivalent. That means the measured speed
> of light does not vary with direction, or else you'd be able to tell you
> were moving with respect to some absolute frame of reference. There is no
> such frame. (I think that's the right way of saying it.)
>
> Please read up on the Michaelson-Morley experiment, and related issues,
> and
> if you still feel confused, come back, and I and others will try to
> straighten it out.
> By the way, Doppler Shift exists regardless of whether the velocity of the
> wave varies with the speed of the observer. There are two Doppler Shift
> formulas -- one for waves whose velocity varies with the speed of the
> observer (such as sound), and one for waves whose velocity does not vary
> (electromagnetic radiation).
Lettieri as Frank Renda to Charles Bronson in Mr. Majestyk). If the star
takes on a red shift going away from us, then we can tell that the light
waves are arriving to our frame of reference slower than light speed.
Makin ya nervous?
Gary Eickmeier
Message has been deleted
Gary Eickmeier
Jun 24, 2012, 5:00:20 PM6/24/12
to
"Soundhaspriority" <now...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:r--dnea8hIli9XrS...@giganews.com...
> "William Sommerwerck" wrote in message news:js4nv7$n9t$1...@dont-email.me...
> Is this the room for arguments?
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdoGVgj1MtY
>
Sorry, this is the Sommerwerck is/is not a genius room.
> Is this the room for arguments?
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdoGVgj1MtY
>
Gary Eickmeier
William Sommerwerck
Jun 24, 2012, 5:29:20 PM6/24/12
to
>> By the way, Doppler Shift exists whether or not the velocity
Doppler Shift doesn't depend on a change in velocity, but a "squeezing
together" or "stretching apart" of the wavefronts. It's caused by a
difference in velocity between the source and observer -- not the absolute
velocity of either party. Doppler-shifted light travels at the same speed as
unshifted light.
Consider dispersion in glass (the thing that causes chromatic aberration in
lenses). Different wavelengths travel through the glass at different
velocities -- but their colors don't change.
Do you have a physics book? Halliday & Resnick, perhaps. (The spell checker
says that should be "Holliday & Redneck".)
>> of the wave varies with the speed of the observer. There are
>> two Doppler Shift formulas -- one for waves whose velocity
>> varies with the speed of the observer (such as sound), and
>> one for waves whose velocity does not vary (electromagnetic
>> radiation).
> "Now you're talking shit to me. Don't you EVER talk shit to
> me!" (Al Lettieri as Frank Renda to Charles Bronson in Mr.
> Majestyk). If the star takes on a red shift going away from us,
> then we can tell that the light waves are arriving to our frame
> of reference slower than light speed.
> Makin ya nervous?
Not at all.
>> two Doppler Shift formulas -- one for waves whose velocity
>> varies with the speed of the observer (such as sound), and
>> one for waves whose velocity does not vary (electromagnetic
>> radiation).
> "Now you're talking shit to me. Don't you EVER talk shit to
> me!" (Al Lettieri as Frank Renda to Charles Bronson in Mr.
> Majestyk). If the star takes on a red shift going away from us,
> then we can tell that the light waves are arriving to our frame
> of reference slower than light speed.
> Makin ya nervous?
Doppler Shift doesn't depend on a change in velocity, but a "squeezing
together" or "stretching apart" of the wavefronts. It's caused by a
difference in velocity between the source and observer -- not the absolute
velocity of either party. Doppler-shifted light travels at the same speed as
unshifted light.
Consider dispersion in glass (the thing that causes chromatic aberration in
lenses). Different wavelengths travel through the glass at different
velocities -- but their colors don't change.
Do you have a physics book? Halliday & Resnick, perhaps. (The spell checker
says that should be "Holliday & Redneck".)
Mxsmanic
Jun 24, 2012, 6:11:23 PM6/24/12
to
Gary Eickmeier writes:
> But hey - if you are a genius, tell me just one thing: Why does Einstein say
> that we cannot observe a change in the speed of light when the red shift is
> well known?
A red shift is not a change in the speed of light. It's a change in the
> But hey - if you are a genius, tell me just one thing: Why does Einstein say
> that we cannot observe a change in the speed of light when the red shift is
> well known?
wavelength/frequency, which changes precisely because the speed of light
cannot change.
Soundhaspriority
Jun 24, 2012, 6:56:40 PM6/24/12
to
"Gary Eickmeier" <geic...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:PcLFr.344336$7A3.1...@unlimited.newshosting.com...
Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511
Gary Eickmeier
Jun 24, 2012, 7:16:35 PM6/24/12
to
"Mxsmanic" <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:234fu79pb6n8ntfhd...@4ax.com...
indicates something, and it occurs when the star is moving away from us.
There is an INDICATION of a relative velocity difference.
No?
Gary Eickmeier
William Sommerwerck
Jun 24, 2012, 7:15:44 PM6/24/12
to
dependent on the relative speed of the source and receiver.
Trevor
Jun 24, 2012, 7:21:32 PM6/24/12
to
news:UwHFr.199908$qo7....@unlimited.newshosting.com...
If that's a serious question, I suggest you know little about light, or
perhaps even about sound, since the doppler shift related to audio long
before it was known about it's application to light.
In any case we know well that the speed of light in a glass fibre can be
seen to be different than in a vacuum, just as the speed of sound
propogation depends on the air that carries it.
Trevor.
perhaps even about sound, since the doppler shift related to audio long
before it was known about it's application to light.
In any case we know well that the speed of light in a glass fibre can be
seen to be different than in a vacuum, just as the speed of sound
propogation depends on the air that carries it.
Trevor.
Trevor
Jun 24, 2012, 7:21:38 PM6/24/12
to
news:v5LFr.243094$VY6....@unlimited.newshosting.com...
caused by anything and we've have no way of knowing if the star was going
away or coming towards us.
You must first assume the speed of light in a vacuum is constant to make any
inference of combined relative speed using doppler shift.
Surely you are just trolling?
Trevor.
>If the star takes on a red shift going away from us, then we can tell that
>the light waves are arriving to our frame of reference slower than light
>speed.
In fact if the speed of light was known to be flexible, "red shift" could be
>the light waves are arriving to our frame of reference slower than light
>speed.
caused by anything and we've have no way of knowing if the star was going
away or coming towards us.
You must first assume the speed of light in a vacuum is constant to make any
inference of combined relative speed using doppler shift.
Surely you are just trolling?
Trevor.
Gary Eickmeier
Jun 24, 2012, 7:33:44 PM6/24/12
to
"Trevor" <tre...@home.net> wrote in message
news:js87d3$of3$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
> In fact if the speed of light was known to be flexible, "red shift" could
> be
> caused by anything and we've have no way of knowing if the star was going
> away or coming towards us.
> You must first assume the speed of light in a vacuum is constant to make
> any
> inference of combined relative speed using doppler shift.
>
> Surely you are just trolling?
Einstein stuff. I am assuming that the red shift is just like the sound of a
passing train whistle changing pitch as it goes away. Light waves appear
lower in frequency because of relative movement, something relativity said
was not possible. We should always perceive light to be the same speed, so
no red shift possible.
Gary Eickmeier
Gary Eickmeier
Jun 24, 2012, 7:36:07 PM6/24/12
to
news:js87ct$oet$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
OK - so what is so dumb about my question?
Gary Eickmeier
Gary Eickmeier
Trevor
Jun 24, 2012, 7:40:32 PM6/24/12
to
news:1sNFr.317225$%O1.1...@unlimited.newshosting.com...
a constant light speed when observing the already known doppler shift of
audio from a passing train. Did they not teach you that in primary school?
Trevor.
>> In fact if the speed of light was known to be flexible, "red shift" could
>> be
>> caused by anything and we've have no way of knowing if the star was going
>> away or coming towards us.
>> You must first assume the speed of light in a vacuum is constant to make
>> any
>> inference of combined relative speed using doppler shift.
>>
>> Surely you are just trolling?
>
> No, it was no joke. I have wondered about this ever since I first read the
> Einstein stuff. I am assuming that the red shift is just like the sound of
> a passing train whistle changing pitch as it goes away. Light waves appear
> lower in frequency because of relative movement, something relativity said
> was not possible. We should always perceive light to be the same speed, so
> no red shift possible.
Einstein said no such thing, and reputedly thought about the "relativity" of
>> be
>> caused by anything and we've have no way of knowing if the star was going
>> away or coming towards us.
>> You must first assume the speed of light in a vacuum is constant to make
>> any
>> inference of combined relative speed using doppler shift.
>>
>> Surely you are just trolling?
>
> No, it was no joke. I have wondered about this ever since I first read the
> Einstein stuff. I am assuming that the red shift is just like the sound of
> a passing train whistle changing pitch as it goes away. Light waves appear
> lower in frequency because of relative movement, something relativity said
> was not possible. We should always perceive light to be the same speed, so
> no red shift possible.
a constant light speed when observing the already known doppler shift of
audio from a passing train. Did they not teach you that in primary school?
Trevor.
William Sommerwerck
Jun 24, 2012, 7:41:59 PM6/24/12
to
> OK, come on you two - you're talkin shit to me. There
> is a CHANGE. That indicates something, and it occurs
> when the star is moving away from us.
Or toward us.
> is a CHANGE. That indicates something, and it occurs
> when the star is moving away from us.
> There is an INDICATION of a relative velocity difference.
William Sommerwerck
Jun 24, 2012, 7:45:14 PM6/24/12
to
> In any case we know well that the speed of light in a glass
> fibre can be seen to be different than in a vacuum, just as
> the speed of sound propogation depends on the air that
> carries it.
The confusion here is that, although light travels at different velocities
> fibre can be seen to be different than in a vacuum, just as
> the speed of sound propogation depends on the air that
> carries it.
in different materials, * its //measured// velocity is independent of the
direction in which it's measurement, because there is no such thing as an
absolute frame of spatial reference.
You need to read some physics books.
* There is even an optical equivalent of the sonic boom, called Cherenkov
radiation.
Scott Dorsey
Jun 24, 2012, 7:44:53 PM6/24/12
to
>> Gary Eickmeier writes:
>>
>>> But hey - if you are a genius, tell me just one thing: Why does Einstein
>>> say
>>> that we cannot observe a change in the speed of light when the red shift
>>> is
>>> well known?
>>
>> A red shift is not a change in the speed of light. It's a change in the
>> wavelength/frequency, which changes precisely because the speed of light
>> cannot change.
>
>OK, come on you two - you're talkin shit to me. There is a CHANGE. That
>indicates something, and it occurs when the star is moving away from us.
>There is an INDICATION of a relative velocity difference.
The speed of light changes all the time. It's what makes lenses work.
>>
>>> But hey - if you are a genius, tell me just one thing: Why does Einstein
>>> say
>>> that we cannot observe a change in the speed of light when the red shift
>>> is
>>> well known?
>>
>> A red shift is not a change in the speed of light. It's a change in the
>> wavelength/frequency, which changes precisely because the speed of light
>> cannot change.
>
>OK, come on you two - you're talkin shit to me. There is a CHANGE. That
>indicates something, and it occurs when the star is moving away from us.
>There is an INDICATION of a relative velocity difference.
William Sommerwerck
Jun 24, 2012, 7:46:57 PM6/24/12
to
> No, it was no joke. I have wondered about this ever since I first read the
> Einstein stuff. I am assuming that the red shift is just like the sound of
a
> passing train whistle changing pitch as it goes away. Light waves appear
> lower in frequency because of relative movement, something relativity said
> was not possible. We should always perceive light to be the same speed, so
> no red shift possible.
As I explained earlier, the Doppler Shift has nothing to do with apparent
> Einstein stuff. I am assuming that the red shift is just like the sound of
a
> passing train whistle changing pitch as it goes away. Light waves appear
> lower in frequency because of relative movement, something relativity said
> was not possible. We should always perceive light to be the same speed, so
> no red shift possible.
changes in the velocity of the wave. You misunderstand the context.
Please read up on this, then come back to us.
William Sommerwerck
Jun 24, 2012, 7:50:47 PM6/24/12
to
Let's try a little thought experiment.
Suppose each cycle of a light wave or sound wave was a little "puff" that
you could see. Is it not clear that if you are moving towards the source,
these puffs will "bunch up", and vice versa, //without regard// to the speed
of the light wave or sound wave?
This should be particularly easy to understand with respect to light waves,
because their velocity is not dependent on the speed of the observer.
Suppose each cycle of a light wave or sound wave was a little "puff" that
you could see. Is it not clear that if you are moving towards the source,
these puffs will "bunch up", and vice versa, //without regard// to the speed
of the light wave or sound wave?
This should be particularly easy to understand with respect to light waves,
because their velocity is not dependent on the speed of the observer.
None
Jun 24, 2012, 8:06:14 PM6/24/12
to
"Willie Winterwank" <pompus...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:js88p9$ri1$1...@dont-email.me...
need to read, what they need to do, and
how they need to think.
news:js88p9$ri1$1...@dont-email.me...
> You need to read some physics books.
You need to stop telling people what they
need to read, what they need to do, and
how they need to think.
William Sommerwerck
Jun 24, 2012, 8:17:09 PM6/24/12
to
"None" <no...@nospam.org> wrote in message
news:cuudna8m_rrkNnrS...@earthlink.com...
You need to come out from hiding, you filthy, foul-mouthed coward. If you
were standing in front of me, would you say such things? Of course not.
In the time it took you to change your handle for this e-mail, you could
have made a contribution to the discussion -- perhaps a better explanation
than I gave.
I will continue to tell people what they need to do, as long as they're
ignorant of the right and useful things to do. Leave if you don't like it.
news:cuudna8m_rrkNnrS...@earthlink.com...
were standing in front of me, would you say such things? Of course not.
In the time it took you to change your handle for this e-mail, you could
have made a contribution to the discussion -- perhaps a better explanation
than I gave.
I will continue to tell people what they need to do, as long as they're
ignorant of the right and useful things to do. Leave if you don't like it.
Trevor
Jun 24, 2012, 8:36:34 PM6/24/12
to
news:guNFr.86742$2E4...@unlimited.newshosting.com...
Trevor.
>>> Sommerwerck - you've got a lot of spunk. I hate spunk.
>>>
>>> But hey - if you are a genius, tell me just one thing: Why does Einstein
>>> say that we cannot observe a change in the speed of light when the red
>>> shift is well known?
>>
>> If that's a serious question, I suggest you know little about light, or
>> perhaps even about sound, since the doppler shift related to audio long
>> before it was known about it's application to light.
>>
>> In any case we know well that the speed of light in a glass fibre can be
>> seen to be different than in a vacuum, just as the speed of sound
>> propogation depends on the air that carries it.
>
> OK - so what is so dumb about my question?
Ignoring the answers. Einstein was not similarly afflicted. :-)
>>>
>>> But hey - if you are a genius, tell me just one thing: Why does Einstein
>>> say that we cannot observe a change in the speed of light when the red
>>> shift is well known?
>>
>> If that's a serious question, I suggest you know little about light, or
>> perhaps even about sound, since the doppler shift related to audio long
>> before it was known about it's application to light.
>>
>> In any case we know well that the speed of light in a glass fibre can be
>> seen to be different than in a vacuum, just as the speed of sound
>> propogation depends on the air that carries it.
>
> OK - so what is so dumb about my question?
Trevor.
Trevor
Jun 24, 2012, 8:39:58 PM6/24/12
to
"Scott Dorsey" <klu...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:js88pl$b50$1...@panix2.panix.com...
> The speed of light changes all the time. It's what makes lenses work.
Sure, which is WHY it is always specified as the speed of light "IN A
VACUUM".
Ignoring such important facts simply leads some to people to look silly.
Trevor.
None
Jun 24, 2012, 9:32:15 PM6/24/12
to
"Willberfartz Whinerwanker" <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:js8al4$4fv$1...@dont-email.me...
Changing my handle??? E-mail??? WTF??? Your grip on reality
must be a lot looser than it appears. Maybe a regular regimen
of shut-the-fuck-up would do you good.
> I will continue to tell people what they need to do, as long as they're
> ignorant of the right and useful things to do. Leave if you don't like it.
So you're to egocentric to take the shut-the-fuck-up that you
obviously need, preferring to be wrong and useless. Predictable.
news:js8al4$4fv$1...@dont-email.me...
> In the time it took you to change your handle for this e-mail,
What in the wide world of sports are you rabbitting on about?
Changing my handle??? E-mail??? WTF??? Your grip on reality
must be a lot looser than it appears. Maybe a regular regimen
of shut-the-fuck-up would do you good.
> I will continue to tell people what they need to do, as long as they're
> ignorant of the right and useful things to do. Leave if you don't like it.
obviously need, preferring to be wrong and useless. Predictable.
Gary Eickmeier
Jun 25, 2012, 4:07:12 AM6/25/12
to
news:js893m$t39$1...@dont-email.me...
approaches. How can this be "without regard to the speed" of the source? The
relative speed, of course, which is the point.
away from you, causing the apparent wavelength to increase. Red shift is the
result.
Train moving away, relative velocity some amount away from you, change in
pitch
Star moving away, relative velocity some amount away from you, change in
color
Gary Eickmeier
> Let's try a little thought experiment.
>
> Suppose each cycle of a light wave or sound wave was a little "puff" that
> you could see. Is it not clear that if you are moving towards the source,
> these puffs will "bunch up", and vice versa, //without regard// to the
> speed
> of the light wave or sound wave?
They bunch up because your relative velocity is higher as the train
>
> Suppose each cycle of a light wave or sound wave was a little "puff" that
> you could see. Is it not clear that if you are moving towards the source,
> these puffs will "bunch up", and vice versa, //without regard// to the
> speed
> of the light wave or sound wave?
approaches. How can this be "without regard to the speed" of the source? The
relative speed, of course, which is the point.
>
> This should be particularly easy to understand with respect to light
> waves,
> because their velocity is not dependent on the speed of the observer.
I assume you see my point, that the relative speed of the star is greatly
> This should be particularly easy to understand with respect to light
> waves,
> because their velocity is not dependent on the speed of the observer.
away from you, causing the apparent wavelength to increase. Red shift is the
result.
Train moving away, relative velocity some amount away from you, change in
pitch
Star moving away, relative velocity some amount away from you, change in
color
Gary Eickmeier
Gary Eickmeier
Jun 25, 2012, 4:10:45 AM6/25/12
to
news:js8c00$1e2$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
Einstein was talking about the maximum speed of light - or was it THE speed
of light in a vacuum - or was he talkin shit to us?
Gary Eickmeier
of light in a vacuum - or was he talkin shit to us?
Gary Eickmeier
geoff
Jun 25, 2012, 6:44:18 AM6/25/12
to
opposite direction !
Not directly applicable, but fun anyway.
geoff
William Sommerwerck
Jun 25, 2012, 7:49:25 AM6/25/12
to
>> Suppose each cycle of a light wave or sound wave was
>> a little "puff" that you could see. Is it not clear that if you
>> are moving towards the source, these puffs will "bunch up",
>> and vice versa, //without regard// to the speed of the light
>> wave or sound wave?
> They bunch up because your relative velocity is higher as
> the train approaches. How can this be "without regard to the
> speed" of the source? [SIC -- I actually said "the speed of the
>> a little "puff" that you could see. Is it not clear that if you
>> are moving towards the source, these puffs will "bunch up",
>> and vice versa, //without regard// to the speed of the light
>> wave or sound wave?
> They bunch up because your relative velocity is higher as
> the train approaches. How can this be "without regard to the
> light wave", no the speed of the source. See above.]
Correct. But the issue isn't relative velocity -- it's Special Relativity.
Let me repeat the OP's line of reasoning...
1. The Doppler Shift occurs because there's relative velocity between the
source and the observer. (True. In fact, one needn't go any further in the
argument.)
2. In Special Relativity, the speed of light is constant for all observers.
(Also true.)
3. Therefore, how can there be a Doppler Shift when the speed of light can't
vary? (Erp! Erp! Erp!)
Wrong conclusion. The OP is confusing the speed of light with the speed of
the light /source/. Doppler Shift is produced by relative motion between the
source and the observer. It has nothing to do with whether /the observed
speed of the WAVE/ is changed by relative motion. For sound, it is. For
light, it is not. But we get Doppler Shift in both cases (just a different
amount).
Please reread my explanation at the beginning of this posting.
> The relative speed, of course, which is the point.
from the light source, which doesn't change. Doppler Shift occurs /whether
or not/ the measured speed of the wave is affected by the relative motion.
This confusion is understandable, because the observer-independent nature of
the velocity of light seems counter-intuitive. Until the turn of the 20th
century, scientists believed that a wave required a medium. For light, this
was the "luminiferous ether", which pervaded all space. This massless,
frictionless substance is at rest, forming an absolute reference point for
motion.
Not. The Michaelson-Morley experiment was the beginning of the end for that
belief. One of the important discoveries of modern science is that there are
no absolutes. Nor is there (on an atomic level) any such thing as
cause-and-effect. (This really twisted Einstein's whities into a knot. He
couldn't accept it.) The philosophical and metaphysical implications of this
shall be left for another time. You are free to think about them -- which I
hope you will. You have minds -- use them.
Scott Dorsey
Jun 25, 2012, 10:44:48 AM6/25/12
to
specify "the speed of light" you could mean all kinds of different speeds
depending on the medium. So physicists say C, which is much easier to say
than saying "the speed of light in a vacuum."
Gary Eickmeier
Jun 25, 2012, 11:27:12 AM6/25/12
to
news:js9th0$fah$1...@panix2.panix.com...
Maybe he meant that we can never observe C to be any faster than that, but
we can observe it slower. Red shift but no blue shift. That would satisfy my
inquiring mind.
Gary Eickmeier
we can observe it slower. Red shift but no blue shift. That would satisfy my
inquiring mind.
Gary Eickmeier
William Sommerwerck
Jun 25, 2012, 11:27:45 AM6/25/12
to
> Maybe he meant that we can never observe C to be
> any faster than that, but we can observe it slower.
> Red shift but no blue shift. That would satisfy my
> inquiring mind.
But that's not correct. There is such a thing as blue shift.
> any faster than that, but we can observe it slower.
> Red shift but no blue shift. That would satisfy my
> inquiring mind.
Scott Dorsey
Jun 25, 2012, 11:46:51 AM6/25/12
to
>> Gary Eickmeier <geic...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>>>"Trevor" <tre...@home.net> wrote in message
>>>news:js8c00$1e2$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>>>>
>>>> "Scott Dorsey" <klu...@panix.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:js88pl$b50$1...@panix2.panix.com...
>>>>> The speed of light changes all the time. It's what makes lenses work.
>>>>
>>>> Sure, which is WHY it is always specified as the speed of light "IN A
>>>> VACUUM".
>>>> Ignoring such important facts simply leads some to people to look silly.
>>>
>>>Einstein was talking about the maximum speed of light - or was it THE
>>>speed
>>>of light in a vacuum - or was he talkin shit to us?
>>
>> Yes, that's what C is. It's the speed of light in a vacuum. If you
>> specify "the speed of light" you could mean all kinds of different speeds
>> depending on the medium. So physicists say C, which is much easier to say
>> than saying "the speed of light in a vacuum."
>
>>>"Trevor" <tre...@home.net> wrote in message
>>>news:js8c00$1e2$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>>>>
>>>> "Scott Dorsey" <klu...@panix.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:js88pl$b50$1...@panix2.panix.com...
>>>>> The speed of light changes all the time. It's what makes lenses work.
>>>>
>>>> Sure, which is WHY it is always specified as the speed of light "IN A
>>>> VACUUM".
>>>> Ignoring such important facts simply leads some to people to look silly.
>>>
>>>Einstein was talking about the maximum speed of light - or was it THE
>>>speed
>>>of light in a vacuum - or was he talkin shit to us?
>>
>> Yes, that's what C is. It's the speed of light in a vacuum. If you
>> specify "the speed of light" you could mean all kinds of different speeds
>> depending on the medium. So physicists say C, which is much easier to say
>> than saying "the speed of light in a vacuum."
>
>Maybe he meant that we can never observe C to be any faster than that, but
>we can observe it slower. Red shift but no blue shift. That would satisfy my
>inquiring mind.
No. C is C. It's C, no matter where you are standing, no matter what your
>we can observe it slower. Red shift but no blue shift. That would satisfy my
>inquiring mind.
frame of reference is, no matter what medium you're in. It's C, all the time.
That's what makes it fundamental.
Don Pearce
Jun 25, 2012, 12:39:12 PM6/25/12
to
moving towards us. And the speed of light in a vacuum is a constant.
It doesn't matter if your frame of reference is static or moving, as
long as it is intertial, you will always measure the same value for C.
d
Peter A. Stoll
Jun 25, 2012, 12:56:33 PM6/25/12
to
Ah, but there is blue shift. Any star or galaxy with motion toward us is seen from earth
with the spectral lines shifted blueward. Just as the far more numerous ones with
motion away are red shifted. Neither of which has to do with a change in c.
I think I recall always seeing the vacuum speed of light as lower-case c, though I'm not
sure this is a rule or just a practice, or even just my bad memory ('twas forty years ago,
mostly).
with the spectral lines shifted blueward. Just as the far more numerous ones with
motion away are red shifted. Neither of which has to do with a change in c.
I think I recall always seeing the vacuum speed of light as lower-case c, though I'm not
sure this is a rule or just a practice, or even just my bad memory ('twas forty years ago,
mostly).
William Sommerwerck
Jun 25, 2012, 1:11:22 PM6/25/12
to
> I think I recall always seeing the vacuum speed of light
> as lower-case c, though I'm not sure this is a rule or just
> a practice, or even just my bad memory ('twas forty years
> ago, mostly).
It's lower-case, as in e = mc^2.
> as lower-case c, though I'm not sure this is a rule or just
> a practice, or even just my bad memory ('twas forty years
> ago, mostly).
William Sommerwerck
Jun 25, 2012, 1:11:46 PM6/25/12
to
Capital C is for coulomb.
Les Cargill
Jun 25, 2012, 1:15:02 PM6/25/12
to
--
Les Cargill
Ron Capik
Jun 25, 2012, 1:28:04 PM6/25/12
to
Anyway, let's try this:
If you think of a photon as a packet of energy where the amount of
energy is fixed at the time of launch. If you move toward the the photon
your energy (of relative motion) will be added to that of the photon
and will be observed as a blue shift, with the converse resulting in
a red shift.
This shift may seen at macroscopic scales as line broadening in
heated atomic vapors where the spectral shift is due to the velocities
of the various atoms relative to the observer. [Check out the work
leading to Steve Chu's Nobel Prize.]
Side Note:
Photons are odd things in that they only exist when they are moving and
they all [IR, red, blue, UV, etc.] move at the same speed. There's no way
(that I know of) to observe a photon directly, one can only observe it's
effect when it interacts with matter. [OK, highly simplified but probably
close enough for this discussion.]
(I had some books on the subject but gave them away to some students
after I retired.)
==
Enough for now.
Later...
Ron Capik
--
geoff
Jun 25, 2012, 4:37:26 PM6/25/12
to
William Sommerwerck wrote:
> Capital C is for coulomb.
I can think of another ;-)
> Capital C is for coulomb.
geoff
geoff
Jun 25, 2012, 4:38:16 PM6/25/12
to
Les Cargill wrote:
>
> Really, get the equations and play with them. It's the only way...
rec.partical-physics.amateur maybe ?
>
> Really, get the equations and play with them. It's the only way...
geoff
John Williamson
Jun 25, 2012, 4:57:16 PM6/25/12
to
Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Gary Eickmeier <geic...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>> "Scott Dorsey" <klu...@panix.com> wrote in message
> Gary Eickmeier <geic...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>> "Scott Dorsey" <klu...@panix.com> wrote in message
>>> Yes, that's what C is. It's the speed of light in a vacuum. If you
>>> specify "the speed of light" you could mean all kinds of different speeds
>>> depending on the medium. So physicists say C, which is much easier to say
>>> than saying "the speed of light in a vacuum."
>> Maybe he meant that we can never observe C to be any faster than that, but
>> we can observe it slower. Red shift but no blue shift. That would satisfy my
>> inquiring mind.
>
> No. C is C. It's C, no matter where you are standing, no matter what your
> frame of reference is, no matter what medium you're in. It's C, all the time.
> That's what makes it fundamental.
>
C is, as I understand it, a constant, and is defined as the speed of
>>> specify "the speed of light" you could mean all kinds of different speeds
>>> depending on the medium. So physicists say C, which is much easier to say
>>> than saying "the speed of light in a vacuum."
>> Maybe he meant that we can never observe C to be any faster than that, but
>> we can observe it slower. Red shift but no blue shift. That would satisfy my
>> inquiring mind.
>
> No. C is C. It's C, no matter where you are standing, no matter what your
> frame of reference is, no matter what medium you're in. It's C, all the time.
> That's what makes it fundamental.
>
light *in a vacuum*.
The measured speed of light varies according to the medium which it is
travelling through, and is measurably slower in materials such as glass
and water than in a vacuum.
What seems to be confusing people is that if you measure the speed of
light from either a red-shifted or blue-shifted source, the speed is the
same. This makes sense if the light is viewed as a series of objects
(Photons) which travel at the local speed limit, but arrive with a
frequency governed by the relative motions of source and viewer.
Wavicles was the in-vogue phrase when I was studying this sort of thing
at school <mumble> years ago. Particles that acted as waves and vice versa.
--
Tciao for Now!
John.
Mxsmanic
Jun 25, 2012, 5:01:22 PM6/25/12
to
Gary Eickmeier writes:
> Light waves appear
> lower in frequency because of relative movement, something relativity said
> was not possible. We should always perceive light to be the same speed, so
> no red shift possible.
Frequency and wavelength are not the same as speed.
> Light waves appear
> lower in frequency because of relative movement, something relativity said
> was not possible. We should always perceive light to be the same speed, so
> no red shift possible.
It is true that we cannot know for sure what happens in deep space, but at
least on and around our planet, the speed of light appears to be completely
constant in every experiment thus far performed. If that changes in deep
space, a lot of science is going to have to be rewritten.
Mxsmanic
Jun 25, 2012, 5:03:58 PM6/25/12
to
Scott Dorsey writes:
> The speed of light changes all the time. It's what makes lenses work.
The speed of light does not change _in a vacuum_--at least as far as we know.
> The speed of light changes all the time. It's what makes lenses work.
Mxsmanic
Jun 25, 2012, 5:04:52 PM6/25/12
to
Trevor writes:
> Sure, which is WHY it is always specified as the speed of light "IN A
> VACUUM".
Now if they also specified "in uncurved space," things could get really
> Sure, which is WHY it is always specified as the speed of light "IN A
> VACUUM".
interesting.
Mxsmanic
Jun 25, 2012, 5:06:29 PM6/25/12
to
Les Cargill writes:
> Really, get the equations and play with them. It's the only way...
It's the other way around: If you understand only the equations, you haven't
> Really, get the equations and play with them. It's the only way...
understood the theory at all.
0 new messages