stupid professionals?
David Bos
on the subject at hand. So i can safely skip any messages containing ad
hominum arguments, right?
db
Randy M. Dumse
news:3C7CF771...@mail1.savemail.com...
> I take it that none of the people here calling others stupid are experts
> on the subject at hand. So i can safely skip any messages containing
> ad hominum arguments, right?
One might wish your reasoning on this held true, but I'm afraid it is not
that simple. You have over looked the possibility that anyone smart enough
to understand the depth of the theories involved, probably has the social
graces of a leper, having spent his evenings in intensive reading in
private, rather than polite social intercourse.
They eat their own.
--
Randy M. Dumse
Caution: Objects in mirror are more confused than they appear.
Eric Prebys
Speaking as a professional and an expert on the "subject at hand",
I try to follow the principle of "educate, not ridicule" to the extent
my sanity allows, yet I have certainly resorted to calling people
"stupid"
(and worse), once they have proven beyond a show of a doubt that the
adjective applies.
"Ad hominem" is a much overused phrase. If someone assert something
incredibly stupid, it is not "ad hominem" to point out that it
is stupid, even if you are not particularly polite about it, providing
you can support your rebuttal.
Generally, I've found that the ones who accuse others of ad hominem
attacks are those that cannot support their position in any
other way.
-Eric
> db
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Prebys, Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
Office: 630-840-8369, Email: pre...@fnal.gov
WWW: http://home.fnal.gov/~prebys
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Randy M. Dumse
news:3C7D2098...@fnal.gov...
> I try to follow the principle of "educate, not ridicule"
You don't know how pleased I was to see a similar comment appear in one of
your very recent posts. So much of what goes on here has more to do with
mammalian social positioning than physical science. I had been increasingly
disappointed in the growing trend in your on going posts. I strongly applaud
your conscious effort at a change of course. You have done well to note the
trend and choose the better path. Kudos. Attaboys and Gudonyas.
David McAnally
>"Eric Prebys" <pre...@fnal.gov> wrote in message
>news:3C7D2098...@fnal.gov...
>> I try to follow the principle of "educate, not ridicule"
>You don't know how pleased I was to see a similar comment appear in one of
>your very recent posts. So much of what goes on here has more to do with
>mammalian social positioning than physical science. I had been increasingly
>disappointed in the growing trend in your on going posts. I strongly applaud
>your conscious effort at a change of course. You have done well to note the
>trend and choose the better path. Kudos. Attaboys and Gudonyas.
I take it that you acknowledge that Henry Wilson, Ken Seto, Logicalpike,
Eleaticus, Len Gaasenbeek (sp?) and others of their ilk, aren't deserving
of any consideration since they all go out of their way to viciously
insult those with whom they disagree (i.e. they insult those people who
have actually taken the trouble to understand the theory). The fact is
that the above-mentioned loonies don't care about understanding the
theory, and they actively ridicule any attempts to help them understand
the theory, and they will typically defame those kind people who try to
explain the theory to them. The fact that they absolutely refuse any
help in understanding the theory means that they are not worthy of the
"educate, not ridicule" policy, since such a policy is completely wasted
on them. Eric, like many of us, has no doubt attempted "educate, not
ridicule" with the people I've listed above, but he has wisely dropped the
policy with them because of their continuing offensive behaviour in
response to help proffered to them.
David McAnally
----------------
Randy M. Dumse
news:a5kr58$abd$1...@bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au...
> but he has wisely dropped the policy with them because of their
> continuing offensive behaviour in response to help proffered to them.
Would a man be wise to drop his humanity in the company of monkeys?
Should he take up a position in the trees with the gibbons shouting his
territorial imperative at neighboring groups just because that's what they
do every morning? Or are there other options available to those of good
mind? What profit is there in aping the apes?
Confusicius: Man who could live among Great Man, and chooses not to, cannot
be counted among the wise.
David McAnally
>"David McAnally" <D.McAnally@i'm_a_gnu.uq.net.au> wrote in message
>news:a5kr58$abd$1...@bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au...
>> but he has wisely dropped the policy with them because of their
>> continuing offensive behaviour in response to help proffered to them.
>Would a man be wise to drop his humanity in the company of monkeys?
Would a man be wise to continue hitting his head against a brick wall?
That is what adopting an "explain" policy with Wilson, Seto, Logicalpike,
Eleaticus and Gaasenbeek is akin to: hitting one's head against a brick
wall. Why should one choose to continue such an unproductive course of
action?
David McAnally
David McAnally
In fact, I've attempted on many occasions to explain and help, but I have
met with continual abuse from at least four of the above-named, with
downright abusive defamation from at least one of them for merely trying
to help him, so I know what I'm talking about - because I'm speaking from
experience.
I have also been insulted by Kolker, for which he still owes me an
apology, but that's a different matter - I am beginning to wonder if Ken
Seto may have been right after all in supposing that Kolker believes that
the perceived pitch of an approaching source increases as it gets closer.
Of course, such a belief would be erroneous, but Kolker actually quoted a
bit of a website which could be consistently read with his holding such a
belief.
David McAnally
--------------
Randy M. Dumse
> Why should one choose to continue such an unproductive course of
> action?
Exactly. Why?
Surely trying to educate is noble in motive, but some "students" are immune.
Resorting to insults is less noble. But these are not the only paths
available. You have a choice who you choose to reply to.
David McAnally
>"David McAnally" <D.McAnally@i'm_a_gnu.uq.net.au> wrote in message
>news:a5lb5k$pcd$1...@bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au...
>> Why should one choose to continue such an unproductive course of
>> action?
>Exactly. Why?
>Surely trying to educate is noble in motive, but some "students" are immune.
>Resorting to insults is less noble. But these are not the only paths
>available. You have a choice who you choose to reply to.
And you are advocating that they should be allowed to spread their
disinformation unchallenged?
David McAnally
-----------------
kenseto
ROTFLOL. We just don't accept the obvious wrong bull shit that you tried to
heap on us---that's all. For example: Your asserted that the pitch of an
approaching siren remains constant and it is the loudness of the siren that
is increasing. Another example: You don't know the difference between a
universal constant and a constant math ratio for light speed.
Ken Seto
David McAnally
>ROTFLOL. We just don't accept the obvious wrong bull shit that you tried to
>heap on us---that's all. For example: Your asserted that the pitch of an
>approaching siren remains constant and it is the loudness of the siren that
>is increasing.
Ah yes, your ridiculous claim that the frequency of a far away object is
lower than the frequency of a closer object. Well, I heard a dog barking
in the distance recently, and you know what? It sounded like it was
exactly the same pitch as a dog close up - only softer because it was
further away. This observation directly contradicts your claim regarding
frequency decreasing with distance (since pitch is an artefact of
frequency alone), so your entire view on frequency is demolished on a
simple observation of a distantly barking dog.
>Another example: You don't know the difference between a
>universal constant and a constant math ratio for light speed.
Only because there is no difference at all, except in your overly fertile
imagination.
I can't be bothered wasting any more of my precious time on morons like
you, Wilson, Eleaticus, or Logicalpike - I have better things to do with
my time - so welcome to my kill-file, you twerp. Thanks goodness I won't
have to read any of your stupidity ever again.
<PLONK>
David McAnally
------------
Randy M. Dumse
> And you are advocating that they should be allowed to spread their
> disinformation unchallenged?
Unchallenged? As is a challenge shouted from one tree top to another?
Absolutely. Let all tree top shouting go without a return challenge. Eschew
animal positioning behavior. They cannot spread their disinformation without
your participation. You empower them with your detailed replies. Think of it
as a game they play. They count replies as victories. They've called a
challenger out of the next tree top. They rate their worth by the volume of
their challengers replies.
Uncorrected? Well, that's an individual choice. For instance, if you
encounter disinformation you can't ignore, why don't you just label it as
such as briefly as possible? Don't waste your time and everyone else's by
offering answers where no questions are asked. When you detect a sincere
question, then offer an answer if you care to. If insults follow, stop
before you return one.
But that's just my suggestion of one possible path to behave as a
professional.
Jonas Thörnvall
"David McAnally" <D.McAnally@i'm_a_gnu.uq.net.au> skrev i meddelandet
news:a5lf1j$cuv$1...@bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au...
> "kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> writes:
>
> >ROTFLOL. We just don't accept the obvious wrong bull shit that you tried
to
> >heap on us---that's all. For example: Your asserted that the pitch of an
> >approaching siren remains constant and it is the loudness of the siren
that
> >is increasing.
>
> Ah yes, your ridiculous claim that the frequency of a far away object is
> lower than the frequency of a closer object. Well, I heard a dog barking
> in the distance recently, and you know what? It sounded like it was
> exactly the same pitch as a dog close up - only softer because it was
> further away. This observation directly contradicts your claim regarding
> frequency decreasing with distance (since pitch is an artefact of
> frequency alone), so your entire view on frequency is demolished on a
> simple observation of a distantly barking dog.
I take for sure you never visited any concert of any kind because there you
will experience a dropoff in the high register frequensies rather fast if
youre leavin, while the low frequent sounds can be heard miles away.
If it depends upon that the lowfrequent sounds carry more energy from the
begining i don't know but the fact is that the US marine use ULF waves to
send signals over great distances, and whales have sound at a frequens
between 15-50 hz i beleive?
Dirk Van de moortel
"Jonas Thörnvall" <jon...@bredband.net> wrote in message news:%osf8.1044$1h4....@news2.bredband.com...
>
> "David McAnally" <D.McAnally@i'm_a_gnu.uq.net.au> skrev i meddelandet
> news:a5lf1j$cuv$1...@bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au...
> > "kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> writes:
> >
> > >ROTFLOL. We just don't accept the obvious wrong bull shit that you tried
> to
> > >heap on us---that's all. For example: Your asserted that the pitch of an
> > >approaching siren remains constant and it is the loudness of the siren
> that
> > >is increasing.
> >
> > Ah yes, your ridiculous claim that the frequency of a far away object is
> > lower than the frequency of a closer object. Well, I heard a dog barking
> > in the distance recently, and you know what? It sounded like it was
> > exactly the same pitch as a dog close up - only softer because it was
> > further away. This observation directly contradicts your claim regarding
> > frequency decreasing with distance (since pitch is an artefact of
> > frequency alone), so your entire view on frequency is demolished on a
> > simple observation of a distantly barking dog.
>
> I take for sure you never visited any concert of any kind because there you
> will experience a dropoff in the high register frequensies rather fast if
> youre leavin, while the low frequent sounds can be heard miles away.
>
> If it depends upon that the lowfrequent sounds carry more energy from the
> begining i don't know but the fact is that the US marine use ULF waves to
> send signals over great distances, and whales have sound at a frequens
> between 15-50 hz i beleive?
Oh boy, another idiot.
Dirk Vdm
Jonas Thörnvall
===In addition it is always necessary to take into account attenuation due
to the absorption of ===sound by the air, which may be *substantial at
higher frequencies*. For ultrasound, *air ===absorption* may well be the
*dominant factor in the reduction*.
*** 6.10 What is the doppler effect?
When a sound source is moving, a stationary observer will hear a frequency
that differs from that which is produced by the source. The doppler effect
will be noticed as a marked drop in pitch when a vehicle passes at high
speed. An interesting fact is that doppler for any straight line movement
always sweeps down in pitch!
If one approaches a sound source by moving toward it with a velocity, v, the
frequency of the sound heard is F=Fo(c+v)/c, where Fo is the emitted sound
frequency, c is the speed of sound in still air and v is the speed of the
observer or the moving source. if one moves away from a sound source, the
sign of v is reversed.
But for an approaching sound source, the frequency of the sound heard is
F=Fo*c/(c-v). For a receding source the sign of the velocity, v, term is
reversed.
The speed of sound in air is approximately 340 m/s (see 2.11).
Example 1: A sound source, S, emits 1000 waves per second (1 kHz) and is
moving directly towards an observer, O, at a speed of 100 metres per second
(equivalent to approximately 225 miles per hour).
After 1 second the wave front, which is travelling at the speed of sound,
will have travelled 340 metres from the original source position. Also after
that second the sound source will have moved 100 metres towards the
observer.
0 m 340 m
S | | | | | | | | | O
<-------------- 1000 waves ------------------>
100 m 340 m
S | | | | | | | | | O
<------- 1000 waves --------->
Therefore the same number of waves will occupy a space of 340-100 = 240
metres and the wavelength will be 240/1000 = 0.24 metres. To the observer
the frequency heard will be the speed of sound divided by its wavelength =
340/0.24 = 1416.7 Hz.
Example 2: An observer moving at 100 metres per second directly approaches a
stationary sound source, S, which is emitting 1000 waves per second (1 kHz).
In this example there is no change in wavelength. In one second, the
observer will hear the number of waves emitted per second plus the number of
waves which s/he has passed in the time (1000+100/0.34) = 1294.1 Hz.
Note the interesting result - a stationary observer with moving source will
not hear the same frequency as a would a moving observer with a stationary
source.
Interesting corollaries are that if one is confined to movement velocities
equal to or less than the speed of sound, on approaching a sound source, one
will observe frequencies up to only twice the radiating frequency, but if
one is stationary and approached by a sound source, there is no upper
frequency limit.
Thought teaser: Apply these principles to light, aether, red shift and
quasars. What would cause a "blue shift"?
*** 2.9 How does sound decay with distance?
At distances large compared to the size of the source, sound intensity
diminishes according to the inverse square law.
I = Io/D^2
It is relatively simple to reliably calculate provided the source is small
and outdoors, but indoor calculations (in a reverberant field) are rather
more complex.
If the observation position is at a distance that is small compared to the
size of the source, sound level changes very little with location. One
should be able to determine the "virtual center" of the whole sound field,
whence inverse square law calculations can proceed in reference to that
distance.
The surrounding environment, especially close to the ground and in the
presence of wind and vertical temperature gradients have a great effect on
the sound received at a distant location. Ground reflection affects sound
levels more than a few feet away (distances greater than the height of the
sound source or the receiver above the ground). Wind and air temperature
gradients affect all sound propagation beyond 100 meters over the surface of
the earth.
If the noise source is outdoors and its dimensions are small compared with
the distance to the monitoring position (ideally a point source), then as
the sound energy is radiated it will spread over an area which is
proportional to the square of the distance. This is an 'inverse square law'
where the sound level will decline by 6dB for each doubling of distance.
Line noise sources such as a long line of moving traffic will radiate noise
in cylindrical pattern, so that the area covered by the sound energy spread
is directly proportional to the distance and the sound will decline by 3dB
per doubling of distance.
Close to a source (the near field) the change in SPL will not follow the
above laws because the spread of energy is less, and smaller changes of
sound level with distance should be expected.
In addition it is always necessary to take into account attenuation due to
the absorption of sound by the air, which may be substantial at higher
frequencies. For ultrasound, air absorption may well be the dominant factor
in the reduction.
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> skrev i
meddelandet news:cDuf8.210533$rt4....@afrodite.telenet-ops.be...
Dirk Van de moortel
"Jonas Thörnvall" <jon...@bredband.net> wrote in message news:oLxf8.1463$Za4....@news1.bredband.com...
>
>
> ===In addition it is always necessary to take into account attenuation due
> to the absorption of ===sound by the air, which may be *substantial at
[snip]
...
> frequencies. For ultrasound, air absorption may well be the dominant factor
> in the reduction.
Congratulations for successfully copying from Andrew Silverman's
acoustics FAQ
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=873665...@measure.demon.co.uk
We all know that the sun is red at sunset, that a red light is better
in foggy conditions, that a low voice reaches farther, that we only
hear the bass sounds from a distant party...
That was not the point.
The point was
http://groups.google.com/groups?sourceid=navclient&querytime=gdbF&q=author%3Akenseto+pitch
Dirk Vdm
David McAnally
>"David McAnally" <D.McAnally@i'm_a_gnu.uq.net.au> skrev i meddelandet
>news:a5lf1j$cuv$1...@bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au...
>> "kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> writes:
>>
>> >ROTFLOL. We just don't accept the obvious wrong bull shit that you tried
>to
>> >heap on us---that's all. For example: Your asserted that the pitch of an
>> >approaching siren remains constant and it is the loudness of the siren
>that
>> >is increasing.
>>
>> Ah yes, your ridiculous claim that the frequency of a far away object is
>> lower than the frequency of a closer object. Well, I heard a dog barking
>> in the distance recently, and you know what? It sounded like it was
>> exactly the same pitch as a dog close up - only softer because it was
>> further away. This observation directly contradicts your claim regarding
>> frequency decreasing with distance (since pitch is an artefact of
>> frequency alone), so your entire view on frequency is demolished on a
>> simple observation of a distantly barking dog.
>I take for sure you never visited any concert of any kind because there you
>will experience a dropoff in the high register frequensies rather fast if
>youre leavin, while the low frequent sounds can be heard miles away.
I have actually been to many concerts, but I don't leave before the
concert is completely finished. I'd consider leaving before the concert
finishes extremely rude behaviour and bad manners. But if you choose to
exhibit rude behaviour and bad manners, that's your look-out. You would
appear to do it all the time, going by your comment.
>If it depends upon that the lowfrequent sounds carry more energy from the
>begining i don't know but the fact is that the US marine use ULF waves to
>send signals over great distances, and whales have sound at a frequens
>between 15-50 hz i beleive?
Whether or not this is true is irrelevant. It's not what Seto claimed.
Seto claimed that the frequency of a wave actually decreases as it gets
further away from its source. He made no comment about attenuation.
David McAnally
--------------
David McAnally
>===In addition it is always necessary to take into account attenuation due
>to the absorption of ===sound by the air, which may be *substantial at
>higher frequencies*. For ultrasound, *air ===absorption* may well be the
>*dominant factor in the reduction*.
>*** 6.10 What is the doppler effect?
>When a sound source is moving, a stationary observer will hear a frequency
>that differs from that which is produced by the source. The doppler effect
>will be noticed as a marked drop in pitch when a vehicle passes at high
>speed. An interesting fact is that doppler for any straight line movement
>always sweeps down in pitch!
>If one approaches a sound source by moving toward it with a velocity, v, the
>frequency of the sound heard is F=Fo(c+v)/c, where Fo is the emitted sound
>frequency, c is the speed of sound in still air and v is the speed of the
>observer or the moving source. if one moves away from a sound source, the
>sign of v is reversed.
>But for an approaching sound source, the frequency of the sound heard is
>F=Fo*c/(c-v). For a receding source the sign of the velocity, v, term is
>reversed.
Well, at least this contradicts Seto's ridiculous assertion that perceived
frequency increases as the source gets closer.
If you ever thought that you were writing in support of Seto, then you're
wrong - you're contradicting him all the way.
David McAnally
------------------
James Hunter
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>
> Congratulations for successfully copying from Andrew Silverman's
> acoustics FAQ
> http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=873665...@measure.demon.co.uk
>
> We all know that the sun is red at sunset, that a red light is better
> in foggy conditions, that a low voice reaches farther, that we only
> hear the bass sounds from a distant party...
> That was not the point.
The other point is that Engineers have to constantly remind
acousticians that it obviously only happens that way in *your* dreams dork.
Dirk Van de moortel
"James Hunter" <James....@Jhuapl.edu> wrote in message news:3C7EB790...@Jhuapl.edu...
Er... can you tell me what your point is please?
Who is the engineer??
Who is the acoustician???
What on *earth* are my "dreams dork"????
Dirk Vdm
James Hunter
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> "James Hunter" <James....@Jhuapl.edu> wrote in message news:3C7EB790...@Jhuapl.edu...
> >
> >
> > The other point is that Engineers have to constantly remind
> > acousticians that it obviously only happens that way in *your* dreams dork.
>
> Er... can you tell me what your point is please?
> Who is the engineer??
The Engineer is the one who knows that the Doppler effect
only exists in physicists *minds*.
Dirk Van de moortel
"James Hunter" <James....@Jhuapl.edu> wrote in message news:3C7EBB6E...@Jhuapl.edu...
Most revealing.
Never mind. I didn't expect clarification of your point anyway.
Dirk Vdm
James Hunter
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>
>
> > The Engineer is the one who knows that the Doppler effect
> > only exists in physicists *minds*.
>
> Most revealing.
> Never mind. I didn't expect clarification of your point anyway.
It wasn't supposed to revealing. since revelation is philosophy,
which is exactly what the nonexistent Doppler Effect is.
kenseto
> "kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> writes:
>
> >ROTFLOL. We just don't accept the obvious wrong bull shit that you tried
to
> >heap on us---that's all. For example: Your asserted that the pitch of an
> >approaching siren remains constant and it is the loudness of the siren
that
> >is increasing.
>
> Ah yes, your ridiculous claim that the frequency of a far away object is
> lower than the frequency of a closer object. Well, I heard a dog barking
> in the distance recently, and you know what? It sounded like it was
> exactly the same pitch as a dog close up - only softer because it was
> further away. This observation directly contradicts your claim regarding
> frequency decreasing with distance (since pitch is an artefact of
> frequency alone), so your entire view on frequency is demolished on a
> simple observation of a distantly barking dog.
We were talking about siren and now you want to talk about barking dog??
That's OK. Now tell me when the dog was very far away you didn't hear his
barking at all right?? What does this mean? It means that the received
frequency is zero. Now when the dog get closer you heard him barking. That
means that the received frequency is not zero. That also means that the
approching dog's barking was increased from zero frequency to non-zero
frequency. This also means that the frequency start of low (zero) and
increased to a max level. This is exacvtly what I said. This is also exactly
what we hear from an approaching siren.
>
> >Another example: You don't know the difference between a
> >universal constant and a constant math ratio for light speed.
>
> Only because there is no difference at all, except in your overly fertile
> imagination.
Only a stupid mathematician can't see the difference. The difference is as
follows:
If the speed of light is a universal constant:
1. The light path length of a rod (300,000km long) must be the same in all
frames of reference.
2. The absolute duration of a clock second co-moving with the rod must be
the same in all frames of reference.
If the speed of light is a constant math ratio:
1. The light path length of a rod (300,000km long) is dependent on the state
of absolute motion of the rod.The higher is the state of absolute motion the
longer is the light path length. Identify this light path length as
gamma*300,000km
2. The absolute duration of a clock second co-moving with the rod is
dependent on the state of absolute motion of the clock. The higher is the
state of absolute motion the higher is the absolute duration for a clock
second. Identify this absolute duration as gamma*1 ether clock second.
3. The term gamma cancels out and the math ratio for light speed remains
constant in all frames.
Ken Seto
kenseto
No it doesn't contradict with what I said. It contradict with what you said.
You said: the pitch of a siren remains relatively constant during the
approaching leg and that the increase in volume of the siren is due to its
loudness. Clearly that is not what is observed with an approaching siren. .
>
> If you ever thought that you were writing in support of Seto, then you're
> wrong - you're contradicting him all the way.
You are full of shit. If the approaching source is very far away the
receiving frequency is zero. As the source get closer the receiving
frequency is not zero. That means that we have an increase in frequency as
the source is approaching the receiver. This is supported by the increase in
pitch of an approaching siren. This is exactly what I said.
Ken Seto
kenseto
No it is not irrelevant. It proved that you were wrong.
>It's not what Seto claimed.
> Seto claimed that the frequency of a wave actually decreases as it gets
> further away from its source. He made no comment about attenuation.
What is "the frequency of a wave"? However the frequency of a source does
decrease as it gets further away from the receiver. In fact when it get too
far away the receiver will receive no frequency (wave/sec.) at all. Unless
you are a moron you would recognize that means that frequency decreases as
the source gets further away from the receiver.
Ken Seto
Eric Prebys
I guess "Engineers" get a lot of speeding tickets, then.
-Eric
James Hunter
Eric Prebys wrote:
> James Hunter wrote:
> >
> >
> > The Engineer is the one who knows that the Doppler effect
> > only exists in physicists *minds*.
>
> I guess "Engineers" get a lot of speeding tickets, then.
No we don't, because unlike physicists, we not
only understand space, time, speed, velocity,
mass, and light, we also understand points.
Eric Prebys
James Hunter wrote:
>
> Eric Prebys wrote:
>
> > James Hunter wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > The Engineer is the one who knows that the Doppler effect
> > > only exists in physicists *minds*.
> >
> > I guess "Engineers" get a lot of speeding tickets, then.
>
> No we don't, because unlike physicists, we not
> only understand space, time, speed, velocity,
> mass, and light, we also understand points.
>
And how exactly does a radar gun work in your world, where
Doppler shifts are imaginary?
Dirk Van de moortel
"kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message news:3c7fa073$0$1603$4c5e...@news.erinet.com...
It is exactly what is observed.
>
> >
> > If you ever thought that you were writing in support of Seto, then you're
> > wrong - you're contradicting him all the way.
>
> You are full of shit. If the approaching source is very far away the
> receiving frequency is zero. As the source get closer the receiving
> frequency is not zero. That means that we have an increase in frequency as
> the source is approaching the receiver. This is supported by the increase in
> pitch of an approaching siren. This is exactly what I said.
And it is exactly wrong.
How can a person say something so utterly stupid?
But of course, you have James Hunter for support.
James works at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Lab ;-)
Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
"kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message news:3c7f9c8b$0$1611$4c5e...@news.erinet.com...
And it is utterly, completely, exactly wrong.
Dirk Vdm
Paul Cardinale
> "David McAnally" <D.McAnally@i'm_a_gnu.uq.net.au> wrote in message
> news:a5mcmg$q6c$1...@bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au...
<snip>
>
> >It's not what Seto claimed.
> > Seto claimed that the frequency of a wave actually decreases as it gets
> > further away from its source. He made no comment about attenuation.
>
> What is "the frequency of a wave"? However the frequency of a source does
> decrease as it gets further away from the receiver. In fact when it get too
> far away the receiver will receive no frequency (wave/sec.) at all. Unless
> you are a moron you would recognize that means that frequency decreases as
> the source gets further away from the receiver.
Tell us, how far away do you have to be for the frequency to be half?
Paul Cardinale
James Hunter
Eric Prebys wrote:
>
> > > >
> > > > The Engineer is the one who knows that the Doppler effect
> > > > only exists in physicists *minds*.
> > >
> > > I guess "Engineers" get a lot of speeding tickets, then.
> >
> > No we don't, because unlike physicists, we not
> > only understand space, time, speed, velocity,
> > mass, and light, we also understand points.
> >
>
> And how exactly does a radar gun work in your world, where
> Doppler shifts are imaginary?
Radar guns work like any other gun does,
which is not by the virtue of the non-existent
virtuality of mathemagoobers and their
Doped-Up Doppler (DUD) Effect.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Paul Cardinale" <pcard...@volcanomail.com> wrote in message news:64050551.02030...@posting.google.com...
>
> Paul Cardinale
Paul, my bet is he'll tell you that you are trolling ;-)
Dirk Vdm
Patrick Gomolchuk
Please explain to us naive physicists how doppler radar systems
(cardiac,weather,traffic,tidal, process control, etc) can actually work at
all in light of your startling revelation that the effect is non-existent.
They all work very well, now we just need you to explain to us why.
Thank you.
Patrick Gomolchuk
"James Hunter" <James....@Jhuapl.edu> wrote in message
news:3C7FD5C8...@Jhuapl.edu...
James Hunter
Patrick Gomolchuk wrote:
> Hello James,
>
> Please explain to us naive physicists how doppler radar systems
> (cardiac,weather,traffic,tidal, process control, etc) can actually work at
> all in light of your startling revelation that the effect is non-existent.
> They all work very well, now we just need you to explain to us why.
It is not a Top Secret, since it's not even a secret.
Engineers keep telling physicists that they work for the same reason
*TODAY*
as they did *YESTERDAY*, the *DAY BEFORE*, and 10,000 years ago.
And that reason is that scientists are CLUELESS of WORK.
Gregory L. Hansen
> "Randy M. Dumse" <r...@newmicros.com> writes:
>
> >"Eric Prebys" <pre...@fnal.gov> wrote in message
> >news:3C7D2098...@fnal.gov...
> >> I try to follow the principle of "educate, not ridicule"
>
> >You don't know how pleased I was to see a similar comment appear in one of
> >your very recent posts. So much of what goes on here has more to do with
> >mammalian social positioning than physical science. I had been increasingly
> >disappointed in the growing trend in your on going posts. I strongly applaud
> >your conscious effort at a change of course. You have done well to note the
> >trend and choose the better path. Kudos. Attaboys and Gudonyas.
>
> I take it that you acknowledge that Henry Wilson, Ken Seto, Logicalpike,
> Eleaticus, Len Gaasenbeek (sp?) and others of their ilk, aren't deserving
> of any consideration since they all go out of their way to viciously
> insult those with whom they disagree (i.e. they insult those people who
> have actually taken the trouble to understand the theory). The fact is
> that the above-mentioned loonies don't care about understanding the
You just have to ask yourself: what does it matter? If educating
won't help them, ridicule certainly won't! But education does help
others following the thread, which ridicule does not. And you have
absolutely nothing to gain by trying to defend your honor when these
people ridicule you because neither you or the crowd of, *ahem*,
"alternative thinkers" will be fooling the readers of
sci.physics.relativity. If Ken Seto says you're an idiot, I will
assume you said something he disagrees with, but not that you were
wrong or that you're an idiot. That judgement comes later after I'm
more familiar with your own opinions.
"Don't lower yourself to their level" actually works surprisingly well
on Usenet. Everyone notices it.
Patrick Gomolchuk
"James Hunter" <James....@Jhuapl.edu> wrote in message
actually work? You state that you are an engineer who knows the answer, so
please enlighten us.
Patrick
James Hunter
Patrick Gomolchuk wrote:
> "James Hunter" <James....@Jhuapl.edu> wrote in message
> news:3C7FDDCC...@Jhuapl.edu...
> >
>
> > > They all work very well, now we just need you to explain to us why.
> >
> > It is not a Top Secret, since it's not even a secret.
> > Engineers keep telling physicists that they work for the same reason
> > *TODAY*
> > as they did *YESTERDAY*, the *DAY BEFORE*, and 10,000 years ago.
> > And that reason is that scientists are CLUELESS of WORK.
> >
> >
> >
> This is not an answer. I ask you again, how do these doppler radar systems
> actually work? You state that you are an engineer who knows the answer, so
> please enlighten us.
That is an answer, since "scientists" don't even ask questions,
they merely have this recursive gibberish word-game going
with non-existent Dope Effects and enlighment from GAWD.
We need one more chorus for "science".
I saw the light, I saw the light, Praise The Lawd, I saw the Light.
>
>
> Patrick
Bilge
Re: stupid professionals? to usenet:
>
>"James Hunter" <James....@Jhuapl.edu> wrote in message news:3C7EB790...@Jhuapl.edu...
>>
>> The other point is that Engineers have to constantly remind
>> acousticians that it obviously only happens that way
>> in *your* dreams dork.
>
>Er... can you tell me what your point is please?
He doesn't have one. He only posts here because he has nothing
to contribute and nothing better to do than post "No it isn't"
in responses and spr lost the coin toss as to where he should
post them. See any of his posts. Not a single one makes any attempt
to try and explain his opinion, since he can't.
James Hunter
Bilge wrote:
You don't need to explain what it is not an opinion, as wankers
need to be reminded. Up is up, and down is down,
independent of whatever elevator morons believe
them to be.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Bilge" <ro...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message news:slrna7vt6...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
I know... a regular troll. Not even an interesting one.
Dirk Vdm
David McAnally
Funny how Seto's mind works - he thought that Thornvall's quoted formula
F = Fo*c/(c-v) represented a functional dependence on distance. Goodness
only knows where THAT idea came from.
>> > If you ever thought that you were writing in support of Seto, then you're
>> > wrong - you're contradicting him all the way.
>>
>> You are full of shit. If the approaching source is very far away the
>> receiving frequency is zero. As the source get closer the receiving
>> frequency is not zero. That means that we have an increase in frequency as
>> the source is approaching the receiver. This is supported by the increase in
>> pitch of an approaching siren. This is exactly what I said.
>And it is exactly wrong.
>How can a person say something so utterly stupid?
I agree with Dirk.
But I shouldn't be too surprised that Seto couldn't even pick up that I
was commenting that Thornvall was contradicting him (which is true), and
that I had made no comment about whether reality contradicted him.
I stated that Thornvall had contradicted Seto, and in denying this, Seto
made absolutely no reference to what Thornvall had written, but Seto
instead brought up his individual beliefs about reality, which were
irrelevant to my comments.
David McAnally
-------
David McAnally
>Eric Prebys wrote:
And this is exactly the argument that he uses to get out of paying for any
speeding tickets.
David McAnally
----------------
Jonas Thörnvall
*for sure* a drop of in the high register depending on distance (undependent
of any doppler), if i may guess why i would say it depends on that the bass
move more air to begin with, that a wave at that sounds 100db at a distance
of 10 meter carry more energy at 20 hz then at 20 000hz.
And for the doppler question i can *imagine* that depending on angular
approach the frequens dropoff would be imediat or a slow down, but this
could be an illusion of mind.
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> skrev i
meddelandet news:M7Qf8.214623$rt4....@afrodite.telenet-ops.be...
kenseto
Hey stupid mathematician. The following comments from Thornvall support my
claim that the frequency decreases with increasing distance:
""I take for sure you never visited any concert of any kind because there
you
will experience a dropoff in the high register frequensies rather fast if
youre leavin, while the low frequent sounds can be heard miles away.
If it depends upon that the lowfrequent sounds carry more energy from the
begining i don't know but the fact is that the US marine use ULF waves to
send signals over great distances, and whales have sound at a frequens
between 15-50 hz i beleive?""
> I stated that Thornvall had contradicted Seto, and in denying this, Seto
> made absolutely no reference to what Thornvall had written, but Seto
> instead brought up his individual beliefs about reality, which were
> irrelevant to my comments.
Is there no limit to your stupidity? So you think that going from zero
receiving frequency when the source is far away to something greater than
zero frequency is not an increase in frequency due to distance??
Ken Seto
Edward Schaefer
> I take it that none of the people here calling others stupid are experts
> on the subject at hand. So i can safely skip any messages containing ad
> hominum arguments, right?
Dear David,
It is not quite that simple. Some of the Relativity experts do let the
taunts of others get under their skin, and will fight fire with fire and
deal well with the meat of the issue in the same posting. However, the
quality of a posting is inversly proportional to the amount of ad-homium
material in it, and a poster can easily be judged by the amount of ad-homiun
material they produce. Those who have something worthwhile to say spend
less of their energy taunting and baiting others and responding to that same
sort of stuff.
The same also applies to threads and subthreads. In general, once a thread
has degereated to name-calling, it is time to kill it and look elsewhere for
worthwhile material.
EMS
Jonas Thörnvall
guess.
"Jonas Thörnvall" <jon...@bredband.net> skrev i meddelandet
news:%HWf8.2088$1h4....@news2.bredband.com...
Bilge
Re: stupid professionals? to usenet:
>
>Hey stupid mathematician. The following comments from Thornvall support my
>claim that the frequency decreases with increasing distance:
Hey moron, I'll ask again: If I want to hear beethoven's sonata in
c# minor played in A minor, how many rows back from the piano do I sit?
How about if I just want to drop it an octave?
David Evens
<jon...@bredband.net> wrote:
>Less interference in the bass could also be a factor to the phenomen i
>guess.
Lower frequencies have larger wavelengths. A basic principle of wave
mechanics is that a wave doesn't interact wit things smaller than
about half its wavelength, so there is less stuff that interacts with
and scatters the energy of lower frequencies.
David Evens
So you admit that you were unaware that Doppler effects are OBSERVED
by engineers, which you didn't know because you don't know anything
about engineering.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Jonas Thörnvall" <jon...@bredband.net> wrote in message news:%HWf8.2088$1h4....@news2.bredband.com...
> I'm neither scientist, engineer or particulary bright. But there sure is
> *for sure* a drop of in the high register depending on distance (undependent
> of any doppler), if i may guess why i would say it depends on that the bass
> move more air to begin with, that a wave at that sounds 100db at a distance
> of 10 meter carry more energy at 20 hz then at 20 000hz.
High frequencies are more easily absorbed than low frequencies.
That is why an approaching source with a broad frequency range
sounds higher *but a bit weaker* than a receding source: the latter
sounds lower *and a bit louder*. The drop in loudness is caused
by the filtering of more high frequency waves.
>
> And for the doppler question i can *imagine* that depending on angular
> approach the frequens dropoff would be imediat or a slow down, but this
> could be an illusion of mind.
A few weeks ago I posted the formula for Doppler shift as
observed by someone who is not on the line of motion of the
source, i.o.w. with what you call 'angular approach'. I haven't
found the formula on the internet, so I had to derive it myself.
It's not difficult.
Observed frequency of a moving source:
f = f0 * s / [ s + w*sign(x) / sqrt( 1 + (a/(wx))^2 ) ]
where:
f = observed frequency (pitch)
f0 = real frequency (mono, not a range!)
s = speed of sound
w = speed of sound source
a = distance of observer to line of motion
x = distance of source to nearest by point on track
if x < 0 (approach), the formula becomes
f = f0 * s / [ s - w / sqrt( 1 + (a/(wx))^2 ) ]
if x > 0 (receding) it becomes:
f = f0 * s / [ s + w / sqrt( 1 + (a/(wx))^2 ) ]
Look at the drawing:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/PickUp/Doppler.gif
As you can see: the frequency constantly drops. It is greater than
the emitted frequency on the left of the vertical (approach) and
lower on the right side.
If you are on the line of motion (a=0), then the horizontal lines
show the result: a sharp drop when the source passes your ear.
Dirk Vdm
Charles Cagle
<D.McAnally@i'm_a_gnu.uq.net.au> wrote:
> "Randy M. Dumse" <r...@newmicros.com> writes:
>
> >"David McAnally" <D.McAnally@i'm_a_gnu.uq.net.au> wrote in message
> >news:a5lb5k$pcd$1...@bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au...
> >> Why should one choose to continue such an unproductive course of
> >> action?
>
> >Exactly. Why?
>
> >Surely trying to educate is noble in motive, but some "students" are immune.
> >Resorting to insults is less noble. But these are not the only paths
> >available. You have a choice who you choose to reply to.
>
> And you are advocating that they should be allowed to spread their
> disinformation unchallenged?
Well, David, that is an interesting point. There's quite a bit of
stuff about to convince a rational man that what we call mainstream
science is mostly pseudoscience when it comes to commonly accepted
'theories' about how the universe works. Many of the advocates of
mainstream views actually insist that science has nothing to do with
the pursuit of Truth and, in fact, such persons who themselves are
devoid of truth will insist that truth is not a goal of science. I'm
only left to wonder who it is that they suppose died and left them in
charge as to how to define the ideals of scientific enterprises. I
encourage people to at least read Rene Descartes 'Rules for the
Direction of the Mind' where he is critical of the rampant
pseudoscience that attempted to pass itself off as legitimate science
in his day. Most people are unaware that not much has changed but the
date on the calendar. We've made many technological advances but not
all of those can be directly attributed to the notion that we have
operated with clear ideas about the nature, structure, relationships
and dynamics of the components of the universe. Building a
succeessfully working cell phone bears no relationship at all to the
idea that accepted concepts on the operations of stars have anything to
do with how they actually work. In other words, success in technology
generation does not insure that we have even a close handle on how the
universe works.
So, when I see people advocating some mainstream idea which may have
enjoyed univeral acceptance and popularity for fifty years or more but
which cannot be substantiated by any experimental data then I think I
have the right and duty to point out the rampant pseudoscientific
processes which allowed such ideas to develop and proliferate.
CC.
Jonas Thörnvall
Just as i imagined : ) strange, i'm not sure about your and Seto's
disagreement but you maybe could full in the missing information.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Jonas Thörnvall" <jon...@bredband.net> wrote in message news:Km4g8.2488$Za4....@news1.bredband.com...
>
[snip]
>
> Just as i imagined : ) strange, i'm not sure about your and Seto's
> disagreement but you maybe could full in the missing information.
Alas, there is no room in Seto's head. Any information one
tries to enter, immediately bounces.
Dirk Vdm
Bilge
>
>Just as i imagined : ) strange, i'm not sure about your and Seto's
>disagreement but you maybe could full in the missing information.
>
Actually, the confusion is probably because you didn't really believe
anyone would make the claim seto did. seto believes the doppler shift is
related to the distance of the source. Sane people realize the velocity
is resonsible and the fact that the source gets closer or further away
is an artifact of "moving" at some relative velocity, by definition of
what "moving" means. A quote from seto, message id:
<3c803a29$0$1598$4c5e...@news.erinet.com>
"So you think that going from zero receiving frequency when the
source is far away to something greater than zero frequency is not
an increase in frequency due to distance??"
Note the confusion between an increase in the amplitdue of a
particular frequency and an increase in frequency.
Paul B. Andersen
"James Hunter" <James....@Jhuapl.edu> wrote in message news:3C7FEE13...@Jhuapl.edu...
No engeneer is this ignorant about basic physics.
So why do you pretend to be one?
Paul
Paul B. Andersen
"kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message news:3c7f9c8b$0$1611$4c5e...@news.erinet.com...
> We were talking about siren and now you want to talk about barking dog??
> That's OK. Now tell me when the dog was very far away you didn't hear his
> barking at all right?? What does this mean? It means that the received
> frequency is zero.
So the reason why I cannot hear Big Ben is not that its sound doesn't
reach me, but that the frequency of the sound that reaches me is zero?
> Now when the dog get closer you heard him barking. That
> means that the received frequency is not zero. That also means that the
> approching dog's barking was increased from zero frequency to non-zero
> frequency. This also means that the frequency start of low (zero) and
> increased to a max level. This is exacvtly what I said. This is also exactly
> what we hear from an approaching siren.
Interesting.
So when I hear a Grand Dane bark far away, it will become
a Poodle when it come closer?
Paul
Eric Prebys
For the same reason Henry Wilson (a.k.a. Ralph Rabbidge) pretends
to be an "experimental physicist". They're both so out of touch with
reality that they honestly think people will believe them.
-Eric
Eric Prebys
None of these things existed 10,000 years ago, so I'd be happy if
you could tell us how they worked *YESTERDAY* and the *DAY BEFORE*,
but you seem to be incapable of doing that.
> And that reason is that scientists are CLUELESS of WORK.
-Eric
Eric Prebys
James Hunter wrote:
>
> Eric Prebys wrote:
>
> >
> > > > >
> > > > > The Engineer is the one who knows that the Doppler effect
> > > > > only exists in physicists *minds*.
> > > >
> > > > I guess "Engineers" get a lot of speeding tickets, then.
> > >
> > > No we don't, because unlike physicists, we not
> > > only understand space, time, speed, velocity,
> > > mass, and light, we also understand points.
> > >
> >
> > And how exactly does a radar gun work in your world, where
> > Doppler shifts are imaginary?
>
> Radar guns work like any other gun does,
How exactly will, say, a .22 tell me how fast a car is going?
> which is not by the virtue of the non-existent
> virtuality of mathemagoobers and their
> Doped-Up Doppler (DUD) Effect.
I assume you're just a troll, but even for a troll, this is
a pretty strange stand to take.
-Eric
kenseto
"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no> wrote in message
news:a60p0l$8he$1...@snipp.uninett.no...
>
> "kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:3c7f9c8b$0$1611$4c5e...@news.erinet.com...
> > We were talking about siren and now you want to talk about barking dog??
> > That's OK. Now tell me when the dog was very far away you didn't hear
his
> > barking at all right?? What does this mean? It means that the received
> > frequency is zero.
>
> So the reason why I cannot hear Big Ben is not that its sound doesn't
> reach me, but that the frequency of the sound that reaches me is zero?
You were the one who brought up the point that the pitch of the train's
whistle gets higher in the approaching leg..This is also observed daily with
the ambulance's siren. So are you now denying that you made that statement??
Intensity = waves/unit area
Frequency = waves/unit area/unit time
Intensity is dependent on the distance between the source and the receiver.
It is natural to conclude that frequency is also dependent on the distance
between the source and the receiver.
>
> > Now when the dog get closer you heard him barking. That
> > means that the received frequency is not zero. That also means that the
> > approching dog's barking was increased from zero frequency to non-zero
> > frequency. This also means that the frequency start of low (zero) and
> > increased to a max level. This is exacvtly what I said. This is also
exactly
> > what we hear from an approaching siren.
>
> Interesting.
> So when I hear a Grand Dane bark far away, it will become
> a Poodle when it come closer?
Playing word games again eh Paul? When the Great Dane is far away the high
frequency components interact with the medium and disperse while the low
frequency component is able to reach the receiver. When the Great Dane is
close by both the high frequency components and the low frequency components
are able to reach the receiver and thus the receiver detect a higher
frequency.
Ken Seto
Jonas Thörnvall
dog from pickin it up.
"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no> skrev i meddelandet
news:a60p0l$8he$1...@snipp.uninett.no...
Rabbo
"Eric Prebys" <pre...@fnal.gov> wrote in message
news:3C83EC86...@fnal.gov...
Eric Prebys, Henry Wilson has drawn my attention to the fact that you have
been using my name without permission and in a derogatory way on this
newsgroup. If you do not cease immediately and apologise, I might be
inclined to take further action.
I have a computer business to run. Amongst other things, I set up web pages
for other people. Henry just happens to be one of my clients as well as an
old friend.
I used to take part in this Newsgroup but realized long ago that it was a
total waste of time arguing with indoctrinated people like yourself.
Bilge
[...]
While you're at it, sue me, too, since it takes a lot of gall to give
someone as irrespnsible as henry the use of your internet account and
free run of your web site (btw, what does your isp say about this) and
then try to shuffle off the blame for the confusion you caused on someone
else. (Provided I make the assumption that you and henry really are
different people for the sake of argument). You should feel fortunate
that henry didn't pull his stunts in a newsgroup that takes a dimmer
of view of of those antics.
Oh. And sue henry, too. He was crediting you for helping him program.
Given the answer he gave me to why the recursion relation for the
bessel functions J_n(x) does not give an accurate value for J10, given
J1, you might say that he defamed you.
>Eric Prebys, Henry Wilson has drawn my attention to the fact that
>you have been using my name without permission and in a derogatory
>way on this newsgroup. If you do not cease immediately and apologise,
>I might be inclined to take further action.
Don't be a moron. Doing so publicly reduces the credibility of
your legal threats from merely impossible, to absurd. The standard
for defamation here in the US requires that (1) the statements are
false, and (2) proof of damages. (3) Anyone that would spend the
money required to press a frivolous lawsuit they can't win, based
upon being defamed by a usenet article, will have a hard time explaining
to the court that they really aren't stupid.
In the meantime, you might want to research your case at the
cornell law library, where you will find the us civil code and
terms such as "summary judgement".
>I have a computer business to run. Amongst other things, I set up web pages
>for other people. Henry just happens to be one of my clients as well as an
>old friend.
It's no one's fault but your own that you put henry in a position
put you on the short end of his irresponsible littering of sci.physics.*
with his illogiacal, repetitive diatribes. If henry is a client, why
is he using your website? I'd speculate on this, but I'll save it for
another lawsuit.
>I used to take part in this Newsgroup but realized long ago that it was a
>total waste of time arguing with indoctrinated people like yourself.
Why is it that this sounds like one of henry's clichès? Not only
that, nobody but henry would be so stupid as to try and obtain an
apology for some imagined insults by insulting the person to whom the
threat is addressed.
--
IANALAIDNO
Eric Prebys
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> newsgroup. If you do not cease immediately and apologise, I might be
I insinuated that you and Henry Wilson are one and the same. I can
understand how you could take that as extremely "derogatory". If you
are in fact not Henry Wilson, then I do indeed apologize from
the bottom of my heart for suggesting that your were.
> inclined to take further action.
>
Such as? Reincarnate yourself as yet a third person - this one a
lawyer?
> I have a computer business to run. Amongst other things, I set up web pages
> for other people. Henry just happens to be one of my clients as well as an
> old friend.
>
Pretty lame, as web pages go. Can I safely assume you don't actually
make any money at this business?
> I used to take part in this Newsgroup but realized long ago that it was a
> total waste of time arguing with indoctrinated people like yourself.
Pretty cool, Ralph/Henry. This one was actually funny!
-Eric
Dirk Van de moortel
"kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message news:3c840fc5$0$1601$4c5e...@news.erinet.com...
>
> "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no> wrote in message
> news:a60p0l$8he$1...@snipp.uninett.no...
> >
> > "kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message
> news:3c7f9c8b$0$1611$4c5e...@news.erinet.com...
> > > We were talking about siren and now you want to talk about barking dog??
> > > That's OK. Now tell me when the dog was very far away you didn't hear
> his
> > > barking at all right?? What does this mean? It means that the received
> > > frequency is zero.
> >
> > So the reason why I cannot hear Big Ben is not that its sound doesn't
> > reach me, but that the frequency of the sound that reaches me is zero?
>
> You were the one who brought up the point that the pitch of the train's
> whistle gets higher in the approaching leg..This is also observed daily with
> the ambulance's siren. So are you now denying that you made that statement??
> Intensity = waves/unit area
> Frequency = waves/unit area/unit time
This is hilarious ;-)
Seto inventing two definitions to find a way out of his stupid claim.
And then, despite the moron definitions, it still doesn't work.
Added with title: "Frequency = waves/unit area/unit time"
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html
> Intensity is dependent on the distance between the source and the receiver.
> It is natural to conclude that frequency is also dependent on the distance
> between the source and the receiver.
For someone who claims to try to attempt to produce a theory
of the universe, it would be natural to at least know the very
basics of physics ;-)
> >
> > > Now when the dog get closer you heard him barking. That
> > > means that the received frequency is not zero. That also means that the
> > > approching dog's barking was increased from zero frequency to non-zero
> > > frequency. This also means that the frequency start of low (zero) and
> > > increased to a max level. This is exacvtly what I said. This is also
> exactly
> > > what we hear from an approaching siren.
> >
> > Interesting.
> > So when I hear a Grand Dane bark far away, it will become
> > a Poodle when it come closer?
>
> Playing word games again eh Paul? When the Great Dane is far away the high
> frequency components interact with the medium and disperse while the low
> frequency component is able to reach the receiver. When the Great Dane is
> close by both the high frequency components and the low frequency components
> are able to reach the receiver and thus the receiver detect a higher
> frequency.
Obviously he has read some of the replies and now by just
repeating them, he tries to find a way to make it look like
that was what he meant in the first place.
Nasty malicious transparent little cheater.
Dirk Vdm
Stephen Speicher
>
> Rabbo wrote:
> >
> > "Eric Prebys" <pre...@fnal.gov> wrote in message
> > news:3C83EC86...@fnal.gov...
> > >
> > > to be an "experimental physicist". They're both so out of touch with
> > > reality that they honestly think people will believe them.
> > >
> >
> > been using my name without permission and in a derogatory way on this
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > newsgroup. If you do not cease immediately and apologise, I might be
>
> I insinuated that you and Henry Wilson are one and the same.
>
Gee, Eric, I wonder why anyone would think that "Henry" and
"Rabbo" might be the same person. Leaving aside that they both
are totally clueless about physics, note the following.
"Rabbo": "45 yrs experience in applied physics."
"Henry": "I have been a physicist for 45 years."
"Rabbo": "I just happen to be a physicist/mathematician with an
extra degree in psychology and genetics."
"Henry": "I have a full degree in physics and maths...I also have
a completely separate science degree majoring in psych and
genetics ."
So "Henry" and "Rabbo" each happen to be physicists and
mathematicians who worked in the field for 45 years, and they
both also have degrees in psychology and genetics. And, the
headers of their posts both bear the imprint "Organization:
Customer of Telstra Big Pond Direct." What an amazing
coincidence!
You know something, Eric. Whoever is the creature posting as
"Henry Wilson" does not really matter. All that matters is that
"Henry Wilson" is incredibly ignorant of physics, and I suspect
him to be a borderline schizophrenic.
Stephen
s...@compbio.caltech.edu
Welcome to California. Bring your own batteries.
Printed using 100% recycled electrons.
--------------------------------------------------------
Henry Wilson
That's right, Speicher. We were at uni together.
>
>You know something, Eric. Whoever is the creature posting as
>"Henry Wilson" does not really matter. All that matters is that
>"Henry Wilson" is incredibly ignorant of physics, and I suspect
>him to be a borderline schizophrenic.
>
>Stephen
>s...@compbio.caltech.edu
How is your cleaning job going Speicher?
>
>Welcome to California. Bring your own batteries.
>
>Printed using 100% recycled electrons.
>--------------------------------------------------------
>
Henry Wilson, Henry Wilson's free thought Laboratory,
At the frontier of scientific invention.
www.users.bigpond.com/rmrabb/HW.htm
Henry Wilson
>
>
>Rabbo wrote:
>>
>> "Eric Prebys" <pre...@fnal.gov> wrote in message
>> > For the same reason Henry Wilson (a.k.a. Ralph Rabbidge) pretends
>> > to be an "experimental physicist". They're both so out of touch with
>> > reality that they honestly think people will believe them.
>> >
>> > -Eric
>>
>> Eric Prebys, Henry Wilson has drawn my attention to the fact that you have
>> been using my name without permission and in a derogatory way on this
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> newsgroup. If you do not cease immediately and apologise, I might be
>
>I insinuated that you and Henry Wilson are one and the same. I can
>understand how you could take that as extremely "derogatory". If you
>are in fact not Henry Wilson, then I do indeed apologize from
>the bottom of my heart for suggesting that your were.
Are you now insinuating that being likened to me is in something one must
apologize for? You shold be very careful, Prebys.
>
>> inclined to take further action.
>>
>
>Such as? Reincarnate yourself as yet a third person - this one a
>lawyer?
>
>> I have a computer business to run. Amongst other things, I set up web pages
>> for other people. Henry just happens to be one of my clients as well as an
>> old friend.
>>
>
>Pretty lame, as web pages go. Can I safely assume you don't actually
>make any money at this business?
Rabbo does very well, Prebys. I did my own site once it was set up. I don't
go in for bullshit apprearances. My sensational demonstration programs are
what I want to present to the world - for its benefit.
>
>> I used to take part in this Newsgroup but realized long ago that it was a
>> total waste of time arguing with indoctrinated people like yourself.
>
>Pretty cool, Ralph/Henry. This one was actually funny!
>
>-Eric
You aren't a partner in Speicher's laboratory cleaning business by any
chance, are you Prebys?
Eric Prebys
Henry Wilson wrote:
>
> On Tue, 05 Mar 2002 10:23:35 -0600, Eric Prebys <pre...@fnal.gov> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Rabbo wrote:
> >>
> >> "Eric Prebys" <pre...@fnal.gov> wrote in message
>
> >> > For the same reason Henry Wilson (a.k.a. Ralph Rabbidge) pretends
> >> > to be an "experimental physicist". They're both so out of touch with
> >> > reality that they honestly think people will believe them.
> >> >
> >> > -Eric
> >>
> >> Eric Prebys, Henry Wilson has drawn my attention to the fact that you have
> >> been using my name without permission and in a derogatory way on this
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >> newsgroup. If you do not cease immediately and apologise, I might be
> >
> >I insinuated that you and Henry Wilson are one and the same. I can
> >understand how you could take that as extremely "derogatory". If you
> >are in fact not Henry Wilson, then I do indeed apologize from
> >the bottom of my heart for suggesting that your were.
>
> Are you now insinuating that being likened to me is in something one must
> apologize for? You shold be very careful, Prebys.
Actually, I wasn't insinuating that; I was saying it outright, but
check the thread. It was "Ralph" who used the word derogatory in
connection with being associated to you, so take it up with him.
I guess I can safely assume he's in the room with you now, right?
> >
> >> inclined to take further action.
> >>
> >
> >Such as? Reincarnate yourself as yet a third person - this one a
> >lawyer?
> >
> >> I have a computer business to run. Amongst other things, I set up web pages
> >> for other people. Henry just happens to be one of my clients as well as an
> >> old friend.
> >>
> >
> >Pretty lame, as web pages go. Can I safely assume you don't actually
> >make any money at this business?
>
> Rabbo does very well, Prebys. I did my own site once it was set up. I don't
Hmmm... Looks to me like he took the ISP's default webpage, put his
name at the top, and never even bothered to fill in details like
"Description of most noteworthy personal achievements" (for obvious
reasons, I imagine).
Dirk Van de moortel
"Eric Prebys" <pre...@fnal.gov> wrote in message news:3C8553EC...@fnal.gov...
>
>
> Henry Wilson wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 05 Mar 2002 10:23:35 -0600, Eric Prebys <pre...@fnal.gov> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >Rabbo wrote:
> > >>
> > >> "Eric Prebys" <pre...@fnal.gov> wrote in message
> >
> > >> > For the same reason Henry Wilson (a.k.a. Ralph Rabbidge) pretends
> > >> > to be an "experimental physicist". They're both so out of touch with
> > >> > reality that they honestly think people will believe them.
> > >> >
> > >> > -Eric
> > >>
> > >> Eric Prebys, Henry Wilson has drawn my attention to the fact that you have
> > >> been using my name without permission and in a derogatory way on this
> > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > >> newsgroup. If you do not cease immediately and apologise, I might be
> > >
> > >I insinuated that you and Henry Wilson are one and the same. I can
> > >understand how you could take that as extremely "derogatory". If you
> > >are in fact not Henry Wilson, then I do indeed apologize from
> > >the bottom of my heart for suggesting that your were.
> >
> > Are you now insinuating that being likened to me is in something one must
> > apologize for? You shold be very careful, Prebys.
>
> Actually, I wasn't insinuating that; I was saying it outright, but
> check the thread. It was "Ralph" who used the word derogatory in
> connection with being associated to you, so take it up with him.
> I guess I can safely assume he's in the room with you now, right?
*That* would be a safe bet ;-)
Good one!
Dirk Vdm
David McAnally
>On Tue, 5 Mar 2002 13:54:55 -0800, Stephen Speicher
><s...@compbio.caltech.edu> wrote:
>>"Rabbo" might be the same person. Leaving aside that they both
>>are totally clueless about physics, note the following.
>>
>>"Rabbo": "45 yrs experience in applied physics."
>>
>>"Henry": "I have been a physicist for 45 years."
>>
>>"Rabbo": "I just happen to be a physicist/mathematician with an
>>extra degree in psychology and genetics."
>>
>>"Henry": "I have a full degree in physics and maths...I also have
>>a completely separate science degree majoring in psych and
>>genetics ."
>>
>>So "Henry" and "Rabbo" each happen to be physicists and
>>mathematicians who worked in the field for 45 years, and they
>>both also have degrees in psychology and genetics. And, the
>>headers of their posts both bear the imprint "Organization:
>>Customer of Telstra Big Pond Direct." What an amazing
>>coincidence!
>That's right, Speicher. We were at uni together.
That's not a sufficient explanation. It is rare, if not unheard of, for
two contemporaries to take *exactly* the same courses as university to
that extent. So please tell us: which University did you attend, what
degrees do you have (and from where), and what papers have you published
(and where were they published - i.e. in which refereed journals were they
published) in your stated 45 years as a physicist. Also, what papers have
you published as a mathematician, and in which refereed journals?
David McAnally
--------
Vertner Vergon
Vergon
---------------------------------------------------------
www.TheWeb-X-change.com
Crossroads of the Internet,
GAMBLING to BABY SHOES.
Take a look and be pleasantly surprised.
"Eric Prebys" <pre...@fnal.gov> wrote in message
news:3C8553EC...@fnal.gov...
Paul B. Andersen
"kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message news:3c840fc5$0$1601$4c5e...@news.erinet.com...
>
> "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no> wrote in message
> news:a60p0l$8he$1...@snipp.uninett.no...
> >
> > "kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message
> news:3c7f9c8b$0$1611$4c5e...@news.erinet.com...
> > > We were talking about siren and now you want to talk about barking dog??
> > > That's OK. Now tell me when the dog was very far away you didn't hear
> his
> > > barking at all right?? What does this mean? It means that the received
> > > frequency is zero.
> >
> > So the reason why I cannot hear Big Ben is not that its sound doesn't
> > reach me, but that the frequency of the sound that reaches me is zero?
>
> You were the one who brought up the point that the pitch of the train's
> whistle gets higher in the approaching leg..This is also observed daily with
> the ambulance's siren. So are you now denying that you made that statement??
I won't bother to quarrel about what you think I have said.
You are free to accuse me of having said whatever you want, Ken.
Nobody takes you seriously anyway, so it won't hurt me.
> Intensity = waves/unit area
How loud do I have to howl to produce 1000 waves per square metre?
> Frequency = waves/unit area/unit time
So frequency is intensity per time unit?
> Intensity is dependent on the distance between the source and the receiver.
> It is natural to conclude that frequency is also dependent on the distance
> between the source and the receiver.
You are always a funny guy, Ken.
And sometimes you are even funnier! :-)
> > > Now when the dog get closer you heard him barking. That
> > > means that the received frequency is not zero. That also means that the
> > > approching dog's barking was increased from zero frequency to non-zero
> > > frequency. This also means that the frequency start of low (zero) and
> > > increased to a max level. This is exacvtly what I said. This is also
> > > exactly what we hear from an approaching siren.
> >
> > Interesting.
> > So when I hear a Grand Dane bark far away, it will become
> > a Poodle when it come closer?
>
> Playing word games again eh Paul? When the Great Dane is far away the high
> frequency components interact with the medium and disperse while the low
> frequency component is able to reach the receiver. When the Great Dane is
> close by both the high frequency components and the low frequency components
> are able to reach the receiver and thus the receiver detect a higher
> frequency.
You are funny when you talk about things you don't understand, Ken.
That's why you are always a funny guy.
It's hard to my stomach, though.
Paul
Henry Wilson
I think Ken is playing games with you Paul.
Henry Wilson
wrote:
You know Vertner, I have just realised something.
Speicher and Prebys are the same person!!!!!! He supports his own messages
under two different names so he can prop up his ailing faith.