Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

THE MOST SPOOKY RESULT IN PHYSICS

219 views
Skip to first unread message

Pentcho Valev

unread,
Oct 31, 2015, 3:53:34 AM10/31/15
to
http://www.nature.com/news/zombie-physics-6-baffling-results-that-just-won-t-die-1.18685
Nature: "When a scientific result seems to show something genuinely new, subsequent experiments are supposed to either confirm it -- triggering a textbook rewrite -- or show it to be a measurement anomaly or experimental blunder. But some findings seem to remain forever stuck in the middle ground between light and shadow."

See my comment on Nature's article where I show that the most spooky result in physics, one that saves Einstein's relativity from collapse, is the change of the wavelength of the incoming wave caused by the motion of the observer, as shown in the following picture:

http://lewebpedagogique.com/physique/files/p8044_37aa292833de8bd2b5c4583ffb76cf69p866_a910dac1b2c66fe5536711394c0cd778doppler_p.gif

Pentcho Valev

Gary Harnagel

unread,
Oct 31, 2015, 8:15:27 AM10/31/15
to
On Saturday, October 31, 2015 at 1:53:34 AM UTC-6, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> See my comment on Nature's article where I show that the most spooky result
> in physics, one that saves Einstein's relativity from collapse, is the
> change of the wavelength of the incoming wave caused by the motion of the
> observer, as shown in the following picture:
>
> http://lewebpedagogique.com/physique/files/p8044_37aa292833de8bd2b5c4583ffb76cf69p866_a910dac1b2c66fe5536711394c0cd778doppler_p.gif
>
> Pentcho Valev

This is an obvious consequence of the constancy of the speed of light,
which has been confirmed by numerous experiments and refuted by none.
Pointless Pentcho continues to ride his dead horse.

Gary

kefischer

unread,
Oct 31, 2015, 9:25:04 AM10/31/15
to
The similarity of messages by Gary and the
nym-changing troll is so strong today, I have to
think Gary _IS_ the nym-changing troll. :-)






Gary Harnagel

unread,
Oct 31, 2015, 10:18:59 AM10/31/15
to
So Ken's true colors finally come out: he is a reality-denier and doesn't
believe in the constancy of the speed of light.

fuller...@hotmail.com

unread,
Oct 31, 2015, 10:31:49 AM10/31/15
to
299808124.049 = the REAL Speed of Light

Impedance of Velocity through Medium 4, 7, 11, 137, 377, 1507, 1741, 3482,

https://goo.gl/photos/xQvTEFVJPSHhwNEV7

Think (Surface area m^2 of a Sphere - 1^2) ^2 ...
1/(1^2) now = 1- (1 / 24.1327412287) = 0.95856252

1 - 0.95856252 = 0.04143748

137 + 1/((4pi)^2 - (4pi-1)^2) = 137.041437481


pi / ((11 * 2) / 7) = 0.9995976625


https://goo.gl/photos/1wLBgxBT8ySVAJoM6

I made this Just for you

What's the Wavelength KENNETH ??

1/ 299808124.049 = 3.33546665e-9 seconds / meter

fuller...@hotmail.com

unread,
Oct 31, 2015, 10:33:06 AM10/31/15
to
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Huyn9itzIw

REM & Dan Rather - What's The Frequency Kenneth? - 1995

fuller...@hotmail.com

unread,
Oct 31, 2015, 10:34:30 AM10/31/15
to
On Saturday, October 31, 2015 at 8:25:04 AM UTC-5, kefischer wrote:
4 + 7 = 11
(11 * 2) / 7 = pi

(11^2 + 4^2) = 137 alpha

(11^2 + 4^2)*(11/4) = 376.75 impedance

permittivity = (4pi * 10^-7)

(4pi * 10^-7)/ ((11^2 + 4^2)*(11/4) =

1/((4pi * 10^-7)/ ((11^2 + 4^2)*(11/4) )= 299808124.049

kefischer

unread,
Oct 31, 2015, 10:35:22 AM10/31/15
to
On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 07:18:57 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
<hit...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, October 31, 2015 at 7:25:04 AM UTC-6, kefischer wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 05:15:23 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
>> <hit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > This is an obvious consequence of the constancy of the speed of light,
>> > which has been confirmed by numerous experiments and refuted by none.
>> > Pointless Pentcho continues to ride his dead horse.
>> >
>> > Gary
>>
>> The similarity of messages by Gary and the
>> nym-changing troll is so strong today, I have to
>> think Gary _IS_ the nym-changing troll. :-)
>
>So Ken's true colors finally come out: he is a reality-denier and doesn't
>believe in the constancy of the speed of light.

But Gary hasn't denied being the stupid troll. :-)


In the Divergent Matter model, some constants
may be "double constants", being constant in both time
and value.
But most constants in value are only constant
in current units in the model.


Values expressed in starting units becomes
a problem, the value quickly becomes a very
unwieldy number.




fuller...@hotmail.com

unread,
Oct 31, 2015, 10:38:25 AM10/31/15
to
On Saturday, October 31, 2015 at 8:25:04 AM UTC-5, kefischer wrote:
Spooky Spooky Gravity
R.E.M. - Feeling Gravitys Pull

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NodXnjUIZ0U

Exponential Permeability

(4 * pi * (10^(-7)))^(2 * pi) = 8.3992811e-38

(((4 * pi * (10^(-7)))^2) / 2)^pi = 9.5176229e-39

fuller...@hotmail.com

unread,
Oct 31, 2015, 10:41:34 AM10/31/15
to
Even the David Fuller Troll Believes in the Consistency of the Speed of Light

Kenneth .... LOL !!!!

Gary Harnagel

unread,
Oct 31, 2015, 10:42:17 AM10/31/15
to
On Saturday, October 31, 2015 at 8:35:22 AM UTC-6, kefischer wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 07:18:57 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
> <hit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >On Saturday, October 31, 2015 at 7:25:04 AM UTC-6, kefischer wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 05:15:23 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
> >> <hit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > This is an obvious consequence of the constancy of the speed of light,
> >> > which has been confirmed by numerous experiments and refuted by none.
> >> > Pointless Pentcho continues to ride his dead horse.
> >> >
> >> > Gary
> >>
> >> The similarity of messages by Gary and the
> >> nym-changing troll is so strong today, I have to
> >> think Gary _IS_ the nym-changing troll. :-)
> >
> >So Ken's true colors finally come out: he is a reality-denier and doesn't
> >believe in the constancy of the speed of light.
>
> But Gary hasn't denied being the stupid troll. :-)

Gary doesn't have to because it is IOTTMCO that he is not. OTOH,
Fischer IS a stupid troll as demonstrated by his monotonous regurgitation
of reality-denying bullshit. Cases in point:

> In the Divergent Matter model, some constants
> may be "double constants", being constant in both time
> and value.
> But most constants in value are only constant
> in current units in the model.
>
> Values expressed in starting units becomes
> a problem, the value quickly becomes a very
> unwieldy number.

What a stupid troll!

kefischer

unread,
Oct 31, 2015, 10:42:31 AM10/31/15
to
On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 09:24:56 -0400, kefischer <emon...@iglou.com>
wrote:
But Gary could not be posting as "fuller",
fuller is far too intelligent to be Gary. :-)






fuller...@hotmail.com

unread,
Oct 31, 2015, 10:45:29 AM10/31/15
to
Clarification adding "OBSERVED"

Even the David Fuller Troll Believes in the OBSERVED Consistency of the Speed of Light

Kenneth .... LOL !!!!

Tom Roberts

unread,
Oct 31, 2015, 11:16:49 AM10/31/15
to
On 10/31/15 10/31/15 2:53 AM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>the most spooky result
> in physics, one that saves Einstein's relativity from collapse, is the change
> of the wavelength of the incoming wave caused by the motion of the observer,

This isn't "spooky" at all, it is a direct and natural consequence of the way
wavelength is measured -- by PROJECTING it onto a ruler (or other
length-measuring instrument).


Note to readers: Pentcho Valev is among the most persistent idiots
around here. He has been repeating this nonsense for many years,
without any attempt to learn the subject he tries to write about.
I reply to him only occasionally, as a service to readers who may
not recognize his mistakes. He has proven himself to be unable
and unwilling to learn anything.


Tom Roberts

Gary Harnagel

unread,
Oct 31, 2015, 11:30:08 AM10/31/15
to
On Saturday, October 31, 2015 at 8:42:31 AM UTC-6, kefischer wrote:
>
> But Gary could not be posting as "fuller",
> fuller is far too intelligent to be Gary. :-)

I understand the kids today will be playing "Pin the brain on the zombie"
with you being the zombie.

Jack Weidner

unread,
Oct 31, 2015, 11:34:21 AM10/31/15
to
Gary Harnagel wrote:

>> In the Divergent Matter model, some constants
>> may be "double constants", being constant in both time and value.
>> But most constants in value are only constant in current units in the
>> model. Values expressed in starting units becomes
>> a problem, the value quickly becomes a very unwieldy number.
>
> What a stupid troll!

We agree.

Hyperb...@outlook.com

unread,
Oct 31, 2015, 11:51:38 AM10/31/15
to
R.E.M. - Feeling Gravitys Pull
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NodXnjUIZ0U

John Mayer - Gravity
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owFFVQYW1p8

REM & Dan Rather - What's The Frequency Kenneth?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Huyn9itzIw


David Fuller Does not Approve of Kenneth's Post

kefischer

unread,
Oct 31, 2015, 1:38:49 PM10/31/15
to
Yeah, because you are he.





Wayne Olmstead

unread,
Oct 31, 2015, 2:28:10 PM10/31/15
to
kefischer wrote:

>> The similarity of messages by Gary and the
>>nym-changing troll is so strong today, I have to think Gary _IS_ the
>>nym-changing troll.
>
> But Gary could not be posting as "fuller",
> fuller is far too intelligent to be Gary.

That abuse of numerology he does cannot be confused as intelligence. How
old are you, and what qualifies you to speak in here?

kefischer

unread,
Oct 31, 2015, 2:34:55 PM10/31/15
to
X-Complaints-To: ab...@aioe.org





Wayne Olmstead

unread,
Oct 31, 2015, 2:38:17 PM10/31/15
to
You are the one insulting and annoying everybody. Make sure you remember
to say that.

fuller...@hotmail.com

unread,
Oct 31, 2015, 2:56:37 PM10/31/15
to
Hey Dude Olmsted
Show me your derivation of gravity from any of the other fundamental forces you loudmouth

Shut it with the "Numerology" crap until that day Pig

fuller...@hotmail.com

unread,
Oct 31, 2015, 3:02:49 PM10/31/15
to
((((137/4*11)/c)^2)/2)^pi = 9.32 * 10^-39

Pentcho Valev

unread,
Nov 1, 2015, 2:35:48 AM11/1/15
to
http://www.theguardian.com/science/life-and-physics/2015/oct/31/new-quantum-technology-and-the-measurement-and-definition-of-time
"Light is an electromagnetic wave. The fact that the speed of light is the same for all observers is a founding assumption of Einstein's theory of relativity. We need it to be the case if we want the laws of physics - especially the laws of electromagnetism - to be the same whatever the relative speeds of the objects involved. We do want this. No physics student should have to learn a different version of Maxwell's equations every time their speed relative to the examiner changes."

Not even a lie - the Einsteinian just does not know what he is talking about. The version of Maxwell's equations taught nowadays is independent of whether the speed of light is the same or different for differently moving observers. Actually, any reasonable interpretation of the Doppler effect (moving observer) shows that the speed of light is not constant - it is different for differently moving observers:

http://physics.bu.edu/~redner/211-sp06/class19/class19_doppler.html
Professor Sidney Redner: "The Doppler effect is the shift in frequency of a wave that occurs when the wave source, or the detector of the wave, is moving. Applications of the Doppler effect range from medical tests using ultrasound to radar detectors and astronomy (with electromagnetic waves). (...) We will focus on sound waves in describing the Doppler effect, but it works for other waves too. (...) Let's say you, the observer, now move toward the source with velocity vO. You encounter more waves per unit time than you did before. Relative to you, the waves travel at a higher speed: v'=v+vO. The frequency of the waves you detect is higher, and is given by: f'=v'/λ=(v+vO)/λ."

"Relative to you, the waves travel at a higher speed" = Goodbye Einstein!

http://www.hep.man.ac.uk/u/roger/PHYS10302/lecture18.pdf
Professor Roger Barlow: "The Doppler effect - changes in frequencies when sources or observers are in motion - is familiar to anyone who has stood at the roadside and watched (and listened) to the cars go by. It applies to all types of wave, not just sound. (...) Moving Observer. Now suppose the source is fixed but the observer is moving towards the source, with speed v. In time t, ct/λ waves pass a fixed point. A moving point adds another vt/λ. So f'=(c+v)/λ."

That is, for all types of wave, the speed of the waves relative to the fixed point (observer) is

(ct/λ)(λ/t) = c

The speed of the waves relative to the moving point (observer) is

(ct/λ + vt/λ)(λ/t) = c + v,

in violation of Einstein's relativity.

http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/doppler
Albert Einstein Institute: "The frequency of a wave-like signal - such as sound or light - depends on the movement of the sender and of the receiver. This is known as the Doppler effect. (...) Here is an animation of the receiver moving towards the source:

http://www.einstein-online.info/images/spotlights/doppler/doppler_static.gif (stationary receiver)

http://www.einstein-online.info/images/spotlights/doppler/doppler_detector_blue.gif (moving receiver)

By observing the two indicator lights, you can see for yourself that, once more, there is a blue-shift - the pulse frequency measured at the receiver is somewhat higher than the frequency with which the pulses are sent out. This time, the distances between subsequent pulses are not affected, but still there is a frequency shift: As the receiver moves towards each pulse, the time until pulse and receiver meet up is shortened. In this particular animation, which has the receiver moving towards the source at one third the speed of the pulses themselves, four pulses are received in the time it takes the source to emit three pulses."

If the distance between subsequent pulses is d and "the time it takes the source to emit three pulses" is t, then the speed of the pulses relative to the source is

3d/t = c,

and relative to the moving receiver is

4d/t = (4/3)c,

in violation of Einstein's relativity.

Pentcho Valev

kenseto

unread,
Nov 1, 2015, 8:13:11 AM11/1/15
to
No....it is not the consequence of the constancy of the speed of light. It is the consequence of the variable speed of light wrt the observer. Pentcho's diagrams are wrong. The incoming wavelength is not changed.


Gary Harnagel

unread,
Nov 1, 2015, 8:23:37 AM11/1/15
to
On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 1:35:48 AM UTC-6, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> Actually, any reasonable interpretation of the Doppler effect (moving
> observer) shows that the speed of light is not constant - it is different
> for differently moving observers:

Idiot Pentcho quotes a text which focuses on SOUND waves, which travel in
the MEDIUM of air, and then dishonestly draws an analogy to LIGHT, which
does NOT have such a medium.

Puerile Pentcho prefers fantasies created by his warped brain rather than
profuse experimental evidence:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1977PhRvL..39.1051B

And many others posted on another Pentcho-infested thread.

Gary

kenseto

unread,
Nov 1, 2015, 8:32:35 AM11/1/15
to
On Saturday, October 31, 2015 at 11:16:49 AM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 10/31/15 10/31/15 2:53 AM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> >the most spooky result
> > in physics, one that saves Einstein's relativity from collapse, is the change
> > of the wavelength of the incoming wave caused by the motion of the observer,
>
> This isn't "spooky" at all, it is a direct and natural consequence of the way
> wavelength is measured -- by PROJECTING it onto a ruler (or other
> length-measuring instrument).

It is spooky because we don't claim that for sound or water waves. The correct interpretation is that the incoming light becomes a new light source in the observer's frame and the grating defines a new local wavelength for this new light source. This new local wavelength in combination with the measured frequency of this new light source gives the local speed of light to be c. The incoming speed of light remains variable if the original source wavelength is used to calculate the incoming speed of light.

Gary Harnagel

unread,
Nov 1, 2015, 8:38:27 AM11/1/15
to
On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 6:32:35 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
>
> The incoming speed of light remains variable if the original source
> wavelength is used to calculate the incoming speed of light.

And if I use a radar gun pointed at my dashboard, I can prove that my
speed is always zero.

"By denying scientific principles, one may maintain any paradox."
-- Galileo Galilei

Tom Roberts

unread,
Nov 1, 2015, 1:35:24 PM11/1/15
to
On 11/1/15 11/1/15 7:32 AM, kenseto wrote:
> On Saturday, October 31, 2015 at 11:16:49 AM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:
>> On 10/31/15 10/31/15 2:53 AM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>>> the most spooky result in physics, one that saves Einstein's relativity
>>> from collapse, is the change of the wavelength of the incoming wave
>>> caused by the motion of the observer,
>>
>> This isn't "spooky" at all, it is a direct and natural consequence of the
>> way wavelength is measured -- by PROJECTING it onto a ruler (or other
>> length-measuring instrument).
>
> It is spooky because we don't claim that for sound or water waves.

Yes, we do. But for them the relative velocities are so vastly smaller than the
speed of light that the effect is not measurable.


Note to readers: kenseto is among the most persistent idiots

kenseto

unread,
Nov 2, 2015, 8:54:01 AM11/2/15
to
On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 1:35:24 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 11/1/15 11/1/15 7:32 AM, kenseto wrote:
> > On Saturday, October 31, 2015 at 11:16:49 AM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:
> >> On 10/31/15 10/31/15 2:53 AM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> >>> the most spooky result in physics, one that saves Einstein's relativity
> >>> from collapse, is the change of the wavelength of the incoming wave
> >>> caused by the motion of the observer,
> >>
> >> This isn't "spooky" at all, it is a direct and natural consequence of the
> >> way wavelength is measured -- by PROJECTING it onto a ruler (or other
> >> length-measuring instrument).
> >
> > It is spooky because we don't claim that for sound or water waves.
>
> Yes, we do. But for them the relative velocities are so vastly smaller than the
> speed of light that the effect is not measurable.

Assertion is not a valid argument. An approaching siren's frequency is increased and thus the approaching speed of sound is incresed. If you swim toward a water wave source the speed of approaching water wave is increased.
>
>
> Note to readers: kenseto is among the most persistent idiots
> around here. He has been repeating this nonsense for many years,
> without any attempt to learn the subject he tries to write about.
> I reply to him only occasionally, as a service to readers who may
> not recognize his mistakes. He has proven himself to be unable
> and unwilling to learn anything.

Bullying is not a valid argument.

kenseto

unread,
Nov 2, 2015, 9:00:16 AM11/2/15
to
On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 8:38:27 AM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 6:32:35 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
> >
> > The incoming speed of light remains variable if the original source
> > wavelength is used to calculate the incoming speed of light.
>
> And if I use a radar gun pointed at my dashboard, I can prove that my
> speed is always zero.

So what is your point? The frequency of your radar gun pointing at the dashboard is the same as the source and thus the speed is zero as follows:
v=Lambda(F_gun-F_dash)= 0

mlwo...@wp.pl

unread,
Nov 2, 2015, 9:14:37 AM11/2/15
to
W dniu sobota, 31 października 2015 13:15:27 UTC+1 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał:

> This is an obvious consequence of the constancy of the speed of light,
> which has been confirmed by numerous experiments and refuted by none.

How unfortunate, that General Shit doesn't assume it.

Gary Harnagel

unread,
Nov 2, 2015, 9:34:13 AM11/2/15
to
On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 7:00:16 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
>
> On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 8:38:27 AM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 6:32:35 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
> > >
> > > The incoming speed of light remains variable if the original source
> > > wavelength is used to calculate the incoming speed of light.
> >
> > And if I use a radar gun pointed at my dashboard, I can prove that my
> > speed is always zero.
>
> So what is your point? The frequency of your radar gun pointing at the
> dashboard is the same as the source and thus the speed is zero as follows:
> v=Lambda(F_gun-F_dash)= 0

Exactly. Using the wrong data leads to useless results, just like your
unwarranted assertion that you can use the original wavelength of the
source to calculate the speed of light in the observer's frame. Get it?
You are doing what Galileo decried:

Odd Bodkin

unread,
Nov 2, 2015, 10:48:09 AM11/2/15
to
On 11/2/2015 7:53 AM, kenseto wrote:
> Assertion is not a valid argument. An approaching siren's frequency is increased and thus the
> approaching speed of sound is incresed.

That's simply not true, Ken. The speed of sound in stil dry air is 343
m/s. If you're standing there and there is a distant siren, the sound
will be coming at you at 343 m/s. If there is an ambulance approaching
you and the frequency is higher, the speed of the sound is still coming
at you at 343 m/s.

> If you swim toward a water wave source the speed of
> approaching water wave is increased.


--
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

kenseto

unread,
Nov 2, 2015, 12:46:58 PM11/2/15
to
On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 10:48:09 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 11/2/2015 7:53 AM, kenseto wrote:
> > Assertion is not a valid argument. An approaching siren's frequency is increased and thus the
> > approaching speed of sound is incresed.
>
> That's simply not true, Ken. The speed of sound in stil dry air is 343
> m/s. If you're standing there and there is a distant siren, the sound
> will be coming at you at 343 m/s. If there is an ambulance approaching
> you and the frequency is higher, the speed of the sound is still coming
> at you at 343 m/s.

No....the speed of sound wrt to air (the ether for light) is 343 m/s. The speed of sound wrt you, moving in the air, toward the ambulance is (343+v)m/s.

Odd Bodkin

unread,
Nov 2, 2015, 2:07:13 PM11/2/15
to
On 11/2/2015 11:46 AM, kenseto wrote:
> On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 10:48:09 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 11/2/2015 7:53 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>> Assertion is not a valid argument. An approaching siren's frequency is increased and thus the
>>> approaching speed of sound is incresed.
>>
>> That's simply not true, Ken. The speed of sound in stil dry air is 343
>> m/s. If you're standing there and there is a distant siren, the sound
>> will be coming at you at 343 m/s. If there is an ambulance approaching
>> you and the frequency is higher, the speed of the sound is still coming
>> at you at 343 m/s.
>
> No....the speed of sound wrt to air (the ether for light) is 343 m/s.

That's right. And it's still, dry air.

> The speed of sound wrt you, moving in the air, toward the ambulance is (343+v)m/s.

Nope. Even if the ambulance is moving at v through the still, dry air,
then the speed of sound is 343 m/s with respect to the air. And you are
not moving relative to the air, the AMBULANCE is.

Idiot.

kenseto

unread,
Nov 2, 2015, 2:24:21 PM11/2/15
to
On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 2:07:13 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 11/2/2015 11:46 AM, kenseto wrote:
> > On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 10:48:09 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> On 11/2/2015 7:53 AM, kenseto wrote:
> >>> Assertion is not a valid argument. An approaching siren's frequency is increased and thus the
> >>> approaching speed of sound is incresed.
> >>
> >> That's simply not true, Ken. The speed of sound in stil dry air is 343
> >> m/s. If you're standing there and there is a distant siren, the sound
> >> will be coming at you at 343 m/s. If there is an ambulance approaching
> >> you and the frequency is higher, the speed of the sound is still coming
> >> at you at 343 m/s.
> >
> > No....the speed of sound wrt to air (the ether for light) is 343 m/s.
>
> That's right. And it's still, dry air.
>
> > The speed of sound wrt you, moving in the air, toward the ambulance is (343+v)m/s.
>
> Nope. Even if the ambulance is moving at v through the still, dry air,
> then the speed of sound is 343 m/s with respect to the air.

Yes the speeed of sound wrt an observer at rest in the air is 343m/s.

And you are
> not moving relative to the air, the AMBULANCE is.

That's irrelevant....the waves are bunched togetther in front of the ambuance and thus more waves are arriving per second and thus the arriving speed is increased. Also your arguement is invalid.....if you swim toward a water wave source, the arrivial speed of water wave toward you is greater than if you were at rest wrt the water.

Odd Bodkin

unread,
Nov 2, 2015, 2:40:59 PM11/2/15
to
On 11/2/2015 1:24 PM, kenseto wrote:
> On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 2:07:13 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 11/2/2015 11:46 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>> On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 10:48:09 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> On 11/2/2015 7:53 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>>>> Assertion is not a valid argument. An approaching siren's frequency is increased and thus the
>>>>> approaching speed of sound is incresed.
>>>>
>>>> That's simply not true, Ken. The speed of sound in stil dry air is 343
>>>> m/s. If you're standing there and there is a distant siren, the sound
>>>> will be coming at you at 343 m/s. If there is an ambulance approaching
>>>> you and the frequency is higher, the speed of the sound is still coming
>>>> at you at 343 m/s.
>>>
>>> No....the speed of sound wrt to air (the ether for light) is 343 m/s.
>>
>> That's right. And it's still, dry air.
>>
>>> The speed of sound wrt you, moving in the air, toward the ambulance is (343+v)m/s.
>>
>> Nope. Even if the ambulance is moving at v through the still, dry air,
>> then the speed of sound is 343 m/s with respect to the air.
>
> Yes the speeed of sound wrt an observer at rest in the air is 343m/s.

Yup.

>
> And you are
>> not moving relative to the air, the AMBULANCE is.
>
> That's irrelevant....the waves are bunched togetther in front of the
> ambuance and thus more waves are arriving per second and thus the
> arriving speed is increased.

You just said that the speed of sound is 343 m/s with respect to an
observer at rest in the air. Is the speed of 343 m/s increased compared
to 343 m/s?

> Also your arguement is invalid.....if you swim toward a water wave
> source, the arrivial speed of water wave toward you is greater than
> if you were at rest wrt the water.

Right, in that case the OBSERVER is moving relative to the medium. But
in the ambulance case the SOURCE is moving relative to the medium.

In BOTH cases of the observer moving relative to the medium AND the
source moving relative to the medium, the frequency shifts up. But in
the first case, the speed of the signal relative to the observer does
change. In the second case the speed of the signal relative to the
observer does NOT change. Read your textbook. Says so right there.

kefischer

unread,
Nov 2, 2015, 4:33:17 PM11/2/15
to
On Mon, 2 Nov 2015 09:46:55 -0800 (PST), kenseto <set...@att.net>
wrote:

>On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 10:48:09 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 11/2/2015 7:53 AM, kenseto wrote:
>> > Assertion is not a valid argument. An approaching siren's frequency is increased and thus the
>> > approaching speed of sound is incresed.
>>
>> That's simply not true, Ken. The speed of sound in stil dry air is 343
>> m/s. If you're standing there and there is a distant siren, the sound
>> will be coming at you at 343 m/s. If there is an ambulance approaching
>> you and the frequency is higher, the speed of the sound is still coming
>> at you at 343 m/s.
>
>No....the speed of sound wrt to air (the ether for light) is 343 m/s. The speed of sound wrt you, moving in the air, toward the ambulance is (343+v)m/s.

Moron, sound can only travel as fast as
the molecules of the air move.

Jeffrey Bannister

unread,
Nov 2, 2015, 4:50:44 PM11/2/15
to
kefischer wrote:

>>No....the speed of sound wrt to air (the ether for light) is 343 m/s.
>>The speed of sound wrt you, moving in the air, toward the ambulance is
>>(343+v)m/s.
>
> Moron, sound can only travel as fast as
> the molecules of the air move.

This is incorrect. You must be what is known as a Dear Physics Enthusiast.
Air molecules are not travelling. They only bounces toward each other. You
are indeed a dear enthusiast.

kenseto

unread,
Nov 3, 2015, 3:13:36 PM11/3/15
to
On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 4:33:17 PM UTC-5, kefischer wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Nov 2015 09:46:55 -0800 (PST), kenseto <set...@att.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 10:48:09 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> On 11/2/2015 7:53 AM, kenseto wrote:
> >> > Assertion is not a valid argument. An approaching siren's frequency is increased and thus the
> >> > approaching speed of sound is incresed.
> >>
> >> That's simply not true, Ken. The speed of sound in stil dry air is 343
> >> m/s. If you're standing there and there is a distant siren, the sound
> >> will be coming at you at 343 m/s. If there is an ambulance approaching
> >> you and the frequency is higher, the speed of the sound is still coming
> >> at you at 343 m/s.
> >
> >No....the speed of sound wrt to air (the ether for light) is 343 m/s. The speed of sound wrt you, moving in the air, toward the ambulance is (343+v)m/s.
>
> Moron, sound can only travel as fast as
> the molecules of the air move.

ROTFLOL...fishy boy is an idiot.

kefischer

unread,
Nov 3, 2015, 4:56:31 PM11/3/15
to
On Tue, 3 Nov 2015 12:13:32 -0800 (PST), kenseto <set...@att.net>
Read and learn, if you have any brain cells left;

http://www.fighter-planes.com/jetmach1.htm

Once the gas is established as AIR ,
the speed of sound depends only on
the temperature of the air (within a narrow margin).

http://www.sengpielaudio.com/calculator-speedsound.htm

https://www.nde-ed.org/EducationResources/HighSchool/Sound/tempandspeed.htm

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/air-speed-sound-d_603.html






kenseto

unread,
Nov 4, 2015, 8:28:54 AM11/4/15
to
Sigh....wavelength of the source doesn't change during transit. The speed of arriving of wave is changed due to absolute motions.

kenseto

unread,
Nov 4, 2015, 8:32:46 AM11/4/15
to
On Tuesday, November 3, 2015 at 4:56:31 PM UTC-5, kefischer wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Nov 2015 12:13:32 -0800 (PST), kenseto <set...@att.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 4:33:17 PM UTC-5, kefischer wrote:
> >> On Mon, 2 Nov 2015 09:46:55 -0800 (PST), kenseto <set...@att.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Monday, November 2, 2015 at 10:48:09 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> >> On 11/2/2015 7:53 AM, kenseto wrote:
> >> >> > Assertion is not a valid argument. An approaching siren's frequency is increased and thus the
> >> >> > approaching speed of sound is incresed.
> >> >>
> >> >> That's simply not true, Ken. The speed of sound in stil dry air is 343
> >> >> m/s. If you're standing there and there is a distant siren, the sound
> >> >> will be coming at you at 343 m/s. If there is an ambulance approaching
> >> >> you and the frequency is higher, the speed of the sound is still coming
> >> >> at you at 343 m/s.
> >> >
> >> >No....the speed of sound wrt to air (the ether for light) is 343 m/s. The speed of sound wrt you, moving in the air, toward the ambulance is (343+v)m/s.
> >>
> >> Moron, sound can only travel as fast as
> >> the molecules of the air move.
> >
> >ROTFLOL...fishy boy is an idiot.
>
> Read and learn, if you have any brain cells left;
>
> http://www.fighter-planes.com/jetmach1.htm
>
> Once the gas is established as AIR ,
> the speed of sound depends only on
> the temperature of the air (within a narrow margin).

No idiot....the speed of sound is also dependent on the relative motion between the observer and the source. That's why we have frequency shift.

Odd Bodkin

unread,
Nov 4, 2015, 9:12:05 AM11/4/15
to
On 11/4/2015 7:32 AM, kenseto wrote:
> No idiot....the speed of sound is also dependent on the relative motion between the
> observer and the source. That's why we have frequency shift.

Not true, Ken. Some cases yes, some cases no. Please look in your
freshman physics text and relearn the differences.

kefischer

unread,
Nov 4, 2015, 9:57:41 AM11/4/15
to
On Wed, 4 Nov 2015 05:32:44 -0800 (PST), kenseto <set...@att.net>
No, idiot, the speed of sound in air is
not variable due to motion, the motion of
the source can't change that.

But the motion of the observer will
affect the relative motion of the sound
wave and the observer.

The very reason the pitch of an
approaching train horn changes is
because the speed of sound in air
at that location at that temperature
is constant, if the speed of sound
in air varied, the pitch of the horn
would not change due only due
to motion of the source.

Odd Bodkin

unread,
Nov 4, 2015, 10:09:13 AM11/4/15
to
On 11/4/2015 7:32 AM, kenseto wrote:
> No idiot....the speed of sound is also dependent on the relative motion between the observer
> and the source. That's why we have frequency shift.

Ken, you're the idiot.
The speed of sound is 343 m/s with respect to the air.
There are three cases where there is relative motion between observer
and source.

Case 1. The source is moving through the air, and the observer is not.
In this case, the speed of sound is still 343 m/s with respect to the
observer.

Case 2: The observer is moving through the air, and the source is not.
In this case, the speed of sound will be different than 343 m/s with
respect to the observer.

Case 3: The observer is moving through the air, and the source is moving
through the air at a different rate. In this case, the speed of sound
will be different than 343 m/s with respect to the observer.

benj

unread,
Nov 4, 2015, 8:53:37 PM11/4/15
to
obviously you are both idiots. Clearly the speed of sound is dependent
upon the relative velocity of the observe and the medium in which the
sound wave is being propagated. Which since MM showed that there is no
Aether drift, means that the speed of light in vacuum is constant.



--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\_:/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
\/__/ \/__/

kenseto

unread,
Nov 5, 2015, 11:58:30 AM11/5/15
to
On Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 9:12:05 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 11/4/2015 7:32 AM, kenseto wrote:
> > No idiot....the speed of sound is also dependent on the relative motion between the
> > observer and the source. That's why we have frequency shift.
>
> Not true, Ken. Some cases yes, some cases no. Please look in your
> freshman physics text and relearn the differences.

So that means that there is no reciprocity. So that means that SR is refuted.

kenseto

unread,
Nov 5, 2015, 11:59:40 AM11/5/15
to
On Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 9:12:05 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 11/4/2015 7:32 AM, kenseto wrote:
> > No idiot....the speed of sound is also dependent on the relative motion between the
> > observer and the source. That's why we have frequency shift.
>
> Not true, Ken. Some cases yes, some cases no. Please look in your
> freshman physics text and relearn the differences.

kenseto

unread,
Nov 5, 2015, 12:03:12 PM11/5/15
to
Shit head....change in frequency means change in speed.

kefischer

unread,
Nov 5, 2015, 12:12:47 PM11/5/15
to
On Thu, 5 Nov 2015 09:03:09 -0800 (PST), kenseto <set...@att.net>
Between source and observer, but
not the speed of sound relative to
the medium.

All possibilities cannot be lumped
into one statement.

Odd Bodkin

unread,
Nov 5, 2015, 12:35:29 PM11/5/15
to
Ken, speed of sound in a medium has nothing to do with SR. Completely
different thing.

And the Doppler shift for light comes from a completely different reason
than the Doppler shift for sound.

Idiot.

Odd Bodkin

unread,
Nov 5, 2015, 12:36:13 PM11/5/15
to
On 11/5/2015 11:03 AM, kenseto wrote:
> Shit head....change in frequency means change in speed.

Not so, Ken. I just showed you that even for sound, a change in
frequency doesn't necessarily mean a change in speed.

kenseto

unread,
Nov 5, 2015, 4:35:54 PM11/5/15
to
How does an observer measures the speed of sound relative to the medium?

kenseto

unread,
Nov 5, 2015, 4:39:37 PM11/5/15
to
There is no difference between sound and light....you guy inented a difference to maintain the conctancy of the speed of light.

>
> Idiot.

Pot kettle black.

kenseto

unread,
Nov 5, 2015, 4:41:31 PM11/5/15
to
On Thursday, November 5, 2015 at 12:36:13 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 11/5/2015 11:03 AM, kenseto wrote:
> > Shit head....change in frequency means change in speed.
>
> Not so, Ken. I just showed you that even for sound, a change in
> frequency doesn't necessarily mean a change in speed.

Yes it means a change in speed. That's how radard works.

Odd Bodkin

unread,
Nov 5, 2015, 6:08:45 PM11/5/15
to
On 11/5/2015 3:39 PM, kenseto wrote:
> On Thursday, November 5, 2015 at 12:35:29 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 11/5/2015 10:58 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 9:12:05 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> On 11/4/2015 7:32 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>>>> No idiot....the speed of sound is also dependent on the relative motion between the
>>>>> observer and the source. That's why we have frequency shift.
>>>>
>>>> Not true, Ken. Some cases yes, some cases no. Please look in your
>>>> freshman physics text and relearn the differences.
>>>
>>> So that means that there is no reciprocity. So that means that SR is refuted.
>>>
>>
>> Ken, speed of sound in a medium has nothing to do with SR. Completely
>> different thing.
>>
>> And the Doppler shift for light comes from a completely different reason
>> than the Doppler shift for sound.
>
> There is no difference between sound and light.

Oh, but there is, experimentally.

> ...you guy inented a difference to maintain the conctancy of the speed of light.

No, really. There are important differences experimentally.

Odd Bodkin

unread,
Nov 5, 2015, 6:09:10 PM11/5/15
to
No it doesn't. Sheesh.

kefischer

unread,
Nov 5, 2015, 7:04:29 PM11/5/15
to
On Thu, 5 Nov 2015 13:35:48 -0800 (PST), kenseto <set...@att.net>
Have the instruments and the medium be stationary,
as in a closed room.

mlwo...@wp.pl

unread,
Nov 6, 2015, 2:48:10 AM11/6/15
to
W dniu czwartek, 5 listopada 2015 02:53:37 UTC+1 użytkownik benj napisał:
> obviously you are both idiots.

There are a lot of idiots in the world we inhabit.
> Clearly the speed of sound is dependent
> upon the relative velocity of the observe and the medium in which the
> sound wave is being propagated. Which since MM showed that there is no
> Aether drift

No, it didn't. It showed there is no measurable
interferometric fringe shift. That's exactly
all it showed.

> means that the speed of light in vacuum is constant.

It's impossible, however. SR shit could assume it,
because its observers never meet again to compare
their result, but GR shit was forced to reject this
idiocy.

kenseto

unread,
Nov 6, 2015, 8:43:54 AM11/6/15
to
On Thursday, November 5, 2015 at 6:09:10 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 11/5/2015 3:41 PM, kenseto wrote:
> > On Thursday, November 5, 2015 at 12:36:13 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> On 11/5/2015 11:03 AM, kenseto wrote:
> >>> Shit head....change in frequency means change in speed.
> >>
> >> Not so, Ken. I just showed you that even for sound, a change in
> >> frequency doesn't necessarily mean a change in speed.
> >
> > Yes it means a change in speed. That's how radard works.
> >
>
> No it doesn't. Sheesh.

Yes it does. Radar gun measures the difference between the return frequency and the source frequency to determine the speed of an object. sheesh.

kenseto

unread,
Nov 6, 2015, 8:47:58 AM11/6/15
to
On Thursday, November 5, 2015 at 6:08:45 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 11/5/2015 3:39 PM, kenseto wrote:
> > On Thursday, November 5, 2015 at 12:35:29 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> On 11/5/2015 10:58 AM, kenseto wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 9:12:05 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>> On 11/4/2015 7:32 AM, kenseto wrote:
> >>>>> No idiot....the speed of sound is also dependent on the relative motion between the
> >>>>> observer and the source. That's why we have frequency shift.
> >>>>
> >>>> Not true, Ken. Some cases yes, some cases no. Please look in your
> >>>> freshman physics text and relearn the differences.
> >>>
> >>> So that means that there is no reciprocity. So that means that SR is refuted.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Ken, speed of sound in a medium has nothing to do with SR. Completely
> >> different thing.
> >>
> >> And the Doppler shift for light comes from a completely different reason
> >> than the Doppler shift for sound.
> >
> > There is no difference between sound and light.
>
> Oh, but there is, experimentally.

No there isn't expeimentally. There is if you bogusly assume that wavelength is of incoming light is variable.
>
> > ...you guy inented a difference to maintain the conctancy of the speed of light.
>
> No, really. There are important differences experimentally.

No not really.

kenseto

unread,
Nov 6, 2015, 8:54:35 AM11/6/15
to
Idiot....you can have the source and the detector stationary in a room. That means that you are measuring the speed of sound between the source and the observer.

Odd Bodkin

unread,
Nov 6, 2015, 8:59:14 AM11/6/15
to
On 11/6/2015 7:43 AM, kenseto wrote:
> On Thursday, November 5, 2015 at 6:09:10 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 11/5/2015 3:41 PM, kenseto wrote:
>>> On Thursday, November 5, 2015 at 12:36:13 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> On 11/5/2015 11:03 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>>>> Shit head....change in frequency means change in speed.
>>>>
>>>> Not so, Ken. I just showed you that even for sound, a change in
>>>> frequency doesn't necessarily mean a change in speed.
>>>
>>> Yes it means a change in speed. That's how radard works.
>>>
>>
>> No it doesn't. Sheesh.
>
> Yes it does. Radar gun measures the difference between the return frequency

Change in FREQUENCY. Not change in speed. Radar guns don't use a change
in speed of the radio signal.

> and the source frequency to determine the speed of an object. sheesh.
>


Odd Bodkin

unread,
Nov 6, 2015, 9:00:02 AM11/6/15
to
On 11/6/2015 7:47 AM, kenseto wrote:
> On Thursday, November 5, 2015 at 6:08:45 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 11/5/2015 3:39 PM, kenseto wrote:
>>> On Thursday, November 5, 2015 at 12:35:29 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> On 11/5/2015 10:58 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 9:12:05 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/4/2015 7:32 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>>>>>> No idiot....the speed of sound is also dependent on the relative motion between the
>>>>>>> observer and the source. That's why we have frequency shift.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not true, Ken. Some cases yes, some cases no. Please look in your
>>>>>> freshman physics text and relearn the differences.
>>>>>
>>>>> So that means that there is no reciprocity. So that means that SR is refuted.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ken, speed of sound in a medium has nothing to do with SR. Completely
>>>> different thing.
>>>>
>>>> And the Doppler shift for light comes from a completely different reason
>>>> than the Doppler shift for sound.
>>>
>>> There is no difference between sound and light.
>>
>> Oh, but there is, experimentally.
>
> No there isn't expeimentally.

Oh, yes, there is.

> There is if you bogusly assume that wavelength is of incoming light is variable.

No assumptions of the sort needed. You just MEASURE things.

>>
>>> ...you guy inented a difference to maintain the conctancy of the speed of light.
>>
>> No, really. There are important differences experimentally.
>
> No not really.
>


kefischer

unread,
Nov 6, 2015, 9:50:56 AM11/6/15
to
On Fri, 6 Nov 2015 05:54:33 -0800 (PST), kenseto <set...@att.net>
Why don't you go to logic school, your
problem is not knowing and seeing the
difference between;

Speed of sound as it moves through air,

Speed of relative motion of the source and observer.

Speed of motion between source and air.

Speed of motion between air and observer.


Those are the possibilities for a source
of sound in air, observed by man, beast or
instruments.


The speed of light is different, with
the motion of light being impeded by any
medium, leaving the maximum velocity
of light to be that of light moving through
a vacuum or the vacuum of space.

And motion of light source or observer
or measuring device does not affect the
speed of light, just like the motion of source
or observer or measuring device does not
affect the speed of sound moving through air.


The speed of light is greatest in a vacuum,
the speed of sound is greatest in dense mediums,
like solids and metals, that is a big difference.


But there is a third factor that affects
the measuring of the speed of light, it has
not been clearly understood or specified,
but is correctly predicted by relativity theory.





kenseto

unread,
Nov 6, 2015, 10:07:34 AM11/6/15
to
On Friday, November 6, 2015 at 8:59:14 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 11/6/2015 7:43 AM, kenseto wrote:
> > On Thursday, November 5, 2015 at 6:09:10 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> On 11/5/2015 3:41 PM, kenseto wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, November 5, 2015 at 12:36:13 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>> On 11/5/2015 11:03 AM, kenseto wrote:
> >>>>> Shit head....change in frequency means change in speed.
> >>>>
> >>>> Not so, Ken. I just showed you that even for sound, a change in
> >>>> frequency doesn't necessarily mean a change in speed.
> >>>
> >>> Yes it means a change in speed. That's how radard works.
> >>>
> >>
> >> No it doesn't. Sheesh.
> >
> > Yes it does. Radar gun measures the difference between the return frequency
>
> Change in FREQUENCY. Not change in speed. Radar guns don't use a change
> in speed of the radio signal.

Stupid fool....change in frequency times wavelength of the source gives you speed of the object.

Gary Harnagel

unread,
Nov 6, 2015, 10:49:12 AM11/6/15
to
On Friday, November 6, 2015 at 8:07:34 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
>
> On Friday, November 6, 2015 at 8:59:14 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >
> > Change in FREQUENCY. Not change in speed. Radar guns don't use a change
> > in speed of the radio signal.
>
> Stupid fool....change in frequency times wavelength of the source gives
> you speed of the object.

Wow! The ignoramus calls the knowledgeable "stupid fool"! How ironic,
how flabbergasting, how abysmally stupid.

"the global village will have its village idiots, and they'll have a global
range." -- Martin Rees

"Life's tough..... It's even tougher if you're stupid." -- John Wayne

Odd Bodkin

unread,
Nov 6, 2015, 10:54:07 AM11/6/15
to
On 11/6/2015 8:50 AM, kefischer wrote:
> But there is a third factor that affects
> the measuring of the speed of light, it has
> not been clearly understood or specified,
> but is correctly predicted by relativity theory.

If you don't understand how relativity explains in plain language the
Doppler shift for light, then you don't understand relativity.

Odd Bodkin

unread,
Nov 6, 2015, 10:54:55 AM11/6/15
to
On 11/6/2015 9:07 AM, kenseto wrote:
> On Friday, November 6, 2015 at 8:59:14 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 11/6/2015 7:43 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>> On Thursday, November 5, 2015 at 6:09:10 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> On 11/5/2015 3:41 PM, kenseto wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, November 5, 2015 at 12:36:13 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/5/2015 11:03 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>>>>>> Shit head....change in frequency means change in speed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not so, Ken. I just showed you that even for sound, a change in
>>>>>> frequency doesn't necessarily mean a change in speed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes it means a change in speed. That's how radard works.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No it doesn't. Sheesh.
>>>
>>> Yes it does. Radar gun measures the difference between the return frequency
>>
>> Change in FREQUENCY. Not change in speed. Radar guns don't use a change
>> in speed of the radio signal.
>
> Stupid fool....change in frequency times wavelength of the source gives you speed of the object.

Yes, it does. And the wavelength changes too.
But the radar gun doesn't use any change in speed. In fact, it couldn't
work that way because the speed doesn't change.

John Gogo

unread,
Nov 6, 2015, 10:34:45 PM11/6/15
to
On Sunday, November 1, 2015 at 12:35:24 PM UTC-6, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 11/1/15 11/1/15 7:32 AM, kenseto wrote:
> > On Saturday, October 31, 2015 at 11:16:49 AM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:
> >> On 10/31/15 10/31/15 2:53 AM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> >>> the most spooky result in physics, one that saves Einstein's relativity
> >>> from collapse, is the change of the wavelength of the incoming wave
> >>> caused by the motion of the observer,
> >>
> >> This isn't "spooky" at all, it is a direct and natural consequence of the
> >> way wavelength is measured -- by PROJECTING it onto a ruler (or other
> >> length-measuring instrument).
> >
> > It is spooky because we don't claim that for sound or water waves.
>
> Yes, we do. But for them the relative velocities are so vastly smaller than the
> speed of light that the effect is not measurable.
>
>
> Note to readers: kenseto is among the most persistent idiots
> around here. He has been repeating this nonsense for many years,
> without any attempt to learn the subject he tries to write about.
> I reply to him only occasionally, as a service to readers who may
> not recognize his mistakes. He has proven himself to be unable
> and unwilling to learn anything.
>
>
> Tom Roberts

Yes, but as science advances the once immeasurable and imagined will become measured, real, and meaningful.

kenseto

unread,
Nov 7, 2015, 10:33:30 AM11/7/15
to
On Friday, November 6, 2015 at 10:54:55 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 11/6/2015 9:07 AM, kenseto wrote:
> > On Friday, November 6, 2015 at 8:59:14 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> On 11/6/2015 7:43 AM, kenseto wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, November 5, 2015 at 6:09:10 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>> On 11/5/2015 3:41 PM, kenseto wrote:
> >>>>> On Thursday, November 5, 2015 at 12:36:13 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>>>> On 11/5/2015 11:03 AM, kenseto wrote:
> >>>>>>> Shit head....change in frequency means change in speed.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Not so, Ken. I just showed you that even for sound, a change in
> >>>>>> frequency doesn't necessarily mean a change in speed.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Yes it means a change in speed. That's how radard works.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> No it doesn't. Sheesh.
> >>>
> >>> Yes it does. Radar gun measures the difference between the return frequency
> >>
> >> Change in FREQUENCY. Not change in speed. Radar guns don't use a change
> >> in speed of the radio signal.
> >
> > Stupid fool....change in frequency times wavelength of the source gives you speed of the object.
>
> Yes, it does. And the wavelength changes too.

No the wavelength of the source is not changed. The arriving speed of the waves is changed as follows:
c'= c(measured incoming frequency/measured frequency at the source)
= c(measured wavelength of the source/measured wavelength of incoming light)

> But the radar gun doesn't use any change in speed. In fact, it couldn't
> work that way because the speed doesn't change.

Sure it does as follows:
v= (c-c')

Edgardo Alcantara

unread,
Nov 7, 2015, 10:41:04 AM11/7/15
to
W dniu Sat, 07 Nov 2015 07:33:26 -0800 użytkownik kenseto napisał:

> No the wavelength of the source is not changed. The arriving speed

Which is the same, a substitute. Just that you know what you are up to. On
the other hand, you cannot prove that the wavelength is not changed, since
what you can see is another color, or moved spectrum of colors.

However, this too is a just a subset enclosed by my little Divergent
Matter theory.

Odd Bodkin

unread,
Nov 9, 2015, 10:20:01 AM11/9/15
to
On 11/7/2015 9:33 AM, kenseto wrote:
> On Friday, November 6, 2015 at 10:54:55 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 11/6/2015 9:07 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>> On Friday, November 6, 2015 at 8:59:14 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> On 11/6/2015 7:43 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, November 5, 2015 at 6:09:10 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/5/2015 3:41 PM, kenseto wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thursday, November 5, 2015 at 12:36:13 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 11/5/2015 11:03 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Shit head....change in frequency means change in speed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not so, Ken. I just showed you that even for sound, a change in
>>>>>>>> frequency doesn't necessarily mean a change in speed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes it means a change in speed. That's how radard works.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No it doesn't. Sheesh.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes it does. Radar gun measures the difference between the return frequency
>>>>
>>>> Change in FREQUENCY. Not change in speed. Radar guns don't use a change
>>>> in speed of the radio signal.
>>>
>>> Stupid fool....change in frequency times wavelength of the source gives you speed of the object.
>>
>> Yes, it does. And the wavelength changes too.
>
> No the wavelength of the source is not changed.

Oh, but it is, you can measure wavelength directly. You don't have to
compute it from speed and frequency. When you do make that direct
measurement, you find that the wavelength has changed.

Nothing overrides a direct measurement, Ken.

The wavelength is a few centimeters, by the way. Very measurable even
with ordinary tools.

> The arriving speed of the waves is changed as follows:
> c'= c(measured incoming frequency/measured frequency at the source)
> = c(measured wavelength of the source/measured wavelength of incoming light)
>
>> But the radar gun doesn't use any change in speed. In fact, it couldn't
>> work that way because the speed doesn't change.
>
> Sure it does as follows:
> v= (c-c')

No, Ken, that's not at all how radar guns work.

kenseto

unread,
Nov 9, 2015, 11:33:09 AM11/9/15
to
On Monday, November 9, 2015 at 10:20:01 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 11/7/2015 9:33 AM, kenseto wrote:
> > On Friday, November 6, 2015 at 10:54:55 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> On 11/6/2015 9:07 AM, kenseto wrote:
> >>> On Friday, November 6, 2015 at 8:59:14 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>> On 11/6/2015 7:43 AM, kenseto wrote:
> >>>>> On Thursday, November 5, 2015 at 6:09:10 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>>>> On 11/5/2015 3:41 PM, kenseto wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Thursday, November 5, 2015 at 12:36:13 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 11/5/2015 11:03 AM, kenseto wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Shit head....change in frequency means change in speed.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Not so, Ken. I just showed you that even for sound, a change in
> >>>>>>>> frequency doesn't necessarily mean a change in speed.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Yes it means a change in speed. That's how radard works.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> No it doesn't. Sheesh.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Yes it does. Radar gun measures the difference between the return frequency
> >>>>
> >>>> Change in FREQUENCY. Not change in speed. Radar guns don't use a change
> >>>> in speed of the radio signal.
> >>>
> >>> Stupid fool....change in frequency times wavelength of the source gives you speed of the object.
> >>
> >> Yes, it does. And the wavelength changes too.
> >
> > No the wavelength of the source is not changed.
>
> Oh, but it is, you can measure wavelength directly.

The radar gun does not measure the incoming wavelength. It measures the incoming frequency. The difference between source frequency and the incoming frequency times the source wavelength gives the speed of the moving object.

>You don't have to
> compute it from speed and frequency. When you do make that direct
> measurement, you find that the wavelength has changed.
>
> Nothing overrides a direct measurement, Ken.
> The wavelength is very measurable.

But the radar gun does not measure wavelength.
>
> > The arriving speed of the waves is changed as follows:
> > c'= c(measured incoming frequency/measured frequency at the source)
> > = c(measured wavelength of the source/measured wavelength of incoming light)
> >
> >> But the radar gun doesn't use any change in speed. In fact, it couldn't
> >> work that way because the speed doesn't change.
> >
> > Sure it does as follows:
> > v= (c-c')
>
> No, Ken, that's not at all how radar guns work.

That's how the radar guns work.

Odd Bodkin

unread,
Nov 9, 2015, 11:50:18 AM11/9/15
to
Yes, not speeds. Not c-c' as you claimed.

> The difference between source frequency and the incoming frequency times the source
> wavelength gives the speed of the moving object.
>
>> You don't have to
>> compute it from speed and frequency. When you do make that direct
>> measurement, you find that the wavelength has changed.
>>
>> Nothing overrides a direct measurement, Ken.
>> The wavelength is very measurable.
>
> But the radar gun does not measure wavelength.

Doesn't matter. OTHER experiments measure wavelength and verify that the
wavelength changes. Therefore it is STUPID to say that the when there's
a radar gun being used, somehow the wavelength now stays the same and
the speed changes.

>>
>>> The arriving speed of the waves is changed as follows:
>>> c'= c(measured incoming frequency/measured frequency at the source)
>>> = c(measured wavelength of the source/measured wavelength of incoming light)
>>>
>>>> But the radar gun doesn't use any change in speed. In fact, it couldn't
>>>> work that way because the speed doesn't change.
>>>
>>> Sure it does as follows:
>>> v= (c-c')
>>
>> No, Ken, that's not at all how radar guns work.
>
> That's how the radar guns work.
>

No, Ken, it's not. You can look up how radar guns work. Anybody can.

Gary Harnagel

unread,
Nov 9, 2015, 12:47:05 PM11/9/15
to
On Monday, November 9, 2015 at 9:33:09 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
>
> On Monday, November 9, 2015 at 10:20:01 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >
> > On 11/7/2015 9:33 AM, kenseto wrote:
> > >
> > > No the wavelength of the source is not changed.
> >
> > Oh, but it is, you can measure wavelength directly.
>
> The radar gun does not measure the incoming wavelength.

Bodkin never said it did. He said wavelength CAN be measured, and that is
correct. Wavelength change of light is used to measure relative velocities
of stars in astronomy all the time.

> It measures the incoming frequency.

Correct.

> The difference between source frequency and the incoming frequency
> times the source wavelength gives the speed of the moving object.

But you agreed that the wavelength was not measured. And it's not even
used by a radar gun in determining v. The Doppler equation for frequency
is

f = f0*sqrt[(1 + v/c)/(1 - v/c)] ~ f0*(1 + v/c)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_Doppler_effect

And velocity is

v/c = (f0^2 - f^2)/(f0^2 + f^2)

No wavelength involved at all. Good grief, Ken, it's not a big problem
to look it up!

kenseto

unread,
Nov 9, 2015, 4:47:35 PM11/9/15
to
Yes speeds.....incoming frequency x source wavelength = c'
and c-c'=speed

>
> > The difference between source frequency and the incoming frequency times the source
> > wavelength gives the speed of the moving object.
> >
> >> You don't have to
> >> compute it from speed and frequency. When you do make that direct
> >> measurement, you find that the wavelength has changed.
> >>
> >> Nothing overrides a direct measurement, Ken.
> >> The wavelength is very measurable.
> >
> > But the radar gun does not measure wavelength.
>
> Doesn't matter.

Yes it does matter.

>OTHER experiments measure wavelength and verify that the
> wavelength changes.

The incoming light becomes a new light source in the observer's frame and the grating defines a new wavelength for this new light source. This new wavelength in combonation with new frequency give c for local light speed.

Therefore it is STUPID to say that the when there's
> a radar gun being used, somehow the wavelength now stays the same and
> the speed changes.

Sigh.....the radar gun uses the source wavelength to determine the speed of an object....v=(source wavelength)(source frequency-return frequency)

Odd Bodkin

unread,
Nov 9, 2015, 5:09:22 PM11/9/15
to
You don't have to measure the wavelength of a radio wave that's a few
centimeters long with a grating. You can measure it DIRECTLY.

>
> Therefore it is STUPID to say that the when there's
>> a radar gun being used, somehow the wavelength now stays the same and
>> the speed changes.
>
> Sigh.....the radar gun uses the source wavelength to determine the speed of an object.
> ...v=(source wavelength)(source frequency-return frequency)

No it doesn't. You don't need the source wavelength at all.

The formula for a radar gun is beta = delta(f)/2f, where delta f is the
measured frequency shift and f is the frequency of the emitted signal.
No wavelength at all in there. None.

kenseto

unread,
Nov 10, 2015, 9:28:33 AM11/10/15
to
Idiot....delta(f)/2f is a dimension less term....you multiply that with the source wavelength to get v. Gee you are stupid.

shuba

unread,
Nov 10, 2015, 10:14:30 AM11/10/15
to
Yay! All hail the dominatrix.


---Tim Shuba---

Odd Bodkin

unread,
Nov 10, 2015, 2:42:34 PM11/10/15
to
Yes, it is. Beta is a dimensionless quantity. It is still a speed. You
don't know what beta is?

>...you multiply that with the source wavelength to get v. Gee you are stupid.
>

Gee, Ken, if you multiply a dimensionless quantity by a wavelength,
you're going to get something with dimensions of length, not dimensions
of speed.

You do know that you're too incompetent to spend much effort on, right?

kenseto

unread,
Nov 11, 2015, 9:33:41 AM11/11/15
to
ROTFLOL....So Beta is speed?
>
> >...you multiply that with the source wavelength to get v. Gee you are stupid.
> >
>
> Gee, Ken, if you multiply a dimensionless quantity by a wavelength,
> you're going to get something with dimensions of length, not dimensions
> of speed.

It was you who came up with the term delta(f)/2f....I my theory v=Lambda*delta(f)/2
>
> You do know that you're too incompetent to spend much effort on, right?

ROTFLOL....pot, kettle, black.

Odd Bodkin

unread,
Nov 11, 2015, 10:17:03 AM11/11/15
to
Yes! You didn't know that?

>>
>>> ...you multiply that with the source wavelength to get v. Gee you are stupid.
>>>
>>
>> Gee, Ken, if you multiply a dimensionless quantity by a wavelength,
>> you're going to get something with dimensions of length, not dimensions
>> of speed.
>
> It was you who came up with the term delta(f)/2f.

No I didn't. I pulled it from a reference on how radar guns work.

>...I my theory v=Lambda*delta(f)/2

I don't care what your theory says. The question was how radar guns
work. I looked it up. You make shit up.

>>
>> You do know that you're too incompetent to spend much effort on, right?
>
> ROTFLOL....pot, kettle, black.
>


0 new messages