Exactly why the theories of relativity are complete nonsense - the basic mistake exposed!
in [Math]
|
Prev: finding parametric equations
Next: Documents of Project DoD Federici DMCA Takedown lawsuit now available
From: Zinnic on 24 Feb 2010 10:06 On Feb 24, 1:40 am, Marshall <marshall.spi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 22, 7:11 pm, Zinnic <zeenr...(a)gate.net> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 21, 11:24 am, Marshall <marshall.spi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 21, 4:02 am, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...(a)bigpond.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 20, 5:20 am, Zinnic <zeenr...(a)gate.net> wrote: > > > > > > Arindam claims that the propagation of light and sound are analogous > > > > > to propagation of projectiles from a moving platform. My point is that > > > > > it is demonstrable that the projectile analogy does NOT hold for > > > > > sound. > > > > > So why not set up an experiment to prove this one way or the other, > > > > This idea interests me. I am clear on how one uses various microphones > > > to test arrival time of sound. What is less clear is a good way of > > > having a controlled, in-motion emitter. > > > > I have two thoughts: > > > > 1) Put a speaker on a small vehicle on a track. This would provide > > > linear speed but seems hard to control. > > > 2) Put a speaker on the end of an arm that is rotating. Have the > > > speaker emit a pulse when the arm is 90 degrees to the angle > > > to the mics. This is not a linear path, but maybe it doesn't matter. > > > It also has the advantage that you could compare the time > > > difference of arrival at the two mics when the speaker emits > > > at any point on its circular trajectory. > > > > Anyone care to comment. It seems like a fun science project. > > > > Marshall > > > I have suggested firing a rocket vertically from a speeding train half > > way between two listening/viewing stations . Entirely feasible but IMO > > not necessary because I believe the question has already been settled > > by sonar technology. However, I am still searching for links. > > Zinnic > > That would certainly do it, but I suspect it might cost in the > neighborhood of a million dollars, depending on the size of > the mobile rocket. I was shooting for something much > cheaper. I'm thinking I can do it with a six foot pole that > rotates via a small motor. One end of the pole would > have a speaker on it. The speaker would be driven by > a tone generator, and turned on by a photo cell. To > measure the velocity of sound, one would need two > microphones and a laptop. Assuming I use the mics > and laptops and so forth that I already have, I think > I can do it for a few hundred dollars. It will probably > take a few weeks to finish. > > Marshall- Hide quoted text - > The only experiments I have conducted are in biochemistry, so I concede your expertize here. Your approach is also more more feasible because it would better allow control of variables such a wind velocity, air pressure and temperature etc, though the speed of rotation required may, of itself, introduce an anomaly in local air flow. Would it be possible to eliminate this potential anomaly by limiting the rpm of the microphones whilst staying within the sensitivity of your microphone/computer set up? Before making the effort, you should check the scientific literature. I am convinced that the intrinsic speed of sound through its medium has already been demonstrated to be independent of the speed of its source (through the medium). IMO, it is adequately demonstrated by supersonic flight! However I admit that, to my chagrin, my fallibilty also has often been demonstrated, :-) Zinnic
From: Zinnic on 24 Feb 2010 10:41 On Feb 24, 8:30 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > Marshall wrote: > > [... measuring the speed of sound from a moving source] > > Get a pair of microphones, some long cords for them, and a laptop with stereo > microphone in. Go set up near a train track, with the microphones separated as > far as possible alongside the track. Wait for a passing train. Use either its > basic noise, or its horn. > > Tom Roberts I fail to see how this set up would allow one to assess more than the speed of the train. Explain how your separated microphones can be used to assess the speed (in air) of the sound wavefront emitted as the train approaches and recedes. Zinnic
From: Zinnic on 24 Feb 2010 10:55 On Feb 24, 8:56 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 23, 6:19 am, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...(a)bigpond.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 23, 1:11 pm, Zinnic <zeenr...(a)gate.net> wrote: > > > > On Feb 21, 11:24 am, Marshall <marshall.spi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 21, 4:02 am, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...(a)bigpond.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Feb 20, 5:20 am, Zinnic <zeenr...(a)gate.net> wrote: > > > > > > > Arindam claims that the propagation of light and sound are analogous > > > > > > to propagation of projectiles from a moving platform. My point is that > > > > > > it is demonstrable that the projectile analogy does NOT hold for > > > > > > sound. > > > > > > So why not set up an experiment to prove this one way or the other, > > > > > This idea interests me. I am clear on how one uses various microphones > > > > to test arrival time of sound. What is less clear is a good way of > > > > having a controlled, in-motion emitter. > > > > > I have two thoughts: > > > > > 1) Put a speaker on a small vehicle on a track. This would provide > > > > linear speed but seems hard to control. > > > > 2) Put a speaker on the end of an arm that is rotating. Have the > > > > speaker emit a pulse when the arm is 90 degrees to the angle > > > > to the mics. This is not a linear path, but maybe it doesn't matter.. > > > > It also has the advantage that you could compare the time > > > > difference of arrival at the two mics when the speaker emits > > > > at any point on its circular trajectory. > > > > > Anyone care to comment. It seems like a fun science project. > > > > > Marshall > > > > I have suggested firing a rocket vertically from a speeding train half > > > way between two listening/viewing stations . Entirely feasible but IMO > > > not necessary because I believe the question has already been settled > > > by sonar technology. However, I am still searching for links. > > > Zinnic- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > What is strange, is that an experiment to prove this most basic point > > is not any standard one! > > Anyone who has watched a car race from the stands does this > experiment. This means that there are hundreds of thousands of > spectator/experimenters every year. Is this not standard?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - This tells us nothing about the intrinsic speed (in air) of the sound wavefront emitted from approaching and receding sound sources (cars). It demonstrates only the different intrinsic frequency/wavelength of the sound (Doppler effect) as the cars change from approaching to receding sources. Zinnic
From: PD on 24 Feb 2010 11:50 On Feb 24, 9:55 am, Zinnic <zeenr...(a)gate.net> wrote: > On Feb 24, 8:56 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 23, 6:19 am, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...(a)bigpond.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 23, 1:11 pm, Zinnic <zeenr...(a)gate.net> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 21, 11:24 am, Marshall <marshall.spi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Feb 21, 4:02 am, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...(a)bigpond.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 20, 5:20 am, Zinnic <zeenr...(a)gate.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > Arindam claims that the propagation of light and sound are analogous > > > > > > > to propagation of projectiles from a moving platform. My point is that > > > > > > > it is demonstrable that the projectile analogy does NOT hold for > > > > > > > sound. > > > > > > > So why not set up an experiment to prove this one way or the other, > > > > > > This idea interests me. I am clear on how one uses various microphones > > > > > to test arrival time of sound. What is less clear is a good way of > > > > > having a controlled, in-motion emitter. > > > > > > I have two thoughts: > > > > > > 1) Put a speaker on a small vehicle on a track. This would provide > > > > > linear speed but seems hard to control. > > > > > 2) Put a speaker on the end of an arm that is rotating. Have the > > > > > speaker emit a pulse when the arm is 90 degrees to the angle > > > > > to the mics. This is not a linear path, but maybe it doesn't matter. > > > > > It also has the advantage that you could compare the time > > > > > difference of arrival at the two mics when the speaker emits > > > > > at any point on its circular trajectory. > > > > > > Anyone care to comment. It seems like a fun science project. > > > > > > Marshall > > > > > I have suggested firing a rocket vertically from a speeding train half > > > > way between two listening/viewing stations . Entirely feasible but IMO > > > > not necessary because I believe the question has already been settled > > > > by sonar technology. However, I am still searching for links. > > > > Zinnic- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > What is strange, is that an experiment to prove this most basic point > > > is not any standard one! > > > Anyone who has watched a car race from the stands does this > > experiment. This means that there are hundreds of thousands of > > spectator/experimenters every year. Is this not standard?- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > This tells us nothing about the intrinsic speed (in air) of the sound > wavefront emitted from approaching and receding sound sources (cars). No, it does, because the amount of the shift (which is clearly observable -- the pitch is numerically coupled to the frequency) depends on the ratio of the speed of the source and the speed of the signal in air. So if you know the speed of the source (from, say, the speedometer or by timing the car's travel over a length of the track), then you know the speed of the signal in the air. (Of course, you can do the opposite as well. If you know the speed of the signal in the air from another measurement, you can find the speed of the car using the frequency shift.) > It demonstrates only the different intrinsic frequency/wavelength of > the sound The *intrinsic* frequency, which is the frequency of the source, is not changing. Only the observed one does. > (Doppler effect) as the cars change from approaching to > receding sources. > Zinnic
From: Zinnic on 24 Feb 2010 15:37
On Feb 24, 10:50 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 24, 9:55 am, Zinnic <zeenr...(a)gate.net> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 24, 8:56 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 23, 6:19 am, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...(a)bigpond.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 23, 1:11 pm, Zinnic <zeenr...(a)gate.net> wrote: > > > > > > On Feb 21, 11:24 am, Marshall <marshall.spi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 21, 4:02 am, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...(a)bigpond.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Feb 20, 5:20 am, Zinnic <zeenr...(a)gate.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Arindam claims that the propagation of light and sound are analogous > > > > > > > > to propagation of projectiles from a moving platform. My point is that > > > > > > > > it is demonstrable that the projectile analogy does NOT hold for > > > > > > > > sound. > > > > > > > > So why not set up an experiment to prove this one way or the other, > > > > > > > This idea interests me. I am clear on how one uses various microphones > > > > > > to test arrival time of sound. What is less clear is a good way of > > > > > > having a controlled, in-motion emitter. > > > > > > > I have two thoughts: > > > > > > > 1) Put a speaker on a small vehicle on a track. This would provide > > > > > > linear speed but seems hard to control. > > > > > > 2) Put a speaker on the end of an arm that is rotating. Have the > > > > > > speaker emit a pulse when the arm is 90 degrees to the angle > > > > > > to the mics. This is not a linear path, but maybe it doesn't matter. > > > > > > It also has the advantage that you could compare the time > > > > > > difference of arrival at the two mics when the speaker emits > > > > > > at any point on its circular trajectory. > > > > > > > Anyone care to comment. It seems like a fun science project. > > > > > > > Marshall > > > > > > I have suggested firing a rocket vertically from a speeding train half > > > > > way between two listening/viewing stations . Entirely feasible but IMO > > > > > not necessary because I believe the question has already been settled > > > > > by sonar technology. However, I am still searching for links. > > > > > Zinnic- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > What is strange, is that an experiment to prove this most basic point > > > > is not any standard one! > > > > Anyone who has watched a car race from the stands does this > > > experiment. This means that there are hundreds of thousands of > > > spectator/experimenters every year. Is this not standard?- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > This tells us nothing about the intrinsic speed (in air) of the sound > > wavefront emitted from approaching and receding sound sources (cars). > > No, it does, because the amount of the shift (which is clearly > observable -- the pitch is numerically coupled to the frequency) > depends on the ratio of the speed of the source and the speed of the > signal in air. So if you know the speed of the source (from, say, the > speedometer or by timing the car's travel over a length of the track), > then you know the speed of the signal in the air. (Of course, you can > do the opposite as well. If you know the speed of the signal in the > air from another measurement, you can find the speed of the car using > the frequency shift.) > > > It demonstrates only the different intrinsic frequency/wavelength of > > the sound > > The *intrinsic* frequency, which is the frequency of the source, is > not changing. Only the observed one does. > > I believe your last statement re frequency from a stationary versus a moving sound source is incorrect. We will agree that a change in intrinsic frequency accompanied by the corresponding inverse change in wavelength does not by definition (speed = frequency x wavelength) change the intrinsic speed (in air) of the sound wavefront. However, my understanding is that movement of the sound source does change the actual wavelength of the sound emmitted along with the corresponding change in frequency so that there is no change in speed of the wave front. That is, the motion of the source compresses or decompresses the air oscillations resulting in an intrinsic change in the wavelength/frequency of the resulting sound wave form. This does not occur when the emitter is stationary and the receptor is in motion. In this case there is no change in the actual (intrinsic) wavelength/frequency of the sound emitted but only an apparent change because the number of air compression oscillations experienced per unit time (frequency of experience) is changed by the motion of the receiver. Given this, do you believe that the two different frequencies recorded for a sound source approaching (+v ) and receding (-v) can be used to calculate whether or not the intrinsic speed of sound in air changes when the source passes the receiver? That is approaching at S + v , receding at S - v, or no difference. Unfortunately, the math required is beyond my capacity :-( Zinnic |