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: PD on 24 Feb 2010 16:10 On Feb 24, 2:37 pm, Zinnic <zeenr...(a)gate.net> wrote: > 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. And again, let's be careful here. If you have a source that is emitting at 250 Hz, then it is producing a wavefront every 4 ms. That number does not change when the source is moving relative to the medium. A new wavefront is still created every 4 ms (250 Hz). However, at the *receiver* in front of the motion of the source, this frequency is heard as higher, because the wavefronts are closer together compared to those from a stationary source. That is, the receiver may receive those wavefronts every 3 ms apart, even though they are being produced every 4 ms. > 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? If you measure the speed of the sound source independently, yes. That is, if you timed the source by watching it run through two red lights a known distance apart, you would know what V is, and then by measuring the shifted frequencies, you could determine what S is. > That is > approaching at S + v , receding at S - v, or no difference. > Unfortunately, the math required is beyond my capacity :-( > Zinnic
From: Arindam Banerjee on 24 Feb 2010 18:25 None so blind as those who won't see. Or can't, to be kind. Oh well, enough from me on this thread. Got better things to do.
From: Arindam Banerjee on 24 Feb 2010 18:26 On Feb 25, 1:56 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 - Gosh, people here don't know the fundamentals about science!
From: artful on 24 Feb 2010 18:51 On Feb 25, 10:25 am, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...(a)bigpond.com> wrote: > None so blind as those who won't see. Or can't, to be kind. > > Oh well, enough from me on this thread. Got better things to do. So .. as expected you run away from the challenge, as you know you are wrong. Typical cowardly crackpot. Though I'm sure you'll be back sometime soon spouting the same lies and nonsense and claiming that noone has proved you wrong .. which is the biggest lie of all.
From: Arindam Banerjee on 24 Feb 2010 21:01
On Feb 23, 5:21 am, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > so, what is the *same* about the waves & the particles? They both have velocity that changes with the speed of the emitter with respect to any reference. |