Explaining the nonsense of relativity to 10+ kids
in [Relativity]
|
From: PD on 17 Feb 2010 09:54 On Feb 17, 12:53 am, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...(a)bigpond.com> wrote: > On Feb 10, 9:50 am, Zinnic <zeenr...(a)gate.net> wrote: > > >You draw on this analogy to support your misconception > > that light velocity is dependent on the velocity of its emitter. > > It is not a misconception. It is a logically (and that too, > deductively, not inductively) that the speed of light IS dependent > upon the speed of the emitter. I have recently explained this such > that any intelligent 10+ year old may understand. There is NO way out > of saying that the speed of light c is constant irrespective of the > speed of the emitter. That will be the most dishonest thing to say, > and the most wrong way to bring up children. True a few generations > have been brainwashed by the e=mcc nonsense, but to paper it over with > bullying tactics will be counter-productive. I see that you have not > even bothered to analyse my arguments. Thus it is not a question of > misconception, it is a question of personal priorities. Where > prejudice triumphs over reason. > I'm sorry, Arindam, but what you are stating is what you think is the only possibility that makes sense to you. It appeals to your intuition. However, it is in conflict with direct experimental measurement. When experimental measurements and intuition conflict, then intuition MUST give way. Furthermore, arguments do not serve to make the intuition stand up against the experimental results. If there is a conflict, then both the intuition and the arguments are WRONG, and a new intuition must be sought that is in agreement with the experimental results. There is no way around this.
From: Zinnic on 18 Feb 2010 20:35 On Feb 17, 12:53 am, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...(a)bigpond.com> wrote: > On Feb 10, 9:50 am, Zinnic <zeenr...(a)gate.net> wrote: > > > On Feb 9, 12:13 am, "Arindam Banerjee" <adda1...(a)bigpond.com> wrote: > > > Snip for brevity (Zinnic) > > > Arindam I apologise for my previous typo re your name. > > Accepted. > > > Let us again discuss your misconception regarding the speed of sound > > in a media. > > Let us see who is misconceiving. > > >You draw on this analogy to support your misconception > > that light velocity is dependent on the velocity of its emitter. > > It is not a misconception. It is a logically (and that too, > deductively, not inductively) that the speed of light IS dependent > upon the speed of the emitter. I have recently explained this such > that any intelligent 10+ year old may understand. There is NO way out > of saying that the speed of light c is constant irrespective of the > speed of the emitter. That will be the most dishonest thing to say, > and the most wrong way to bring up children. True a few generations > have been brainwashed by the e=mcc nonsense, but to paper it over with > bullying tactics will be counter-productive. I see that you have not > even bothered to analyse my arguments. Thus it is not a question of > misconception, it is a question of personal priorities. Where > prejudice triumphs over reason. > I have no intention of bullying anyone . My sole interest is to understand what evidence you use to debunk the theory that the speed of light is independent of the speed of its source and is a constant for all frames of reference. Your reliance on an invalid analogy with the speed of sound raises serious questions in my mind regarding your reasoning. I need to be reassured here. Whether or not you accept it, it is a fact that experimental observations have established that the speed in air of the wavefront of sound impulses is independent of the speed in air of the sound source. This is demonstrated, indepently of many experimental observations, by simple observation that a supersonic plane passes the observer before it is heard. Given your experience, you know well that the sonic boom lags the plane's arrival. What you now need to demonstrate is that the propagation of light differs in this respect from the propagation of sound and is analogous, as you claim, to the propagation of a projectile (matter) launched from a moving platform. > > You are in fact incorrect in claiming that the speed of sound is > > increased when its source is moving toward the receiver and is > > decreased when the source is moving away. > > In any case, this is not germane to the issue of SR. You are just > making a statement. I dispute it. The only way out is to perform an > experiment and let third parties decide. I can only agree when things > are proven to me with experiment. True I have not performed an > experiment using radar and sonar, but my experience with subsonic > fighters going over my head is good enough. And it all can be shown > with maths, as I have indicated in earlier posts. No, it may be is good enough for you but not for a scientific approach!. Your math (C + v) shows only that you believe that light is propagated in the same way as a projectile (matter). You are just making that statement . It has yet to be demonstrated by you! > > Let us say that the speed of sound emitted from a stationary emitter > > is S. According to you, when the sound source is moving towards the > > receiver at a speed of v then the speed of the sound will increase > > from S to an additive speed of S + v. > > Yes. > > > Now consider a sound source moving towards the receiver at a speed of > > S. Again according to you, the sound will move at S + S = 2S. How > > then does a supersonic airplane or rocket break the sound barrier? > > The same way as a viman going at super light speed will break the so- > called light barrier. > What is really happening is that since the sound is travelling so > fast, it does not stay with the receiver on the ground for a long > time. Only a very short time, as the source is coming to him on the > ground. But as it leaves or goes the other way, it stays with the > receiver for a very long time. Surely you agree that is not a scientific statement. What do you mean by the sound "does not stay with the receiver" for short or long times? Explain why you believe that sound "stays" anywhere or with anything. Do you not accept that sound is transient? > > No matter how fast the plane is going it can never catch up to the the sound it emits because that sound will always exceed the speed of the plane (v) by S (the speed of sound from a stationary source). > > Yes, of course. Like if I throw out a beam of light from a viman > going at 2c, in the forward direction it will go at 3c and in the > backward at c. Of course the plane won't catch up with the sound it > emits. Why should it? > Throw out beams of light? This reveals your hang up with projectile physics. According to you, the speed of sound emitted by the plane must be greater than the speed of the plane. That is, the actual speed of sound (S + V) is its intrinsic speed in air from a stationarry emittor (S) plus the speed of the plane that emits the sound (V). If this is so, you need to explain what it is that you understand by a moving object breaking the sound barrier! That can never happen if, as you claim, the speed of the sound emitted (S + V) is always faster than the speed of the emitter (V) >The speed of sound is independent of the speed of its source, > As I said, this is just a statement. No proof. I hold that it is an > incorrect statement, based upon my personal experiene of planes flying > over my head. Apparently, you have never experienced a supersonic plane flying over your head! It passes before you hear it. Simple as that! > such > > > that a single shot fired from a gun mounted on a moving train will be > > heard at the same time by receivers located at the perimeter > > circumscibed by a radius centered by the point at which the gun was > > fired. > > Prove it. This is just a statement, and I feel sure it is completely > wrong. Feeling sure does'nt compute scientifically. > It can be done using military radar and sonar. > We will find that the speed of sound is different in different > directions for a moving object. It has already been established that this is not so. Would you take a small bet (winnings to go to a charity of our choice) against my claim that , everything else being equal (wind, temperature gradient, altitude , air density/pressure variations etc) it is a fact there is no significant difference in the speed of sound in different directions from a moving sound source? > This comes from the very nature of waves. Yes I need to elaborate on > this and maybe I will when I get more respect for my new and brilliant > theories. Please do elaborate; then we will see about the respect :-) > > That is the speed of sound from a moving (or stationary) > > emitter is the same constant (in still air) in every direction! > > The frequency of the sound will differ (Dopplar effect) but will be > > compensated by an appropriate change in wavelength according to Speed > > (constant) = frequency x wavelength. > > Exactly the sort of rubbish that was concocted to support the bullshit > SR theories - they had to make the speed of sound constant, like they > had to make the c constatnt! That is not correct. "They" do not believe that propagation of light is analogous to propagation of sound. "They" believe that matter (super sonic plane) can exceed the speed of sound (1,100 ft/sec). They do not believe that matter can exceed the speed of light (186,000 miles/sec). "They" believe that an observer (ear) moving in air at a speed of V experiences sound (hears) in a time inversely related to the actual speed of sound in air (S) plus or minus V. They do not believe the speed (V) of the observer or emittor changes the time in which light is experienced (seen). That is their problem, but why on earth do you suggest that they recruit the physics of sound to support their light theory? > The wavelength does not change, silly, the waves only move faster past > the receiver as the speed is now higher, and so the frequency count > goes up at the receiver. This is shown as the Doppler effect, which > proves the fact that the speed of sound varies with the speed of the > emitter. Incorrect. It proves only that the receiver experiences sound impulses more frequently. Just like the frequency of observation of highway light poles increases as a car speed is increased, The speed of the car does changes neither the distance between the light poles nor their actual frequency (number per mile) along the highway. . In contrast, if there was such a thing as a lightpole emittor (correction, emitter) that emits light poles at a constant number per unit of time, then the distance between light poles (wavelength), and hence their frequency (number per mile) along the highway, would depend on the motion of the light pole emitter. So it is with sound impulses in air. > > Thus, you cannot use sound transmission as an analogy to support your > > claim that the speed of light is dependent on the motion of its > > source. Ps. I believe your additive notion of S + v is correct when v > > represents the rate of movement of the transmitting media towards a > > motionless reciever. For example, the movement of air (wind), the > > media transmitting sound. However, this cannot be applied to the > > aether that transmits light (or do you also contest that?). > > Please read carefully all that I have written, and you should > understand. It may take some time for you to unlearn the wrong > ideas. I think I have made all my points as clearly and simply as > possible. > I have read your claims carefully and it is clear that you are confused by what is involved in the Doppler sound effect. Changes in the speed of sound is not, as you claim, a factor in the different effects that result from the motion of the source and or receptor of the sound wavefront. Your claims for the propagation of light are based on an invalid analogy with the propagation of sound, and are therefore suspect. Regards Zinnic
From: Arindam Banerjee on 20 Feb 2010 21:39 "PD" <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:1450959e-744a-4db0-9893-a5515044140c(a)e1g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... On Feb 17, 12:53 am, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...(a)bigpond.com> wrote: > On Feb 10, 9:50 am, Zinnic <zeenr...(a)gate.net> wrote: > > >You draw on this analogy to support your misconception > > that light velocity is dependent on the velocity of its emitter. > > It is not a misconception. It is a logically (and that too, > deductively, not inductively) that the speed of light IS dependent > upon the speed of the emitter. I have recently explained this such > that any intelligent 10+ year old may understand. There is NO way out > of saying that the speed of light c is constant irrespective of the > speed of the emitter. That will be the most dishonest thing to say, > and the most wrong way to bring up children. True a few generations > have been brainwashed by the e=mcc nonsense, but to paper it over with > bullying tactics will be counter-productive. I see that you have not > even bothered to analyse my arguments. Thus it is not a question of > misconception, it is a question of personal priorities. Where > prejudice triumphs over reason. > I'm sorry, Arindam, but what you are stating is what you think is the only possibility that makes sense to you. It appeals to your intuition. However, it is in conflict with direct experimental measurement. When experimental measurements and intuition conflict, then intuition MUST give way. Furthermore, arguments do not serve to make the intuition stand up against the experimental results. If there is a conflict, then both the intuition and the arguments are WRONG, and a new intuition must be sought that is in agreement with the experimental results. There is no way around this. AB: You do not seem to have understood anything of what I have been saying. I am saying that your experimental analysis is WRONG. As clearly as I can. Check out the following and tell me what you find difficult to understand. http://adda-enterprises.com/MMInt/MMInt.htm I have also in Usenet pointed out in a post, directed at 10+ year old intelligent kids, why this experiment correctly done did actually prove that light speed must depend upon the speed of the emitter. If this reason is ignored, what can be done? I can only conclude that this is all a racket. It is my job as an honest person to expose it. If someone has an issue, he can go to COURT with his grievance. This is a very serious issue after all. If you cannot understand what I have been saying, and do not want to do that either, there is no further discussion. I can only hope that a better lot of people will understand what I am saying in the future. Cheers, Arindam Banerjee.
From: artful on 20 Feb 2010 23:29 On Feb 21, 1:39 pm, "Arindam Banerjee" <adda1...(a)bigpond.com> wrote: > "PD" <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:1450959e-744a-4db0-9893-a5515044140c(a)e1g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... > On Feb 17, 12:53 am, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...(a)bigpond.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 10, 9:50 am, Zinnic <zeenr...(a)gate.net> wrote: > > > >You draw on this analogy to support your misconception > > > that light velocity is dependent on the velocity of its emitter. > > > It is not a misconception. It is a logically (and that too, > > deductively, not inductively) that the speed of light IS dependent > > upon the speed of the emitter. I have recently explained this such > > that any intelligent 10+ year old may understand. There is NO way out > > of saying that the speed of light c is constant irrespective of the > > speed of the emitter. That will be the most dishonest thing to say, > > and the most wrong way to bring up children. True a few generations > > have been brainwashed by the e=mcc nonsense, but to paper it over with > > bullying tactics will be counter-productive. I see that you have not > > even bothered to analyse my arguments. Thus it is not a question of > > misconception, it is a question of personal priorities. Where > > prejudice triumphs over reason. > > I'm sorry, Arindam, but what you are stating is what you think is the > only possibility that makes sense to you. It appeals to your > intuition. However, it is in conflict with direct experimental > measurement. When experimental measurements and intuition conflict, > then intuition MUST give way. Furthermore, arguments do not serve to > make the intuition stand up against the experimental results. If there > is a conflict, then both the intuition and the arguments are WRONG, > and a new intuition must be sought that is in agreement with the > experimental results. > > There is no way around this. > > AB: You do not seem to have understood anything of what I have been saying. I have .. you made a major bungle > I am saying that your experimental analysis is WRONG. As clearly as I can.. > Check out the following and tell me what you find difficult to understand..http://adda-enterprises.com/MMInt/MMInt.htm i already pointed it out earlier. You got your analogy backwards You said "the river is the Earth moving with speed v and the river bank is the ether or absolute frame of reference" That is NOT the correct analogy (as the article you quote makes clear. > I have also in Usenet pointed out in a post, directed at 10+ year old > intelligent kids, why this experiment correctly done did actually prove that > light speed must depend upon the speed of the emitter. It did not prove that at all . .experiments do not prove anything .. they only fail to refute MMX does not refute the speed of light being dependent on the speed of the emiiter. It was not designed to. Other experiments, however, to refute that. > If this reason is > ignored, what can be done? I can only conclude that this is all a racket. Nope .. you just don't understand how science works > It is my job as an honest person to expose it. But you are NOT being honest > If someone has an issue, he > can go to COURT with his grievance. This is a very serious issue after all. BAHAHAHAH .. I'm sure that the courts are very busy with people takign others to court for misunderstanding physics > > If you cannot understand what I have been saying, and do not want to do > that either, there is no further discussion. I can only hope that a better > lot of people will understand what I am saying in the future. WE do understand.. you got it wrong. THAT is what YOU do not understand, or are not honest enough to admit.
From: Arindam Banerjee on 20 Feb 2010 23:54
"Zinnic" <zeenric2(a)gate.net> wrote in message news:d2eee322-464d-42a9-91b3-516cd7e13304(a)o30g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... On Feb 17, 12:53 am, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...(a)bigpond.com> wrote: > On Feb 10, 9:50 am, Zinnic <zeenr...(a)gate.net> wrote: > > > On Feb 9, 12:13 am, "Arindam Banerjee" <adda1...(a)bigpond.com> wrote: > > > Snip for brevity (Zinnic) > > > Arindam I apologise for my previous typo re your name. > > Accepted. > > > Let us again discuss your misconception regarding the speed of sound > > in a media. > > Let us see who is misconceiving. > > >You draw on this analogy to support your misconception > > that light velocity is dependent on the velocity of its emitter. > > It is not a misconception. It is a logically (and that too, > deductively, not inductively) that the speed of light IS dependent > upon the speed of the emitter. I have recently explained this such > that any intelligent 10+ year old may understand. There is NO way out > of saying that the speed of light c is constant irrespective of the > speed of the emitter. That will be the most dishonest thing to say, > and the most wrong way to bring up children. True a few generations > have been brainwashed by the e=mcc nonsense, but to paper it over with > bullying tactics will be counter-productive. I see that you have not > even bothered to analyse my arguments. Thus it is not a question of > misconception, it is a question of personal priorities. Where > prejudice triumphs over reason. > I have no intention of bullying anyone . My sole interest is to understand what evidence you use to debunk the theory that the speed of light is independent of the speed of its source and is a constant for all frames of reference. AB: So exactly where, may I ask, have you produced the slightest shred of evidence/logic/rebuttal to my debunking of the results of the MMI experiment? Can we go through my debunking of it point by point? I have worked for a long time on this over the years, and so will not and cannot accept a simple refusal or negation from the Abominable Garg. The speed of light is NOT constant - it varies with the medium, and the speed of the emitter. The former is well known (only a complete fool will try to dispute it) and the latter is proved by the MMI experiment, from my correct analysis of it. Your reliance on an invalid analogy with the speed of sound raises serious questions in my mind regarding your reasoning. I need to be reassured here. AB: Pardon me, it was YOU who put up the sound analogy maintaining that the speed of sound was invariant with respect to the speed of the emitter. I have been saying that the invariance of the speed of light has been disproven by the MMI experiment. If you now make false charges, what does that show? You neglect my points totally, then put up your own (the speed of sound's invariance) then maintain that I rely on an invalid analogy! Is this scientific???? :) I don't know whether to laugh or cry! Whether or not you accept it, it is a fact that experimental observations have established that the speed in air of the wavefront of sound impulses is independent of the speed in air of the sound source. This is demonstrated, indepently of many experimental observations, by simple observation that a supersonic plane passes the observer before it is heard. Given your experience, you know well that the sonic boom lags the plane's arrival. AB: The last is exactly what I have been saying, and demonstrating with maths. Which all proves that the speed of sound in air is v+V, where v is speed of sound between static objects and V is the relative velocity when they are not static. In any case, this has nothing whatever to do with my debunking of the normally accepted results of the MMI experiment. I note that you are not quoting even an attempt to match radar and sonar, to find out whether or not the velocity of sound changes with the speed of the source. We can wait for the results of a honestly done experiment upon this subject (of speed of sound's invariance) with bated breath, but really that has nothing whatever to do with the speed of light's invariance or not. The MMI experiment proves beyond a shadow of doubt that the speed of light has to depend upon the speed of the light emitter. AS the Earth is moving, light in space has to travel greater or smaller distances. As they do so in the same time, PROVES that the speed of light is NOT invariant with the speed of the emitter. To travel the same measured distance that is now longer to travel, light travels faster; to travel the same measured distance that is now shorter to travel, light travels slower. As I have shown, this fundamental point was well known to the early physicists. What they forgot to take into account was the simple but subtle and certainly most profound and original point just made in this paragraph - about light *actually* travelling varying distances with respect to orientation. They forgot to take this point, and this mistake was repeated down the ages. Till I exposed it! What you now need to demonstrate is that the propagation of light differs in this respect from the propagation of sound and is analogous, as you claim, to the propagation of a projectile (matter) launched from a moving platform. AB: I have already demonstrated the true reason of the Doppler effect; and I have also shown the great bungle underlying the interpretation of the experimental results of the MMI experiment. Further, I have found the correct relationship between mass and energy, outing Einstein's wrong and stupid e=mcc for ever. I do not need to demonstrate anything more, for now. My ground-breaking, original work, which has stunning engineering consequences, has been accepted by Indian engineers and physicists - it took a few PhDs in Physics to agree that I was correct, or else Outlook magazine would not have carrried out their famous 2003 article, which in turn resulted from publicity in the Indian news media. Yes I need to do a lot of experimental work, and when I have the funding or backing will do so. Why I am not helped in this by the establishment, is telling. > > You are in fact incorrect in claiming that the speed of sound is > > increased when its source is moving toward the receiver and is > > decreased when the source is moving away. > > In any case, this is not germane to the issue of SR. You are just > making a statement. I dispute it. The only way out is to perform an > experiment and let third parties decide. I can only agree when things > are proven to me with experiment. True I have not performed an > experiment using radar and sonar, but my experience with subsonic > fighters going over my head is good enough. And it all can be shown > with maths, as I have indicated in earlier posts. No, it may be is good enough for you but not for a scientific approach!. Your math (C + v) shows only that you believe that light is propagated in the same way as a projectile (matter). You are just making that statement . It has yet to be demonstrated by you! AB: I am not responsible for your ignorance in wave motion. You are consistently refusing to accept all the points I have been making, that demonstrate the validity of my statements. I am not just making any statement, that is YOUR strategy. I have been making points that 10+ year old kids who are clever enough, can understand. Yes, it may help if I give a lecture on wave motion, but if you simply ignore it all and merely say that I am wrong, what is the point? Of course, that lecture will help 10+ year old kids, and for their sake, I will do it one day. You are wrongly trying to put an inductive logic to my effort, by making an analogy to the sound speed, but *my logic* in debunking the concept of the speed of light's invariance is DEDUCTIVE meaning it is PERFECT:LY SOUND and IRREFUTABLE limited only by the validity of assumption. The only assumption involved there, is that the Earth is moving. Since you do not dispute that, there is no way you or anyone else can hold with any degree of honesty that the speed of light is invariant. Since the speed of light is NOT invariant, the whole structure of SR and with it all of that not even voodoo known as modern physics crashes to the ground. > > Let us say that the speed of sound emitted from a stationary emitter > > is S. According to you, when the sound source is moving towards the > > receiver at a speed of v then the speed of the sound will increase > > from S to an additive speed of S + v. > > Yes. > > > Now consider a sound source moving towards the receiver at a speed of > > S. Again according to you, the sound will move at S + S = 2S. How > > then does a supersonic airplane or rocket break the sound barrier? > > The same way as a viman going at super light speed will break the so- > called light barrier. > What is really happening is that since the sound is travelling so > fast, it does not stay with the receiver on the ground for a long > time. Only a very short time, as the source is coming to him on the > ground. But as it leaves or goes the other way, it stays with the > receiver for a very long time. Surely you agree that is not a scientific statement. AB: If you are talking about the viman, it is a NOTIONAL statement, not irrelevant to the discussion here about breaking so-called barriers. What do you mean by the sound "does not stay with the receiver" for short or long times? Explain why you believe that sound "stays" anywhere or with anything. Do you not accept that sound is transient? AB: To quote what you wrote above: ((This is demonstrated, indepently of many experimental observations, by simple observation that a supersonic plane passes the observer before it is heard. Given your experience, you know well that the sonic boom lags the plane's arrival.)) I was talking about the same thing - that you can hear the plane coming at you (if it is subsonic) for a short time, but you can hear it depart for a much longer time. If it is supersonic you cannot hear it coming at all, but you can hear it go away for a very long time. Soldiers struck with bullets say much the same thing - you never hear the bullet that hits you! I have already shown the maths for all this, going by the variance of sound's speed. > > No matter how fast the plane is going it can never catch up to the the > > sound it emits because that sound will always exceed the speed of the > > plane (v) by S (the speed of sound from a stationary source). > > Yes, of course. Like if I throw out a beam of light from a viman > going at 2c, in the forward direction it will go at 3c and in the > backward at c. Of course the plane won't catch up with the sound it > emits. Why should it? > Throw out beams of light? This reveals your hang up with projectile physics. AB: If you want to quibble with semantics, and show contempt for that most useful physics relating to kinetics, that is your choice. Of course you can throw out a beam of light from any moving source. Can't you flash your torch when your car is moving? Similarly, if you are going at 2c, you can flash your torch out of the window into outer space. This latter, again, is NOTIONAL. According to you, the speed of sound emitted by the plane must be greater than the speed of the plane. That is, the actual speed of sound (S + V) is its intrinsic speed in air from a stationarry emittor (S) plus the speed of the plane that emits the sound (V). AB: It is the actual speed of sound between the transmitter and the receiver, yes. More formally, if the speed of sound is S, and the speed of the receiver is V(theta), then the actual speed is Vactual(theta) = S + V(theta). Got it? See how inconvenient this is for simple minds! The speed of sound is just not invariant, it varies with angle too. In one dimension, it is just plus or minus. But in the 2-d plane there is an angle involved. Just to make if a bit more complicated, in the real-world 3-D we have Vactual(theta, phi) = S +V(theta, phi) If this is so, you need to explain what it is that you understand by a moving object breaking the sound barrier! That can never happen if, as you claim, the speed of the sound emitted (S + V) is always faster than the speed of the emitter (V) AB: When a moving object goes past the speed of sound, nothing in particular happens to anything in the object. The air is still there, so it is business as usual. Let us consider one dimension. The plane is a distance S away from a still object, and moving at 2v. The speed of sound is thus v+2v= 3v. Thus when the plane is S distance away, the sound from it will arrive in time t = s/3v; when it is S/2 away it will arrive in time t=s/6v and so on. When S=0, the time is 0 of course. Now it is going past, and the speed of sound now is v-2v = -v. Meaning you never hear the sound, as it goes away from you since the emitter is supersonic. If it is supersonic! But if it was v or near v instead of 2v, then the speed of the sound would be a positive quantity meaning you could hear it. Like if it was 0.5 v, it would be v-0.5v = 0.5v. Thus from distance S, the sound would come in time s/0.5v or 2s/v. Which is more time than s/3v, as you see. This matches with the experience of subsonic planes that I have heard flying over me. >The speed of sound is independent of the speed of its source, > As I said, this is just a statement. No proof. I hold that it is an > incorrect statement, based upon my personal experiene of planes flying > over my head. Apparently, you have never experienced a supersonic plane flying over your head! It passes before you hear it. Simple as that! AB: Quite, you hear it very briefly and then never hear it again. As my maths involving the variance of sound speed shows. I was speaking from my experience with subsonic planes. A supersonic plane is quite another thing - the sound waves don't ever reach you after the plane has gone over you. So you see, if you flash a lightbulb out the rear of a viman flying at -2c (away from you), the speed of that light will be -c with respect to you and so you will never see it. > such > > > that a single shot fired from a gun mounted on a moving train will be > > heard at the same time by receivers located at the perimeter > > circumscibed by a radius centered by the point at which the gun was > > fired. > > Prove it. This is just a statement, and I feel sure it is completely > wrong. Feeling sure does'nt compute scientifically. AB: So do the experiment. > It can be done using military radar and sonar. > We will find that the speed of sound is different in different > directions for a moving object. It has already been established that this is not so. AB: You have done nothing of the sort. Would you take a small bet (winnings to go to a charity of our choice) against my claim that , everything else being equal (wind, temperature gradient, altitude , air density/pressure variations etc) it is a fact there is no significant difference in the speed of sound in different directions from a moving sound source? AB: Certainly. Provided I agree with the way the experiment is done, and am also deeply involved with it. I will not take anything on trust, of course. So many billions are being spent on research, why not some money on this experiment? I can come up with $1000 of my own money for this. Any research institute with funds, any interested govt. departments, please speak up! > This comes from the very nature of waves. Yes I need to elaborate on > this and maybe I will when I get more respect for my new and brilliant > theories. Please do elaborate; then we will see about the respect :-) AB: I will do so after the experiment you mentioned is performed to my satisfaction, and the satisfaction of unbiased parties. I also must note that all this WILL HAVE NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH THE WRONGNESS OF THE MMI EXPERIMENT ANALYSIS, which led to the wrong notion of light speed invariance, upon which the whole of SR is based. May I also note that these are mere diversionary tactics that you employ, to deflect from the main topic. > > That is the speed of sound from a moving (or stationary) > > emitter is the same constant (in still air) in every direction! > > The frequency of the sound will differ (Dopplar effect) but will be > > compensated by an appropriate change in wavelength according to Speed > > (constant) = frequency x wavelength. > > Exactly the sort of rubbish that was concocted to support the bullshit > SR theories - they had to make the speed of sound constant, like they > had to make the c constatnt! That is not correct. "They" do not believe that propagation of light is analogous to propagation of sound. "They" believe that matter (super sonic plane) can exceed the speed of sound (1,100 ft/sec). They do not believe that matter can exceed the speed of light (186,000 miles/sec). "They" believe that an observer (ear) moving in air at a speed of V experiences sound (hears) in a time inversely related to the actual speed of sound in air (S) plus or minus V. They do not believe the speed (V) of the observer or emittor changes the time in which light is experienced (seen). That is their problem, but why on earth do you suggest that they recruit the physics of sound to support their light theory? AB: Looks obvious to me. There is no other reason to hold the ridiculous notion that the wavelength actually shrinks. They all gang up to confuse matters, so as to get more funding. > The wavelength does not change, silly, the waves only move faster past > the receiver as the speed is now higher, and so the frequency count > goes up at the receiver. This is shown as the Doppler effect, which > proves the fact that the speed of sound varies with the speed of the > emitter. Incorrect. It proves only that the receiver experiences sound impulses more frequently. Just like the frequency of observation of highway light poles increases as a car speed is increased, The speed of the car does changes neither the distance between the light poles nor their actual frequency (number per mile) along the highway. . In contrast, if there was such a thing as a lightpole emittor (correction, emitter) that emits light poles at a constant number per unit of time, then the distance between light poles (wavelength), and hence their frequency (number per mile) along the highway, would depend on the motion of the light pole emitter. So it is with sound impulses in air. AB: If you agree that the wavelength does not change, but the frequency does, then you must agree that the speed of sound has to change correspondingly. > > Thus, you cannot use sound transmission as an analogy to support your > > claim that the speed of light is dependent on the motion of its > > source. Ps. I believe your additive notion of S + v is correct when v > > represents the rate of movement of the transmitting media towards a > > motionless reciever. For example, the movement of air (wind), the > > media transmitting sound. However, this cannot be applied to the > > aether that transmits light (or do you also contest that?). > > Please read carefully all that I have written, and you should > understand. It may take some time for you to unlearn the wrong > ideas. I think I have made all my points as clearly and simply as > possible. > I have read your claims carefully and it is clear that you are confused by what is involved in the Doppler sound effect. Changes in the speed of sound is not, as you claim, a factor in the different effects that result from the motion of the source and or receptor of the sound wavefront. Your claims for the propagation of light are based on an invalid analogy with the propagation of sound, and are therefore suspect. AB: I don't think there will be any use in replying to your post, and I have much better things to do, so feel free to have the last word. As an engineer, I go by results and I will know whether I or anyone else is correct, only when experiment correctly done and analysed, proves same. If you (or anyone like you) really have the means to create a proper experiment to prove or disprove the invariance of the speed of sound (that will be an interesting task) then do let me know by private email. Cheers, Arindam Banerjee. Regards Zinnic |