Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #430602 > unrolled thread
| Started by | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-08-31 14:30 -0700 |
| Last post | 2017-09-21 14:02 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 158 — 18 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
The flaws of SR kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-31 14:30 -0700
Re: The flaws of SR Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-31 16:50 -0500
Re: The flaws of SR Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-08-31 18:14 -0500
Re: The flaws of SR Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-01 19:37 +0000
Re: The flaws of SR Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-01 17:18 -0500
Re: The flaws of SR Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-01 17:25 -0500
Re: The flaws of SR Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-01 17:56 -0500
Re: The flaws of SR Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 11:59 -0500
Re: The flaws of SR Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-02 15:29 -0500
Re: The flaws of SR Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 20:45 +0000
Re: The flaws of SR Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-02 20:05 -0500
Re: The flaws of SR Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-05 08:38 -0500
Re: The flaws of SR mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-05 06:55 -0700
Re: The flaws of SR Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-05 16:14 -0500
Re: The flaws of SR Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-09-05 18:39 -0500
Re: The flaws of SR Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-06 02:01 -0500
Re: The flaws of SR Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-09-06 17:44 -0500
Re: The flaws of SR mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-06 15:59 -0700
Re: The flaws of SR Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-06 20:19 -0500
Re: The flaws of SR Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-09-06 21:37 -0500
Re: The flaws of SR Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-06 23:34 -0500
Re: The flaws of SR Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-09-07 04:01 -0700
Re: The flaws of SR mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-07 04:09 -0700
Re: The flaws of SR Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-09-07 04:50 -0700
Re: The flaws of SR mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-07 05:39 -0700
Re: The flaws of SR Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-09-07 07:27 -0700
Re: The flaws of SR Béèku Mická <bmik@owjfns.gh> - 2017-09-07 21:37 +0000
Re: The flaws of SR Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-07 18:30 -0500
Re: The flaws of SR Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-07 18:27 -0500
Re: The flaws of SR Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-09-07 20:54 -0700
Re: The flaws of SR Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-06 08:38 -0500
Re: The flaws of SR mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-02 01:02 -0700
Re: The flaws of SR kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-02 09:49 -0700
Re: The flaws of SR Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 12:09 -0500
Re: The flaws of SR Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-02 15:11 -0500
Re: The flaws of SR Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 20:45 +0000
Re: The flaws of SR Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-02 19:47 -0500
Re: The flaws of SR "R.B." <matt.rush200@outlook.com> - 2017-09-22 03:53 -0700
Re: The flaws of SR mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-01 01:29 -0700
Re: The flaws of SR Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-01 19:37 +0000
Re: The flaws of SR mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-01 14:48 -0700
Re: The flaws of SR kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-02 09:39 -0700
Re: The flaws of SR Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-02 12:03 -0500
Re: The flaws of SR kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-03 08:08 -0700
Re: The flaws of SR Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-05 08:48 -0500
Re: The flaws of SR mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-05 07:00 -0700
Re: The flaws of SR kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-05 08:19 -0700
Re: The flaws of SR moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-09-05 16:02 +0000
Re: The flaws of SR Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-05 16:10 -0500
Re: The flaws of SR kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-06 06:58 -0700
Re: The flaws of SR Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-06 09:03 -0500
Re: The flaws of SR mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-06 07:16 -0700
Re: The flaws of SR kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-07 07:04 -0700
Re: The flaws of SR Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-07 15:50 -0500
Re: The flaws of SR kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-08 06:09 -0700
Re: The flaws of SR Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-08 08:35 -0500
Re: The flaws of SR kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-08 07:59 -0700
Re: The flaws of SR Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-08 11:36 -0500
Re: The flaws of SR kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-09 07:50 -0700
Re: The flaws of SR "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-09 08:06 -0700
Re: The flaws of SR kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-09 09:59 -0700
Re: The flaws of SR "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-09 11:17 -0700
Re: The flaws of SR Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-09-09 11:37 -0700
Re: The flaws of SR Utorských Vitelé <hue@svwor.hh> - 2017-09-09 18:59 +0000
Re: The flaws of SR Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-09 18:37 -0500
Re: The flaws of SR Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-09-09 17:14 -0700
Re: The flaws of SR Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-10 01:45 -0500
Re: The flaws of SR Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-09-10 05:11 -0700
Re: The flaws of SR Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-10 09:08 -0500
Re: The flaws of SR Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-09-10 07:38 -0700
Re: The flaws of SR Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-10 09:43 -0500
Re: The flaws of SR Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-11 08:39 -0500
Re: The flaws of SR kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-11 09:15 -0700
Re: The flaws of SR Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-09-11 18:24 +0200
Re: The flaws of SR kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-12 06:45 -0700
Re: The flaws of SR Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-12 08:59 -0500
Re: The flaws of SR kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-12 08:13 -0700
Re: The flaws of SR Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-12 11:04 -0500
Re: The flaws of SR kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-12 14:03 -0700
Re: The flaws of SR Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-12 16:42 -0500
Re: The flaws of SR Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-12 16:48 -0500
Re: The flaws of SR Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-12 16:50 -0500
Re: The flaws of SR benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-09-12 18:04 -0400
Re: The flaws of SR Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-12 18:05 -0500
Re: The flaws of SR Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-12 11:15 -0500
Re: The flaws of SR kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-12 14:11 -0700
Re: The flaws of SR Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-12 16:43 -0500
Re: The flaws of SR benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-09-12 18:11 -0400
Re: The flaws of SR Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-12 18:06 -0500
Re: The flaws of SR moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-09-12 16:36 +0000
Re: The flaws of SR Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-12 09:02 -0500
Re: The flaws of SR Utorských Vitelé <hue@svwor.hh> - 2017-09-12 14:22 +0000
Re: The flaws of SR kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-12 14:26 -0700
Re: The flaws of SR Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-11 11:52 -0500
Re: The flaws of SR "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-11 09:58 -0700
Re: The flaws of SR "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-09-09 08:09 -0700
Re: The flaws of SR kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-09 10:08 -0700
Re: The flaws of SR "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-09-09 10:18 -0700
Re: The flaws of SR kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-09 21:15 -0700
Re: The flaws of SR "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-09 21:42 -0700
Re: The flaws of SR "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-09-09 21:49 -0700
Re: The flaws of SR kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-10 07:57 -0700
Re: The flaws of SR Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-11 08:38 -0500
Re: The flaws of SR Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-11 08:37 -0500
Re: The flaws of SR kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-11 08:59 -0700
Re: The flaws of SR kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-11 09:06 -0700
Re: The flaws of SR Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-09-11 18:21 +0200
Re: The flaws of SR Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-11 11:48 -0500
Re: The flaws of SR kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-11 15:35 -0700
Re: The flaws of SR Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-12 08:54 -0500
Re: The flaws of SR kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-12 08:37 -0700
Re: The flaws of SR Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-12 11:02 -0500
Re: The flaws of SR kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-12 13:54 -0700
Re: The flaws of SR Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-12 16:45 -0500
Re: The flaws of SR kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-12 14:21 -0700
Re: The flaws of SR Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-12 16:40 -0500
Re: The flaws of SR kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-13 09:09 -0700
Re: The flaws of SR Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-09-13 18:18 +0200
Re: The flaws of SR kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-14 05:56 -0700
Re: The flaws of SR Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-09-14 15:15 +0200
Re: The flaws of SR kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-21 12:09 -0700
Re: The flaws of SR Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-21 20:14 +0000
Re: The flaws of SR moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-09-21 23:10 +0000
Re: The flaws of SR Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-13 12:33 -0500
Re: The flaws of SR kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-14 06:05 -0700
Re: The flaws of SR Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-14 09:06 -0500
Re: The flaws of SR Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-09-14 16:00 +0000
Re: The flaws of SR Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-08-31 21:28 -0500
Re: The flaws of SR kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-01 05:57 -0700
Re: The flaws of SR Bídníkùm Laterá <bila@wehia.ui> - 2017-09-01 07:31 +0000
Re: The flaws of SR Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-09-01 12:21 +0200
Re: The flaws of SR Bídníkùm Laterá <bila@wehia.ui> - 2017-09-01 12:04 +0000
Re: The flaws of SR moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-09-01 12:30 +0000
Re: The flaws of SR Bídníkùm Laterá <bila@wehia.ui> - 2017-09-01 17:32 +0000
Re: The flaws of SR Bídníkùm Laterá <bila@wehia.ui> - 2017-09-01 17:36 +0000
Re: The flaws of Seto's misunderstanding of SR moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-09-01 13:03 +0000
The flaws of SR "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-02 06:38 -0700
Re: The flaws of SR kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-09-02 09:04 -0700
Re: The flaws of SR moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-09-03 04:05 +0000
Re: The flaws of SR "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-02 21:18 -0700
Re: The flaws of SR JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-09-06 16:13 -0700
Re: The flaws of SR Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-06 20:26 -0500
The flaws of SR "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-09 12:10 -0700
The flaws of SR "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-09 13:31 -0700
The flaws of SR "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-09 13:34 -0700
The flaws of SR "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-09 14:40 -0700
The flaws of SR "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-10 05:51 -0700
The flaws of SR "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-10 09:55 -0700
The flaws of SR "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-10 10:06 -0700
The flaws of SR "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-10 10:45 -0700
The flaws of SR "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-10 10:48 -0700
The flaws of SR "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-10 10:53 -0700
Re: The flaws of SR numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-09-09 14:18 -0700
Re: The flaws of SR numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-09-09 14:42 -0700
Re: The flaws of SR numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-09-09 14:45 -0700
Re: The flaws of SR "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-09 15:42 -0700
Re: The flaws of SR numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-09-21 12:46 -0700
Re: The flaws of SR Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2017-09-21 14:02 -0700
Page 5 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-12 16:48 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <op9ko8$1pj0$5@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #432080 |
On 9/12/17 4:42 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 9/12/17 4:03 PM, kenseto wrote: >> On Tuesday, September 12, 2017 at 12:04:26 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> On 9/12/17 10:13 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>> On Tuesday, September 12, 2017 at 9:59:08 AM UTC-4, Ned Latham wrote: >>>>> kenseto wrote: >>>>>> Python wrote: >>>>>>> kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yes the Inverse square law also applies to sound and that???s why >>>>>>>> frequency (the loudness of sound) of sound diminishes over a large >>>>>>>> distance. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Frequency and loudness are different (and independent) >>>>>>> characteristics >>>>>>> of sound, Mr Seto. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Have you ever been using a stereo set in your miserable life? >>>>>> >>>>>> Moron at a large distance the frequency and loudness of sound >>>>>> disappear completely......so there is a relationship between >>>>>> frequency and loudness of sound. >>>>> h decrease >>>>> You're quite wrong about that, Kenseto. Frequency determines pitch >>>>> (the notes you hear); amplitude is what determines loudness, And >>>>> as Python said, they’re completely independent. >>>> >>>> An approaching siren: the pitch (frequency) increases and the >>>> loudness increases. >>> >>> No, the pitch does not increase. The pitch is initially high and then it >>> DECREASES as the siren gets closer, while the loudness increases. >> >> The pitch does get increase > > No, it doesn't. Simple observation shows this. Not your imagination. > Real observation. Listen for yourself. Do you hear the pitch increasing? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-hBCcmCUPg > >> until after the source passed the observer. It get decrees after the >> source passed the observer. This is their grade math and physics. >> Similarly the loudness increase as the siren approaches the observer >> and it decreases as the source passed the observer. This disproved >> your point that loudness is only dependent on amplitude. >> >>> >>> Loudness and frequency are different and independent. This is what a >>> high school student knows. You’re arguing about high school physics. >> >> It appears that you don’t know high school physics. No wonder you are >> merely a woodworker. > > I do think it's hysterical that a bigoted chemical engineer who can't do > 3rd grade math is trying to talk down to a woodworker. As though that is > a lowly occupation. > >> >>> >>>> A receding siren: the pitch (frequency) decreases and the loudness >>>> decreases. >>>> >>>> This means that the same amplitude of the source, the siren, give >>>> different loudness. Therefore the different loudness detected from a >>>> moving siren is dependent on frequency and frequency is dependent >>>> >>on distance from the source. >> >> No answer??? >> > > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-12 16:50 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <op9kqm$1pj0$6@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #432083 |
On 9/12/17 4:48 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 9/12/17 4:42 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 9/12/17 4:03 PM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Tuesday, September 12, 2017 at 12:04:26 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 9/12/17 10:13 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> On Tuesday, September 12, 2017 at 9:59:08 AM UTC-4, Ned Latham wrote: >>>>>> kenseto wrote: >>>>>>> Python wrote: >>>>>>>> kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Yes the Inverse square law also applies to sound and that???s why >>>>>>>>> frequency (the loudness of sound) of sound diminishes over a large >>>>>>>>> distance. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Frequency and loudness are different (and independent) >>>>>>>> characteristics >>>>>>>> of sound, Mr Seto. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Have you ever been using a stereo set in your miserable life? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Moron at a large distance the frequency and loudness of sound >>>>>>> disappear completely......so there is a relationship between >>>>>>> frequency and loudness of sound. >>>>>> h decrease >>>>>> You're quite wrong about that, Kenseto. Frequency determines pitch >>>>>> (the notes you hear); amplitude is what determines loudness, And >>>>>> as Python said, they’re completely independent. >>>>> >>>>> An approaching siren: the pitch (frequency) increases and the >>>>> loudness increases. >>>> >>>> No, the pitch does not increase. The pitch is initially high and >>>> then it >>>> DECREASES as the siren gets closer, while the loudness increases. >>> >>> The pitch does get increase >> >> No, it doesn't. Simple observation shows this. Not your imagination. >> Real observation. > > Listen for yourself. Do you hear the pitch increasing? > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-hBCcmCUPg Here's another. Do you hear the pitch go up? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXxcwFfovkc > > >> >>> until after the source passed the observer. It get decrees after the >>> source passed the observer. This is their grade math and physics. >>> Similarly the loudness increase as the siren approaches the observer >>> and it decreases as the source passed the observer. This disproved >>> your point that loudness is only dependent on amplitude. >>> >>>> >>>> Loudness and frequency are different and independent. This is what a >>>> high school student knows. You’re arguing about high school physics. >>> >>> It appears that you don’t know high school physics. No wonder you are >>> merely a woodworker. >> >> I do think it's hysterical that a bigoted chemical engineer who can't >> do 3rd grade math is trying to talk down to a woodworker. As though >> that is a lowly occupation. >> >>> >>>> >>>>> A receding siren: the pitch (frequency) decreases and the loudness >>>>> decreases. >>>>> >>>>> This means that the same amplitude of the source, the siren, give >>>>> different loudness. Therefore the different loudness detected from >>>>> a moving siren is dependent on frequency and frequency is dependent >>>>> >>on distance from the source. >>> >>> No answer??? >>> >> >> > > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-12 18:04 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <59b859d8$0$35407$b1db1813$982ccf97@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #432080 |
On 9/12/2017 5:42 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 9/12/17 4:03 PM, kenseto wrote: >> On Tuesday, September 12, 2017 at 12:04:26 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> On 9/12/17 10:13 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>> On Tuesday, September 12, 2017 at 9:59:08 AM UTC-4, Ned Latham wrote: >>>>> kenseto wrote: >>>>>> Python wrote: >>>>>>> kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yes the Inverse square law also applies to sound and that???s why >>>>>>>> frequency (the loudness of sound) of sound diminishes over a large >>>>>>>> distance. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Frequency and loudness are different (and independent) >>>>>>> characteristics >>>>>>> of sound, Mr Seto. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Have you ever been using a stereo set in your miserable life? >>>>>> >>>>>> Moron at a large distance the frequency and loudness of sound >>>>>> disappear completely......so there is a relationship between >>>>>> frequency and loudness of sound. >>>>> h decrease >>>>> You're quite wrong about that, Kenseto. Frequency determines pitch >>>>> (the notes you hear); amplitude is what determines loudness, And >>>>> as Python said, they’re completely independent. >>>> >>>> An approaching siren: the pitch (frequency) increases and the >>>> loudness increases. >>> >>> No, the pitch does not increase. The pitch is initially high and then it >>> DECREASES as the siren gets closer, while the loudness increases. >> >> The pitch does get increase > > No, it doesn't. Simple observation shows this. Not your imagination. > Real observation. > >> until after the source passed the observer. It get decrees after the >> source passed the observer. This is their grade math and physics. >> Similarly the loudness increase as the siren approaches the observer >> and it decreases as the source passed the observer. This disproved >> your point that loudness is only dependent on amplitude. >> >>> >>> Loudness and frequency are different and independent. This is what a >>> high school student knows. You’re arguing about high school physics. >> >> It appears that you don’t know high school physics. No wonder you are >> merely a woodworker. > > I do think it's hysterical that a bigoted chemical engineer who can't do > 3rd grade math is trying to talk down to a woodworker. As though that is > a lowly occupation. It's not? Of course I heard many woodworkers have PhDs in English literature or something equally useless. Someone with any credentials in science (me) would NEVER have to stoop to wood working to make a few bucks.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-12 18:05 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <op9p78$1vm$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #432085 |
On 9/12/17 5:04 PM, benj wrote: > It's not? Of course I heard many woodworkers have PhDs in English > literature or something equally useless. Someone with any credentials in > science (me) would NEVER have to stoop to wood working to make a few bucks. Oh, Ben, I know you're just stirring the pot and you would never honestly claim that one has to stoop to being a seasoned craftsman. I know you're joking, but it's a pretty lame joke. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-12 11:15 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <op917k$iqg$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #432039 |
On 9/12/17 10:13 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Tuesday, September 12, 2017 at 9:59:08 AM UTC-4, Ned Latham wrote: >> kenseto wrote: >>> Python wrote: >>>> kenseto wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Yes the Inverse square law also applies to sound and that???s why >>>>> frequency (the loudness of sound) of sound diminishes over a large >>>>> distance. >>>> >>>> Frequency and loudness are different (and independent) characteristics >>>> of sound, Mr Seto. >>>> >>>> Have you ever been using a stereo set in your miserable life? >>> >>> Moron at a large distance the frequency and loudness of sound >>> disappear completely......so there is a relationship between >>> frequency and loudness of sound. >> h decrease >> You're quite wrong about that, Kenseto. Frequency determines pitch >> (the notes you hear); amplitude is what determines loudness, And >> as Python said, they’re completely independent. > > An approaching siren: the pitch (frequency) increases and the loudness increases. Nope. Open this link. It's a high school lesson on Doppler shift. Scroll down to Figure 8. That's the frequency of a passing siren. See any frequency increasing? http://cnx.org/contents/rWlPLo_M@4/Doppler-Effect-and-Sonic-Booms > A receding siren: the pitch (frequency) decreases and the loudness decreases. > > This means that the same amplitude of the source, the siren, give different loudness. Therefore the different loudness detected from a moving siren is dependent on frequency and frequency is dependent on distance from the source. > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-12 14:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7b2b0035-f20f-4060-94e2-442824a032fd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #432045 |
On Tuesday, September 12, 2017 at 12:15:54 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 9/12/17 10:13 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Tuesday, September 12, 2017 at 9:59:08 AM UTC-4, Ned Latham wrote: > >> kenseto wrote: > >>> Python wrote: > >>>> kenseto wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Yes the Inverse square law also applies to sound and that???s why > >>>>> frequency (the loudness of sound) of sound diminishes over a large > >>>>> distance. > >>>> > >>>> Frequency and loudness are different (and independent) characteristics > >>>> of sound, Mr Seto. > >>>> > >>>> Have you ever been using a stereo set in your miserable life? > >>> > >>> Moron at a large distance the frequency and loudness of sound > >>> disappear completely......so there is a relationship between > >>> frequency and loudness of sound. > >> h decrease > >> You're quite wrong about that, Kenseto. Frequency determines pitch > >> (the notes you hear); amplitude is what determines loudness, And > >> as Python said, they’re completely independent. > > > > An approaching siren: the pitch (frequency) increases and the loudness increases. > > Nope. > Open this link. It's a high school lesson on Doppler shift. Scroll down > to Figure 8. That's the frequency of a passing siren. See any frequency > increasing? The author said perceived frequency......it is not measured frequency. An approaching siren will increase in pitch. A third grader can tell you that. > > http://cnx.org/contents/rWlPLo_M@4/Doppler-Effect-and-Sonic-Booms > > > > A receding siren: the pitch (frequency) decreases and the loudness decreases. > > > > This means that the same amplitude of the source, the siren, give different loudness. Therefore the different loudness detected from a moving siren is dependent on frequency and frequency is dependent on distance from the source. > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-12 16:43 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <op9keb$1pj0$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #432075 |
On 9/12/17 4:11 PM, kenseto wrote: > On Tuesday, September 12, 2017 at 12:15:54 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 9/12/17 10:13 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Tuesday, September 12, 2017 at 9:59:08 AM UTC-4, Ned Latham wrote: >>>> kenseto wrote: >>>>> Python wrote: >>>>>> kenseto wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes the Inverse square law also applies to sound and that???s why >>>>>>> frequency (the loudness of sound) of sound diminishes over a large >>>>>>> distance. >>>>>> >>>>>> Frequency and loudness are different (and independent) characteristics >>>>>> of sound, Mr Seto. >>>>>> >>>>>> Have you ever been using a stereo set in your miserable life? >>>>> >>>>> Moron at a large distance the frequency and loudness of sound >>>>> disappear completely......so there is a relationship between >>>>> frequency and loudness of sound. >>>> h decrease >>>> You're quite wrong about that, Kenseto. Frequency determines pitch >>>> (the notes you hear); amplitude is what determines loudness, And >>>> as Python said, they’re completely independent. >>> >>> An approaching siren: the pitch (frequency) increases and the loudness increases. >> >> Nope. >> Open this link. It's a high school lesson on Doppler shift. Scroll down >> to Figure 8. That's the frequency of a passing siren. See any frequency >> increasing? > > The author said perceived frequency......it is not measured frequency. An approaching siren will increase in pitch. No it doesn't. > A third grader can tell you that. Well, let's ask a third grader, shall we? What are you going to do when a 3rd grader knows more than you? >> >> http://cnx.org/contents/rWlPLo_M@4/Doppler-Effect-and-Sonic-Booms >> >> >>> A receding siren: the pitch (frequency) decreases and the loudness decreases. >>> >>> This means that the same amplitude of the source, the siren, give different loudness. Therefore the different loudness detected from a moving siren is dependent on frequency and frequency is dependent on distance from the source. >>> >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-12 18:11 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <59b85bc6$0$26173$b1db1813$bfc93781@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #432081 |
On 9/12/2017 5:43 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 9/12/17 4:11 PM, kenseto wrote: >> On Tuesday, September 12, 2017 at 12:15:54 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> On 9/12/17 10:13 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>> On Tuesday, September 12, 2017 at 9:59:08 AM UTC-4, Ned Latham wrote: >>>>> kenseto wrote: >>>>>> Python wrote: >>>>>>> kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yes the Inverse square law also applies to sound and that???s why >>>>>>>> frequency (the loudness of sound) of sound diminishes over a large >>>>>>>> distance. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Frequency and loudness are different (and independent) >>>>>>> characteristics >>>>>>> of sound, Mr Seto. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Have you ever been using a stereo set in your miserable life? >>>>>> >>>>>> Moron at a large distance the frequency and loudness of sound >>>>>> disappear completely......so there is a relationship between >>>>>> frequency and loudness of sound. >>>>> h decrease >>>>> You're quite wrong about that, Kenseto. Frequency determines pitch >>>>> (the notes you hear); amplitude is what determines loudness, And >>>>> as Python said, they’re completely independent. >>>> >>>> An approaching siren: the pitch (frequency) increases and the >>>> loudness increases. >>> >>> Nope. >>> Open this link. It's a high school lesson on Doppler shift. Scroll down >>> to Figure 8. That's the frequency of a passing siren. See any frequency >>> increasing? >> >> The author said perceived frequency......it is not measured >> frequency. An approaching siren will increase in pitch. > > No it doesn't. Yes it does you ignorant moron. Go look up the formula: (I can't print it here...basically f(W/W + or - S) >> A third grader can tell you that. > > Well, let's ask a third grader, shall we? > What are you going to do when a 3rd grader knows more than you? WE got a Third grader right here: It's woodworker Odd. >>> >>> http://cnx.org/contents/rWlPLo_M@4/Doppler-Effect-and-Sonic-Booms >>> >>> >>>> A receding siren: the pitch (frequency) decreases and the loudness >>>> decreases. >>>> >>>> This means that the same amplitude of the source, the siren, give >>>> different loudness. Therefore the different loudness detected from a >>>> moving siren is dependent on frequency and frequency is dependent on >>>> distance from the source. >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >> > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-12 18:06 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <op9p90$1vm$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #432086 |
On 9/12/17 5:11 PM, benj wrote: > On 9/12/2017 5:43 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 9/12/17 4:11 PM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Tuesday, September 12, 2017 at 12:15:54 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 9/12/17 10:13 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> On Tuesday, September 12, 2017 at 9:59:08 AM UTC-4, Ned Latham wrote: >>>>>> kenseto wrote: >>>>>>> Python wrote: >>>>>>>> kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Yes the Inverse square law also applies to sound and that???s why >>>>>>>>> frequency (the loudness of sound) of sound diminishes over a large >>>>>>>>> distance. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Frequency and loudness are different (and independent) >>>>>>>> characteristics >>>>>>>> of sound, Mr Seto. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Have you ever been using a stereo set in your miserable life? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Moron at a large distance the frequency and loudness of sound >>>>>>> disappear completely......so there is a relationship between >>>>>>> frequency and loudness of sound. >>>>>> h decrease >>>>>> You're quite wrong about that, Kenseto. Frequency determines pitch >>>>>> (the notes you hear); amplitude is what determines loudness, And >>>>>> as Python said, they’re completely independent. >>>>> >>>>> An approaching siren: the pitch (frequency) increases and the >>>>> loudness increases. >>>> >>>> Nope. >>>> Open this link. It's a high school lesson on Doppler shift. Scroll down >>>> to Figure 8. That's the frequency of a passing siren. See any frequency >>>> increasing? >>> >>> The author said perceived frequency......it is not measured >>> frequency. An approaching siren will increase in pitch. >> >> No it doesn't. > > Yes it does you ignorant moron. Go look up the formula: (I can't print > it here...basically f(W/W + or - S) The pitch rises as the siren approaches? I know you're late to the conversation, Ben, be careful in while piles you step. > >>> A third grader can tell you that. >> >> Well, let's ask a third grader, shall we? >> What are you going to do when a 3rd grader knows more than you? > > WE got a Third grader right here: It's woodworker Odd. > >>>> >>>> http://cnx.org/contents/rWlPLo_M@4/Doppler-Effect-and-Sonic-Booms >>>> >>>> >>>>> A receding siren: the pitch (frequency) decreases and the loudness >>>>> decreases. >>>>> >>>>> This means that the same amplitude of the source, the siren, give >>>>> different loudness. Therefore the different loudness detected from >>>>> a moving siren is dependent on frequency and frequency is dependent >>>>> on distance from the source. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>> >> >> > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-12 16:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <op92es$iee$3@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #432039 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Tuesday, September 12, 2017 at 9:59:08 AM UTC-4, Ned Latham wrote: >> kenseto wrote: >> > Moron at a large distance the frequency and loudness of sound >> > disappear completely......so there is a relationship between >> > frequency and loudness of sound. >> h decrease= >> You're quite wrong about that, Kenseto. Frequency determines pitch >> (the notes you hear); amplitude is what determines loudness, And >> as Python said, they're completely independent. >An approaching siren: the pitch (frequency) increases and the loudness increases. >A receding siren: the pitch (frequency) decreases and the loudness decreases. >This means that the same amplitude of the source, the siren, give different >loudness. Therefore the different loudness detected from a moving siren is >dependent on frequency and frequency is dependent on distance from the source. Oh man, Stupid Ken, I never realized that you were *that* stupid! Where is Dirk's "Fumbles" page? Don't you know the difference between the Doppler Effect and the Inverse Square law? No wonder you're called Stupid Ken!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-12 09:02 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <op8pco$1mt$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #432025 |
On 9/12/17 8:45 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Monday, September 11, 2017 at 12:24:13 PM UTC-4, Python wrote: >> kenseto wrote: >>> Yes the Inverse square law also applies to sound and that’s why >>> frequency (the loudness of sound) of sound diminishes over a large >>> distance. >> >> Frequency and loudness are different (and independent) characteristics >> of sound, Mr Seto. >> >> Have you ever been using a stereo set in your miserable life? > > Moron at a large distance the frequency No. The frequency doesn't change at all. > and loudness of sound disappear completely. Completely? No. The inverse square law says the loudness never quite gets to zero. Do you know what the inverse square law says? I'm not talking about what your ears tell you. I'm talking about what the inverse square law tells you. > .....so there is a relationship between frequency and loudness of sound. > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Utorských Vitelé <hue@svwor.hh> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-12 14:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <op8qiq$4hr$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #432025 |
kenseto wrote: >> Frequency and loudness are different (and independent) characteristics >> of sound, Mr Seto. >> Have you ever been using a stereo set in your miserable life? > > Moron at a large distance the frequency and loudness of sound disappear > completely......so there is a relationship between frequency and > loudness of sound. Excellent observation, Dr. Kenseto. That's why you put the HF amplifier BEFORE the FILTER, otherwise you have nothing to be filtered out. Alot of relativists around here are not aware of this thing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-12 14:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <740d6ff3-8a64-440e-afcb-84ecaeb82366@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #431917 |
On Monday, September 11, 2017 at 12:24:13 PM UTC-4, Python wrote: > kenseto wrote: > > Yes the Inverse square law also applies to sound and that’s why > > frequency (the loudness of sound) of sound diminishes over a large > > distance. > > Frequency and loudness are different (and independent) characteristics > of sound, Mr Seto. > > Have you ever been using a stereo set in your miserable life? Hey moron..... An approaching siren: the pitch will increase and the loudness will also increase While the amplitude remains the same. It appear that you are so fucking stupid that you don’t know ordinary observations.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-11 11:52 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <op6evp$1ose$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #431915 |
On 9/11/17 11:15 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Monday, September 11, 2017 at 9:39:14 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 9/9/17 9:50 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Friday, September 8, 2017 at 12:36:41 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 9/8/17 9:59 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> On Friday, September 8, 2017 at 9:35:33 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> On 9/8/17 8:09 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>> On Thursday, September 7, 2017 at 4:50:36 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>> On 9/7/17 9:04 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, September 6, 2017 at 10:03:10 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 9/6/17 8:58 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 5:10:25 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/5/17 10:19 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, September 5, 2017 at 9:48:16 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/17 10:08 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, September 2, 2017 at 1:03:40 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/2/17 11:39 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, August 31, 2017 at 5:50:03 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/31/17 4:30 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The flaws of SR: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Constant light speed in all inertial frames. By definition the speed of anything is observer dependent. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is no such definition of speed in physics that requires that the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> speed of anything is observer dependent. The speed of SOME things is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> observer dependent, but not everything. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The speed of anything is observer dependent. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That’s simply not true. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That’s true in our universe. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Assertion is not an argument. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...if you think that’s not so please give us some examples of anything that is not observer dependent. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The speed of light is not observer dependent. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The speed of light is not observer dependent because physicists redefine the meter to be: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1 meter=1/299,792458 light-seconds >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Check your history. This redefinition happened a few decades AFTER the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> speed of light was determined experimentally to be observer independent. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you think the observer-independence of light speed will suddenly >>>>>>>>>>>>>> change sometime after the redefinition of the meter? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> So why is there a need t redefine the meter? The OWLS never been measured directly......so you are a lying sack of shit. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The observer-independence of the speed of light is firmly determined by >>>>>>>>>>>> a combination of TWLS measurements and isotropy experiments. Though you >>>>>>>>>>>> would DESIRE a OWLS measurement, it is completely unnecessary, given the >>>>>>>>>>>> constraints already obtained from the other measurements. What you >>>>>>>>>>>> DESIRE is not needed. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Nope TWLS isotropy >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Two. Separate. Experimental. Results. >>>>>>>>>> Result one: Measurement of TWLS. >>>>>>>>>> Result two: Isotropy of light speed. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Nope....TWLS is based on the average of different one-way light speed. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The ISOTROPY experiment proves that you cannot have two different >>>>>>>> one-way light speeds! That's the whole fucking point about isotropy >>>>>>>> measurements. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The whole fucking points are: >>>>>>> 1. TWLS isotropy is based on the average of different one-way light speed. >>>>>> >>>>>> No, it is not. That is algebraically impossible, given the isotropy of >>>>>> the speed of light. >>>>>> >>>>>>> 2. OWLS isotropy in the lab cannot be assumed by measuring phase shift or doppler shift measurements in short distances in the lab. Why? Because phase or doppler shifts is affected by large distances due to the inverse square law. >>>>>> >>>>>> If you disbelieve that light speed isotropy has been established in >>>>>> experiment, you can write to the experimenters and tell them what they >>>>>> did wrong. >>>>>> >>>>>> I believe that light speed isotropy has been firmly experimentally >>>>>> established. No one owes it to you to convince you this is in fact the >>>>>> case. You can choose to disbelieve anything your heart desires. >>>>>> Meanwhile physicists know that light speed isotropy has been >>>>>> experimentally established, period. >>>>> >>>>> Moron, I told you that the current one-way isotropy measurement in the lab is not valid for large distances due to the inverse square law. >>>> >>>> Go ahead and explain that to the physicists who performed the >>>> experiments. I’m sure they'll have a good laugh. >>> >>> Moron woodworker.....my argument is based on the well known experimentally verified: The Inverse Square Law. >> >> Inverse square law has no bearing on transmission speed. None. > > ASSERTION IS NOT A VALID ARGUMENT. But your clear demonstration of ignorance is. > I didn’t say that the Inverse square law has bearing on transmission speed of light. I said that the Inverse Square law will affect the phase and doppler shifts of light over a late distance What evidence do you have that the inverse square law has any effect on phase or on doppler shift? Any evidence at all, Ken..... > and thus the short distance measurements of phase or doppler shifts are not valid for use to determine the one-way isotropy of the speed of light. > >> The inverse square law applies to sound too, say from a firecracker or a >> thunderclap. Do you really think the speed of sound diminishes with the >> square of the distance? > > Yes the Inverse square law also applies to sound and that’s why frequency (the loudness of sound) of sound diminishes over a large distance. So what is your point? Ken, the frequency of sound is not related to the loudness of sound. Moreover, the frequency of sound does not diminish with distance. Do you have experimental evidence otherwise? You are increasingly out of touch with the basics of physics. You don't know the difference between light speed measurements and isotropy measurements. You don't know the difference between frequency and amplitude. You don't know the difference between loudness and pitch. > >> >>> >>>> >>>> You have the native-born right to disbelieve anything you choose. Some >>>> of those choices will be idiotic, but does not detract from your right >>>> to be an idiot. No one will try to convince you to believe anything you >>>> don't want to believe. >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> 3. BTW that’s why you need to measure OWLS directly to determine the constancy and isotropy of OWLS. Physicists know that such measurements will refute the P2 and that’s why they refuse to make any such direct measurements. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Light speed from A to B is the same as light speed from B to A. That's >>>>>>>> what isotropy MEANS, you idiot. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Nope.....that’s your naive and wrong assumption. It appears that you are the idiot. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-11 09:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b5a15664-020e-420a-bad6-ff959cf87ecd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #431925 |
You Guys are DUMB ... Or purposefully OBFUSCATING https://goo.gl/KnqFcc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-09 08:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <cecc995d-10a7-4191-8617-f1f83d5e9919@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #431464 |
On Thursday, September 7, 2017 at 7:04:06 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > > Nope....TWLS is based on the average of different one-way light speed. >Therefore you can’t claim that OWLS is the same as TWLS. No one claims that , Shito. > Also OWLS isotropy cannot be determined in the lab. It must be measured over a long distance. What gives you this bright idea, Shito? >Why because distance will affect phase and doppler shifts due to the inverse square law. > Phase and frequency shifts do not affect speed, Shito.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-09 10:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fd191d5a-ae2c-425f-b43d-1b37a9048e2d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #431690 |
On Saturday, September 9, 2017 at 11:09:11 AM UTC-4, Dono, wrote: > On Thursday, September 7, 2017 at 7:04:06 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > > > > Nope....TWLS is based on the average of different one-way light speed. >Therefore you can’t claim that OWLS is the same as TWLS. > > No one claims that , Shito. Moron they claim that OWLS isotropy is the same as TWLS isotropy and therefore OWLS is equal to TWLS. > > Also OWLS isotropy cannot be determined in the lab. It must be measured over a long distance. > > What gives you this bright idea, Shito? Moron.....te Inverse Square Law. Gee you are stupid. > >Why because distance will affect phase and doppler shifts due to the inverse square law. > Phase and frequency shifts do not affect speed, Shito. Moron.....they claimed that same phase or frequency for one-way light beam over a short distance in the lab means that OWLS isotropy is is the same as TWLS isotropy and thus the OWLS is the same as TWLS.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-09 10:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <453d305b-1cef-4c88-a82c-82ede96021c4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #431699 |
On Saturday, September 9, 2017 at 10:08:27 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > On Saturday, September 9, 2017 at 11:09:11 AM UTC-4, Dono, wrote: > > On Thursday, September 7, 2017 at 7:04:06 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > > > > > > Nope....TWLS is based on the average of different one-way light speed. >Therefore you can’t claim that OWLS is the same as TWLS. > > > > No one claims that , Shito. > > they claim that OWLS isotropy is the same as TWLS isotropy and therefore OWLS is equal to TWLS. > No one claims that, Shito > > > Also OWLS isotropy cannot be determined in the lab. It must be measured over a long distance. > > > > What gives you this bright idea, Shito? > > Moron.....te Inverse Square Law. Gee you are stupid. > The inverse SQUARE law has nothing to do with light speed, Shito > > >Why because distance will affect phase and doppler shifts due to the inverse square law. > > > Phase and frequency shifts do not affect speed, Shito. > > Moron.....they claimed that same phase or frequency for one-way light beam over a short distance in the lab means that OWLS isotropy is is the same as TWLS isotropy and thus the OWLS is the same as TWLS. Nope, Shito. You were born a cretin, your only consolation is that you will die a cretin.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-09 21:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9202f376-506e-4500-abc0-b940da0ed04f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #431700 |
On Saturday, September 9, 2017 at 1:18:53 PM UTC-4, Dono, wrote: > On Saturday, September 9, 2017 at 10:08:27 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > > On Saturday, September 9, 2017 at 11:09:11 AM UTC-4, Dono, wrote: > > > On Thursday, September 7, 2017 at 7:04:06 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > > Nope....TWLS is based on the average of different one-way light speed. >Therefore you can’t claim that OWLS is the same as TWLS. > > > > > > No one claims that , Shito. > > > > they claim that OWLS isotropy is the same as TWLS isotropy and therefore OWLS is equal to TWLS. > > > > No one claims that, Shito > > > > > > Also OWLS isotropy cannot be determined in the lab. It must be measured over a long distance. > > > > > > What gives you this bright idea, Shito? > > > > Moron.....te Inverse Square Law. Gee you are stupid. > > > > The inverse SQUARE law has nothing to do with light speed, Shito Moron ......yes it has everything to do with light speed if you claim that one-way isotropy in the lab based on short distance measurements is the same as one-way ISOTROPY MEASUREMENT OVER A LONG DISTANCE......it is not the same. The Inverse square law will have significant effect on phase and doppler shift over a long distance. That means it will have significant effect on the one-way isotropy of the speed of light and thus the one-way speed of light. > > > > > >Why because distance will affect phase and doppler shifts due to the inverse square law. > > > > > Phase and frequency shifts do not affect speed, Shito. > > > > Moron.....they claimed that same phase or frequency for one-way light beam over a short distance in the lab means that OWLS isotropy is is the same as TWLS isotropy and thus the OWLS is the same as TWLS. > > Nope, Shito. You were born a cretin, your only consolation is that you will die a cretin.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-09 21:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c8f70197-cbd8-4dbe-983b-544a1f9fa21a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #431749 |
Kenseto wrote Moron ......yes it has everything to do with light speed if you claim that one-way isotropy in the lab based on short distance measurements is the same as one-way ISOTROPY MEASUREMENT OVER A LONG DISTANCE......it is not the same. The Inverse square law will have significant effect on phase and doppler shift over a long distance. That means it will have significant effect on the one-way isotropy of the speed of light and thus the one-way speed of light. Bulk Modulus & Wave speed formulas, As well as (Energy^2/Viscosity) account for simultaneous two way transmission of waves & information
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web