You're incapable of upholding an honest discussion, and so you don't deserve much consideration.
You're either genuinely incapable of keeping track of what you're reading (which I do not believe to be the case), or you're lying, as you're well known to do.
you still fail to avoid mounting ridiculous strawman attacks. If it's really such a burden to respond to my posts and not your misrepresentations thereof, then perhaps you should consider talking to someone else.
you're being dishonest.
I do not accept for a second that you're stupid enough to take what I said and, in good faith, assume that it means the opposite of what I said. You just really enjoy strawmen
There is a third possibility that you have failed to consider: maybe you don't "substantiate my position, present supporting articles, and explain why the articles support my case" to the degree that you think you do. Maybe you just aren't super clear about what you're tying to say all the time, and, perhaps without realizing it, you kind of hide your own point under a pile of snide remarks. I know for a fact that I'm not the first person on this forum to tell you that.
Yes, that velocity would be the speed of light (also known as c).
There's a reason I was talking about velocity and not speed. Can you guess what it is?
The speed of light is a constant
Well, kind of. We both know why you're wrong (hint: if you were right, we'd both be dead right now), but you're close enough, so let's roll with it.
regardless of your frame of reference.
Again, kind of. Of course, this is all moot, because we're talking about velocity.
The Doppler effect refers to the change in frequency of a signal, not in its velocity.
Actually, it kind of refers to both. Specifically, a change in the medium's velocity is going to cause a Doppler effect, which is exactly what happens here.
I think that you're the one who has demonstrated a misunderstanding of the Doppler effect.
I don't particularly care what you think. I provided you with enough information for you to fill in the gaps in your high school knowledge. Whether or not you will do so is entirely your prerogative.
I omitted this section because you don't really say much. We'll have to agree to disagree I'm sure, but I think it's kind of laughable to suggest that this smattering of sentences represents "substantiat[ing] my position, present[ing] supporting articles, and explain[ing] why the articles support my case." Your answers are, in order: 1) can you guess what I mean? 2) Kind of. 3) Kind of. 4) "a change in the medium's velocity is going to cause a Doppler effect, which is exactly what happens here." 5) I posted some Wikipedia links, so figure it out yourself.
These answers aren't exactly direct. Pretty much none of them are apropos of my question, except for number 4, from which I guess I'm supposed to infer that you believe that the earth is accelerating through the aether and also the aether is accelerating on its own at varying magnitudes and directions. I dunno how I could infer that from your remark, but ok.
Frankly, I read this sentence as, "if the velocity of the medium changes (ie, if the earth accelerates through the stationary medium), then there will be a Doppler effect, and that's what's happening." And, again, you could have clarified this misunderstanding for me in a single post of about two sentences without the complete derailment of the discussion to make everyone read about how much you dislike me.
If you make up a "satellite" and describe it in such a way that its Doppler shift would just happen to match with that produced by a swirling medium, your fantasy just might end up consistent with what's observable.
[...]
The satellite fantasy was designed in such a way that it fits observable data.
[...]
You're taking what I said ("the concept of satellites mimics reality") and turning it on its head ("something mimics satellites"). It's the satellite lie that has been specifically constructed to match observable phenomena.
I do see where I lost you now. I took you to be talking about the towers you believe fake the satellite signals. As in, "if you make up a fake satellite and design it to match expected observable data, then it will appear to be a satellite."
Your answer as I understand it now still seems like a bit of hand-waving, and its specifics are unclear. Can you elaborate on what you mean when you say that "The satellite fantasy was designed in such a way that it fits observable data"?