Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Interesting. I was under the impression that the general consensus among FE'ers is that cell phone transmitters are GPS transmitters.Where did you get that idea from?
Here is how this conversation got started:Yes, thank you. I will generously assume that your omission of a significant chunk of the conversation is purely for the sake of brevity, and take this as a retraction on your part. Shame that you couldn't have just been honest to begin with.
[snip]
I was trying to be as specific as possible with my question in order to avoid the part where you find some weird reason to obfuscate the actual discussion, but that obviously backfired.Yes, trying to launch a strawman attack and lying about your opponent's position does tend to backfire. You'd think you'd learn that by now.
You still haven't answered the question; you're just doing the usual song and dance of being crazy smug about not explaining yourself. I don't understand how, in an accelerating medium, a stationary observer can receive signals from a stationary transmitter and get both a redshift and a blueshift at different times.I can think of two scenarios: Either the acceleration of the medium changes, or we're not considering the same transmitter-observer combinations. The former is a fundamental concept in FET. The latter is just me rubbing your lack of imagination in your face.
I'm also a bit confused. Your original argument was that the Doppler shifting should exist because "The Earth is accelerating and inertia exists." Your new argument to Markjo is, "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."Yes, your "confusion" stems from the fact that you really want to think that I made a new argument. I didn't. If you stopped trying so hard on trying to imagine what it might be that I'm thinking and just focused on reading what I'm saying, that would be pretty clear.
Which is it? Is it that the ground transmitters are rigged to give false signals, or do you prefer your original argument that they're a consequence of motion through an accelerating medium?It's neither, of course. The ground transmitters are not "rigged" in any way. The satellite fantasy was designed in such a way that it fits observable data.
Unless I'm misunderstanding you, it doesn't matter if we consider the trains to be accelerating through a stationary medium, or stationary in an accelerating medium. The effect is the same so long as the trains are stationary with respect to one another.You're not misunderstanding me, you're deliberately misrepresenting the situation. You're correct, it doesn't matter if the trains are accelerating in a stationary medium or if they're stationary in an accelerating medium. The reason it doesn't matter is that both these scenarios are fundamentally inaccurate. We're looking at accelerating trains in an accelerating medium.
To which swirling medium are you referring?Air and aether.
Also, why don't other stationary signal sources, such as FM radio or cellular service exhibit the same Doppler shift that GPS signals do?I would be interested in seeing some evidence to support that claim. That said, I would expect no two transmitter-receiver pairs to exhibit the same Doppler shift. Therefore, your question can be answered with "because FM radio and cell phone transmitters are not GPS transmitters"
Would you care to explain how the Doppler shift of a signal transmitted from a stationary tower and passing through an accelerating medium would be consistent with the changing Doppler shift of a signal transmitted from an orbiting satellite? Please use small words if you can. You know how slow I can be sometimes.Sure: 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. That is, of course, providing you with the generous assumption that it even is consistent, but we might as well give you that for now to make it easier for you.
You still haven't answered Markjo's actual question though: if the observer and the transmitter are stationary relative to one another; if their acceleration through the medium is equal in magnitude and direction; and, if that direction remains constant, then how would the Doppler effect cause the change in frequency to be anything other than directly proportional to the acceleration through the medium? How could the effect change signs from redshift to blueshift? Simply posting a Wikipedia link and declaring that you're right isn't a very useful explanation.I agree. That's why I posted a Wikipedia link and pointed out what exactly markjo was missing. Judging from his answer above, he understood me, so I'm not sure why you think you lying about the conversation to date will help anyone.
By analogy, imagine two trains, A and B, on tracks that lie parallel to one another along their entire length. They are both traveling in the same direction at the same velocity, only train A is 50 meters ahead of train B. If they both accelerate constantly at the same rate, then the only doppler shift train B will observe when listening to the whistle from train A is a steady shift in frequency, in one direction, proportional to their acceleration through the medium. Unless there is a change in the direction or rate at which the trains accelerate, then I don't see how it would be possible for an observer on train B to hear the pitch of train A get lower.You are ignoring the fact that the medium in between the "trains" is also accelerating. Conveniently, that's exactly where your analogy breaks down.
No, that's not how you do.I'll do as I please, thanks.
If you interpret scientific factI did no such thing.
you cannot simply say "I provided the same facts, read them yourself"Damn, it's a good thing I never did that. That would be terrible!
simply because the facts that you refer to are used to support a theory that is, with all fairness, wildly frowned upon and from a scientific standpoint, very far fetched.I didn't know that the mechanics behind the Doppler Effect are far-fetched or frowned upon. Clearly, we've met very different scientists.
This is why, you as a provider of facts, HAVE to explain how these are to be interpretted, and add a reference as to how they support the theory you're standing up for.I've done both of these things.
Science is about supplying evidence that are to CONVINCE your fellow scientists about the correctness of your facts, which through appropiate methodology and observation can be reproduced. This is a mantra, and the only rational mantra.Yes. It's a good thing I linked to a bunch of Wikipedia articles with a plethora of supporting citations. Otherwise, you almost might have a point!
Flat earthers have a tendency to just leave links to articles they dont give the impression to really understand themselfs, and imply bigotry to those they address. That's why you, on the convincing side of the table, HAVE to explain.I have to explain the Doppler Effect to markjo because you think I'm a Flat Earther?
With what you've said so far, all you do is leave the impression that you, in fact, don't really know, which is why it is so easy to disregard what Flat earthers say in general; Because of the lack of any evidence what so ever.Yes, I'm sure telling markjo to brush up on his high school physics and providing good sources to facilitate it was somehow significant. Keep living your dream.
Yes it would appear that posting truth will get one banned from a site like this.If they wanted to ban you, you would have already been banned. The point of warnings is precisely to prevent that outcome.
KubuntuYou seem to care about not wasting system resources, and yet you use KDE. What the fuck?
Bernie Sanders is a Jew.His father's religious background doesn't affect his skin tone all that much. Being of Polish ancestry, if anything, makes him more white :^)
Would you care to explain how a ground based GPS signal's relative velocity changes so as to cause a blue shift as the "satellite" appears to move towards the observer, change to neutral as it appears overhead and then shifts towards red as it appears to move away?I already have. Again, it's up to you to actually follow up the links I sent you and catch up on the elementary principles behind the Doppler effect and the atmolayer's existence. Trying to explain things to a guy who thinks air doesn't exist is not something I'm interested in.
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 constantWell, 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.
What does that have to do with Doppler shift? If the GPS transmitters are ground based, then there should be no relative motion between the transmitter and receiver, therefor no Doppler shift.It would seem you don't understand how the Doppler effect works. How surprising.
For starters, how about the fact that it exists and it shouldn't if GPS signals were ground based?But it should. The Earth is accelerating and inertia exists.
Is this website really a "spoof" website ?Depends on what you mean by "this website". Given the posts you're responding to, it would appear that you failed to properly process the context of the conversation.
The part that shows up at the end of 0:16, throughout 0:17 and ends at the beginning of 0:18?Yes, that one exactly. The 18-second mark shows it quite clearly.
0:17 would have made more sense then.It would have certainly helped prevent your blunder. Then again, so would you exercising the bare minimum of competence.
Like I said, anyone who doesn't want to learn can simply not watch.Certainly. Similarly, if you don't want to hear dissent, you can simply not read the responses to your threads.