"Jim Greenfield" wrote in message
...

So I don't think that wavelength alters in either case relative to the
medium against which I am hearing(measuring)

If you want to change the definition of wavelength, go right ahead. However,
every definition I've seen says that it's the distance between the crest of
one wave and the crest on the next wave. To me it is implicit that the frame
of reference is the plane in which the waves travel.

Your definition is more like saying the wavelength is the distance the crest
of the second wave travels relative to the previous wave the observer
encountered. I don't think that's a good definition because it requires an
observer to encounter the wave. It also means that wavelength ends up having
no common meaning to people discussing it. It also means you can't determine
the wavelength from the source.

I feel entitled to interpret the definition my way because what if we could
see the waves such as the rings emitted from pebbles dropped in a pool? In
that case the observer never encounters the wave. If the pool had distance
markers painted on the bottom he could easily see the distance. Even without
the markers he could take a photograph and use some technique that requires
no movement, source or observer and determine the wavelength.

If somebody asked you to determine the wavelength from the above, you'd have
to shrug and say you can't. Perhaps you can clarify for me why my
interpretation is not the practical choice.

"Jim Greenfield" wrote in message
om...

Relativity will go down in history as the greatest con of the 20th
century.
(It surely wont see this one out)

Okay. I always figured Milli Vanilli would take that honor, but we can agree
to disagree.

If I understand your explanation correctly, you are looking at products
of inertia (of the cone and "the air").
Because of inertia, position of the cone, at point of time, is not what
is expected (ideal), aswell as pressure, at that same point of time is
not.
Since inertia of the cone is different from inertia of "the air", even
that difference is not constant, but depends on velocity of the cone,
which means speed in regard to position is not what's expected.
In the end effect you get (if more than 1 freq) involves speed and phase
shifting. For all i can imagine, it's more like flanging than it's like
Doppler.
If only one freq is involved, played at constant volume, there should be
no other difference except slight loss in volume and slight difference
in distance. Should you vary playback volume, there may appear something
similar to phasing.

Vladan wrote:
If I understand your explanation correctly, you are looking at products
of inertia (of the cone and "the air").
Because of inertia, position of the cone, at point of time, is not what
is expected (ideal), aswell as pressure, at that same point of time is
not.

No, it has nothing to do with inertia other than the mass
density figuring into the speed of sound. It is just a
property of longitudinal wave propegation.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

Bob Cain wrote in message ...
The Ghost wrote:

If I were you, I wouldn't expect any help on other problems
from Art anytime soon.

Do you speak for Art Ludwig now? Have you, at any point,
spoken _as_ Art Ludwig?

What do you think, or do you just enjoy asking stupid questions?

"Jim Carr" wrote in message news:rZ3bd.29612$_a3.12325@fed1read05...
"Jim Greenfield" wrote in message
om...


In case you missed it before, I am entirely untrained in this field.

There are plenty of people who lack formal training but who are
technically savvy. Your problem isn't that you are untrained, your
problem is that you are technically inept.


It's not even a hobby. I play and record music as a hobby......

With an equal level of incompetence, no doubt. By the way, how's the
mortgage business in Phoenix? Defrauded any one lately?

"The Ghost" wrote in message
om...
It's not even a hobby. I play and record music as a hobby......

With an equal level of incompetence, no doubt. By the way, how's the
mortgage business in Phoenix? Defrauded any one lately?

This seems uncalled for.

--Nick

"Jim Carr" wrote in
news:JWp8d.12173$mS1.9564@fed1read05:


I have stated from day one that I understand the concept of Doppler
distortion in a speaker as repeatedly described. I also commented that
if it happens as described, then microphones suffer from it.
Instruments like guitars and pianos must also suffer from it as well.
However, because of the short distances in the vibrations, it must not
be much.

Microphones don't produce Doppler distortion because they are receiving
sound, not producing it. Doppler distortion is only associated with the
mechanism of sound generation.


What bothered me was that I could not (and still cannot) see how a
speaker really works. Yeh, I can describe the mechanics involved, but
I still don't fully understand the exact physics where the diaphragm
creates the sound wave. Is it at the start of the throw? The end? The
middle? If it's in the middle of a long throw for a loud low
frequency, how does it make the higher frequencies at the same time?

In a conventional loudspeaker driver, cone acceleration follows applied
voltage, and far-field pressure follows cone acceleration. In order to
understand how a speaker produces sound in simple terms you need to forget
about frequency. Simply take the applied voltage waveform, whatever it may
be, and mathematically differentiate it twice. The the resulting voltage
waveform is same as the the pressure waveform that is produced by the
loudspeaker in the far field. Regarding where/when the pressure waveform
starts....as soon as the cone starts moving. This description is
approximate but is valid over the design range of the speaker driver.


The speaker pushes air and makes a breeze, but it also transfers
energy to individual molecules which start bouncing into each other in
a wave, which is what we ultimately perceive as sound. I accept that
it works, but the physics escape me. I can live with that.

A speaker does not make a breeze. In order to make a breeze, the cone
would have to push forward and never return to its original position. This
is never the case in audio because the average value of all recorded
musical waveforms is zero. And this is because the low frequency response
of microphones does not extend to dc.


So, when Bob suggested that there might be something more involved
with Doppler distortion due the physics described above, I thought
that was a fair question to ask. He conducted himself quite well and
took the humble step of expanding the discussion out of a.m.h-s and
into groups where people with expertise greater than his might answer
the question.

It was going quite well until some home-schooled, insecure mamma's boy
(that would be you) started venting his years of frustration and
feelings of inadequacy. It's been a fun little game watching you yap
like a poodle while several of us kicked the fence. FYI, Porky and I
are far from being pals. Check the Google archives if you don't
believe me.

Thank you for the compliment, but I am about as far from being home
schooled as one can possibly get. Nonetheless, if I were, as you suggest,
it would be quite an accomplishment. Pray tell, what is your clearly
failed schooling background?


I have stated repeatedly that I have neither the training nor the
experience to even begin to answer the questions myself. Quite frankly
I couldn't care less if it's there or not. First, I cannot hear it.
Second, even if I could, there's nothing I could do about it anyway.
Of the issues in the processes required for me to produce good music
on my home computer, Doppler distortion is at the bottom of the list.

So, there is no fraud test for me to pass or fail. Well, maybe there
is. Maybe I am lying and really do have a degree in physics, and I'm
just playing dumb. Sorta like you, I guess.

You are not playing dumb. You are dumb. Otherwise, you would recognize
that I am not.


As for your blustering about threats, give it a rest. There's no way
you have the balls to say in person any of the things you've written.
You might have when you were younger, but now you're too big to hide
in your mother's apron when things get tough. You know deep down I'm
right, so don't even bother playing the "if we met in person" game.
Chances are it would never happen. If it did, we all know how you'd
behave.


Hopefully we won't ever be faced with that unpleasant situation and you
won't have to deal with the consequences of your assessment possibly being
wrong.



Kiss my ass you technically-inept piece of ****. You are so full of
it that it is flowing out your ears.

Try something new, will ya? That one is getting old.

Old, perhaps, but nonetheless quite correct.

The Ghost wrote:

Do you speak for Art Ludwig now? Have you, at any point,
spoken _as_ Art Ludwig?

What do you think, or do you just enjoy asking stupid questions?

That wasn't an answer, it was a question to avoid one. But
we know how adept you are at avoiding giving answers. I
don't suppose, however, that you need to be particularly
adept if you have none to offer.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

Bob Cain wrote in
:



The Ghost wrote:

Do you speak for Art Ludwig now? Have you, at any point,
spoken _as_ Art Ludwig?

What do you think, or do you just enjoy asking stupid questions?

That wasn't an answer, it was a question to avoid one. But
we know how adept you are at avoiding giving answers. I
don't suppose, however, that you need to be particularly
adept if you have none to offer.


In the distant past, you asked questions and I answered them. That was
before you started ****ing in my face. Right now, I wouldn't give you the
time of day if your pathetic existence depended on it. Call me whatever
you wish, but know that in my opinion you are demonstrably one of the
stupidest ****s I have encountered in any of the newsgroups, and that your
opinion of me, whatever it may be, is irrelevant and of no practical
consequence.

"The Ghost" wrote in message
om...

There are plenty of people who lack formal training but who are
technically savvy. Your problem isn't that you are untrained, your
problem is that you are technically inept.

Oh, is that what it is? Thanks for pointing it out. But can you come up with
a new phrase? That "technically inept" thing is getting old.

It's not even a hobby. I play and record music as a hobby......

With an equal level of incompetence, no doubt. By the way, how's the
mortgage business in Phoenix? Defrauded any one lately?

Oh, my! Gary finally figured out that he could go to
http://www.azwebpages.com and see what's on my site! Oh, dear, what *ever*
shall I do? Maybe Gary will figure out where I live and come visit me! That
would be a treat!

BTW, you need to learn how to read. Now, I know it makes your lips tired,
but you gotta work at it. I'm not in the mortgage business - the site was
for a friend.

"The Ghost" wrote in message
. 6...

Microphones don't produce Doppler distortion because they are receiving
sound, not producing it. Doppler distortion is only associated with the
mechanism of sound generation.

I didn't say they produce it rather that they suffer from it. If you're
going to argue that there is distortion from the movement of a diaphragm
prouducing two tones, it's not clear to me how you can argue that a
diaphragm moving because of two tones won't suffer the same effect, however
small it might be. The way I see it if the mic diaphragm is moving because
of the 50Hz tone it's alternately moving towards and away from the 1kHz tone
coming at it.

But then again, I'm technically inept.

A speaker does not make a breeze.

So that air I feel across my hand is what?

Thank you for the compliment, but I am about as far from being home
schooled as one can possibly get. Nonetheless, if I were, as you suggest,
it would be quite an accomplishment. Pray tell, what is your clearly
failed schooling background?

What does it matter? Didn't you just say that many uneducated people are
techically savvy? What's your obsession with credentials? Are you that
desperate for people to think you're smart?

You are not playing dumb. You are dumb. Otherwise, you would recognize
that I am not.

Could you be any worse at hiding your insecurities?

Hopefully we won't ever be faced with that unpleasant situation and you
won't have to deal with the consequences of your assessment possibly being
wrong.

Oooh. You're so TOUGH! I'd write a response, but it's easier if you just
search the newsgroups for the words "anonymous keyboard coward" and read
them yourself. It's a tired argument in which I'd rather not participate.

The Ghost wrote:


Microphones don't produce Doppler distortion because they are receiving
sound, not producing it. Doppler distortion is only associated with the
mechanism of sound generation.

The distortion, call it what you will, is intrinsically
associated with neither. It's about the relationship
between the signal carried in the motion of a test particle
with respect to a point and the signal contained in the
motion of air at that point.

Its relation to a Tx and Rx is only to the extent that they
are mismatched in regard to which of those aspects they
generate and measure.

In a conventional loudspeaker driver, cone acceleration follows applied
voltage, and far-field pressure follows cone acceleration. In order to
understand how a speaker produces sound in simple terms you need to forget
about frequency. Simply take the applied voltage waveform, whatever it may
be, and mathematically differentiate it twice.

And what does that help you understand? It's not even
correct. What's true is that the motion of a "good" speaker
cone about its rest position is an LTI function of the
signal. The way that the far field signal relates to the
driving signal is _far_ more complex than a simple
differential operator. This is something you are not
competent to discuss.

You are not playing dumb. You are dumb. Otherwise, you would recognize
that I am not.

Delusions of grandeur. Are you drinking again?

Hopefully we won't ever be faced with that unpleasant situation and you
won't have to deal with the consequences of your assessment possibly being
wrong.

And hopefully you will be faced someday with the unpleasant
consequences of your affront to people. All that's going to
require is a chance encounter, somewhere, sometime with one
of those whom you've blind sided with your insults and
pathological hostility. Mercy for you, while probably
merited by your condition, is an unlikely outcome.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

Let's for the moment forget about sinusoidal signals and
consider a Tx generating very brief pulses at some frequency
Ft. To measure wavelength, we will employ two detectors
that flash when a pulse is received. To measure the
wavelength, we start with them together and separate them
until they are again flashing synchrouously. We will
measure the distance between them and call that distance
the wavelength.

There are three Frames of Reference (FoR) involved, that of
the Tx, that of the still air and that of the Rx. For
purposes of this discussion, our space is one dimensional.

If you make the above measurement from within any of those
FoRs moving relative to each other, you will get the same
value. Since we aren't relativistic, it doesn't matter how
fast our measuring rod is moving, it will always measure
the same distance between coincident flashes, the distance
between them in the air as they propegate. The time between
the flashes may be different in each FoR but the length,
measured as above, is common.

Consider the Tx to be to the left, the Rx to the right and
their motion to the right to be positive. The speed of
sound is that which we would measure from the Tx toward
the Rx in each FoR. C is the speed of sound in the still
air, Vt is the velocity of the transmitter with respect to
the still air, Vr is the velocity of the Rx with respect to
the still air.

The following table relates the frequencies, speeds of sound
(to the right) and wavelength as measured in each FoR.

Tx Air Rx
------------ -------------- ------
Frequency Ft Ft*C/(C-Vt) Ft*(C-Vr)/(C-Vt)

Sound Speed C-Vt C C-Vr

Wavelength (C-Vt)/Ft (C-Vt)/Ft (C-Vt)/Ft


I've had difficulty figuring out exactly what is at issue
between Jim and Mike in this sub-thread because their
terminology has been ambiguous to me (to be expected when
physics hasn't been a big part of either background) but
does the above help settle it?


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

The Ghost wrote:

In the distant past, you asked questions and I answered them.
that was before you started ****ing in my face.

From the gitgo with me you were Gary Sokolich as we have all
come to know and love him. You tried to suck up at one point
to get my assistance in doing something relative to Kliff
Kaminsky who you had ****ed off enough that you were afraid.
Something to do with you calling the management of the
company he worked for to complain about how he treated you on
the internet. I wanted nothing to do with it (d'oh) and you
returned to your prior behavior with a vengence. That is how
our fascinating relationship began and I can prove it, not
that anybody else could give a rusty ****.

I saw very quickly how crazy you were and thought it best
to document it.

Did you succeed, BTW, in screwing him over? Where is he now?

Yes, I frequently warned others who you unexpectedly savaged
in response to an honest question that the problem was you
and not them. That was about ****ing on your sick parade.
Your face hadn't occured to me.

Right now, I wouldn't give you the
time of day if your pathetic existence depended on it. Call me whatever
you wish, but know that in my opinion you are demonstrably one of the
stupidest ****s I have encountered in any of the newsgroups, and that your
opinion of me, whatever it may be, is irrelevant and of no practical
consequence.

You really are crazy. Creepy, scary crazy.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."

A. Einstein

On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 12:01:33 -0700, Bob Cain
wrote:



Vladan wrote:
If I understand your explanation correctly, you are looking at products
of inertia (of the cone and "the air").
Because of inertia, position of the cone, at point of time, is not what
is expected (ideal), aswell as pressure, at that same point of time is
not.

No, it has nothing to do with inertia other than the mass
density figuring into the speed of sound. It is just a
property of longitudinal wave propegation.

Well, if that's your choice...

On Sat, 9 Oct 2004 15:37:53 -0700, "Jim Carr"
wrote:

Thus if we use my formula we can arrive at the correct wavelength in all
cases of the source or receiver moving in a stationary medium. Am I totally
whacked or is my theory, pardon the pun, sound?

I think you got it right.

"Jim Carr" wrote in message news:inGbd.5642$bk1.2025@fed1read05...
"The Ghost" wrote in message
om...

There are plenty of people who lack formal training but who are
technically savvy. Your problem isn't that you are untrained, your
problem is that you are technically inept.

Oh, is that what it is? Thanks for pointing it out. But can you come up with
a new phrase? That "technically inept" thing is getting old.


Thanks for pointing that out. In the future I will utilize
technically challenged, which carries the same meaning and conforms to
today's politically correct substandards.


It's not even a hobby. I play and record music as a hobby......

With an equal level of incompetence, no doubt. By the way, how's the
mortgage business in Phoenix? Defrauded any one lately?

Oh, my! Gary finally figured out that he could go to
http://www.azwebpages.com and see what's on my site! Oh, dear, what *ever*
shall I do? Maybe Gary will figure out where I live and come visit me! That
would be a treat!

BTW, you need to learn how to read. Now, I know it makes your lips tired,
but you gotta work at it. I'm not in the mortgage business - the site was
for a friend.

Until now I was not aware of www.azwebpages.com. However, since you
have called it to my attention, I am curious....did your ex-wife leave
you for another woman or did you leave her for a boy?

Bob Cain wrote in message ...
Let's for the moment forget about sinusoidal signals and
consider a Tx generating very brief pulses at some frequency
Ft. To measure wavelength, we will employ two detectors
that flash when a pulse is received. To measure the
wavelength, we start with them together and separate them
until they are again flashing synchrouously. We will
measure the distance between them and call that distance
the wavelength.

There are three Frames of Reference (FoR) involved, that of
the Tx, that of the still air and that of the Rx. For
purposes of this discussion, our space is one dimensional.

If you make the above measurement from within any of those
FoRs moving relative to each other, you will get the same
value. Since we aren't relativistic, it doesn't matter how
fast our measuring rod is moving, it will always measure
the same distance between coincident flashes, the distance
between them in the air as they propegate. The time between
the flashes may be different in each FoR but the length,
measured as above, is common.

Consider the Tx to be to the left, the Rx to the right and
their motion to the right to be positive. The speed of
sound is that which we would measure from the Tx toward
the Rx in each FoR. C is the speed of sound in the still
air, Vt is the velocity of the transmitter with respect to
the still air, Vr is the velocity of the Rx with respect to
the still air.

The following table relates the frequencies, speeds of sound
(to the right) and wavelength as measured in each FoR.

Tx Air Rx
------------ -------------- ------
Frequency Ft Ft*C/(C-Vt) Ft*(C-Vr)/(C-Vt)

Sound Speed C-Vt C C-Vr

Wavelength (C-Vt)/Ft (C-Vt)/Ft (C-Vt)/Ft


I've had difficulty figuring out exactly what is at issue
between Jim and Mike in this sub-thread because their
terminology has been ambiguous to me (to be expected when
physics hasn't been a big part of either background) but
does the above help settle it?


Bob

Thanks, but something's wrong :-(
Once your Tx, Rx is set up and flashing away, lock the flash rate at
Tx in (operated internally, without need of flash back from Rx when to
pulse next.
Now move Tx towards Rx; as the distance decreases, the time taken for
the pulse to Tx - Rx also decreases (speed through the air is
constant). Remember that the frequency is fixed at Tx, but I think it
will be increase at Rx, and the wavelength reduced.

When a jet approaches sound barrier, isn't the wavelength approaching
0?
OTH, if I approach (accellerate) a sound source, the frequency heard
by me can increase (infinitely) until I pass its position (wavelength
unaltered)

Jim G
c'=c+v

"The Ghost" wrote in message
om...

Until now I was not aware of www.azwebpages.com.
However, since you
have called it to my attention, I am curious....did your ex-wife leave
you for another woman or did you leave her for a boy?

Ouch! You hurt my feelings! You are such a meanie. However, I do have to
wonder why you're so "curious" about the possible homosexual and pedophiliac
tendencies of a couple you've never met. I'm not qualified to help you (who
is??), but this site might help you: http://www.nambla.org/

In the meantime can you back off on the insults? You're really damaging my
self-esteem.

"Jim Carr" wrote in
news:Vx%bd.7120$bk1.6154@fed1read05:


Ouch! You hurt my feelings! You are such a meanie. However, I do have
to wonder why you're so "curious" about the possible homosexual and
pedophiliac tendencies of a couple you've never met. I'm not qualified
to help you (who is??), but this site might help you:
http://www.nambla.org/
In the meantime can you back off on the insults? You're really
damaging my self-esteem.

It is not possible to damage the self-esteem of a sociopath. Furthermore,
it isn't necessary to personally witness disfunctional behavior in order to
be aware of its existence. No doubt, your ex-wife, wisely kissed you off
because she wanted to escape the verbal abuse that she was receiving from
you and because she found someone with an erect dick that was longer than
two inches.

Jim Greenfield wrote:


Thanks, but something's wrong :-(

From the FoR of the still air I do the wavelength
measurement as I described along a line that passes through
the Tx. I attach the two detectors to the ends of a rod of
that length. The strobes are flashing synchronously. If I
now begin imparting motion to that apparatus along its axis,
will the flashing remain synchronous?


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

"Bob Cain" wrote in message
...

From the FoR of the still air I do the wavelength
measurement as I described along a line that passes through
the Tx. I attach the two detectors to the ends of a rod of
that length. The strobes are flashing synchronously. If I
now begin imparting motion to that apparatus along its axis,
will the flashing remain synchronous?

Only if you move them a constant speed. If you start moving the rod back and
forth like a speaker diaphragm producing a 50Hz and 1kHz signal it won't!!!
:-)

Jim Carr wrote:

"Bob Cain" wrote in message
...


From the FoR of the still air I do the wavelength
measurement as I described along a line that passes through
the Tx. I attach the two detectors to the ends of a rod of
that length. The strobes are flashing synchronously. If I
now begin imparting motion to that apparatus along its axis,
will the flashing remain synchronous?


Only if you move them a constant speed. If you start moving the rod back and
forth like a speaker diaphragm producing a 50Hz and 1kHz signal it won't!!!
:-)

LOL! Would that be inside or outside of a tube? :-)


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

"The Ghost" wrote in message
. 29...

It is not possible to damage the self-esteem of a sociopath.
Furthermore,
it isn't necessary to personally witness disfunctional behavior in order
to
be aware of its existence.

Remember what we discussed about insults? If you don't spell them right,
we'll consider them dysfunctional.

No doubt, your ex-wife, wisely kissed you off
because she wanted to escape the verbal abuse that she was receiving from
you

You got it all wrong (again). She was tired of my *herbal* abuse. It started
with garlic in my pasta sauce, ginger in my Chinese food - a cup of
chamomile tea after dinner. Then it was a little marjoram here, a little
turmeric there. Next thing you know I was into the heavy stuff: chicory,
nettle, anise. She drew the line with verbena (got tired of all the Druids
hanging around the house).

and because she found someone with an erect dick that was longer than
two inches.

I certainly hope she did. Can you imagine a guy with such a small penis?
He'd probably spend his time compensating by writing vicious posts about
complete strangers.

"Jim Carr" wrote in message news:rQ4cd.9320$bk1.2822@fed1read05...
"The Ghost" wrote in message
. 29...

It is not possible to damage the self-esteem of a sociopath.
Furthermore,
it isn't necessary to personally witness disfunctional behavior in order
to
be aware of its existence.

Remember what we discussed about insults? If you don't spell them right,
we'll consider them dysfunctional.


Consider them whatever you wish. Then stick them up your ass.


No doubt, your ex-wife, wisely kissed you off
because she wanted to escape the verbal abuse that she was receiving from
you

You got it all wrong (again). She was tired of my *herbal* abuse. It started
with garlic in my pasta sauce, ginger in my Chinese food - a cup of
chamomile tea after dinner. Then it was a little marjoram here, a little
turmeric there. Next thing you know I was into the heavy stuff: chicory,
nettle, anise. She drew the line with verbena (got tired of all the Druids
hanging around the house).

And the translation is.....she flipped you off because you treated her
with the same level of disrespect that you display here.


and because she found someone with an erect dick that was longer than
two inches.

I certainly hope she did. Can you imagine a guy with such a small penis?
He'd probably spend his time compensating by writing vicious posts about
complete strangers.

As you have been doing.

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 21:50:01 -0700, Bob Cain
wrote:

Only if you move them a constant speed. If you start moving the rod back and
forth like a speaker diaphragm producing a 50Hz and 1kHz signal it won't!!!
:-)

LOL! Would that be inside or outside of a tube? :-)

Point is you can see that only if you look at it from an angleof 90*,
to fully appreciate the view. If spectator's on the line with
strobe(s), looking straight at the light, flashing will stay in sync,
however, perceived enlargement and shrinking of the source (due to
"perspective distortion";-^), would not.

Bob Cain wrote in message ...


snip....snip

You tried to suck up at one point
to get my assistance in doing something relative to Kliff
Kaminsky....

snip....snip


I saw very quickly how crazy you were and thought it best
to document it.

Did you succeed, BTW, in screwing him over?

You bet. I persuaded the Almighty to deal with him appropriately.

http://www.geocitiehttp://www.lcanim...aro040606.html
http://www.lcanimal.org/event/event_034.htm

Keep that in mind, because now you are the one who is at the top of my
**** list.


Where is he now?

Exactly where he belongs and exactly where you are headed.

snip....snip

You really are crazy. Creepy, scary crazy.
Bob

You label, discredit and condemn yourself by your own words, which I
quote verbatim as follows:

"Something I've found to be universal and almost always true
is that one must look at what an individual consistently
accuses others of to discover the true nature of that
individual. It is there that he paints his self portrait
and it is that part of himself that he most hates which he
projects onto others in the most hateful, repellent and
offensive ways.
Bob"

http://www.google.com/groups?hl=en&l...om%26rnum%3D14

Vladan wrote in message . ..

So, why they refer to this as to Dopler distortin, instead to
simply call it modulation, phase difference, shift,... or whatever, is
beyond me.


Good question. The answer is that you are dealing with arrogant,
technically-inept idiots. Bob Cain is well known for his technical
incompetence and for mindlessly pulling equations and terminology out
of thin air. Harry Olson, in his classic 1957 book "Acoustical
Engineering", appropriately refers to this so-called Doppler
distortion as "Frequency Modulation Distortion" and refers to previous
work on the matter dating back to 1943. This is not the first time
that Bob Cain has demonstrated his total ignorance of previous work on
technical matters about which he is pontificating, and it most
certainly will not be the last.

The Ghost wrote:

Did you succeed, BTW, in screwing him over?

You bet. I persuaded the Almighty to deal with him appropriately.

http://www.geocitiehttp://www.lcanim...aro040606.html
http://www.lcanimal.org/event/event_034.htm

Keep that in mind, because now you are the one who is at the top of my
**** list.

Where is he now?

Exactly where he belongs and exactly where you are headed.

Hmmm, this is a demonstration of sanity? It's probably
prosecutable.

You had better get to some meetings, Gary, before the
wreckage gets completely out of hand. It's time to put the
plug in the jug again. A few weeks in a detox might also be
of some help. That is probably much better than waking up
in four point restraints wondering where you are and how you
got there.

Hey, if, after you get your feet back on the ground, you
need a sponser...


You label, discredit and condemn yourself by your own words, which I
quote verbatim as follows:

"Something I've found to be universal and almost always true
is that one must look at what an individual consistently
accuses others of to discover the true nature of that
individual. It is there that he paints his self portrait
and it is that part of himself that he most hates which he
projects onto others in the most hateful, repellent and
offensive ways.
Bob"

That really struck home, didn't it? Try this on, I've not
seen a better description of a primary component of your
pathology:

http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html

It may come from spending too much time alone in the dark:

http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.jpg

Or perhaps it is an incurable part of your makeup:

http://www.naturalchild.com/elliott_barker/prisons.html

But most likely it's a simple matter of:

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/youare.swf


Peace,

Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

Bob Cain wrote in message ...


Hmmm, this is a demonstration of sanity?

Since you seem to be an expert on the subject, you tell me.

It's probably prosecutable.

Probably not, but if you think so, please be my guest.


A few weeks in a detox might also be of some help.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but I'm not substance addicted. My sole
addiction is contempt for you, and for that there is no detox.


That is probably much better than waking up
in four point restraints wondering where you are and how you
got there.

I am sure that you speak from experience. Nonetheless, perhaps you
should be concerned with simply waking up.


Hey, if, after you get your feet back on the ground, you
need a sponser...



You label, discredit and condemn yourself by your own words, which I
quote verbatim as follows:

"Something I've found to be universal and almost always true
is that one must look at what an individual consistently
accuses others of to discover the true nature of that
individual. It is there that he paints his self portrait
and it is that part of himself that he most hates which he
projects onto others in the most hateful, repellent and
offensive ways.
Bob"

That really struck home, didn't it? Try this on, I've not
seen a better description of a primary component of your
pathology:

http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html
It may come from spending too much time alone in the dark:
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.jpg
Or perhaps it is an incurable part of your makeup:
http://www.naturalchild.com/elliott_barker/prisons.html
But most likely it's a simple matter of:
http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/youare.swf

Impressive! And, you qustion my sanity!


Peace,

Only in your dreams.

"The Ghost" wrote in message
. 6...
"Jim Carr" wrote in
news:JWp8d.12173$mS1.9564@fed1read05:

FYI, Porky and I are far from being pals. Check the Google archives if
you don't
believe me.

Jim, I think he was trying an attempt at a left-handed insult, aimed at
either or possibly both of us (depending on our respective points of view).
However, as usual, he fell flat on his face. :-)

"Jim Greenfield" wrote in message
om...
"Porky" wrote in message
...
"Jim Carr" wrote in message
news:rZ3bd.29612$_a3.12325@fed1read05...
"Jim Greenfield" wrote in message
om...

Drat! I was coming to the Rel bit. It always comes up in discussion
of
Doppler, because DHR's like to compare sound waves with light. I
don't
think there is any correllation between light (photons through a
vacuum) and sound (pressure fronts through a medium, but there you
go!
YOU realise that those waves in the hall aren't actually changing
their wavelength when you move towards them, but try explaining to a
DHR that a stream of photons will have a changed 'frequency' of
hitting a receiver, WITHOUT having an altered wavelength (distance
between them), if the source or observer are moving rel each other.

In case you missed it before, I am entirely untrained in this field.
It's
not even a hobby. I play and record music as a hobby, but it doesn't
require
knowing any of this stuff. With that said...

Looking at a formula I found for determing Doppler in electromagnetic
waves
I see it is different than for sound. Looking at *that* formula I
would
have
to say that it doesn't matter if the source or observer is moving,
you'll
see the same apparent shift in frequency. With Doppler in sound, if
the
source is moving at X you get a different frequency shift than if you
do
if
the observer is moving at X (assuming a head-on movement).

With electromagnetic waves I would hazard to guess that the "actual"
wavelength changes in either case (source or observer moving) since
the
speed of light is my speed limit. Or maybe I'm falling into a layman's
trap.
If so, I'm sure someone will correct me.

When dealing with relativistic speeds you not only have C, W and F to
contend with, the time contraction factor Tau comes into play and at any
velocity which is a respectable percentage of the speed of light, Tau
must
be taken into account to get accurate results. For the home recordist
who
just wants to figure acoustic Doppler shift, Tau is insignificant.

Jim Carr:
As I intimated, Porky, as a believing DHR, has stepped up to the plate
equipped with the standard SR opening play.
Just because you are a layman (as am I), don't be coerced into
accepting something (Relativity), which is patently impossible/wrong,
just because it is in fashion (they can get their stuff "peer
reviewed" by OTHER true believers).

As you realise, there are three things involved; velocity, wavelength,
frequency.
Notice immediately Relativity is introduced, Porky introduces a
fourth! Tau
What Porky fails to mention, is that this is the result of circular
logic which runs like this:
c (velocity of light in vacuum) is a constant, independent of the
velocity of the source of the light.
Due to this magic, length contracts as c is approached
time dilates (changes) as c is approached
Because time and length both change, c remains the same!

Do you think at school you could get away with that?
Given a simple 3 part algebra, with 2 unknowns, provide an accepted
answer by throwing in an extra (arbitrary and imaginary) factor??????

Relativity will go down in history as the greatest con of the 20th
century.
(It surely wont see this one out)

Jim G
c'=c+v

Oh, I see, now you're smarter than Einstein.... I only brought up the
time/velocity contraction to point out that it didn't matter as far as audio
was concerned, therefore, even if it doesn't exist, I'm still right!
BTW, I believe that the theory has already been proven by experiments done
by NASA and others.

"Bob Cain" wrote in message
...


Jim Carr wrote:

"Bob Cain" wrote in message
...


From the FoR of the still air I do the wavelength
measurement as I described along a line that passes through
the Tx. I attach the two detectors to the ends of a rod of
that length. The strobes are flashing synchronously. If I
now begin imparting motion to that apparatus along its axis,
will the flashing remain synchronous?


Only if you move them a constant speed. If you start moving the rod back
and
forth like a speaker diaphragm producing a 50Hz and 1kHz signal it
won't!!!
:-)

LOL! Would that be inside or outside of a tube? :-)


I think Jim and I are now on the same page, he was right, I was wrong
concerning the wavelength perceived by the receiver when the receiver is in
motion. W remains constant, perceived C is what varies, resulting in the
perceived difference in pitch.
BTW, I think Jim Greenfield is just having a bit of fun with us
under-educated boobs. :-)

"Jim Carr" wrote in message
news:rQ4cd.9320$bk1.2822@fed1read05...
"The Ghost" wrote in message
. 29...

It is not possible to damage the self-esteem of a sociopath.
Furthermore,
it isn't necessary to personally witness disfunctional behavior in order
to
be aware of its existence.

Remember what we discussed about insults? If you don't spell them right,
we'll consider them dysfunctional.

No doubt, your ex-wife, wisely kissed you off
because she wanted to escape the verbal abuse that she was receiving
from
you

You got it all wrong (again). She was tired of my *herbal* abuse. It
started
with garlic in my pasta sauce, ginger in my Chinese food - a cup of
chamomile tea after dinner. Then it was a little marjoram here, a little
turmeric there. Next thing you know I was into the heavy stuff: chicory,
nettle, anise. She drew the line with verbena (got tired of all the Druids
hanging around the house).

and because she found someone with an erect dick that was longer than
two inches.

I certainly hope she did. Can you imagine a guy with such a small penis?
He'd probably spend his time compensating by writing vicious posts about
complete strangers.


*ROFLMAO* Point, set and match to Jim Carr!!!
Jim, I still don't like you very much, but you certainly earned my respect
with that one. I bow to the master... :-)

"The Ghost" wrote in message
om...
"Jim Carr" wrote in message
news:rQ4cd.9320$bk1.2822@fed1read05...
"The Ghost" wrote in message
. 29...

It is not possible to damage the self-esteem of a sociopath.
Furthermore,
it isn't necessary to personally witness disfunctional behavior in
order
to
be aware of its existence.

Remember what we discussed about insults? If you don't spell them right,
we'll consider them dysfunctional.


Consider them whatever you wish. Then stick them up your ass.


No doubt, your ex-wife, wisely kissed you off
because she wanted to escape the verbal abuse that she was receiving
from
you

You got it all wrong (again). She was tired of my *herbal* abuse. It
started
with garlic in my pasta sauce, ginger in my Chinese food - a cup of
chamomile tea after dinner. Then it was a little marjoram here, a little
turmeric there. Next thing you know I was into the heavy stuff: chicory,
nettle, anise. She drew the line with verbena (got tired of all the
Druids
hanging around the house).

And the translation is.....she flipped you off because you treated her
with the same level of disrespect that you display here.


and because she found someone with an erect dick that was longer than
two inches.

I certainly hope she did. Can you imagine a guy with such a small penis?
He'd probably spend his time compensating by writing vicious posts about
complete strangers.

As you have been doing.

That was very lame, Mr ghost. Jim won that match by knockout!

"The Ghost" wrote in message
. 29...

snip

In the distant past, you asked questions and I answered them. That was
before you started ****ing in my face.

Did it ever occur to you that he wouldn't be figuratively ****ing in
your face if you weren't figuratively on your knees right in front of him
begging for it?

Right now, I wouldn't give you the time of day if your pathetic existence
depended on it.

Considering what you've contributed in the recording groups so far, if
you did give him the time of day it would be the wrong time, and probably
the wrong day as well.

Call me whatever you wish, but know that in my opinion you are
demonstrably one of the
stupidest ****s I have encountered in any of the newsgroups, and that your
opinion of me, whatever it may be, is irrelevant and of no practical
consequence.

Then why are you wasting all this time posting your ridiculous insults
and pontifications?

"Bob Cain" wrote in message
...


The Ghost wrote:

Did you succeed, BTW, in screwing him over?

You bet. I persuaded the Almighty to deal with him appropriately.


http://www.geocitiehttp://www.lcanim...aro040606.html
http://www.lcanimal.org/event/event_034.htm

Keep that in mind, because now you are the one who is at the top of my
**** list.

Where is he now?

Exactly where he belongs and exactly where you are headed.

Hmmm, this is a demonstration of sanity? It's probably
prosecutable.

You had better get to some meetings, Gary, before the
wreckage gets completely out of hand. It's time to put the
plug in the jug again. A few weeks in a detox might also be
of some help. That is probably much better than waking up
in four point restraints wondering where you are and how you
got there.

Hey, if, after you get your feet back on the ground, you
need a sponser...


You label, discredit and condemn yourself by your own words, which I
quote verbatim as follows:

"Something I've found to be universal and almost always true
is that one must look at what an individual consistently
accuses others of to discover the true nature of that
individual. It is there that he paints his self portrait
and it is that part of himself that he most hates which he
projects onto others in the most hateful, repellent and
offensive ways.
Bob"

That really struck home, didn't it? Try this on, I've not
seen a better description of a primary component of your
pathology:

http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html

It may come from spending too much time alone in the dark:

http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.jpg

Or perhaps it is an incurable part of your makeup:

http://www.naturalchild.com/elliott_barker/prisons.html

But most likely it's a simple matter of:

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/youare.swf


Peace,


Might as well put him on your "ignore" list Bob, he's so far gone that now
he's claiming a direct line to The Almighty. Next thing you know, he'll be
claiming to BE The Almighty! He threatened my life previously, and now he
taking responsibility for the death of another human being. Not only is he
insane, he might even be homocidal as well. I think it's time for formal
complaints to his ISP, I'm pretty sure death threats in public forums
qualify as ISP abuse. :-)

"Porky" wrote in message ...

Might as well put him on your "ignore" list Bob, he's so far gone that now
he's claiming a direct line to The Almighty. Next thing you know, he'll be
claiming to BE The Almighty! He threatened my life previously, and now he
taking responsibility for the death of another human being. Not only is he
insane, he might even be homocidal as well. I think it's time for formal
complaints to his ISP, I'm pretty sure death threats in public forums
qualify as ISP abuse. :-)

Be advised, dip****, that the isp complaint door swings both ways. So
before you dig yourself in over your head, and wind up with **** on
your face, I suggest that you get your facts straight, because it is
you, Bob Cain and Jim Carr who have been making the threats, not I.

"Porky" wrote in message ...
"The Ghost" wrote in message
. 29...

snip

In the distant past, you asked questions and I answered them. That was
before you started ****ing in my face.

Did it ever occur to you that he wouldn't be figuratively ****ing in
your face if you weren't figuratively on your knees right in front of him
begging for it?

Right now, I wouldn't give you the time of day if your pathetic existence
depended on it.

Considering what you've contributed in the recording groups so far, if
you did give him the time of day it would be the wrong time, and probably
the wrong day as well.

Call me whatever you wish, but know that in my opinion you are
demonstrably one of the
stupidest ****s I have encountered in any of the newsgroups, and that your
opinion of me, whatever it may be, is irrelevant and of no practical
consequence.

Then why are you wasting all this time posting your ridiculous insults
and pontifications?

For exactly the same reason that you are wasting your time posting
your ridiculous insults and pontifications.