Randy Yates wrote:

My respect for you and others here has plummetted.

I'll survive.

I hear you repeatedly
asking folks to spoon-feed you at the most fundamental level -

Hmmm, I feel like I'm the one spoon-feeding fundamentals to
y'all.

so much
so you can't seem to lift a finger to check out a reference.

I simple ask people to prove their assertions as I have
attempted to prove mine.

Do you
live at the North Pole? Why can't you go to the library and check out
a physics book? Are you crippled?

The proof is on the one asserting the phenomenon. I am
simply not going to waste time searching for something that
I know doesn't exist.


Porky seems to be pulling reasons out of a hat. ruffrecords can't seem
to reason.

Translation: he doesn't agree with you.


As I said earlier in another post, my response would be different if
folks came at this from a more humble perspective of rational inquiry
and discussion.d

And I haven't? You are the one that's blind and deaf.


The problem with your approach, Bob, is that you are challenging
a well-proven principle with little or no reason to back it up.

On the contary, I am asking those asserting it to prove it's
existence with a general, predictive, mathematical theory.

Why
WOULDN'T a speaker act as a moving platform?

I've given numerous physical reasons the behavior you expect
can't and won't happen and you have not even attempted to
find a flaw.

Porky proffered a
strange theory at least - you have offered none that I recall.

You don't need a theory for the non-existence of a
phenomenon. It's the other way around. I've shown how
existing theory doesn't allow for it and I don't think you
can say I haven't. Where were your responses to those
illustrations if they were so wrong?

At
some point calling reasonable assumptions into question is irrational
and you begin searching for the holy grail when the more rational
explanation is the one that is simplest.

Show it to me then. Give me the expression that describes
your pet theory in detail. Without it there is nothing to
discuss.


You stand hard on the "theory" of science as requiring "proof." I got
news for ya' - scientific "proof" isn't all it's cracked up to
be.

Gimme a break. We are talking about a simple physical
phenomenon here, where is the physics?

Invariably, at some level, there will be assumptions that are
made. Even in mathematics, proofs are based, ultimately, on axioms,
and those axioms are essentially just assumptions about what is true.

"Doppler distortion" is an axiom only in your mind and the
only place you can find refuge from the requirement to prove it.


Keep in mind that this is a mathematics and electrical engineering
graduate speaking here.

Then you should be well capable of producing the rigorous
theoretical basis for this yourself.

Electrical Engineering and Engineering Physics here.
University of Illinois, Urbana campus.


Essentially, our laws and theories are ones that agree with our
experience and our universe as best we can model at the moment. There
is no "proof" of any of them.

How can it be that such an "obvious" physical phenomenon
defies rigorous description. That's simply absurd.


Bob
--

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

A. Einstein