🚀 go-pugleaf

On Aug 4, 8:39 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Aug 4, 2:33 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote in
> sci.physics:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 3, 1:33 pm, "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
>
> > > This early morn' the pool's surface is like a mirror.
> > > Come alone a pair of heavenly, blue-red Dragon flies
> > > who briefly (and repeatedly) touch the still watern
> > > to form perfect circular wave ripple patterns,
> > > noticeable out to an expanse of 10+ meters across
> > > before fading back into the motionless flat surface.
>
> > > The expected amplitude, half-life type, decay of the
> > > wave rings is easy to see and so is the change in the
> > > wavelengths of the expanding wave rings as they fade
> > > back into the quiet stillness of the vast watery space.
>
> > > We see here an interplay of electromagnetic and
> > > gravitational forces in watery matter/masses within
> > > ordinary 2 & 3 space.
>
> > > The same game, in self-similar fashion, is seen over
> > > all scales in nature.
>
> > > Parrots of heuristic dogma and especially all the
> > > Dangling Einstein Dingleberries who are swinging in
> > > the breeze of the farts from Einstein's sphincter will whine
> > > that their beliefs in their SR/GR bible are threatened now...
> > > because the obvious carrying matrix,  the Aether and the
> > > registered tiring of the light would make them fall off from
> > > their precarious relativistic cozy warmth near Einstein's
> > > sphincter that nourished their spirits for their mental
> > > masturbations...
>
> > > So, they will not be able to see the real phenomenon as
> > > little as they did when the aether was buried in the units
> > > of the cgs system but made an "inconvenient" reappearance
> > > in the MKS and SI unit systrems....
>
> > > Do I have the Einstein Dingleberries' emotioal amplitude
> > > rising now?.. in these splendid forums that remind me of
> > > the Mayberry Barbershop atmosphere in the old Andy
> > > Griffith shows, wherein Floyd, the barber plays the perfect
> > > role of an Einstein Dingleberry... ahahahahha... ahahanson
>
> > Very calmly and serenely, we use the strength of the gravitational
> > interaction and the measurable stiffness of the coupling strength of
> > the water to itself to check that the waves do in fact travel at the
> > speed that we expect them to. And quite objectively and
> > dispassionately, we notice that all waves in material media have a
> > wave speed that is related to both the bulk inertia of the medium and
> > the stiffness of the medium, via a well-known and apparently universal
> > relation. Moreover, the inertia and the stiffness of the medium can be
> > checked -- completely without emotion and bristling -- with other
> > predictable measures in other phenomena, thereby binding the whole kit
> > and kaboodle into a coherent story.
>
> > Then in similar fashion, we can use the very same universal relations
> > about waves in material media,
>
> Is the relation between the speed of the the wave, w, and the speed of
> the observer relative to the medium, v, among those fundamental
> relations, Clever Draper?

Nope. Do you know the fundamental relations, Pentcho?

Moreover, if you determine that, because of the problems mentioned
above, a *material-medium-based* wave is untenable, you still always
have the option of non-material-medium-based waves as another option
to consider.

I don't know why you would refuse to consider non-material-based waves
if
1. The deduced stiffness and inertia of the hypothesized material
medium turns out to be inconsistent with other observations, and
2. The measured speed of the wave is c and not c+v or c-v.

It appears you insist on saying that the wave MUST be material-medium-
based, come hell or high water and therefore
1. The observations that are inconsistent with the deduced stiffness
of the hypothesized material medium need to be ignored, and
2. The measurements of light speed that show c and not c+v or c-v
(where motion between source and observer is the putative cause and
not a gravitational field) need to be ignored.

Of course, what you appear to be insisting is scientific lunacy, but
it is what it is.

PD

> If it is, you obtain, for the speed of the
> wave as measured by the observer, w'=w+v or, in the case of a light
> wave (w=c), c'=c+v. But you do not wish to obtain c'=c+v, do you
> Clever Draper?
>
> Pentcho Valev
> pva...@yahoo.com
>
> > and the measured speed of light, to
> > deduce the inertia and the coupling stiffness of the supposed medium
> > -- all in a carefree and lighthearted but earnest manner. And we can
> > stare at those numbers and ponder casually but without the least bit
> > of brow-furrowing how it is that a medium so rigid would allow the
> > earth to orbit the sun. And furthermore, we can -- with complete ease
> > of mind -- check the connections of the inertia and coupling stiffness
> > to the predictable measures in other phenomena, just as we did with
> > water, and -- in an orderly and unpanicked fashion -- reasonably
> > notice that we don't have a kit anymore, let alone a kaboodle.
>
> > And so, without a care in the world, we can casually discard the
> > notion of a medium as being relevant for electromagnetic transmission,
> > no matter how much maniacal laughter is heard from the foamy-lipped
> > babbling neurotics who are cackling about how upset people must be
> > about the notion of an aether.