@sonhouse saidWhy are you being so evasive? It is not a hard question to answer.
@Metal-Brain
the speed of sound depends on pressure, temperature and composition. If you have sample A and it says the speed of sound is 1200 feet per second, and sample B with the same conditions, the speed in that sample will be the same.
Why did you not learn this in high school?
Did you EVER take a single physics class?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonic_boom
@Metal-Brain
What evasive are you talking about. I put out the FACTS JACK. Pressure, Temperature, composition, that is what sets speed of sound and BTW, sonic booms have NOTHING to do with doppler shift, it has 100% to due with a jet going faster than the speed of sound.
YOU are the one being evasive. I suggest you study the properties of the atmosphere, which you clearly have not done.
@sonhouse saidSince he's talking about the difference between relativity and classical physics and was using "the speed is constant" to mean something along the lines of: "The speed of light is the same in all directions and in all inertial frames of reference.", we can ignore the stuff about pressure. What matters for this conversation is that the state of motion of an inertial observer will not affect the result of an experiment they do to measure the speed of light from a distant source. However, for the observer in air the speed of sound they observe is the difference of their velocity relative to the medium and the velocity of the sound waves in the medium. So I assume that what Metal-Brain is getting at is that frame invariance is broken by the presence of the medium.
@Metal-Brain
What evasive are you talking about. I put out the FACTS JACK. Pressure, Temperature, composition, that is what sets speed of sound and BTW, sonic booms have NOTHING to do with doppler shift, it has 100% to due with a jet going faster than the speed of sound.
YOU are the one being evasive. I suggest you study the properties of the atmosphere, which you clearly have not done.
While this means that there is a difference between the relativistic and the non-relativistic doppler effect, principally that there are three frames to consider in the non-relativistic case and only two in the relativistic one and one has to take time dilation into account in relativity, I don't see that it refutes anything.
@DeepThought
IF he even understood what you just said. I think he will just further obfuscate and move the goal posts yet again, Yeah but what about SAWTOOTH SOUND WAVES? HOW DOES THAT EFFECT DOPPLER. or some such.
@deepthought said"While this means that there is a difference between the relativistic and the non-relativistic doppler effect, principally that there are three frames to consider in the non-relativistic case and only two in the relativistic one and one has to take time dilation into account in relativity, I don't see that it refutes anything."
Since he's talking about the difference between relativity and classical physics and was using "the speed is constant" to mean something along the lines of: "The speed of light is the same in all directions and in all inertial frames of reference.", we can ignore the stuff about pressure. What matters for this conversation is that the state of motion of an [i]inertial[/i ...[text shortened]... and one has to take time dilation into account in relativity, I don't see that it refutes anything.
What is the source of your information?
@Metal-Brain
So once again you can't even take the word of a working physicist. His source of information was the courses he took to get his Phd. Of course that means nothing to you since it was only other scientists told him so. A fringe dude didn't say something negative so you can't believe him.
@metal-brain saidIn the case of sound there is the reference frame of the object emitting the sound, the reference frame of the object receiving the signal and the reference frame of the medium the sound wave travels through. In the relativistic case there is no reference frame for the medium, we can always treat the receiver as stationary and the emitter as moving, in the case where there is a medium and so a preferred frame we need to take the speed of the transmitter relative to the medium and the speed of the receiver relative to the medium into account.
"While this means that there is a difference between the relativistic and the non-relativistic doppler effect, principally that there are three frames to consider in the non-relativistic case and only two in the relativistic one and one has to take time dilation into account in relativity, I don't see that it refutes anything."
What is the source of your information?
Time dilation matters because, according to the Special Theory of Relativity, in the frame of reference where the receiver is stationary the transmitter has a clock running slow.
@deepthought saidWhat is the source of your information?
In the case of sound there is the reference frame of the object emitting the sound, the reference frame of the object receiving the signal and the reference frame of the medium the sound wave travels through. In the relativistic case there is no reference frame for the medium, we can always treat the receiver as stationary and the emitter as moving, in the case where the ...[text shortened]... in the frame of reference where the receiver is stationary the transmitter has a clock running slow.
@metal-brain saidThe various lectures I attended and books I read. If you want some references: my statement about the different frames of references is supported by the last paragraph of the introduction to the Wikipedia page on the Doppler Effect [1]. The inclusion of the relativistic correction to the frequency shift due to time dilation is discussed on the page on the Relativistic Doppler Effect [2].
What is the source of your information?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_Doppler_effect
@Metal-Brain
In quantum mechanics ALL particles are waves and particles depending on how you look at them.
https://plus.maths.org/content/physics-minute-double-slit-experiment-0
@sonhouse said"ALL particles are waves"
@Metal-Brain
In quantum mechanics ALL particles are waves and particles depending on how you look at them.
https://plus.maths.org/content/physics-minute-double-slit-experiment-0
Are you sure?
@Metal-Brain
https://www.forbes.com/sites/chadorzel/2015/07/08/six-things-everyone-should-know-about-quantum-physics/#7c3203f57d46
@sonhouse saidWas the electron always considered to be a particle?
@Metal-Brain
https://www.forbes.com/sites/chadorzel/2015/07/08/six-things-everyone-should-know-about-quantum-physics/#7c3203f57d46