Science > Physics > Re: Doppler Distortion & the "Anonymous Non-believer"
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Bob Cain" |
| Date: |
30 Jan 2005 03:03:12 AM |
| Object: |
Re: Doppler Distortion & the "Anonymous Non-believer" |
The Ghost wrote:
You claim that you have predictive equations. Based on your record, I
would suggest that you don't have squat. Post "your" COMPLETE analysis and
"your" closed-form predictive equations and prove me wrong.
I did. You've seen it. I'm not going to do your research
for you.
Refute it if you can. If not, shut the f**k up. Nothing
you could have to say other than a reasonable refutation is
of further interest to me.
Bob
--
"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."
A. Einstein
.
|
|
| User: "The Ghost" |
|
| Title: Re: Doppler Distortion & the "Anonymous Non-believer" |
31 Jan 2005 09:17:49 PM |
|
|
Bob Cain <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote in
news:cti7sg130kk@enews4.newsguy.com:
The Ghost wrote:
You claim that you have predictive equations. Based on your record,
I would suggest that you don't have squat. Post "your" COMPLETE
analysis and "your" closed-form predictive equations and prove me
wrong.
I did. You've seen it. I'm not going to do your research
for you.
Refute it if you can. If not, shut the f**k up. Nothing
you could have to say other than a reasonable refutation is
of further interest to me.
Bob
Like most everything that you have posted, your posts regarding "your" so-
called analysis is little more than nonsensical drivel.
I know that you have Art Ludwig's software program for calculating the
distortion produced in an infinite tube by an ideal piston. I also know
that you are about as technically inept as they get. Consequently, until
such time as you post "your" so-called analysis, I contend that you have no
analysis and that you are simply claiming to have one and that all you have
done is to present the distortion numbers from the software program that
that was provided to you by Art Ludwig.
If my assertion are false, prove it. All you need to do is provide "your"
analysis.
Specifically, starting from basic principles (one-dimensional wave
equation) show me your analysis the result in the form
P(d)=G(v1,v2), where P is sinusoidal pressure in a tube at distance d, G is
the functional relationship and vh and vl are the sinusoidal high frequency
and low frequency velocities of the vibrating piston.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost" |
|
| Title: Re: Doppler Distortion & the "Anonymous Non-believer" |
03 Feb 2005 07:46:58 PM |
|
|
Bob Cain <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote in
news:cti7sg130kk@enews4.newsguy.com:
The Ghost wrote:
You claim that you have predictive equations. Based on your record,
I would suggest that you don't have squat. Post "your" COMPLETE
analysis and "your" closed-form predictive equations and prove me
wrong.
I did. You've seen it. I'm not going to do your research
for you.
Refute it if you can. If not, shut the f**k up. Nothing
you could have to say other than a reasonable refutation is
of further interest to me.
Bob
You did nothing meaningful, so there is nothing to refute. As per the
copy/paste of the post below, I am not alone in making that assessment.
Newsgroups: sci.physics, rec.audio.pro, rec.audio.tech
From: Jon Yaeger <jon...@bellsouth.net> - Find messages by this author
Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 20:55:22 -0400
Local: Thurs, Oct 7 2004 5:55 pm
Subject: Re: Basic Acoustic Derivation/Proof Needed
Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original |
Report Abuse
in article Xns957BB5D488546theghosthotmail...@64.164.98.6, The Ghost at
thegh...@sbcglobal.net wrote on 10/7/04 8:49 PM:
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
w...@needs.email.anyhow (Goofball_star_dot_etal) wrote in
news:41657179.63226838@usenet.plus.net:
Well, I am not particularly keen to trash his work in public, behind
his back but aren't you just a teeny weeny bit concerned that to reach
the conclusuion that he does, that he really needs to know the
position of the speaker cone in relation to the frequency/phase
modulation? And you a self-proclaimed scientist and all.
Bob Cain can call himself whatever he wants. However, not only is he not
a
scientist, he is not even a c-grade engineer, which is evident from the
fact that he is so technically inept that he had to come to sci.physics
begging someone to spoon feed him through the trivial solution of an
elementary one-dimensional wave equation which is discussed in virtually
every introductory textbook on acoustics. Worse yet, he is still making
up
and using meaningless terminology and pulling clearly incorrect equations
out of thin air, so he still doesn't understand the solution that he was
spoon fed.
And that's the charitable explanation! ;-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Cain" |
|
| Title: Re: Doppler Distortion & the "Anonymous Non-believer" |
04 Feb 2005 01:47:01 AM |
|
|
The Ghost wrote:
You did nothing meaningful, so there is nothing to refute. As per the
copy/paste of the post below, I am not alone in making that assessment.
Refute the equation I derived or admit you can't.
Bob
--
"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."
A. Einstein
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost" |
|
| Title: Re: Doppler Distortion & the "Anonymous Non-believer" |
04 Feb 2005 06:28:14 PM |
|
|
Bob Cain <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote in
news:ctv9ab0102h@enews1.newsguy.com:
The Ghost wrote:
You did nothing meaningful, so there is nothing to refute. As per
the copy/paste of the post below, I am not alone in making that
assessment.
Refute the equation I derived or admit you can't.
Bob
There is nothing to refute. Furthermore you are just as ignorant about what
constitutes a derivation as you are about how to go about solving the
elementary partial differential for one-dimentional wave propagation in a
tube.
Zigoteau did a partial derivation but left you hanging. Thereafter, all
you did was pull equations out of thin air ing anYou
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost" |
|
| Title: Re: Doppler Distortion & the "Anonymous Non-believer" |
20 Mar 2005 07:58:59 PM |
|
|
Bob Cain <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote in
news:ctv9ab0102h@enews1.newsguy.com:
The Ghost wrote:
You did nothing meaningful, so there is nothing to refute. As per
the copy/paste of the post below, I am not alone in making that
assessment.
Refute the equation I derived or admit you can't.
There is nothing to refute. You derived nothing. You are a fraud.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
