OgreMkV
Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009
|
| Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 18 2015,21:34) | | Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 18 2015,21:31) | | Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 18 2015,21:26) | Kevin, you are a desperate asshole. I already went over the constant/ velocity thing. Obviously you are just an ignorant baby.
There is a one-to-one correspondence between wavelength and frequency with any given velocity, asshole.
wavelength and frequency
| Quote | | There are different ways to indicate where to find a certain station on a radio dial. For example, we could say that a station is operating on 9680 kiloHertz (kHz), 9.68 megahertz (MHz), or on 31 meters. And all three ways would be correct! |
|
Yes, at a constant velocity, which you only added after many, many people pounded you into the sand over it.
And the statement above is only true under a certain velocity, which is NOT mentioned in that statement. I don't know why you even quoted it.
But I'm glad to see that you realize that your claim (in bold) is not correct.
That's all you had to say. |
Kevin, again you never were part of the discussion. I went the velocity thing on my blog. I can't help it if what I said was misrepresented over here.
My claim in bold is correct and I have proven it is. |
| Quote | | Frequency and wavelength are differing numerical representations of the SAME WAVE. Once you have one you have the other. |
OK, so what's the wavelength of a 120 hertz sound wave?
There's no velocity or any other boundary conditions mentioned in the statement you made.
You DO NOT have the other, unless you also know the velocity, which I have shown you. Your statement is wrong.
It's wrong in a stupid way, but it's still wrong.
--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.
http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat
|
