Kent Hovind's debates, can someone help?

The principles aren't really the same.

beg to differ, but feel free to elucidate.speed of light fixed in medium (air vacuum, etc)speed of sound fixed in medium (air, water, etc)the only difference is that light travels faster the thinner the medium (and not in dense solids) and sound travels faster the thicker the medium (and not in vacuum)both exhibit doppler effect

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

The difference is that if you were to measure the speed of approach of a sound wave moving through air toward you and you were moving toward it you would get an additive affect. It is possible for the front of the sound wave to be, in your reference frame, traveling faster than the speed of sound in air.This is not what is measured in the case of light.

I did when he posted. I saw nothing in there to show conviction. I don't think there was conviction. So you tell me why he is going about his life without being convicted and arrested. The fact that he is not is evidence he's right. The feds have no case or they'd go after him.

You are correct.If the observer was moving that would affect the relative motions differently for sound than for light. This would also obtained with wind moving the air mass at a significant speed.I stand corrected on the absolute principles of comparison.However with no airspeed and non-moving observer the experiment should properly simulate the effect of speed on light, however (so a couple caveats are added ...). Trying to keep it simple.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

But the point was having additions of velocity so something has to be moving. Once something is you can transform into any frame of reference you want. So with no relative motions the relativity effects aren't going to show are they?

quote:

---

Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light in a vacuum. It is possible to travel faster than the speed of light in various materials.

---

Yes, I know, and I think I wrote that they were constants "in a given medium".I didn't want to get things too complicated in my description.

His petition for relief from the penalty that the IRS imposed was denied, and he had to pay the IRS penalty. This is explicitly stated in the decision that you claim you read. Just because he's not in jail does not mean he hasn't been formaly declared wrong by the court; he has.

the point was showing that the speed of the car did not add velocity to the speed of {sound instead of light} within the transmiting medium (air)The experiment does show that it is possible to fullfill the condition of Hovind's scenario for speed of {sound instead of light} plus speed of car with resulting speed of {sound instead of light} not being affected by the speed of the car, thus invalidating the claim by Hovind. The point is that you do not have to go to a full relativistic light experiment to show that the Hovind claim is false and invalid.K?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Enough about the speed of light and Hovind's cluelessness.I want to talk about his claim that fire-breathing dragons exist.Buz, do you think that fire-breathing dragons exist?

I would have posted earlier, but I just got up off the floor after laughing until the tears ran down my cheeks!!! The cause? Well the quote from Hovind Surely buzsaw can see that this demonstrates total stupidity and an inability to engage brain before opening one's mouth. Just in case buz has the same problem as my hubby did when I read it out to him, the quote doesn't say "universe" or "galaxy" it says "solar system"! I did a double-take too. OK, solar system is defined as a system of planets around a star, in our case around our sun (which IS a star, buz, honest). HOW MANY SUN'S DOES HOVIND THINK ARE LURKING IN OUR SOLAR SYSTEM WAITING TO BE DISCOVERED? Maybe there's one hiding behind Uranus. At risk of overegging the pudding even more than I already have, one of the main things you tend to notice about a star within your own solar system is that it's big, it's hot, it's bright and darned difficult to miss (unless you live under a permanent blanket of cloud like we do in Scotland and even then the fact that we can see where we're going on a daily basis is a bit of a give away)Buz, if you want to hitch your wagon (or star) to Hovind, then by all means do, but don't try to tell us that he knows what he's talking about because he doesn't have a clue!

I did indeed read the link, but my take on it was that there was a settlement of some back taxes as is the case with thousands of Americans but didn't see where he was convicted of a crime. My understanding is that he is still a tax protester, doing so without arrest. What have I missed?

can we get off taxes and back to bashin ... discussing Hovind's concepts?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Trixie, we all make mistakes. I'm sure Kent knows there's only one star in our solar system and I think you know that he would be aware of that also. Likely he meant to say galexy and was quoted before having a chance to correct the mistake. I believe I heard him make a similar statement in one of his programs referring to the Milky Way galexy recently and didn't hear anything like that. I think I would have easily caught it if he had.

The fact also remains that so many planets around other stars have now been identified that it is no longer news to find a new one.