> > Why? Is the observer moving relative to the source? No... so v = 0
> > Is the observer moving relative to the detector? No... so v = 0
> > Is the observer moving relative to the medium (air)? No.. so v = 0.
> >
> > Since v = 0 in this case,  c+0 = c.
>
> Are you sure about that?
> Are you sure c+0 is not -c?
> After all, since sqrt(1) can be -1 and sqrt(1) can be 1,
> we can have
>     c + 0 = c
>           = 1 * c
>           = sqrt(1) * c
>           = (-1) * c
>           = -c
> You see, c+0 has two answers: c and -c
>
> Dirk Vdm

Note the above clear example of the argument of a troll, sticking its nose
in where it wasn't invited.
Does it occur to you, dirtbag, that lying to make your pathetic jokes is
extremely unethical? Nowhere have I ever said "Logic is utter gibberish",
but you, scumbag, have chosen to maliciously quote me as saying that. You
are a pathetic liar, not to be believed by anyone, and the only reply you
can expect if you answer one of my posts again is this one.

Androcles.