That is another non-answer, because you are not explaining what the special theory of relativity have to do with this. Please go back to post #95, and try again. Correct; the Doppler effect doesn't need SR to be explained. The Doppler effect was first described in 1842; that's some time before the theory of relativity came along. And I don't know how I'm describing things "in context of today", when you are the one constantly bringing up things from 1842 and 1905. So you agree with me that you were wrong. OK. The Doppler effect can be described by SR, but it was discovered (and explained) before Einstein was even born. So no, referencing the Doppler effect doesn't mean you are talking about SR. Additionally, I don't see how the waves of the sea/ocean at a coastline are related to the Doppler effect? I mean, I see where it plays a small role, but I don't see how that has any bearing on prehistoric people. Incorrect, a child's mind wouldn't be thinking in terms of wavelengths. Additionally, that a child's mind would come up with it doesn't make it any less non-sense. So you agree that you were talking non-sense when you said you were talking about the special theory of relativity. OK. Utterly unrelated to the theory of special relativity. Why do you keep bringing this up? "Or you are purposely trying to waylay this discussion."