"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> George Dishman wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>> > George Dishman wrote:
>> > > Jeff Root wrote:
>> > > > George Dishman wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > (1) and (3) were stated by me, not Jeff.
>> > > >
>> > > > I believe that Jim introduced the use of firearms into
>> > > > discussion of the Doppler effect. Jim's description of
>> > > > case (3) on February 22, which I quoted in my original
>> > > > post and my web page containing the animation...
>> > >
>> > > You are right, Jim introduced it in post 1396 on
>> > > the 25th Jan. He first compared (1) and (4)
>> > > and then (2) and (4). I responded in post 1401
>> > > and focussed on the latter as it I thought would
>> > > clear up Jim's confusion about the cause.
>> > How the can he be RIGHT, when in the SAME paragraph
>> > you admit I referred to (1) and (4), NOT (3)
>> He is right that you introduced the use of firearms
>> into the discussion, I had forgotten your earlier
>> post so I am admitting I was wrong. However, you
>> actually intoduced it a month earlier at the end of
>> January when you compared 1 vs. 4 then 2 vs. 4.
>> For (3), see the quote below.
>> > ..........and you think that _I_ am confused!
>> > Are you having some sort of a breakdown?
>> > That is twice running that you have monumentally presented yourself as
>> > self-contradicory.
>> Check the dates, or look up the messages
>> themselves (the numbers may increase slightly
>> as people are still replying to earlier posts).
> Especially 22/2
>> > > > > If the gun fired the first round from 300m while moving
>> > > > > forward at 50m/s and then quickly doubled back and also
>> > > > > fired the second round from the same distance, the rate
>> > > > > the rounds hit the target would be the same as the rate
>> > > > > they were fired. ...
>> > >
>> > > > > Get a fast rifleman; have him fire at target while
>> > > > > stationary, run quickly forward a few yards, stop and
>> > > > > fire again--------repeat (he is a machine gun with the
>> > > > > bullets fired when stationary.
>> > > > > Will the observer at target note any effect to
>> > > > > differentiate between that rifleman staying in the
>> > > > > same place?????????
>> > > > > (This clearly demonstrates that it is the MOTION of
>> > > > > the gun at instant of firing which causes increased
>> > > > > frequency/bullet velocity at target)
> There has been a corruption of my posts.
There is no corruption Jim, it is there on
Google for you to see and it is on my ISP's
server with exactly the same content. If you
think you "cut and paste" from somewhere,
enter a key phrase from the text into Google's
advanced search and see what you can find.
The writing style is certainly not mine, I
almost never use repeated punctuation marks
and though I sometimes make typos, the number
of grammatical errors is uncharacteristic of
my style. I also double space paragraphs so I
am sure this is not my typing.
> I am positive that it was YOU who suggested the stop/start.
Perhaps I did in some other post but you certainly
wrote that one and you didn't cite anything earlier
so it's hard to know.
I did partly originate scenario 2. You described:
> A second identical gun (and ammo), now is introduced which is
> oscillating towards and away from the same target.
in your post:
I modified that a bit in the 'worked example':
> > If the gun fired the first round from 300m while moving
> > forward at 50m/s and then quickly doubled back and also
> > fired the second round from the same distance, the rate
> > the rounds hit the target would be the same as the rate
> > they were fired. The observer knows and can measure that
> > the rounds are moving at 500m/s, not the 450 the gun
> > produces, but that is not what creates the change in
> > rate.
Henry and I went on to discuss that, basically comparing
(2) with (4), for some time. It was after you introduced
the comparison of (1) and (3) that henry wrote his list
and suggested we choose just one.
> Jim should NOT be associated with such, and I categorically deny
> suggesting that scenario. How could I?; if you look further back, I
> was talking about comparison between stationary and aircraft mounted
> machine guns. Would I really
> suggest that a plane stop/starts/ when firing?
No, I guess that's why you changed it to riflemen.
>> > This above was from GEORGE
>> The first paragraph is mine from this message:
>> The second paragraph is yours from this message:
>> "Get a fast rifleman; have him fire at target while stationary,
>> run quickly forward a few yards, stop and fire again" is
>> sceanrio (3) and the post has "Jim:" in front of those lines.
> No way!
Yes way!, see Google Jim.
>> > > > ... is what prompted me to make the animation. I was
>> > > > then further guided by Henry's canonization of the four
>> > > > cases (1) through (4), which required me to reorganize
>> > > > the animation to put the cases in the same order.
>> > > >
>> > > > I wish Jim could comprehend the irony of his repeated,
>> > > > strident complaints about the irrelevance of case (3),
>> > > > when he is the person who suggested it.
>> > Liar or confused incompetent!
>> > Which is it?
>> Well in your post you wrote:
>> > George:
>> > "It is the change of location of the gun between rounds being fired
>> > that matters".
>> > Jim:
>> > Get a fast rifleman; have him fire at target while stationary, run
>> > quickly forward a few yards, stop and fire again--------repeat (he is a
>> > machine gun with the bullets fired when stationary.
>> That describes (3) doesn't it?
>> > > Indeed, it was even him who previously suggested
>> > > (2) vs (4) but got the result wrong.
>> > Yes to the first, and no to the second.
>> > Conservation of energy is a fact as uncompromised as
>> > anything considered.
>> Yes, energy is always conserved, but what causes the
>> change of arrival rate in cases where there is no change
>> of bullet speed?
>> > > > It was actually first introduced by another poster a
>> > > > few months ago, but Jim probably didn't remember that
>> > > > when he wrote on February 22.
>> > >
>> > > Odysseus in post 1407, a couple of days after this
>> > > started. Seven weeks, hundreds of posts and Jim
>> > > still doesn't understand what causes the Doppler
>> > > Effect.
>> > More bullets / time, and with unassailable evidence that
>> > they arrived at a higher speed (target damage)
>> More bullets / time but no change of speed when
>> comparing (1) vs (3).
> Get this straight:
> I claim (1) vs (4) are the cause of doppler for the bullets.
> George and Jeff claim it is (1) vs (4)
Get this straight Jim, that isn't what I claimed,
you summarised it correctly when you wrote this:
> > > George:
> > > "It is the change of location of the gun between rounds being fired
> > > that matters".
That is an inaccurate statement of my claim, my
position is this:
a) A Doppler shift occurs in both (3) and (4)
because the arrival rate differs from the
firing rate, but no Doppler shift occurs in
(1) or (2) because the arrival rate is the
same as the firing rate in each case.
b) The target damage is greater in (2) and (4)
than it is in (1) and (3).
c) The rifleman changes his position between
shots in (3) and (4) but not in (1) or (2).
Observations: Doppler shift occurs whenever there
is a change of position between shots whether
there is a change of target damage or not.
Conclusion: It is the change of position which is
the cause of the changed arrival rates in (3) and
(4), not the changed speed of the bullet which
occurs in (2) and (4).
> Move on (to the energy evapouration if you like)
Once you explain why there is Doppler shift in
(3) but not in (1).