|
|
"George Dishman" <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1143059310.878176.261950@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
|
| Hexenmeister wrote:
| > "George Dishman" <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
| > news:1143037858.852330.37490@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > |
| > | Hexenmeister wrote:
| > | > "George Dishman" <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
| > | > news:1143024015.799420.99930@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > | > | Hexenmeister wrote:
| > | > | > "George Dishman" <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
| > | > | > news:1142954382.291538.40890@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > | > | > | Hexenmeister wrote:
| > | > | > | > "George Dishman" <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
| > | > | > | >
news:1142932669.852650.138370@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > | > | > | > |
| > | > | > | > | Hexenmeister wrote:
| > | > | > | > | > "George Dishman" <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
message
| > | > | > | > | >
news:1142888842.269541.61410@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > | > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > | > [snip to the heart of the matter]
| > | > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > | > ===================================================
| > | > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > | > From: Jeff Root - view profile
| > | > | > | > | > Date: Mon, Mar 6 2006 12:33 pm
| > | > | > | > | > Email: "Jeff Root" <j...@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
| > | > | > | > | > Groups: sci.physics.relativity,
sci.physics,
| > | > sci.astro
| > | > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > | > I made a GIF animation to illustrate how the
Doppler
| > | > | > | > | > effect works, comparing the four cases described
by
| > Jim
| > | > | > | > | > and Henry, in which a gunner shoots at a target
and:
| > | > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > | > 1) remains fixed
| > | > | > | > | > 2) advances as he fires but always fires from same
| > place
| > | > | > | > | > 3) advances between shots
| > | > | > | > | > 4) advances at constant speed as he fires
| > | > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > | > http://www.freemars.org/jeff2/Doppler.htm
| > | > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > | > The gunners fire at a rate of one shot per 15
frames.
| > | > | > | > | > They fire simultaneously, four shots each. The
guns
| > are
| > | > | > | > | > lined up side-by-side at the instant of the first
| > shot.
| > | > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > | > Muzzle speed is 8 pixels per frame. Gunners 2 and
4
| > | > | > | > | > advance at 4 pixels per frame as they fire, so the
| > | > | > | > | > speeds of the bullets relative to the targets are:
| > | > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > | > 1) 8 pixels per frame
| > | > | > | > | > 2) 12 pixels per frame
| > | > | > | > | > 3) 8 pixels per frame
| > | > | > | > | > 4) 12 pixels per frame
| > | > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > | > Distances between bullets in flight:
| > | > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > | > 1) 120 pixels
| > | > | > | > | > 2) 180 pixels
| > | > | > | > | > 3) 60 pixels
| > | > | > | > | > 4) 120 pixels
| > | > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > | > When the first bullet from each gun hits the
target, a
| > | > | > | > | > timer is started (red) which counts frames. The
timer
| > | > | > | > | > stops when the second bullet hits, and the elapsed
| > time
| > | > | > | > | > between bullet hits is shown in green. The times
are:
| > | > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > | > 1) 15.0 frames
| > | > | > | > | > 2) 15.0 frames
| > | > | > | > | > 3) 7.5 frames
| > | > | > | > | > 4) 10.0 frames
| > | > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > | > =================================================
| > | > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > | > | For rifleman 3 the "wavelength" (distance between
bullets)
| > | > | > | > | > | is 60 pixels and the period (frames per bullet) is
shown
| > by
| > | > | > | > | > | Jeff as 7.5 so:
| > | > | > | > | > |
| > | > | > | > | > | 60 / 7.5 = 8 pixels per frame.
| > | > | > | > | > |
| > | > | > | > | > | So the wavelength, speed and hit rate are in
| > | > | > | > | > | agreement. That method just confirms what I
| > | > | > | > | > | have been saying. Why did you think it would
| > | > | > | > | > | be different?
| > | > | > | > | > |
| > | > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > | > For rifleman 1 the "wavelength" (distance between
bullets)
| > | > | > | > | > is 120 pixels and the period (frames per bullet) is
shown by
| > | > | > | > | > Jeff as 15 so
| > | > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > | > 120/15 = 8 pixels per frame.
| > | > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > | > So the wavelength, speed and hit rate are in
| > | > | > | > | > agreement.
| > | > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > | > STOP!
| > | > | > | > | > Think!
| > | > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > | > Can you see how easily I suckered you?
| > | > | > | > |
| > | > | > | > | No. Make your point if you think you have one,
| > | > | > | > | why do you think the speed is not 8 ppf when
| > | > | > | > | you just showed it is ?
| > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > I did. I'll repeat it. You failed to think. You are an
idiot.
| > | > | > | > That IS my point.
| > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > Let's try one more time...
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | It seems it is necessary.
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | > Do all guns fire are the same time? ---- Yes.
| > | > | > | > Do all guns have the same firing frequency? ----Yes.
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | Agreed.
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | > What is the firing frequency?
| > | > | > | > First shot is fired frame 3.
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | The bullet is still in the gun in that frame.
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | > See frame 19 for second shot.
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | The bullet is out of the gun in that frame so you
| > | > | > | are not comparing like with like, however you
| > | > | > | correct that error in a moment.
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | > frequency = 1 shot per [(19-3) = 16] frames
| > | > | > | > = 1/16 shots per frame
| > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > speed = wavelength * frequency.
| > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > Rifleman 1: bullet speed = 120 * 1/16 = 7.5 ppf
| > | > | > | > Rifleman 3: bullet speed = 60 * 1/16 = 3.75 ppf
| > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > Why isn't this 8 and 4?
| > | > | > | > Because the actual first firing was not frame 3 but frame 4,
| > | > | > | > the 2nd bullet magically appears in front of the gun and
| > | > | > | > 120 pixels behind the first bullet.
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | Because you screwed up again, the bullets are
| > | > | > | fired but in the gun in frames 3 and 18, a period
| > | > | > | of 15 frames.
| > | > | >
| > | > | > No, you ed up, the first bullet begins flight ar t = zero
| > | > | > when the relevant timing of bullets begins, I don't give a
| > | > | > about riflemen scratching their arses beforehand
| > | > | > or how many frames you counted beforehand. That's
| > | > | > at frame 4.
| > | > |
| > | > | Set t=0 where you like, the second bullet
| > | > | is fired 15 frames after the first as Jeff said.
| > | >
| > | > Yep. So you ed up with 3.5 ppf and 7 ppf
| > | > in more_frames.png, your SECOND attempt.
| > |
| > | No, you ed up twice. I pointed out first that
| > | given YOUR choice of frames, your value of
| > | 72ppf was wrong,
| >
| > I already agreed to that.
|
| So don't try to claim it was my error.
Ok, So Rot ed up with 3.5 ppf and 7 ppf
in more_frames.png, your SECOND attempt.
Apologise to him.
Androcles.
As for
| the rest, you still owe Jeff that apology, you
| now know he didn't lie about the bullet speeds
| and all your scratching around hasn't found
| anything else either.
|
| George
|
|
| > it should have been 3.5 ppf,
| >
| > That's stupid. No bullet is that slow.
| > off, come back if you ever gain any sanity.
| > Androcles.
| >
| >
| >
| >
| > | and second that the reason you got a value
| > | other than 4ppf was because YOU had selected
| > | a pair of frames that included the time when
| > | the riflemen were scratching their arses.
| > |
| > | > | > They appear clear of the gun in
| > | > | > | frames 4 and 19, again a period of 15 frames as
| > | > | > | Jeff said.
| > | > | >
| > | > | > Rot is a lying cunt like you, they were fired in frame -999,996
| > | > | > and took 1,000,000 frames to travel down the barrels.
| > | > |
| > | > | Number the frames as you like, the second
| > | > | bullet is fired 15 frames after the first as Jeff
| > | > | said.
| > | >
| > | > Yep. So you or Rot ed up with 3.5 ppf and 7 ppf
| > | > in more_frames.png, your SECOND attempt,
| > |
| > | Your choice, not mine. I asked which frames you
| > | had used and you said "0 and 10", frames 1 and
| > | 11 with the software I used.
| > |
| > | > but you eventually got 4 ppf for rifleman 4, nothing for
| > | > the bullet speed, and also found 35+32 = 60.
| > | > So who ed up, you or Rot as Jeff said?
| > |
| > | You did, if you had used matching frames after the
| > | arse-scratching was finished (such as 4 and 19)
| > | then you would have got 4ppf (other than probably
| > | getting the arithmetic wrong). Talking of which your
| > | arithmetic is off again, 35+32-60 = 7 pixels between
| > | frames 1 and 4.
| > |
| > | The bullets speeds were settled in
| > |
| > | http://www.georgedishman.f2s.com/Henri/frame_11_to_12.png
| > |
| > | as 8 ppf (from 109 to 117) and 12 ppf (from 137 to 149).
| > |
| > | > | > | > frequency = 1 shot per [(19-4) = 15] frames
| > | > | > | > = 1/15 shots per frame
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | Correct.
| > | > | >
| > | > | > I know it is, but you are still a moron.
| > | > | >
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | > speed = wavelength * frequency.
| > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > Rifleman 1: bullet speed = 120 * 1/15 = 8 ppf
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | Correct.
| > | > | > I know it is,
| > | > |
| > | > | So motion from left to right is positive.
| > | >
| > | > By default to convention, yes.
| > | > You can make a mirror image of the gif, rotate it,
| > | > invert it, do as you wish, the physics doesn't change.
| > | > We are, however, employing a mathematical model here
| > | > and mathematical conventions apply.
| > | > If you wish to depart from convention then state that
| > | > deviation so that it is understood by all.
| > |
| > | No need to deviate, I just wanted to confirm
| > | the convention since you break it later.
| > |
| > | > I would not ask
| > | > for infinite frames either, it isn't practical. By convention,
| > | > the frames used are "snapshots" with smooth constant motion
| > | > between the snapshots implied. The stop/start nature of this
| > | > particular model was clearly stated for the riflemen, and
| > | > the smooth constant speed of the bullets was implied by default.
| > | > Any bullet acceleration takes place within the gun and
| > | > air resistance is ignored. By default to convention of mathematical
| > | > models, particularly digital models.
| > |
| > | I agree with that as practical necessities.
| > |
| > | > | > but you are still a cretin.
| > | > | >
| > | > | >
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | > Rifleman 3: bullet speed = 60 * 1/15 = 4 ppf
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | Correct, relative to the rifleman.
| > | > | >
| > | > | > Damn right it is, and -8 ppf relative to the target as you've
| > proven.
| > | > |
| > | > | No, +8ppf, motion from left to right is positive.
| > | >
| > | > In the reference frame of the rifleman --
| > | > positive, bullet receding, distance increases as a function of
time.
| > | > In the reference frame of the target --
| > | > negative, bullet approaching, distance decreases as a function of
| > time.
| > |
| > | Well the convention I am using as confirmed above
| > | is "motion from left to right is positive." whether
| > | relative to the rifleman or the target.
| > |
| > | > | If anyone is a moron, the evidence points to you.
| > | >
| > | > The moon sets in the West, the Earth rotates toward the East.
| > | > The moon moves toward the East.
| > | > What evidence do you offer for your claim? Resentment at
| > | > being proven wrong?
| > |
| > | Relative to the target, the bullet is moving left to
| > | hence +8ppf, not -8ppf.
| > |
| > | > Emotional outbursts are not proof.
| > |
| > | That's why I don't use them myself but if you
| > | introduce them then you should expect them
| > | to reflect on you.
| > |
| > | > You are a proven cunt that confuses left from negative and
| > | > doesn't know what a frame of reference is.
| > |
| > | See above:
| > | =============================
| > | > | So motion from left to right is positive.
| > | >
| > | > By default to convention, yes.
| > | =============================
| > |
| > | The bullet is moving left to right at 8ppf relative to
| > | the target, and left to right at 4ppf relative to
| > | the rifleman, both should be positive by our
| > | convention.
| > |
| > | > | > | > So where did 8 ppf come from for (3)?
| > | > | > | > Ballistic theory, of course.
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | Yes, that's what we are illustrating.
| > | > | >
| > | > | > To Rot:
| > | > | > "[Henri Wilson] now knows Ritz's "ballistic theory"
| > | > | > is falsified" - Dishwater, Wed, Feb 22 2006 8:31 pm,
| > | > | > one month ago.
| > | > |
| > | > | Ritz's theory is of course falsified, that doesn't
| > | > | stop me discussing it hypothetically.
| > | >
| > | > You are a proven psychotic is of course verified, that doesn't stop
| > | > me hypothetically assuming you are sane.
| > | >
| > | >
| > | > | > Which is it, Dishwater, are you arrogant cretin or dishonest
cunt?
| > | > |
| > | > | Just someone capable of discussing failed theories
| > | > | without accepting them.
| > | >
| > | > Ok, an arrogant cretin AND a dishonest cunt.
| > | >
| > | >
| > | > | > | > By your own calculation, riflemen 3 and 4 travel
| > | > | > | > 60 pixels between frame 4 and frame 19.
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | Yes, an average speed of 4 ppf.
| > | > | >
| > | > | > Oh my gawd! What the is an "average" speed, cretin?
| > | > | > Do you even know what a speed is?
| > | > | > Tell me, cretin, what an "average speed" is.
| > | > |
| > | > | If you are unfamiliar with the term, read this:
| > | > |
| > | > | http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/GBSSCI/PHYS/CLASS/1DKin/U1L1d.html
| > | >
| > | > Very well.
| > | >
| > | > It says:
| > | > Calculating Average Speed and Average Velocity
| > | >
| > | > The average speed during the course of a motion is often computed
using
| > the
| > | > following equation:
| > | >
| > | >
| > | > Average speed = Distance travelled / time of travel.
| > | >
| > | > Meanwhile, the average velocity is often computed using the equation
| > | >
| > | >
| > | > delta position
| > | > Average velocity = --------------------
| > | > time
| > | >
| > | > "In agreement with experience we further assume the quantity
| > | > 2AB/(t'A-tA) = c to be the velocity of light in empty space" --
Einstein
| > | > Reference http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
| > |
| > | Yeah, I would have used speed, but that's translation for you.
| > |
| > | > A-A (change of position)
| > | > Average velocity = -------------------- = c = 0
| > | > time
| > | >
| > | > In agreement with experience Einstein was a cunt, and so are you.
| > | > I, however, am just someone capable of discussing failed theories
| > | > without accepting them.
| > | >
| > | >
| > | > | > | Of course 3 has
| > | > | > | to move faster between shots as he is standing
| > | > | > | still to fire.
| > | > | >
| > | > | > Who gives a if 3 jumps over the moon between shots ?
| > | > |
| > | > | Nobody, but you seem intent on nitpicking in your
| > | > | attempt to find some trivial error in Jeff's work as a
| > | > | excuse to avoid apologising for saying he lied when
| > | > | he didn't.
| > | >
| > | > He lied. He said the speed of the bullets was 8 ppf and 12 ppf.
| > |
| > | The speeds are 8 and 12 ppf.
| > |
| > | http://www.georgedishman.f2s.com/Henri/frame_11_to_12.png
| > |
| > | > UNDERSTAND this, don't just read it:
| > | > http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/GBSSCI/PHYS/CLASS/1DKin/U1L1d.html
| > | >
| > | >
| > | > | > The ONLY thing that is relevant is 4 ppf for the bullet.
| > | > |
| > | > | Get it right for a change, I said 4 ppf for riflemen 3 and 4.
| > | >
| > | > You seem intent on nitpicking in your attempt to disguise some
| > | > significant error in Jeff's work as an excuse to avoid apologising
| > | > to me for showing you 4 does not equal 8 and 4 does not equal 12.
| > | > Get it right for a change, you said 4 ppf and Rot said 12 ppf.
| > |
| > | I said the riflemen move at 4ppf and the bullets at 8ppf
| > | and 12ppf. Jeff said:
| > |
| > | > | > | > | > 1) remains fixed
| > | > | > | > | > 2) advances as he fires but always fires from same
| > place
| > | > | > | > | > 3) advances between shots
| > | > | > | > | > 4) advances at constant speed as he fires
| > | ...
| > | > | > | > | > Muzzle speed is 8 pixels per frame. Gunners 2 and
4
| > | > | > | > | > advance at 4 pixels per frame as they fire, so the
| > | > | > | > | > speeds of the bullets relative to the targets are:
| > | > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > | > 1) 8 pixels per frame
| > | > | > | > | > 2) 12 pixels per frame
| > | > | > | > | > 3) 8 pixels per frame
| > | > | > | > | > 4) 12 pixels per frame
| > |
| > | Where do you think I disagree with Jeff?
| > |
| > | > | The only bullet speed that was relevant for Jim was
| > | > | relative to the target since he kept ranting on about
| > | > | target penetration being evidence for increased
| > | > | kinetic energy.
| > | >
| > | > We'll get to kinetic energy after and if you understand this:
| > | >
| > | > http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/GBSSCI/PHYS/CLASS/1DKin/U1L1d.html
| > | >
| > | > although that will be conditional on if you understand 4 ppf does
not
| > equal
| > | > 12 ppf.
| > |
| > | That will be conditional on you understanding the "rifleman"
| > | does not equal "bullet" and "relative to the target" does not
| > | equal "relative to the rifleman".
| > |
| > | > Maybe next year. Greenfield is only two years ahead of you, you may
| > catch
| > | > up.
| > | >
| > | > | > (3) was deliberately contrived by Rot to deceive and win
| > | > | > an argument, and he's failed. Why did you congratulate him,
cretin?
| > | > |
| > | > | (1) and (3) were stated by me, not Jeff. I thanked him
| > | > | for the effort he put into illustrating those scenarios
| > | > |which he did accurately. You have yet to find any error.
| > | >
| > | > So you deny. Cretins do that.
| > |
| > | You claimed the bullet speeds quoted were wrong
| > | but they are as Jeff stated so what error do you
| > | think you have found?
| > |
| > | > | > He's a ing loser,
| > | > |
| > | > | He beat you.
| > | >
| > | > <shrug>
| > | >
| > | >
| > | > | > still trying to bluster me with "You can't tell...".
| > | > | > He's conned you, but not me, cretin. He can't con an honest
| > | > | > mathematician and engineer. It's cunts like him, Hitler and
| > | > | > Saddam Hussein that get people killed. Lying shits, the lot of
them.
| > | > | >
| > | > | >
| > | > | > | > Rifleman 3 *passes* rifleman 4 and fires a bullet
| > | > | > | > with muzzle velocity 4 ppf, (frame 11) ...
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | By "muzzle velocity" I mean the speed of the bullet
| > | > | > | relative to the muzzle at the time of firing which is
| > | > | > | simply a measure of the charge. In the animation it
| > | > | > | is 8 ppf.
| > | > | >
| > | > | > See frame 19.
| > | > | > Bullet 3-1 is half the distance from the gun as Bullet 1-1.
| > | > | > In the animation it is 4 ppf.
| > | > |
| > | > | The speed of the bullet is 8ppf as Jeff said, the speed
| > | > | of the rifleman is 4ppf as Jeff said, you have yet to
| > | > | find any error.
| > | >
| > | > "Get it right for a change, I said 4 ppf for riflemen 3 and 4." --
| > | > Dishwater.
| > | > Apologise to Rot for disagreeing with him.
| > |
| > | Where did Jeff give a different speed for the riflemen.
| > |
| > | > | > You are a cretin.
| > | > |
| > | > | You are incompetent and incapable of backing up your
| > | > | claim that Jeff lied.
| > | >
| > | > "Get it right for a change, I said 4 ppf for riflemen 3 and 4." --
| > | > Dishwater.
| > |
| > | Where did Jeff give a different speed for the riflemen?
| > |
| > | > | > Plead guilty as charged and ask for mitigation, reason --
insanity.
| > | > | > Further note that Dishwater claims 3.5 ppf in more_frames.png,
| > | > | > you wrote it and then said I screwed up.
| > | > |
| > | > | You did, you said the speed was 72 ppf.
| > | >
| > | > I can lie as well, but I admit my lies and I stood corrected.
| > | > You, being a dishonest cunt, do not have that capability.
| > |
| > | I admit my errors to, e.g typing 120 instead of 60, but
| > | I don't count the arse-scratching time in the animation
| > | as being relevant to the changed rates due to Doppler.
| > | I will admit errors if you can find any.
| > |
| > | > | > | Rifleman 3 stands still to fire so 3's bullet
| > | > | > | moves at 8ppf but rifleman 4 keeps moving at 4 ppf
| > | > | > | while firing so his bullet moves at 4 + 8 = 12 ppf ...
| > | > | >
| > | > | > Rifleman 1 stands still to fire.
| > | > | > Rifleman 3 steps backward to fire.
| > | > |
| > | > | Bullets from 3 move at 8ppf across the animation,
| > | > | the same speed as bullets from 1.
| > | >
| > | > No they don't. Across the animation bullets move from
| > | > frame 1 to frame (91 ?). Read this:
| > |
| > | Maybe you're still making the same mistake
| > | as before, don't count arse-scratching time or
| > | time admiring the damage after the bullets hit
| > | the target.
| > |
| > | George
| > |
| > |
| > |
| > |
| > | > http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/GBSSCI/PHYS/CLASS/1DKin/U1L1d.html
| > | >
| > | > Now off out of my classroom, come back when you've done your
| > homework.
| > | >
| > | > | They both stand
| > | > | still to fire. That was the 'given' in my question to Jim
| > | > | which Jeff illustrated.
| > | >
| > | > Read this:
| > | >
| > | > http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/GBSSCI/PHYS/CLASS/1DKin/U1L1d.html
| > | >
| > | > |
| > | > | > You can't bullshit me, Dishwater.
| > | > |
| > | > | You seem to be capable of bullshitting yourself without
| > | > | my help.
| > | > |
| > | > Read this:
| > | >
| > | > http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/GBSSCI/PHYS/CLASS/1DKin/U1L1d.html
| > | >
| > | > | > | > ... and ballistic theory
| > | > | > | > is proven.
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | ... because the animation is intended to illustrate
| > | > | > | ballistic theory.
| > | > | >
| > | > | > And it does. I told Greenfield it was a good animation,
| > | > | > but that Rot was a liar: Rot said 12 and 8 ppf.
| > | > |
| > | > | Jeff is correct, the speeds relative to the target are 8
| > | > | and 12 ppf.
| > | >
| > | > "Get it right for a change, I said 4 ppf for riflemen 3 and 4." --
| > | > Dishwater.
| > | > Apologise to Rot for disagreeing with him.
| > | >
| > | > |
| > | > | > | > So Rot is deliberately and maliciously misleading everyone
| > | > | > | > by putting half loads in the cartridges, answering
Greenfield's
| > | > | > | > energy question, and that stupid cunt wanted to argue with
me
| > | > | > | > about that too.
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | The charges are the same giving a bullet speed
| > | > | > | relative to the gun of 8 ppf for all the riflemen.
| > | > | >
| > | > | > Only if rifleman (3) stepping back at -4 ppf when he fires.
| > | > | > Which lie is it, moron Dishwater?
| > | > |
| > | > | (1) and (3) stand still when firing, both their bullets
| > | > | move at 8ppf. (2) and (4) move at 4ppf when firing
| > | > | so their bullets move at 12 ppf. Riflemen (3) and
| > | > | (4) move forward by 60 pixels between shots and
| > | > | shots are 15 frames apart. Those are the facts
| > | > | and match the values Jeff stated, he did not lie.
| > | >
| > | > "Get it right for a change, I said 4 ppf for riflemen 3 and 4." --
| > | > Dishwater.
| > | > Apologise to Rot for disagreeing with him.
| > | >
| > | > |
| > | > | > | > A stupid person believes what he is told to believe
| > | > | > | > without question. You are a stupid person. I gave you
| > | > | > | > the opportunity to stop and think. I suckered you with
| > | > | > | > the target frequency instead of the emission frequency,
| > | > | > | > you not only failed to think, you REFUSED the think.
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | The numbers match up so far.
| > | > | >
| > | > | > That's called an "excuse".
| > | > |
| > | > | No, it's called "proving you wrong". You said Jeff
| > | > | lied but every value has matched what he said.
| > | >
| > | > "Get it right for a change, I said 4 ppf for riflemen 3 and 4." --
| > | > Dishwater.
| > | > Apologise to Rot for disagreeing with him.
| > | >
| > | > | > Get mummy to write me a note
| > | > |
| > | > | No, you have to say "sorry" to Jeff yourself.
| > | >
| > | > "Get it right for a change, I said 4 ppf for riflemen 3 and 4." --
| > | > Dishwater.
| > | > Apologise to Rot for disagreeing with him.
| > | >
| > | > |
| > | > | > explaining that you are psychotic today and cannot think.
| > | > | > 4 ppf = 8 ppf, does it?
| > | > | > What I really want you to do is go back to junior school and
pay
| > | > | > attention there, getting the out of my classroom. This shit
| > | > | > is for 12-year-olds, your mental age is 8.
| > | > | >
| > | > | >
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | > | > "He was and would continue to be a teacher, and as with
most
| > | > | > | > | > skilled teachers, he would occasionally tell lies as
harsh
| > | > exemplars
| > | > | > | > | > of a deeper truth." -- Tom Clancy, "Executive Orders"
| > | > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > | > What does this tell you about the equation
| > | > | > | > | > speed = wavelength * frequency?
| > | > | > | > |
| > | > | > | > | You accused Jeff and me of lying but you just proved
| > | > | > | > | we were telling the truth.
| > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > I just proved you lied by deliberately lying myself,
claiming
| > | > | > | > speed = (target) frequency * wavelength
| > | > | > | > whereas it should have been
| > | > | > | > speed = emission frequency * wavelength.
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | OK, if that was your point, let's get it right, there
| > | > | > | are two relationships:
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | speed relative to target = target frequency * wavelength
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | or
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | 60 / 7.5 = 8 ppf
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > Wrong. Speed relative to target is distance from target
| > | > | > divided by time taken to travel that distance.
| > | > |
| > | > | http://www.georgedishman.f2s.com/Henri/wavelengths_1_3.png
| > | > |
| > | > | Bullet (3) is 60 pixels from the target and gets
| > | > | there 7.5 frames later, speed 8ppf as Jeff said.
| > | > |
| > | > | Bullet (1) is 120 pixels from the target and gets
| > | > | there 15 frames later, speed 8ppf as Jeff said.
| > | > |
| > | > | You just proved Jeff correct yet again.
| > | >
| > | > "Get it right for a change, I said 4 ppf for riflemen 3 and 4." --
| > | > Dishwater.
| > | > Apologise to Rot for disagreeing with him.
| > | >
| > | > |
| > | > | > If you are a
| > | > | > con artist like Einstein, it is the "average speed", twice the
| > | > | > distance from target divided by time taken.
| > | > | > 2AB/(t'A-tA) = c and the bullet winds up back in the gun.
| > | > | > The "average speed" is zero.
| > | > |
| > | > | http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/GBSSCI/PHYS/CLASS/1DKin/U1L1d.html
| > | > |
| > | > | > | as Jeff said, and also
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | speed relative to gun = firing frequency * wavelength
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | Since rifleman 3 moves forward at an average
| > | > | > | of 4 ppf (60 pixels between frame 4 and frame
| > | > | > | 19 as you noted) and the bullet is moving at
| > | > | > | 8 ppf (because he stops to fire),
| > | > | >
| > | > | > He steps backwards to fire.
| > | > |
| > | > | No, he stands still so that the bullet speed remains 8ppf.
| > | > |
| > | > "Get it right for a change, I said 4 ppf for riflemen 3 and 4." --
| > | > Dishwater.
| > | > Apologise to Rot for disagreeing with him.
| > | >
| > | > | > His "average speed" (meaningless,
| > | > | > he jumps over the moon between firing rounds) is greater
| > | > | > than the constant speed of rifleman 4.
| > | > | >
| > | > | >
| > | > | > | the speed of
| > | > | > | the bullet relative to the rifleman is 4 ppf so:
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | 120 / 15 = 4 ppf
| > | > | >
| > | > | > Correct.
| > | > |
| > | > | So now it is an established fact that you are a moron. At
| > | > | least I spotted the typo, you agreed that 120 / 15 = 4.
| > | >
| > | > "Get it right for a change, I said 4 ppf for riflemen 3 and 4." --
| > | > Dishwater.
| > | > Apologise to Rot for disagreeing with him.
| > | >
| > | > |
| > | > | > Frame 19. Bullet 4-1 is 60 pixels ahead of bullet 3-1.
| > | > | > So is it half charge in the cartridge or does (3) step back
| > | > | > relative to (4) ? ...
| > | > |
| > | > | Bullet 3-1 is 120 pixels from where it was fired, exactly
| > | > | the same as bullet 1-1. Rifleman 1 stands still all the
| > | > | time so rifleman 3 stood still to fire too. That's 15 frames
| > | > | at 8 ppf as Jeff said.
| > | >
| > | > "Get it right for a change, I said 4 ppf for riflemen 3 and 4." --
| > | > Dishwater.
| > | > Apologise to Rot for disagreeing with him.
| > | >
| > | > |
| > | > | Bullet 4-1 is 180 pixels from where it was fired, that's
| > | > | 15 frames at 12 ppf, 8ppf from the charge (as Jeff
| > | > | said) plus 4ppf because the rifleman was moving
| > | > | forward at 4ppf (as Jeff said).
| > | >
| > | > "Get it right for a change, I said 4 ppf for riflemen 3 and 4." --
| > | > Dishwater.
| > | > Apologise to Rot for disagreeing with him.
| > | >
| > | > |
| > | > | > .. I really don't care which, Rot is a liar and you are
| > | > | > his co-conspirator. Let me hear remorse.
| > | > |
| > | > | The values are as Jeff stated, you just screwed
| > | > | up again.
| > | > "Get it right for a change, I said 4 ppf for riflemen 3 and 4." --
| > | > Dishwater.
| > | > Apologise to Rot for disagreeing with him.
| > | >
| > | > |
| > | > | > | (Strictly the wavelengths should be similarly
| > | > | > | qualified as well but for Gallilean relativity the
| > | > | > | values are the same.)
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | > I even told you I was lying by quoting Clancy.
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | You weren't lying, you just didn't think it through
| > | > | > | sufficiently.
| > | > | >
| > | > | > You ing dishonest dumb hypocritical cunt.
| > | > | > off out of my classroom and don't come back.
| > | > |
| > | > | ROFL, you couldn't even handle the relation between
| > | > | frequency, wavelength and speed. Before you try to
| > | > | teach, you should learn the subject:
| > | >
| > | > Apologise to Rot for disagreeing with him.
| > | >
| > | > | > | > What does this tell you about the equation
| > | > | > | > speed = wavelength * frequency?
| > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > It should have told you
| > | > | > | > speed = wavelength * emission
frequency
| > | > | > | > and not
| > | > | > | > speed = wavelength * reception
| > frequency
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | Let's teach you how to do it correctly:
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | speed relative to emitter = wavelength measured by emitter *
| > emission
| > | > | > | frequency
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | and also
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | speed relative to target = wavelength measured by target *
| > reception
| > | > | > | frequency
| > | > |
| > | > | George
| > |
|
|
|
