sci.astro
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Ballistic Theory and the Sagnac Experiment

Subject: Re: Ballistic Theory and the Sagnac Experiment
From: "George Dishman"
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2006 21:30:51 -0000
Newsgroups: sci.astro, sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics
"Hexenmeister" <vanquish@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message 
news:ukhVf.123789$zk4.71737@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "George Dishman" <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:e0408f$k5u$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> |
> | "Hexenmeister" <vanquish@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> | news:ozeVf.122255$zk4.35489@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> | >
> | > "George Dishman" <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> | > news:e03moi$dpc$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> | > |
> | > | "Hexenmeister" <vanquish@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> | > | news:7obVf.239896$Q22.142593@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> | > | >
> | > | > "George Dishman" <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> | > | > news:e03eq2$8f0$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> | > | >
> | > | > | You may wish to hide behind your incompetence
> | > | > | but others do not:
> | > | > |
> | > | > | http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/binarie4.htm
> | > | > |
> | > | > | I think you're just too lazy to do the work.
> | > | > |
> | > | > | George
> | > | >
> | > | > "If we take HU Aquarii's published orbit period of 125 minutes"
> | > | >
> | > | > I KNOW you are just too stupid to understand physics,
> | > |
> | > | Be aware I am quoting from a site supporting Sekerin and
> | > | ballistic theory and offering this as an explanation of
> | > | why de Sitter's multiple images aren't seen.
> | > |
> | > | > but it takes 90 minutes for Hubble to orbit the Earth.
> | > | > 125 minutes to orbit a star is ridiculous.
> | > |
> | > | It is an eclipsing binary with eclipses happening
> | > | once every 125 minutes.
> | > |
> | > Idiot. You wouldn't know an eclipsing binary from a dwarf cepheid
> | > to a pulsar.
> | > Pretty soon there'll be more star types than subatomic particles.
> | >
> | > | > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist-Shannon_sampling_theorem
> | > |
> | > | From the paper quoted on the site
> | > |
> | > |
> | >
> http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1997A%26A...319..894S
> | >
> | > That's an abstract.
> |
> | Sorry, the site is intended for use by the
> | computer literate, press the button marked
> | "Send PDF".
> |
> | > | "Binsize of the lightcurve is 3.75 sec (2000 phase bins).
> | > |
> | > | Care to tell me what you think the real period is?
> | >
> | > Tell you, the one that imagines the riflemen all have 8 ppf muzzle
> | > velocity and can't even read that simple data, ...
> |
> | Jim stated the problem:
> | >>>>>> 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.
> |
> | Rifleman 3 fires a shot in frame 19 and in
> | frames 18 and 20 he is at exactly the same
> | location which means he is stationary:
>
> Then how come he is only 60 pixels behind the previous
> bullet?

Because after he fires, from frames 21 to 31, he
moves forward 60 pixels following the bullet as
Jim described above, "have him fire at target
while stationary, run quickly forward a few yards,
stop and fire again".

> 60/15 = 4 when I went to school.

The difference between the bullet's 8ppf and the
rifleman's 60 pixels in 15 frames is also 4 ppf
as you say.

> Not even Einstein's V = (u+v)/(1+uv/c^2) gets it that far wrong.
>
>
> | http://www.georgedishman.f2s.com/Henri/stationary.png
> |
> | If he is "stationary .. repeat .. stationary"
> | and you already know the bullet moves at 8 ppf,
> | then that is also the muzzle velocity.
>
>
> Rifleman 2 fires a shot in frame 19 and in
> frames 18.5 and 19.5 he is at exactly the same
> location which means he is stationary:

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.astro/msg/ffdac7d741c675a4

Hexenmeister wrote:
>
>  If you wish to depart from convention then state that
> deviation so that it is understood by all. 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.

>  http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/stationary.png
>
>
> Rifleman 2 is stationary .. repeat .. stationary.

http://www.georgedishman.f2s.com/Henri/frame_18_to_20.png

 "the frames used are 'snapshots' with smooth
  constant motion between the snapshots implied."

> How come he is 180 pixels behind the previous bullet?

Rifleman 2 moves forward 4 pixels between frame 18
and 19 and another 4 pixels between 19 and 20 so by
your rules (and mine) it is to be assumed that he is
moving at 4ppf ("smooth constant motion") as he fires.

Muzzle velocity is 8ppf so the bullet speed relative
to target is 12ppf and in 15 frames the first bullet
moves 180 pixels. Your figure confirms Jeff was
telling the truth again.

> You have to be the dumbest cunt on record, Dishwanker.

Well perhaps all but one, I have posted simple gifs
that have proved that every one of your claims of
error or lying has been wrong. I'll let the readers
decide which of us is dumber, it's all on record.

> | You can check the other shots for yourself
> | and that rifleman 2 is moving forward at
> | 4ppf as he fires
>
> Rifleman 2 is standing still. They all are, there is not one
> frame in the entire gif where a rifleman is moving.

You know the convention, you stated it:

 "the frames used are 'snapshots' with smooth
  constant motion between the snapshots implied."

George



> | which adds to the 8ppf
> | muzzle velocity to give 12ppf over the
> | ground. You've been scratching around for
> | some time now and still haven't found a
> | single error so when are you going to
> | apologise to Jeff for incorrectly saying
> | he lied?
> |
> | > ... the Jef Rot lover?
> | > Get real.
> | >
> | >
> | > |
> | > | Here's a movie, about 5Mb download:
> | > |
> | > | http://www.aip.de/~schwope/rhythms/hu_big.mpeg
> | >
> | > Wanker, wanker little star, ...
> |
> | Stick to the poetry, astronomy is clearly
> | beyond you.
>
> Yeah,  I enjoyed that 2 hour and 5 minute movie.
> You should compress all movies into 5 Mb., Blockbuster will be delighted,
> Mr. computer literate.
> Stick to Mickey Mouse gifs, physics is way over your head.
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Dishwankerstar.PNG
>
> Androcles.
>
> 



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>