sci.astro
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Ballistic Theory and the Sagnac Experiment

Subject: Re: Ballistic Theory and the Sagnac Experiment
From: "Hexenmeister"
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 13:14:00 GMT
Newsgroups: sci.astro, sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics
"George Dishman" <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message 
news:1142851848.800133.29340@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| Hexenmeister wrote:
| > "George Dishman" <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
| > news:1142798756.978227.224990@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > |
| > | Hexenmeister wrote:
| > | > "George Dishman" <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
| > | > news:1142761587.728034.199000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > | > |
| > | > | Hexenmeister wrote:
| > | > | > "George Dishman" <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
| > | > | > news:1142413698.877653.230420@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | Hexenmeister wrote:
| > |
| > | History snipped to shorten the post.
| >
| > Ok.
|
| A bit restored as it's needed later:
|
| >|>|> | > | > | >   http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/lie.GIF
| >|>|> | > | > |
| >|>|> | > | > | And which two frames was that made from?
| >|>|> | > | > | And which two frames was that made from?
| >|>|> | > | >
| >|>|> | > | > Target and bullet. See diagram, bigot.
| >|>|> | > |
| >|>|> | > | "Target and bullet" are in all the frames from 1 to 91
| >|>|> | > | clueless, try again.
| >|>|> | >
| >|>|> | > Target and bullet are frames of reference
| >|>|> |
| >|>|> | "Pixels per frame" refers to consecutive frames in
| >|>|> | the gif animation of course, not "pixels per frame
| >|>|> | of reference".
| >|>|>
| >|>|> Ok, the bullets inside the guns (using the two frames 0 and 10) ...
|                                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| >|>|
| >|>| The software I'm using numbers from 1 so they
| >|>| are 1 and 11 in my diagram.
| >|>
| >|>
| >|> How lovely for you, I used <alt><PrtSc>.
| >|> Being a software engineer, naturally I number frames
| >|> from 0.
|
| > | So do I, but the guy wrote wrote the softare
| > | I'm using didn't.
| >
| >
| > "wrote wrote the softare". You are losing it.
|
| Yep, I make typos sometimes.

And blunders and lies.

|
| > | > | > ...travel at 72 pixels per frame, carried by the riflemen.
| > | > |
| > | > | http://www.georgedishman.f2s.com/Henri/more_frames.png
| > | > |
| > | > | Between those frames, the gun for rifleman 4 moves
| > | > | 35 pixels in 10 frames or 3.5ppf.
| > | >
| > | > Between those frames, bullet 4 moves 97 pixels in 10 frames or 
9.7ppf
| > | > and the gun and riflemen are a red herrings.
| > | >
| > | >   http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/more_frames.png
| > |
| > | Your measure of 97 pixels is from a point on the gun,
| > | not an earlier position of the bullet so it isn't a measure
| > | of the speed of bullet 4.
| >
| > You know one black pixel from another, do you? I don't, you see.
|
| I know the difference between the drawing of the
| gun and the drawing of the bullet.


I know that too, and the gun is a black herring. It plays no part
in the calculation, it only serves to mask the origin of the bullet.



| > | http://www.georgedishman.f2s.com/Henri/more_errors.png
| >
| > So the bullet originates from within the barrel and not the breech.
| > Ok, accepted as poetic license.
| > 96 pixels in 8 frames, frame 3 to frame 11.
| > Why did you try to cheat by using frames 1 and 11,
|
| See above, I just asked you which frames YOU had
| used and then commented on YOUR analysis.

See below, I was not avoiding any correction that was warranted.

|
| > and show
| > the end of the rifle for your 3.5 ppf,  you cheating cunt?
| > That was deliberately misleading, wasn't it, you cheating cunt?
|
| YOU chose the frames and yes it WAS misleading.
| Are you saying you didn't do it deliberately, it was
| just another mistake?

I can lie as well as you or Rot to win an argument.
The speed of the bullet is 9.7 ppf.


|
| > | > So why can't Jef Rot be HONEST and say the velocity of the bullet
| > | > is 9.7 pixels per frame, instead of DISHONET and say it is 8 ppf?
| > |
| > | He is being honest, the speed of bullets 1 and 3 is 8ppf
| > | and that of bullets 2 and 4 is 12ppf as he stated. You
| > | got it wrong because you measured from the gun. This
| > | is valid:
| > |
| > | http://www.georgedishman.f2s.com/Henri/frame_11_to_12.png
| > |
| > | You got it right where you wrote "(60-28)/8 = 4ppf faster".
| >
| > I'll tell the cop I wasn't exceeding 30 mph in town, I was only doing
| > 70 mph on the motorway earlier, and anyway, it wasn't me, it was
| > the car. I happened to be inside it.
| >
| >
| > | You got it wrong again when you said "6 pixels in zero
| > | frames", the bullet was still in the gun in the previous
| > | frame
| >
| > Nothing was fired until frame 3.
| > You cheated by quoting frame 1, you cheating cunt.
| > That was deliberately misleading, wasn't it, you cheating cunt?
|
| I chose frames 11 and 12 when the bullets were in
| flight, YOU selected 0 and 10 to try to prove me wrong.
| It WAS misleading, but did you do it deliberately?

It was a counter lie, the rules of debate were established
by you and Rot, and it DID prove you wrong.
Rot claimed 8 and 12 ppf, you agreed and congratulated him.
What you have failed to do is 'fess up.

|
| > | > Why did you congratulate him on his lying?
| > | > He's a cheat and a liar, isn't he, Dishwater?
| > |
| > | No, you just got your sums wrong again.
| >
| > Bullshit, you  ing cheated. What is the true speed from
| > rifleman 3s bullet, you dishonest cunt?
|
| http://www.georgedishman.f2s.com/Henri/frame_11_to_12.png
|
| Rifleman 3's bullet moves 8 pixels between frame 11
| and frame 12, hence 8ppf.

Frames 0 to 10, Rifleman 4's bullet speed is 9.7 ppf.


|
| > | > You are a cheat and liar too, are you not?
| > |
| > | I have shown you clear diagrams to back up my
| > | claims and I'll address anything you think is an
| > | arror but so far you haven't found any. You said:
| > |
| > | > | > ... Find me wrong and I'll admit to it,
| > | > | > you won't catch me defending my own  up in a futile
| > | > | > attempt to save face, that's pointless.
| > |
| > | Will you keep to that?
| > Of course. I was not aware that the bullet was fired at frame 3,
| > or that its point of emission was within the barrel and not the breech.
| > Hence I admit I was wrong and I'm not embarrassed by it.
|
| Fair enough.


You won't 'fess up. That's when I call you a cunt.


|
| > Now be honest and supply the true velocity of bullet 3, ...
|
| I already showed the speed of bullet 3 in flight
| is 8ppf in my first diagram, that's my honest
| assessment. Do you disagree with the number?

Yes, I have only to look at the frequency at the target to see
somebody is lying. The question is whether it was a malicious
and deliberate lie or just a blunder, but it is a lie.

|
| http://www.georgedishman.f2s.com/Henri/frame_11_to_12.png
|
| > ... you cheating cunt.
| > Oh wait, you did not commit to honesty, did you?
|
| I take it for granted. I thought you learned a few
| months ago that I may make mistakes but I don't
| lie.

Then tell us with honesty what the speed of bullets is from
Rifleman 3, and find agreement with the impact frequency
at the target.

|
| > Go on, lie some more,
|
| So far you haven't found a lie or any mistake other
| than a trivial typo.

Yes I have, 12 ppf and 8 ppf is a lie by Rot that you concur
with. You've just told another lie, compounding your  up.



| > you dishonest cheating cunt, but you will not save face by doing so.
| > The only way you can save yourself further embarrassment ...
|
| I asked:
|
| > | > | > | > | > | > 
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/lie.GIF
| > | > | > | > | > |
| > | > | > | > | > | And which two frames was that made from?
|
| and you told me:
|
| > | > | > Ok, the bullets inside the guns (using the two frames 0 and 10) 
...
|
| so it was your choice and the embarrassment
| is all yours too.


Not at all. I stood corrected the moment you pointed it out.
I even let you renumber the frames because that was trivial.
You are STILL arguing for 8 ppf Rifleman 3 and the highest
frequency. That makes you a cunt. A dumb cunt.

|
| >  ... is to admit you were wrong when you congratulated Rot, you slimy
| > arse-kissing bastard, or else   off.
|
| I will if you find an error is his animation but you
| haven't done that yet.

I never claimed an error in his animation. I even said to Greenfield
it was a good animation, which caused Greenfield to puke and rebel.
He's none too bright either.

What I did say was that Rot was a  ing liar, the speeds of the
bullets are not 8 and 12 ppf as claimed and I STILL say that.
So either Rot suckered you in for self-gratification and the
accolade you gave him (easy to do, Einstein suckered you and
many others as well) or you are a co-conspirator in a lie.
So which is it, are you
a) an idiot or
b) a malicious lying cunt, or
c) both because you wont 'fess up?

I suspect you are probably just an idiot, there are many of those
so you have plenty of company. Doesn't the frequency and
"wavelength" (distance between bullets) tell you anything?
Hint: speed  = frequency * wavelength.

Androcles.



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