|
|
George Dishman wrote:
> 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. They appear clear of the gun in
> frames 4 and 19, again a period of 15 frames as
> Jeff said.
>
> > frequency = 1 shot per [(19-4) = 15] frames
> > = 1/15 shots per frame
>
> Correct.
>
> > speed = wavelength * frequency.
> >
> > Rifleman 1: bullet speed = 120 * 1/15 = 8 ppf
>
> Correct.
>
> > Rifleman 3: bullet speed = 60 * 1/15 = 4 ppf
>
> Correct, relative to the rifleman.
>
> > So where did 8 ppf come from for (3)?
> > Ballistic theory, of course.
>
> Yes, that's what we are illustrating.
>
> > By your own calculation, riflemen 3 and 4 travel
> > 60 pixels between frame 4 and frame 19.
>
> Yes, an average speed of 4 ppf. Of course 3 has
> to move faster between shots as he is standing
> still to fire.
>
> > 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. 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 ...
>
> > ... and ballistic theory
> > is proven.
>
> ... because the animation is intended to illustrate
> ballistic theory.
>
> > 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.
>
> > 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.
>
> > | > "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
>
> 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), the speed of
> the bullet relative to the rifleman is 4 ppf so:
>
> 120 / 15 = 4 ppf
>
> (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.
>
> > | Either make your point if you
> > | still think 8ppf is wrong or 'fess up and apologise.
> >
> > I have, you are a non-thinking stupid arrogant cunt. I don't expect
> > you to apologise, I expect you to continue digging a hole for yourself
> > so that I can bury you. That's the nature of an arrogant stupid cunt,
> > species gorrilla gorrilla or homo neanderthalis such as yourself.
> >
> > |
> > | > Now tell me what a diffraction grating ...
> > |
> > | No, let's deal with your accusations of dishonesty first.
> >
> > I said dishonesty or stupidity. You are either (honest and stupid)
> > or (dishonest and cunning). Same goes for Einstein.
> >
> > In your case it is stupidity. In his case it is dishonesty.
> >
> > 'Fess up to stupidity, blame Rot for maliciously misleading you.
> >
> > Also, you cunt, you snipped the current post, not just the old material.
> >
> > You want to win an argument, not to learn. You can't win an argument
> > by snipping. You lose the argument.
> > That makes you ing dishonest as well. So you, ignorant
> > no-nothing non-thinking stupid arsehole.
> >
> >
> > I said (forlornly hoping you might learn, but I can't teach a pig to sing) :
> >
> > 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
>
> > Now tell me what a diffraction grating (which supposedly measures
> > wavelength) ...
>
> That is over-simplified too, but diffraction gratings are of no
> relevance to Jeff's honesty or mine in regard to the speeds
> in the animation.
>
> George
>
>
> > ... is really saying about the speed of light of constant emission
> > frequency. You may wish to refer to
> > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Catalina/Drive.htm
> > where the frequency remains constant and the "wavelength" of the car
> > (or is it the road?) is halved.
> >
> > The answer to that is
> > speed = wavelength * emission frequency
> > and ballistic light is proven (but not to a gorrilla).
> > Nothing can be proven to gorrillas, they don't understand basic
> > high school physics, do you?
> > Now off back to your sand box and stop interfering with
> > students who really want to learn, disgusting piece of shit,
> > you don't have a mind capable of understanding Sagnac.
> > Androcles.
Play with the toy (sic animation) all you like; it is based on fantasy.
the way to REALLY check what is happening to the bullets is:
(1) steady rate of fire from stationary -> inspect target damage
(3) " " " " " stop/start position ->
inspect
(4) " " " " while advancing -> inspect
The target assessment will reveal immediately that (4) happened, and
NOT (3)
That is a given!
Now repeat the experiment with light: (3) is good for a giggle-- a
source stopping each instant it decides to emit a photon ROFLMAO
Once again, the energy delivered to the target by the blued light
indicates
UNEQUIVOCALLY that scenario (4) is the ONLY POSSIBILITY
George, I don't care that (3) WOULD exhibit the doppler you claim,
_IFFF_
it was the case that the gun or light source was acting so
(stop/start).
But WE know by target inspection that that is NOT NOT NOT the
reason;
it is for (4)
Jim G
c'=c+v
|
|