sci.astro
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Ballistic Theory and the Sagnac Experiment

Subject: Re: Ballistic Theory and the Sagnac Experiment
From: "George Dishman"
Date: 22 Mar 2006 12:28:30 -0800
Newsgroups: sci.astro, sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics
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. 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
> |


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