sci.astro
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Ballistic Theory and the Sagnac Experiment

Subject: Re: Ballistic Theory and the Sagnac Experiment
From: "Hexenmeister"
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2006 12:58:05 GMT
Newsgroups: sci.astro, sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics
"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:
| > | > "George Dishman" <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
| > | > news:1142355863.685666.125560@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > | > |
| > | > | Hexenmeister wrote:
| > | > | > "George Dishman" <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
| > | > | > news:1142115577.088238.150550@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | Hexenmeister wrote:
| > | > | > | > "George Dishman" <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
| > | > | > | > 
news:1141998013.337852.323650@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > | > | > | > > Hexenmeister wrote:
| > | > | > | > >> "George Dishman" <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in 
message
| > | > | > | > >> 
news:1141982182.030916.184630@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > | > | > | > >> >
| > | > | > | > >> > jgreenfield@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
| > | > | > | > >> >> Hexenmeister wrote:
| > | > | > | > >> >> > "jgreenfield@xxxxxxxxxxx" <jgreen@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote 
in
| > | > message
| > | > | > | > >> >> >
| > | > news:1141707597.080011.317850@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > | > | > | > >> >> >
| > | > | > | > >> >> > > The animation is a fantasia.
| > | > | > | > >> >> >
| > | > | > | > >> >> > Its not a fantasia, it is an accurate model.
| > | > | > | > >> >> >
| > | > | > | > >> >> > 
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/lie.GIF
| > | > | > | > >> >> >
| > | > | > | > >> >> > Rifleman 4's bullet has travelled 300 pixels in the 
same
| > | > time as
| > | > | > | > >> >> > rifleman 1's bullet has travelled 80 pixels.
| > | > | > | > >> >> > Therefore the speed of bullets is 30 pixels/time and 
8
| > | > | > pixels/time,
| > | > | > | > >> >> > and not 12 pixels/frame as Relf claimed.
| > | > | > | > >> >> > That's the lie and fantasia, not the animation.
| > | > | > | > >> >
| > | > | > | > >> > I extracted two consecutive frames to check the speeds:
| > | > | > | > >> >
| > | > | > | > >> > 
http://www.georgedishman.f2s.com/Henri/frame_11_to_12.png
| > | > | > | > >> >
| > | > | > | > >> > The displacements match Jeff's values. I haven't 
checked
| > | > | > | > >> > any more pairs (there are 93 frames in the gif) but the
| > | > | > | > >> > speeds look constant by eye.
| > | > | > | > >> >
| > | > | > | > >> > George
| > | > | > | > >>
| > | > | > | > >> LOL!
| > | > | > | > >> The speed of riflemen 3 doesn't look constant by my eye,
| > | > | > | > >
| > | > | > | > > Jeff wrote in
| > | > | > | > >
| > http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.astro/msg/a0cdfd044de5fd71
| > | > | > | > >>
| > | > | > | > >> ... 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
| > | > | > | > >
| > | > | > | > > The speeds are of the bullets, not the riflemen.
| > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > Hey moron, the bullets are in the gun most of the way,
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | Hey clueless, the rest of us are talking about
| > | > | > | the speed of the bullets AFTER they have been
| > | > | > | fired.
| > | > | >
| > | > | > Oh, I thought you were discussing frequency.
| > | > |
| > | > | In that case you were clearly rambling when you wrote:
| > | > | > | > >> >> > Rifleman 4's bullet has travelled 300 pixels in the 
same
| > | > time as
| > | > | > | > >> >> > rifleman 1's bullet has travelled 80 pixels.
| > | > | > | > >> >> > Therefore the speed of bullets is 30 pixels/time and 
8
| > | > pixels/time,
| > | > | > | > >> >> > and not 12 pixels/frame as Relf claimed.
| > | > |
| > | > | > Make up
| > | > | > your bigoted mind.
| > | > | >
| > | > | >
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | > travelling at 72 pixels per frame.
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | ? You've definitely lost it.
| > | > | >
| > | > | > See diagram.
| > | > | >
| > | > | >
| > | > | > | > > Bullets from riflemen 1 and 3 move from pixel 109
| > | > | > | > > to 117, a shift of 8 pixels in one frame, while the
| > | > | > | > > bullets from riflemen 2 and 4 move from pixel 137
| > | > | > | > > to 149 or 12 pixels in one frame. Those are exactly
| > | > | > | > > the numbers Jeff gave so your accusation appears
| > | > | > | > > to be incorrect.
| > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > Bullshit.
| > | > | > | >   http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/lie.GIF
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | 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.



|
| > ...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

So why can't Jef Rot be HONEST and say the velocity of the bullet
is 9.7 pixels per frame, instead of DISHONEST and say it is 8 ppf?
Why did you congratulate him on his lying?
He's a cheat and a liar, isn't he, Dishwater?
You are a cheat and liar too, are you not?

Remainder snipped as lies.  ing relativists are all  ing liars
or so incredibly stupid they imagine an engineer will believe their shit.

Androcles.



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