sci.astro
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Ballistic Theory and the Sagnac Experiment

Subject: Re: Ballistic Theory and the Sagnac Experiment
From: "Hexenmeister"
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 11:29:26 GMT
Newsgroups: sci.astro, sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics
"George Dishman" <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message 
news:1143199570.337451.241820@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
|
| jgreenfield@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
| > George Dishman wrote:
| > > jgreenfield@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
| > > > George Dishman wrote:
| > > > > Jeff Root wrote:
| > > > > > George Dishman wrote:
| > > > > >
| > > > > > > (1) and (3) were stated by me, not Jeff.
| > > > > >
| > > > > > I believe that Jim introduced the use of firearms into
| > > > > > discussion of the Doppler effect.  Jim's description of
| > > > > > case (3) on February 22, which I quoted in my original
| > > > > > post and my web page containing the animation...
| > > > >
| > > > > You are right, Jim introduced it in post 1396 on
| > > > > the 25th Jan. He first compared (1) and (4)
| > > > > and then (2) and (4). I responded in post 1401
| > > > > and focussed on the latter as it I thought would
| > > > > clear up Jim's confusion about the cause.
| > > >
| > > > How the   can he be RIGHT, when in the SAME paragraph
| > > > you admit I referred to (1) and (4),  NOT (3)
| > >
| > > He is right that you introduced the use of firearms
| > > into the discussion, I had forgotten your earlier
| > > post so I am admitting I was wrong. However, you
| > > actually intoduced it a month earlier at the end of
| > > January when you compared 1 vs. 4 then 2 vs. 4.
| > >
| > > For (3), see the quote below.
| > >
| > > > ..........and you think that _I_ am confused!
| > > > Are you having some sort of a breakdown?
| > > > That is twice running that you have monumentally presented yourself 
as
| > > > self-contradicory.
| > >
| > > Check the dates, or look up the messages
| > > themselves (the numbers may increase slightly
| > > as people are still replying to earlier posts).
| > >
| > > > > > > If the gun fired the first round from 300m while moving
| > > > > > > forward at 50m/s and then quickly doubled back and also
| > > > > > > fired the second round from the same distance, the rate
| > > > > > > the rounds hit the target would be the same as the rate
| > > > > > > they were fired. ...
| > > > >
| > > > > > > 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.
| > > > > > > Will the observer at target note any effect to
| > > > > > > differentiate between that rifleman staying in the
| > > > > > > same place?????????
| > > > > > > (This clearly demonstrates that it is the MOTION of
| > > > > > > the gun at instant of firing which causes increased
| > > > > > > frequency/bullet velocity at target)
| > > >
| > > > This above was from GEORGE
| > >
| > > The first paragraph is mine from this message:
| > >
| > >  http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.astro/msg/cc1e4fb76fc9336e
| > >
| > > The second paragraph is yours from this message:
| > >
| > > http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.astro/msg/16f820d2c0131575
| > >
| > > "Get a fast rifleman; have him fire at target while stationary,
| > > run quickly forward a few yards, stop and fire again" is
| > > sceanrio (3) and the post has "Jim:" in front of those lines.
| >
| > I saw that some time back. It is a corruption (confusion with the
| > indents or snipping).
|
| There are no indents, it is new text that you typed.
|
| > For F* sake! I originally was comparing ground and airial mounted
| > machine guns.
| > Do you think ...
|
| No,

See, you don't think.

Androcles.



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