sci.astro
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Ballistic Theory and the Sagnac Experiment

Subject: Re: Ballistic Theory and the Sagnac Experiment
From: "Hexenmeister"
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2006 12:25:09 GMT
Newsgroups: sci.astro, sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics
"George Dishman" <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message 
news:e05qtd$s9j$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
|
| "Hexenmeister" <vanquish@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
| news:PBkVf.277706$YJ4.198931@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| >
| > "George Dishman" <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
| > news:e04c65$s7s$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > |
| > | "Hexenmeister" <vanquish@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
| > | news:ukhVf.123789$zk4.71737@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > | >
| > | > "George Dishman" <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
| > | > news:e0408f$k5u$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > | > |
| > | > | "Hexenmeister" <vanquish@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
| > | > | news:ozeVf.122255$zk4.35489@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > | > | >
| > | > | > "George Dishman" <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
| > | > | > news:e03moi$dpc$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | "Hexenmeister" <vanquish@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
| > | > | > | news:7obVf.239896$Q22.142593@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > "George Dishman" <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
| > | > | > | > news:e03eq2$8f0$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > | You may wish to hide behind your incompetence
| > | > | > | > | but others do not:
| > | > | > | > |
| > | > | > | > | http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/binarie4.htm
| > | > | > | > |
| > | > | > | > | I think you're just too lazy to do the work.
| > | > | > | > |
| > | > | > | > | George
| > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > "If we take HU Aquarii's published orbit period of 125
| > minutes"
| > | > | > | >
| > | > | > | > I KNOW you are just too stupid to understand physics,
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | Be aware I am quoting from a site supporting Sekerin and
| > | > | > | ballistic theory and offering this as an explanation of
| > | > | > | why de Sitter's multiple images aren't seen.
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | > but it takes 90 minutes for Hubble to orbit the Earth.
| > | > | > | > 125 minutes to orbit a star is ridiculous.
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | It is an eclipsing binary with eclipses happening
| > | > | > | once every 125 minutes.
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > Idiot. You wouldn't know an eclipsing binary from a dwarf 
cepheid
| > | > | > to a pulsar.
| > | > | > Pretty soon there'll be more star types than subatomic 
particles.
| > | > | >
| > | > | > | > 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist-Shannon_sampling_theorem
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | From the paper quoted on the site
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > |
| > | > | >
| > | >
| > 
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1997A%26A...319..894S
| > | > | >
| > | > | > That's an abstract.
| > | > |
| > | > | Sorry, the site is intended for use by the
| > | > | computer literate, press the button marked
| > | > | "Send PDF".
| > | > |
| > | > | > | "Binsize of the lightcurve is 3.75 sec (2000 phase bins).
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | Care to tell me what you think the real period is?
| > | > | >
| > | > | > Tell you, the one that imagines the riflemen all have 8 ppf 
muzzle
| > | > | > velocity and can't even read that simple data, ...
| > | > |
| > | > | Jim stated the problem:
| > | > | >>>>>> 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.
| > | > |
| > | > | Rifleman 3 fires a shot in frame 19 and in
| > | > | frames 18 and 20 he is at exactly the same
| > | > | location which means he is stationary:
| > | >
| > | > Then how come he is only 60 pixels behind the previous
| > | > bullet?
| > |
| > | Because after he fires, from frames 21 to 31, he
| > | moves forward 60 pixels following the bullet as
| > | Jim described above, "have him fire at target
| > | while stationary, run quickly forward a few yards,
| > | stop and fire again".
| >
| > Uh huh.
| > At what speed does he run forward?
| > In frame 19 he's gone 60 pixels.
| > Half as fast as a bullet.
|
| Almost, he runs slightly faster than that to make
| up for the few frames where he was stationary.

Read this:
   http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/GBSSCI/PHYS/CLASS/1DKin/U1L1d.html
|
| > Pretty good runner,  I wish I could exceed the speed of sound.
| > I know that's not quite what Jim had in mind. Perhap's that's what
| > Jim meant when he said it was a fantasia.
|
| Jim said "Get a fast rifleman", he didn't say how fast.

Oh, ok, It's Jim's fault Rot was a deliberately misleading cunt,
 you squirming arsehole.
|
| > Would you seriously present such crap to 13 or 14 year olds
| > in a high school classroom?
|
| If I did I would point out that the speed
| of the rifleman was exaggerated because if
| it was drawn with a realistic

Realistic? What the   is all that crap about "average velocity"?


| speed he would
| probably

Probably?
What the   does "probably" have to do with anything,
 you squirming snake?


| move less than a pixel between shots.
| I would expect them to understand that or have
| worked it out for themselves before being told.

If they can work it out you don't  ing need to tell
them, do you, you squirming tord?



|
| > They'd riot when they'd stopped
| > laughing, and it'd be YOU up in front of the headmaster.
| > I certainly don't want you or Rot teaching physics to my
| > grandchildren. You'd best have another whiskey, on you,
| > because you are unemployed except as a labourer.
| > Were you the idiot that tried to put two floppies in one
| > drive to see if you could write to both simultaneously?
| > Not quite the right way to experiment.
| > He got the job because he said he knew what he was doing.
| > He lasted two days. Glad it wasn't me that hired him.
| >
| > | > 60/15 = 4 when I went to school.
| > |
| > | The difference between the bullet's 8ppf and the
| > | rifleman's 60 pixels in 15 frames is also 4 ppf
| > | as you say.
| >
| >   http://guns.connect.fi/gow/2030.html
| > "Maybe nobody can tell for sure, but it can be predicted fairly well on
| > ground of modern technology. Would you believe, if I stated, that in 
about
| > year 2030 an assault rifle cartridge probably has a straight case and 
the
| > projectile has a muzzle velocity of 1500 to 2000 meters per second."
| >
| > So if bullets from rifles travel at 2000 metres/sec,  riflemen run at 
1000
| > metres/sec.
| >
| > It was *you* that said "Read this:
| >   http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/GBSSCI/PHYS/CLASS/1DKin/U1L1d.html
| > was it not?
| >
| > So what is the rifleman's "average velocity"?
| > Ah, that doesn't matter any more, does it?
|
| Both average speed and average velocity are
| 4ppf from shot to shot.

Hence the average muzzle velocity and average muzzle speed
for (2) is 12 ppf and for (3) is 4 ppf.

 Both average speed and average velocity of rifleman(1) AND rifleman (2)
 is 0 ppf from shot to shot.
You are a squirming  ing liar.


| > The rifleman's velocity is not constant.
|
| Nor is his speed.

So what was all that shit about "average velocity", cunt?
 Read this:
   http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/GBSSCI/PHYS/CLASS/1DKin/U1L1d.html


|
| > It was Einstein that said the velocity of light was constant.
| > How constant it is when it bounces at a mirror?
| >
| > Frame 18
| >    .                |
| >
| > Frame 19
| >                    .|
| >
| > Frame 20
| >    .                |
| >
| > Oh look, the photon is in the same position in frame 20 as it
| > was in frame 18.
| > The average velocity is zero.
|
| Indeed, it should have been translated as "average
| speed". However, the maths is correct and his proof
| is valid.

Oh,  it's valid to add speed to velocity in vector algebra, is it?

 'But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k,
when measured in the stationary system, with the velocity c-v...' --  
Einstein.

That should be 'But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k,
when measured in the stationary system, with the "average speed" c-v...'
should it?

Apologise to the translator for  mistaking "Geschwindigkeit" with 
"velocity."
He must have been a moron.


I'm  ing glad you are an imbecile and not a teacher.
The kids might learn some vulgar English from me, but at least
they'd know mathematics.
Actually children never hear vulgar English from me, I reserve
it for cunts like you; lessons in stupidity are not part of the
curriculum.

|
| > Shithead Wilson says TWLS = OWLS.
|
| Indeed, he is wrong.

You've just said "However, the maths is correct and his proof
 is valid."
How come when Wilson agrees with Einstein, Wilson is wrong?
I'm  ing glad you are an imbecile and not a teacher.

|
| > Shithead Greenfield says the animation is a fantasia.
|
| In the sense that the speed has been exaggerated he
| is right.

Ok. I'll agree to that.  Now apologise to shithead Rot.


|
| > Shitheads Rot and Dishwanker say the muzzle velocity is 8 ppf.
|
| We are right, you have only complained that it
| leads to an unrealistic scale speed for the
| rifleman (which I agree).

We?
No, imbecile, *I* am right. *We* are in dispute. *You* should
apologise to Rot for congratulating him. The poor cunt doesn't
know what he's doing, and by your cheerleading he imagines
he's correct.
To me he's an arsehole, but he's your buddy. Straighten him out.
One of you needs to be the designated driver if you are going
to drink and drive a keyboard.



|
| > Shithead Androcles said the speed was 72 ppf but admitted
| > he was deliberately wrong. He is no longer a shithead, he said "Get 
real".
|
| Deliberately? No, I think you divided by the number
| of rifleman instead of the frames in the animation.

Did you see this?
   "lie.GIF", as in
  http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/lie.GIF

You don't think at all, do you?


|
| > Tell me honestly, Dishman.
| > Are you just a  ing idiot or a  ing bullshitter?
| > I can teach idiots or I can piss on bullshitters. Which is it to be?
|
| Well first you need to find out that the
| muzzle speed is 8ppf by your own stated
| conventions.

It is 12 ppf for rifleman (2) and 4 ppf for rifleman (3), obviously.

|
| > | > Not even Einstein's V = (u+v)/(1+uv/c^2) gets it that far wrong.
| > | >
| > | >
| > | > | http://www.georgedishman.f2s.com/Henri/stationary.png
| > | > |
| > | > | If he is "stationary .. repeat .. stationary"
| > | > | and you already know the bullet moves at 8 ppf,
| > | > | then that is also the muzzle velocity.
| > | >
| > | >
| > | > Rifleman 2 fires a shot in frame 19 and in
| > | > frames 18.5 and 19.5 he is at exactly the same
| > | > location which means he is stationary:
| > |
| > | http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.astro/msg/ffdac7d741c675a4
| > |
| > | Hexenmeister wrote:
| > | >
| > | >  If you wish to depart from convention then state that
| > | > deviation so that it is understood by all. 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.
| > |
| > | >  http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/stationary.png
| > | >
| > | >
| > | > Rifleman 2 is stationary .. repeat .. stationary.
| > |
| > | http://www.georgedishman.f2s.com/Henri/frame_18_to_20.png
| > |
| > | "the frames used are 'snapshots' with smooth
| > |  constant motion between the snapshots implied."
| > |
| > | > How come he is 180 pixels behind the previous bullet?
| > |
| > | Rifleman 2 moves forward 4 pixels between frame 18
| > | and 19 and another 4 pixels between 19 and 20 so by
| > | your rules (and mine) it is to be assumed
| >
| > AH! Assumed!
|
| That's what you said.
|
| > It is assumed that we could be reasonable about this.
| > This assumption is proving false.
| > I'm willing to go along with riflemen running at half bullet speed,
| > but I'm damned if I'll accept that they can stop instantly, fire and
| > accelerate to 1000 metres /sec AND be told by you to read what
| > "average speed" is.
|
| The question is simply whether the muzzle
| speed is 8 ppf as Jeff stated or not.

It is 12 ppf for rifleman (2), the average speed of rifleman (2) is zero.
It is 4  ppf for rifleman (3), the average speed of rifleman (3) is 4 ppf.

 Read this:
   http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/GBSSCI/PHYS/CLASS/1DKin/U1L1d.html




| > | that he is
| > | moving at 4ppf ("smooth constant motion") as he fires.
| >
| > Muzzle velocity:
|
| Muzzle velocity is the speed of the bullet relative to
| the speed of the muzzle at the time of firing.

 Read this:
   http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/GBSSCI/PHYS/CLASS/1DKin/U1L1d.html


|
| > Rifleman 1) The bullet is moving at 8 ppf ("smooth constant motion")
| > relative to the rifleman's smooth constant motion.
|
| Correct, and since the rifleman is stationary the
| muzzle velocity is 8ppf.

I know it is.


|
| > Rifleman 2) The bullet is moving at 12 ppf ("smooth constant motion")
| > relative to the rifleman's smooth constant motion.
|
| And the rifleman's smooth constant motion is 4 ppf
| from a frame before to a frame after he fires, the
| muzzle velocity is 8ppf.

The rifleman is stationary from half a frame before to a
half a frame after he fires, the muzzle velocity is 12 ppf.

 Read this:
   http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/GBSSCI/PHYS/CLASS/1DKin/U1L1d.html


| > Rifleman 3) The bullet is moving at 4 ppf ("smooth constant motion")
| > relative to the rifleman's smooth constant motion.
|
| The rifleman is stationary from a frame before to a
| frame after he fires, the muzzle velocity is 8ppf.

60/15 = 8... got it.
I'm  ing glad you are an imbecile and not a teacher.


 Read this:
   http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/GBSSCI/PHYS/CLASS/1DKin/U1L1d.html


|
| > Rifleman 4) The bullet is moving at 8 ppf ("smooth constant motion")
| > relative to the rifleman's smooth constant motion.
|
| Correct, the muzzle velocity is 8ppf as in all the
| others cases.

60/15 = 8... got it.
180/15 = 8.. got it.
I'm  ing glad you are an imbecile and not a teacher.

|
| > | Muzzle velocity is 8ppf
| >
| >  ing lying cunt.
|
| Fact.

You wouldn't know a fact if it bit your arse.


| You may not like the unrealistic implied
| accelerations,

Bullshit, I have no objection to the accelerations being infinite
in the model. They are certainly high even for a golf ball, zero
to 150 mph in a millisecond.


| and of course nobody claimed they
| were supposed to be realistic, but that is what
| is shown whether you like it or not.

We are not discussing acceleration here.

All of Jeff's
| figures are correct, all of the muzzle velocities
| are 8 ppf.
|
|George Dishwanker

Lying stupid cunt.
Stick to Mickey Mouse gifs, physics is way over your head.
  http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Dishwankerstar.PNG

Androcles.

|
| > Muzzle velocity:
| > Rifleman 1) The bullet is moving at 8 ppf ("smooth constant motion")
| > relative to the rifleman's smooth constant motion.
| > Rifleman 2) The bullet is moving at 12 ppf ("smooth constant motion")
| > relative to the rifleman's smooth constant motion.
| > Rifleman 3) The bullet is moving at 4 ppf ("smooth constant motion")
| > relative to the rifleman's smooth constant motion.
| > Rifleman 4) The bullet is moving at 8 ppf ("smooth constant motion")
| > relative to the rifleman's smooth constant motion.
| >
| >
| >
| > so the bullet speed relative
| > | to target is 12ppf and in 15 frames the first bullet
| > | moves 180 pixels. Your figure confirms Jeff was
| > | telling the truth again.
| >
| >  ing lying cunt.
| >
| > Muzzle velocity:
| > Rifleman 1) The bullet is moving at 8 ppf ("smooth constant motion")
| > relative to the rifleman's smooth constant motion.
| > Rifleman 2) The bullet is moving at 12 ppf ("smooth constant motion")
| > relative to the rifleman's smooth constant motion.
| > Rifleman 3) The bullet is moving at 4 ppf ("smooth constant motion")
| > relative to the rifleman's smooth constant motion.
| > Rifleman 4) The bullet is moving at 8 ppf ("smooth constant motion")
| > relative to the rifleman's smooth constant motion.
| >
| >
| > |
| > | > You have to be the dumbest cunt on record, Dishwanker.
| > |
| > | Well perhaps all but one, I have posted simple gifs
| > | that have proved that every one of your claims of
| > | error or lying has been wrong. I'll let the readers
| > | decide which of us is dumber, it's all on record.
| >
| >  ing lying cunt.
| > Muzzle velocity:
| > Rifleman 1) The bullet is moving at 8 ppf ("smooth constant motion")
| > relative to the rifleman's smooth constant motion.
| > Rifleman 2) The bullet is moving at 12 ppf ("smooth constant motion")
| > relative to the rifleman's smooth constant motion.
| > Rifleman 3) The bullet is moving at 4 ppf ("smooth constant motion")
| > relative to the rifleman's smooth constant motion.
| > Rifleman 4) The bullet is moving at 8 ppf ("smooth constant motion")
| > relative to the rifleman's smooth constant motion.
| >  ing lying cunt.
| >
| >
| > |
| > | > | You can check the other shots for yourself
| > | > | and that rifleman 2 is moving forward at
| > | > | 4ppf as he fires
| > | >
| > | > Rifleman 2 is standing still. They all are, there is not one
| > | > frame in the entire gif where a rifleman is moving.
| > |
| > | You know the convention, you stated it:
| > |
| > | "the frames used are 'snapshots' with smooth
| > |  constant motion between the snapshots implied."
| >
| > Yes. That applies to both riflemen and bullets.
| >
| > Muzzle velocity:
| > Rifleman 1) The bullet is moving at 8 ppf ("smooth constant motion")
| > relative to the rifleman's smooth constant motion.
| > Rifleman 2) The bullet is moving at 12 ppf ("smooth constant motion")
| > relative to the rifleman's smooth constant motion.
| > Rifleman 3) The bullet is moving at 4 ppf ("smooth constant motion")
| > relative to the rifleman's smooth constant motion.
| > Rifleman 4) The bullet is moving at 8 ppf ("smooth constant motion")
| > relative to the rifleman's smooth constant motion.
| >
| >
| > Stick to Mickey Mouse gifs, physics is way over your head.
| >  http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Dishwankerstar.PNG
| > |
| > | George Dishwanker
| > |
| > |
| > |
| > | > | which adds to the 8ppf
| > | > | muzzle velocity to give 12ppf over the
| > | > | ground. You've been scratching around for
| > | > | some time now and still haven't found a
| > | > | single error so when are you going to
| > | > | apologise to Jeff for incorrectly saying
| > | > | he lied?
| > | > |
| > | > | > ... the Jef Rot lover?
| > | > | > Get real.
| > | > | >
| > | > | >
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | Here's a movie, about 5Mb download:
| > | > | > |
| > | > | > | http://www.aip.de/~schwope/rhythms/hu_big.mpeg
| > | > | >
| > | > | > Wanker, wanker little star, ...
| > | > |
| > | > | Stick to the poetry, astronomy is clearly
| > | > | beyond you.
| > | >
| > | > Yeah,  I enjoyed that 2 hour and 5 minute movie.
| > | > You should compress all movies into 5 Mb., Blockbuster will be
| > delighted,
| > | > Mr. computer literate.
| > | > Stick to Mickey Mouse gifs, physics is way over your head.
| > | > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Dishwankerstar.PNG
| > | >
| > | > Androcles.
| > | >
| > | >
| >
| > |
| >
| >
|
|
| 



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