sci.astro
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Ballistic Theory and the Sagnac Experiment

Subject: Re: Ballistic Theory and the Sagnac Experiment
From: "George Dishman"
Date: 31 Mar 2006 04:52:04 -0800
Newsgroups: sci.astro, sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics
jgreenfield@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> George Dishman wrote:
> > jgreenfield@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > George Dishman wrote:

<snip>

> > > _IF_  (2) scenario was considered, it is obvious that the kE imparted
> > > to the bullet
> > > by way of the gun's motion (as separate from the charge) is cancelled
> > > by hte reversal of the gun's direction (as it returns to the firing
> > > position)
> >
> > Don't be stupid Jim, the speed of the bullet isn't
> > changed by what the gun does after it fires.
>
> Idiot! Which way are the other bullets in the magazine travelling
> half a rev after the first is fired????????????
> What speed would that be?
> Does "negative" ring a bell?

Do you seriously believe the motion of the magazine
affects the speed of the bullet relative to the target
when that bullet has already been fired?

> I asked that (3) be considered (?) in order for it to be REJECTED!

I know, but it worked the other way and meant
that it was YOUR explanation that needed to
be rejected, that's why you wouldn't look at the
question even after you asked it.

> Hint: It is customary for intelligent people to REJECT a scenario as
> being
> correct, when evidence UNAMBIGUOUSLY is against it, and in favour of
> one where the evidence is in support.

Hint: It is customary for intelligent people to think
about scenarios. It is customary for intelligent
people reject or accept explanations, not scenarios.
The evidence from the scenarios is that a change of
energy is not the cause of the change of arrival rate
and should be rejected as an explanation.

> > I'm not going to waste any more time on this Jim,
> > you obviously have some serious reading impairment.
> > I just said the folowing:
> >
> >   "The rifleman's motion at the time of firing does
> >    also produce the change of impact energy ..."
>
> ...and (3) doesn't!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> THEREFORE IT IS (4)
> What part of "evidence" don't you understand?

The logic I understand and you don't is that in (3) a
Doppler shift occurs but an energy change doesn't
therefore energy change is ruled out as the cause
of Doppler shift. You actually gave the correct answer:

jgreenfield@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Jeff Root wrote:
> >
> > The question is:
> > What causes the Doppler shift in scenario (3)?
>
> Make that question (a)
> Answer: Change in position at instant of firing

I did say that if you answered my question I would
address yours so I suppose I need to do that next:


> You are still welcome to discuss HOW energy differs, and why.
> I doubt that you will though--------long since in your "too hard"
> basket.

As far as the riflemen are concerned, in the
Newtonian approximation, kinetic energy, the
energy that determines the damage to the target,
is given by 1/2 m v^2 where v is the speed of the
bullet relative to the target at the moment of
impact.

Going back a few weeks though to your photon
analogy which is what I said I would discuss, it's
even easier, the energy of a photon is proportional
to the frequency. By analogy a burst of bullets
hitting a target at 20 round per minute does twice
as much damage as a burst of 10 rounds per
minute and the same duration. Hardly surprising 
is it?

George


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