sci.astro
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Ballistic Theory and the Sagnac Experiment

Subject: Re: Ballistic Theory and the Sagnac Experiment
From: "Hexenmeister"
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 12:10:33 GMT
Newsgroups: sci.astro, sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics
"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...
Do all guns fire are the same time? ---- Yes.
Do all guns have the same firing frequency? ----Yes.
What is the firing frequency?
First shot is fired frame 3.
See frame 19 for second shot.
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.

frequency  = 1 shot per  [(19-4) = 15] frames
 = 1/15 shots per frame
speed = wavelength * frequency.

Rifleman 1:   bullet speed = 120 * 1/15 = 8 ppf
Rifleman 3:   bullet speed =   60 * 1/15 =  4 ppf

So where did 8 ppf come from for (3)?
Ballistic theory, of course.

By your own calculation, riflemen 3 and 4 travel
60 pixels between frame 4 and frame 19.

Rifleman 3 *passes* rifleman 4 and fires a bullet
with muzzle velocity 4 ppf, (frame 11) and ballistic theory
is proven.

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.


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.


|
| > "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.

I even told you I was lying by quoting Clancy.

| Either make your point if you
| still think 8ppf is wrong or 'fess up and apologise.

I have, you are a non-thinking stupid arrogant cunt. I don't expect
you to apologise, I expect you to continue digging a hole for yourself
so that I can bury you. That's the nature of an arrogant stupid cunt,
species gorrilla gorrilla or homo neanderthalis such as yourself.

|
| > Now tell me what a diffraction grating ...
|
| No, let's deal with your accusations of dishonesty first.

I said dishonesty or stupidity. You are either (honest and stupid)
or (dishonest and cunning). Same goes for Einstein.

In your case it is stupidity. In his case it is dishonesty.

'Fess up to stupidity, blame Rot for maliciously misleading you.

Also, you cunt, you snipped the current post, not just the old material.

You want to win an argument, not to learn. You can't win an argument
by snipping. You lose the argument.
That makes you  ing dishonest as well. So   you, ignorant
no-nothing non-thinking stupid arsehole.


I said (forlornly hoping you might learn, but I can't teach a pig to sing) :

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

Now tell me what a diffraction grating (which supposedly measures
wavelength) is really saying about the speed of light of constant emission
frequency.  You may wish to refer to
   http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Catalina/Drive.htm
where the frequency remains constant and the "wavelength" of the car
(or is it the road?) is halved.

The answer to that is
                         speed = wavelength * emission frequency
and ballistic light is proven  (but not to a gorrilla).
Nothing can be proven to gorrillas, they don't understand basic
high school physics, do you?
Now   off back to your sand box and stop interfering with
students who really want to learn, disgusting piece of shit,
 you don't have a mind capable of understanding Sagnac.
Androcles.



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