sci.astro
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Ballistic Theory and the Sagnac Experiment

Subject: Re: Ballistic Theory and the Sagnac Experiment
From: "George Dishman"
Date: 22 Mar 2006 06:30:58 -0800
Newsgroups: sci.astro, sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics
Hexenmeister wrote:
> "George Dishman" <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:1143024015.799420.99930@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> | Hexenmeister wrote:
> | > "George Dishman" <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> | > news:1142954382.291538.40890@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> | > | Hexenmeister wrote:
> | > | > "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...
> | > |
> | > | It seems it is necessary.
> | > |
> | > | > Do all guns fire are the same time? ---- Yes.
> | > | > Do all guns have the same firing frequency? ----Yes.
> | > |
> | > | Agreed.
> | > |
> | > | > What is the firing frequency?
> | > | > First shot is fired frame 3.
> | > |
> | > | The bullet is still in the gun in that frame.
> | > |
> | > | > See frame 19 for second shot.
> | > |
> | > | The bullet is out of the gun in that frame so you
> | > | are not comparing like with like, however you
> | > | correct that error in a moment.
> | > |
> | > | > 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.
> | > |
> | > | Because you screwed up again, the bullets are
> | > | fired but in the gun in frames 3 and 18, a period
> | > | of 15 frames.
> | >
> | > No, you  ed up, the first bullet begins flight ar t = zero
> | > when the relevant timing of bullets begins, I don't give a
> | >   about  riflemen scratching their arses beforehand
> | > or how many frames you counted beforehand. That's
> | > at frame 4.
> |
> | Set t=0 where you like, the second bullet
> | is fired 15 frames after the first as Jeff said.
>
> Yep. So you  ed up with 3.5 ppf and 7 ppf
> in more_frames.png, your SECOND attempt.

No, you  ed up twice. I pointed out first that
given YOUR choice of frames, your value of
72ppf was wrong, it should have been 3.5 ppf,
and second that the reason you got a value
other than 4ppf was because YOU had selected
a pair of frames that included the time when
the riflemen were scratching their arses.

> | > They appear clear of the gun in
> | > | frames 4 and 19, again a period of 15 frames as
> | > | Jeff said.
> | >
> | > Rot is a lying cunt like you, they were fired in frame -999,996
> | > and took 1,000,000 frames to travel down the barrels.
> |
> | Number the frames as you like, the second
> | bullet is fired 15 frames after the first as Jeff
> | said.
>
> Yep. So you or Rot  ed up with 3.5 ppf and 7 ppf
> in more_frames.png, your SECOND attempt,

Your choice, not mine. I asked which frames you
had used and you said "0 and 10", frames 1 and
11 with the software I used.

>  but  you eventually got 4 ppf for rifleman 4, nothing for
> the bullet speed, and also found  35+32 = 60.
> So who  ed up, you or Rot as Jeff said?

You did, if you had used matching frames after the
arse-scratching was finished (such as 4 and 19)
then you would have got 4ppf (other than probably
getting the arithmetic wrong). Talking of which your
arithmetic is off again, 35+32-60 = 7 pixels between
frames 1 and 4.

The bullets speeds were settled in

 http://www.georgedishman.f2s.com/Henri/frame_11_to_12.png

as 8 ppf (from 109 to 117) and 12 ppf (from 137 to 149).

> | > | > frequency  = 1 shot per  [(19-4) = 15] frames
> | > | >  = 1/15 shots per frame
> | > |
> | > | Correct.
> | >
> | > I know it is, but you are still a moron.
> | >
> | > |
> | > | > speed = wavelength * frequency.
> | > | >
> | > | > Rifleman 1:   bullet speed = 120 * 1/15 = 8 ppf
> | > |
> | > | Correct.
> | > I know it is,
> |
> | So motion from left to right is positive.
>
> By default to convention, yes.
> You can make a mirror image of the gif, rotate it,
> invert it, do as you wish, the physics doesn't change.
> We are, however, employing a mathematical model here
> and mathematical conventions apply.
>  If you wish to depart from convention then state that
> deviation so that it is understood by all.

No need to deviate, I just wanted to confirm
the convention since you break it later.

> 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.
> Any bullet acceleration takes place within the gun and
> air resistance is ignored. By default to convention of mathematical
> models, particularly digital models.

I agree with that as practical necessities.

> | > but you are still a cretin.
> | >
> | >
> | > |
> | > | > Rifleman 3:   bullet speed =   60 * 1/15 =  4 ppf
> | > |
> | > | Correct, relative to the rifleman.
> | >
> | > Damn right it is, and -8 ppf relative to the target as you've proven.
> |
> | No, +8ppf, motion from left to right is positive.
>
> In the reference frame of the rifleman --
>    positive, bullet receding, distance increases as a function of time.
> In the reference frame of the target --
>    negative, bullet approaching, distance decreases as a function of time.

Well the convention I am using as confirmed above
is "motion from left to right is positive." whether
relative to the rifleman or the target.

> | If anyone is a moron, the evidence points to you.
>
> The moon sets in the West, the Earth rotates toward the East.
> The moon moves toward the East.
> What evidence do you offer for your claim?  Resentment at
> being proven wrong?

Relative to the target, the bullet is moving left to
hence +8ppf, not -8ppf.

> Emotional outbursts are not proof.

That's why I don't use them myself but if you
introduce them then you should expect them
to reflect on you.

> You are a proven cunt that confuses left from negative and
> doesn't know what a frame of reference is.

See above:
=============================
> | So motion from left to right is positive.
>
> By default to convention, yes.
=============================

The bullet is moving left to right at 8ppf relative to
the target, and left to right at 4ppf relative to
the rifleman, both should be positive by our
convention.

> | > | > So where did 8 ppf come from for (3)?
> | > | > Ballistic theory, of course.
> | > |
> | > | Yes, that's what we are illustrating.
> | >
> | > To Rot:
> | > "[Henri Wilson] now knows Ritz's "ballistic theory"
> | > is falsified" - Dishwater, Wed, Feb 22 2006 8:31 pm,
> | > one month ago.
> |
> | Ritz's theory is of course falsified, that doesn't
> | stop me discussing it hypothetically.
>
> You are a proven psychotic is of course verified, that doesn't stop
> me hypothetically assuming you are sane.
>
>
> | > Which is it, Dishwater, are you arrogant cretin or dishonest cunt?
> |
> | Just someone capable of discussing failed theories
> | without accepting them.
>
> Ok, an arrogant cretin AND a dishonest cunt.
>
>
> | > | > By your own calculation, riflemen 3 and 4 travel
> | > | > 60 pixels between frame 4 and frame 19.
> | > |
> | > | Yes, an average speed of 4 ppf.
> | >
> | > Oh my gawd! What the   is an "average" speed, cretin?
> | > Do you even know what a speed is?
> | > Tell me, cretin, what an "average speed" is.
> |
> | If you are unfamiliar with the term, read this:
> |
> | http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/GBSSCI/PHYS/CLASS/1DKin/U1L1d.html
>
> Very well.
>
>   It says:
> Calculating Average Speed and Average Velocity
>
> The average speed during the course of a motion is often computed using the
> following equation:
>
>
>  Average speed = Distance travelled / time of travel.
>
> Meanwhile, the average velocity is often computed using the equation
>
>
>                                 delta position
> Average velocity =  --------------------
>                                        time
>
> "In agreement with experience we further assume the quantity
> 2AB/(t'A-tA) = c to be the velocity of light in empty space" -- Einstein
> Reference http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

Yeah, I would have used speed, but that's translation for you.

>                                        A-A (change of position)
> Average velocity =   -------------------- = c = 0
>                                        time
>
> In agreement with experience Einstein was a cunt, and so are you.
> I, however, am just someone capable of discussing failed theories
> without accepting them.
>
>
> | > | Of course 3 has
> | > | to move faster between shots as he is standing
> | > | still to fire.
> | >
> | > Who gives a   if 3 jumps over the moon between shots ?
> |
> | Nobody, but you seem intent on nitpicking in your
> | attempt to find some trivial error in Jeff's work as a
> | excuse to avoid apologising for saying he lied when
> | he didn't.
>
> He lied. He said the speed of the bullets was 8 ppf and 12 ppf.

The speeds are 8 and 12 ppf.

http://www.georgedishman.f2s.com/Henri/frame_11_to_12.png

> UNDERSTAND this, don't just read it:
>    http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/GBSSCI/PHYS/CLASS/1DKin/U1L1d.html
>
>
> | > The ONLY thing that is relevant is 4 ppf for the bullet.
> |
> | Get it right for a change, I said 4 ppf for riflemen 3 and 4.
>
> You seem intent on nitpicking in your  attempt to disguise some
> significant error in Jeff's work as an excuse to avoid apologising
> to me for showing you 4 does not equal 8 and 4 does not equal 12.
> Get it right for a change, you said 4 ppf and Rot said 12 ppf.

I said the riflemen move at 4ppf and the bullets at 8ppf
and 12ppf. Jeff said:

> | > | > | >       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
...
> | > | > | >       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

Where do you think I disagree with Jeff?

> | The only bullet speed that was relevant for Jim was
> | relative to the target since he kept ranting on about
> | target penetration being evidence for increased
> | kinetic energy.
>
> We'll get to kinetic energy after and if you understand this:
>
>    http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/GBSSCI/PHYS/CLASS/1DKin/U1L1d.html
>
> although that will be conditional on if you understand 4  ppf does not equal
> 12 ppf.

That will be conditional on you understanding the "rifleman"
does not equal "bullet" and "relative to the target" does not
equal "relative to the rifleman".

> Maybe next year. Greenfield is only two years ahead of you, you may catch
> up.
>
> | > (3) was deliberately contrived by Rot to deceive and win
> | > an argument, and he's failed. Why did you congratulate him, cretin?
> |
> | (1) and (3) were stated by me, not Jeff. I thanked him
> | for the effort he put into illustrating those scenarios
> |which he did accurately. You have yet to find any error.
>
> So you deny. Cretins do that.

You claimed the bullet speeds quoted were wrong
but they are as Jeff stated so what error do you
think you have found?

> | > He's a  ing loser,
> |
> | He beat you.
>
> <shrug>
>
>
> | > still trying to bluster me with "You can't tell...".
> | > He's conned you, but not me, cretin. He can't con an honest
> | > mathematician and engineer.  It's cunts like him, Hitler and
> | > Saddam Hussein that get people killed. Lying shits, the lot of them.
> | >
> | >
> | > | > Rifleman 3 *passes* rifleman 4 and fires a bullet
> | > | > with muzzle velocity 4 ppf, (frame 11) ...
> | > |
> | > | By "muzzle velocity" I mean the speed of the bullet
> | > | relative to the muzzle at the time of firing which is
> | > | simply a measure of the charge. In the animation it
> | > | is 8 ppf.
> | >
> | > See frame 19.
> | > Bullet 3-1 is half the distance from the gun as Bullet 1-1.
> | > In the animation it is 4 ppf.
> |
> | The speed of the bullet is 8ppf as Jeff said, the speed
> | of the rifleman is 4ppf as Jeff said, you have yet to
> | find any error.
>
> "Get it right for a change, I said 4 ppf for riflemen 3 and 4." --
> Dishwater.
> Apologise to Rot for disagreeing with him.

Where did Jeff give a different speed for the riflemen.

> | > You are a cretin.
> |
> | You are incompetent and incapable of backing up your
> | claim that Jeff lied.
>
> "Get it right for a change, I said 4 ppf for riflemen 3 and 4." --
> Dishwater.

Where did Jeff give a different speed for the riflemen?

> | > Plead guilty as charged and ask for mitigation, reason -- insanity.
> | > Further note that Dishwater claims 3.5 ppf in more_frames.png,
> | > you wrote it and then said I screwed up.
> |
> | You did, you said the speed was 72 ppf.
>
>  I can lie as well, but I admit my lies and I stood corrected.
>  You, being a dishonest cunt, do not have that capability.

I admit my errors to, e.g typing 120 instead of 60, but
I don't count the arse-scratching time in the animation
as being relevant to the changed rates due to Doppler.
I will admit errors if you can find any.

> | > | Rifleman 3 stands still to fire so 3's bullet
> | > | moves at 8ppf but rifleman 4 keeps moving at 4 ppf
> | > | while firing so his bullet moves at 4 + 8 = 12 ppf ...
> | >
> | > Rifleman 1 stands still to fire.
> | > Rifleman 3 steps backward to fire.
> |
> | Bullets from 3 move at 8ppf across the animation,
> | the same speed as bullets from 1.
>
> No they don't. Across the animation bullets move from
> frame 1 to frame (91 ?). Read this:

Maybe you're still making the same mistake
as before, don't count arse-scratching time or
time admiring the damage after the bullets hit
the target.

George




>    http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/GBSSCI/PHYS/CLASS/1DKin/U1L1d.html
>
> Now   off out of my classroom, come back when you've done your homework.
>
> | They both stand
> | still to fire. That was the 'given' in my question to Jim
> | which Jeff illustrated.
>
> Read this:
>
>    http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/GBSSCI/PHYS/CLASS/1DKin/U1L1d.html
>
> |
> | > You can't bullshit me, Dishwater.
> |
> | You seem to be capable of bullshitting yourself without
> | my help.
> |
> Read this:
>
>    http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/GBSSCI/PHYS/CLASS/1DKin/U1L1d.html
>
> | > | > ... and ballistic theory
> | > | > is proven.
> | > |
> | > | ... because the animation is intended to illustrate
> | > | ballistic theory.
> | >
> | > And it does. I told Greenfield it was a good animation,
> | >  but that Rot was a liar: Rot said 12 and 8 ppf.
> |
> | Jeff is correct, the speeds relative to the target are 8
> | and 12 ppf.
>
> "Get it right for a change, I said 4 ppf for riflemen 3 and 4." --
> Dishwater.
> Apologise to Rot for disagreeing with him.
>
> |
> | > | > 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.
> | > |
> | > | The charges are the same giving a bullet speed
> | > | relative to the gun of 8 ppf for all the riflemen.
> | >
> | > Only if rifleman (3) stepping back at -4 ppf when he fires.
> | > Which lie is it, moron Dishwater?
> |
> | (1) and (3) stand still when firing, both their bullets
> | move at 8ppf. (2) and (4) move at 4ppf when firing
> | so their bullets move at 12 ppf. Riflemen (3) and
> | (4) move forward by 60 pixels between shots and
> | shots are 15 frames apart. Those are the facts
> | and match the values Jeff stated, he did not lie.
>
> "Get it right for a change, I said 4 ppf for riflemen 3 and 4." --
> Dishwater.
> Apologise to Rot for disagreeing with him.
>
> |
> | > | > 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.
> | > |
> | > | The numbers match up so far.
> | >
> | > That's called an "excuse".
> |
> | No, it's called "proving you wrong". You said Jeff
> | lied but every value has matched what he said.
>
> "Get it right for a change, I said 4 ppf for riflemen 3 and 4." --
> Dishwater.
> Apologise to Rot for disagreeing with him.
>
> | > Get mummy to write me a note
> |
> | No, you have to say "sorry" to Jeff yourself.
>
> "Get it right for a change, I said 4 ppf for riflemen 3 and 4." --
> Dishwater.
> Apologise to Rot for disagreeing with him.
>
> |
> | > explaining that you are psychotic today and cannot think.
> | >  4 ppf  = 8 ppf, does it?
> | > What  I really want you to do is go back to junior school and pay
> | > attention there, getting the   out of my classroom. This shit
> | > is for 12-year-olds, your mental age is 8.
> | >
> | >
> | > |
> | > | > | > "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.
> | > |
> | > | OK, if that was your point, let's get it right, there
> | > | are two relationships:
> | > |
> | > | speed relative to target = target frequency * wavelength
> | > |
> | > | or
> | > |
> | > |  60 / 7.5 = 8 ppf
> | > |
> | > Wrong. Speed relative to target is distance from target
> | > divided by time taken to travel that distance.
> |
> | http://www.georgedishman.f2s.com/Henri/wavelengths_1_3.png
> |
> | Bullet (3) is 60 pixels from the target and gets
> | there 7.5 frames later, speed 8ppf as Jeff said.
> |
> | Bullet (1) is 120 pixels from the target and gets
> | there 15 frames later, speed 8ppf as Jeff said.
> |
> | You just proved Jeff correct yet again.
>
> "Get it right for a change, I said 4 ppf for riflemen 3 and 4." --
> Dishwater.
> Apologise to Rot for disagreeing with him.
>
> |
> | > If you are a
> | > con artist like Einstein, it is the "average speed", twice the
> | > distance from target divided by time taken.
> | > 2AB/(t'A-tA) = c and the bullet winds up back in the gun.
> | > The "average speed" is zero.
> |
> | http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/GBSSCI/PHYS/CLASS/1DKin/U1L1d.html
> |
> | > | as Jeff said, and also
> | > |
> | > | speed relative to gun = firing frequency * wavelength
> | > |
> | > | Since rifleman 3 moves forward at an average
> | > | of 4 ppf (60 pixels between frame 4 and frame
> | > | 19 as you noted) and the bullet is moving at
> | > | 8 ppf (because he stops to fire),
> | >
> | > He steps backwards to fire.
> |
> | No, he stands still so that the bullet speed remains 8ppf.
> |
> "Get it right for a change, I said 4 ppf for riflemen 3 and 4." --
> Dishwater.
> Apologise to Rot for disagreeing with him.
>
> | > His "average speed" (meaningless,
> | >  he jumps over the moon between firing  rounds) is greater
> | > than the constant speed of rifleman 4.
> | >
> | >
> | > | the speed of
> | > | the bullet relative to the rifleman is 4 ppf so:
> | > |
> | > | 120 / 15 = 4 ppf
> | >
> | > Correct.
> |
> | So now it is an established fact that you are a moron. At
> | least I spotted the typo, you agreed that 120 / 15 = 4.
>
> "Get it right for a change, I said 4 ppf for riflemen 3 and 4." --
> Dishwater.
> Apologise to Rot for disagreeing with him.
>
> |
> | > Frame 19.  Bullet 4-1 is 60 pixels ahead of bullet 3-1.
> | > So is it half charge in the cartridge or does (3) step back
> | > relative to (4) ?  ...
> |
> | Bullet 3-1 is 120 pixels from where it was fired, exactly
> | the same as bullet 1-1. Rifleman 1 stands still all the
> | time so rifleman 3 stood still to fire too. That's 15 frames
> | at 8 ppf as Jeff said.
>
> "Get it right for a change, I said 4 ppf for riflemen 3 and 4." --
> Dishwater.
> Apologise to Rot for disagreeing with him.
>
> |
> | Bullet 4-1 is 180 pixels from where it was fired, that's
> | 15 frames at 12 ppf, 8ppf from the charge (as Jeff
> | said) plus 4ppf because the rifleman was moving
> | forward at 4ppf (as Jeff said).
>
> "Get it right for a change, I said 4 ppf for riflemen 3 and 4." --
> Dishwater.
> Apologise to Rot for disagreeing with him.
>
> |
> | > .. I really don't care which, Rot is a liar and you are
> | > his co-conspirator. Let me hear remorse.
> |
> | The values are as Jeff stated, you just screwed
> | up again.
> "Get it right for a change, I said 4 ppf for riflemen 3 and 4." --
> Dishwater.
> Apologise to Rot for disagreeing with him.
>
> |
> | > | (Strictly the wavelengths should be similarly
> | > | qualified as well but for Gallilean relativity the
> | > | values are the same.)
> | > |
> | > | > I even told you I was lying by quoting Clancy.
> | > |
> | > | You weren't lying, you just didn't think it through
> | > | sufficiently.
> | >
> | > You  ing dishonest dumb hypocritical cunt.
> | >   off out of my classroom and don't come back.
> |
> | ROFL, you couldn't even handle the relation between
> | frequency, wavelength and speed. Before you try to
> | teach, you should learn the subject:
>
> Apologise to Rot for disagreeing with him.
>
> | > | > 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
> | > |
> | > | Let's teach you how to do it correctly:
> | > |
> | > | speed relative to emitter = wavelength measured by emitter * emission
> | > | frequency
> | > |
> | > | and also
> | > |
> | > | speed relative to target = wavelength measured by target * reception
> | > | frequency
> |
> | George


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