> 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)
> ..........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
> > > > 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
> > >
> > > ... is what prompted me to make the animation. I was
> > > then further guided by Henry's canonization of the four
> > > cases (1) through (4), which required me to reorganize
> > > the animation to put the cases in the same order.
> > >
> > > I wish Jim could comprehend the irony of his repeated,
> > > strident complaints about the irrelevance of case (3),
> > > when he is the person who suggested it.
> Liar or confused incompetent!
> Which is it?
> > Indeed, it was even him who previously suggested
> > (2) vs (4) but got the result wrong.
I always dealt with (1) and (4), and (2) was long discarded as a
fast receeding herring.
> Yes to the first, and no to the second.
> Conservation of energy is a fact as uncompromised as
> anything considered.
> > > It was actually first introduced by another poster a
> > > few months ago, but Jim probably didn't remember that
> > > when he wrote on February 22.
> > Odysseus in post 1407, a couple of days after this
> > started. Seven weeks, hundreds of posts and Jim
> > still doesn't understand what causes the Doppler
> > Effect.
> More bullets / time, and with unassailable evidence that
> they arrived at a higher speed (target damage)
> Jim G