George Dishman wrote:
> "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
> > George Dishman wrote:
> >> "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> news:[email protected]
> > George says:
> >> That is an inaccurate statement of my claim, my
> >> position is this:
> >> a) A Doppler shift occurs in both (3) and (4)
> >> because the arrival rate differs from the
> >> firing rate, but no Doppler shift occurs in
> >> (1) or (2) because the arrival rate is the
> >> same as the firing rate in each case.
> > Correct per se, but (3) and (4) can be differentiated
> >> b) The target damage is greater in (2) and (4)
> >> than it is in (1) and (3).
> > Agreed
> >> c) The rifleman changes his position between
> >> shots in (3) and (4) but not in (1) or (2).
> > Agreed
> >> Observations: Doppler shift occurs whenever there
> >> is a change of position between shots whether
> >> there is a change of target damage or not.
> > NO change to target damage is ONLY possible if dealing with a massless
> > (or "energy-less) entity representing the bullet. This imaginary case
> > is NOT considered
> I don't know where you got that idea from
> and it seems to be in conflict with your
> agreement of (b) above so maybe we need
> to clarify a bit. Kinetic energy depends
> on the square of the speed so target damage
> depends on the square of relative to the
> target. This is a table with Jeff's values
> for bullet speed and the corresponding
> damage in arbitrary units (mass=2) and
> the Doppler shift expressed as arrival
> rate/firing rate :
> Scenario Speed Damage Doppler
> 1 8 64 1.0 (no shift)
> 2 12 144 1.0 (no shift)
> 3 8 64 2.0
> 4 12 144 1.5
> There is no CHANGE to the target damage
> between (1) and (3) because the bullet speed
> is the same but there is equal damage in the
> two cases.
> > (ie is ruled out), due to trivial target inspection.
> > Similarly for light: the blued light has increased energy--therefore it
> > is NOT scenario (3)
> >> Conclusion: It is the change of position which is
> >> the cause of the changed arrival rates in (3) and
> >> (4), not the changed speed of the bullet which
> >> occurs in (2) and (4).
> > It "happens" that there is a change of position of the gun at instant
> > of firing in (3);
> > (sigh) but energy RULES IT OUT as a cause
> I don't undrstand why you think it is ruled
> out as the cause.
> >> > Move on (to the energy evapouration if you like)
> >> Once you explain why there is Doppler shift in
> >> (3) but not in (1).
> > "The gun changing position causes more target strikes per time
> > interval"
> > In this case (3) is NOT the reason for doppler, as evidence at target
> > inspection RULES IT OUT
> Well if you are ruling out change of position
> as the cause and the cause can't be a change
> of speed because the speeds are the same and
> the target damage is the same (64 units for
> both above) what do you say IS the cause?
> > I am sick of symantics; our positions are clear.
> The only cause you have given for Doppler is this:
> "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
> message news:[email protected]
> > In this case (a gunner), the Doppler shift observed/measured at the
> > target
> > is due to increased bullet VELOCITY, as evidenced by increased energy
> > (compared to stationary gun), at the target.
> Comparing (1) with (3), the speeds are the
> same at 8 and the damage is the same at 64
> yet there is Doppler shift in (3) but none
> in (1). How can "increased bullet VELOCITY"
> be the cause?
> > Now argue HOW (3) produces different atrget damage than (4)
> In (3), the rifleman stands still to fire so
> the speed of the bullet is just the muzzle
> velocity. In (4) the rifleman is moving
> forward while he fires so the bullet speed
> is the sum of his speed and the muzzle
> > (and you had better succeed, because then you have to face the fact
> > that blued light performs the same)
> We will get to that as soon as you let me
> know what you give as the cause of the Doppler
> shift in (3) when there is no change to either
> the speed or the target damage compared to (1).
I am not here to discuss the imaginary.
You are not so stupid as to claim there is no difference between (3)
and (4) energy,
and to hold to the (3) reason for the doppler is to use "imaginary"
entities. I have run this past my teenage children; they understand the
difference and the conclusion perfectly; (3) is NOT THE CAUSE
If I have shown a child the logical conclusion, and you cannot (I think
actually do) grasp the implication, then it is time for me to find
discussion with more rewarding and open-minded