sci.astro
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Ballistic Theory and the Sagnac Experiment

Subject: Re: Ballistic Theory and the Sagnac Experiment
From: "George Dishman"
Date: 19 Mar 2006 12:05:57 -0800
Newsgroups: sci.astro, sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics
Hexenmeister wrote:
> "George Dishman" <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:1142761587.728034.199000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> |
> | Hexenmeister wrote:
> | > "George Dishman" <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> | > news:1142413698.877653.230420@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> | > |
> | > | Hexenmeister wrote:

History snipped to shorten the post.

> | > | "Pixels per frame" refers to consecutive frames in
> | > | the gif animation of course, not "pixels per frame
> | > | of reference".
> | >
> | > Ok, the bullets inside the guns (using the two frames 0 and 10) ...
> |
> | The software I'm using numbers from 1 so they
> | are 1 and 11 in my diagram.
>
>
> How lovely for you, I used <alt><PrtSc>.
> Being a software engineer, naturally I number frames
> from 0.

So do I, but the guy wrote wrote the softare
I'm using didn't.

> | > ...travel at 72 pixels per frame, carried by the riflemen.
> |
> | http://www.georgedishman.f2s.com/Henri/more_frames.png
> |
> | Between those frames, the gun for rifleman 4 moves
> | 35 pixels in 10 frames or 3.5ppf.
>
> Between those frames, bullet 4 moves 97 pixels in 10 frames or 9.7ppf
> and the gun and riflemen are a red herrings.
>
>   http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/more_frames.png

Your measure of 97 pixels is from a point on the gun,
not an earlier position of the bullet so it isn't a measure
of the speed of bullet 4.

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

> So why can't Jef Rot be HONEST and say the velocity of the bullet
> is 9.7 pixels per frame, instead of DISHONET and say it is 8 ppf?

He is being honest, the speed of bullets 1 and 3 is 8ppf
and that of bullets 2 and 4 is 12ppf as he stated. You
got it wrong because you measured from the gun. This
is valid:

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

You got it right where you wrote "(60-28)/8 = 4ppf faster".

You got it wrong again when you said "6 pixels in zero
frames", the bullet was still in the gun in the previous
frame

> Why did you congratulate him on his lying?
> He's a cheat and a liar, isn't he, Dishwater?

No, you just got your sums wrong again.

> You are a cheat and liar too, are you not?

I have shown you clear diagrams to back up my
claims and I'll address anything you think is an
arror but so far you haven't found any. You said:

> | > ... Find me wrong and I'll admit to it,
> | > you won't catch me defending my own  up in a futile
> | > attempt to save face, that's pointless.

Will you keep to that?

George


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