sci.astro
[Top] [All Lists]

## Re: Ballistic Theory and the Sagnac Experiment

 Subject: Re: Ballistic Theory and the Sagnac Experiment "George Dishman" 19 Mar 2006 12:05:57 -0800 sci.astro, sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics
 Hexenmeister wrote: > "George Dishman" <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:[email protected] > | > | Hexenmeister wrote: > | > "George Dishman" <[email protected]> wrote in message > | > news:[email protected] > | > | > | > | 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 . > 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
 Current Thread Re: Ballistic Theory and the Sagnac Experiment, (continued) Re: Ballistic Theory and the Sagnac Experiment, George Dishman Re: Ballistic Theory and the Sagnac Experiment, Hexenmeister Re: Ballistic Theory and the Sagnac Experiment, George Dishman Re: Ballistic Theory and the Sagnac Experiment, Hexenmeister Re: Ballistic Theory and the Sagnac Experiment, George Dishman Re: Ballistic Theory and the Sagnac Experiment, Hexenmeister Re: Ballistic Theory and the Sagnac Experiment, George Dishman Re: Ballistic Theory and the Sagnac Experiment, Hexenmeister Re: Ballistic Theory and the Sagnac Experiment, Jeff Root Re: Ballistic Theory and the Sagnac Experiment, Hexenmeister Re: Ballistic Theory and the Sagnac Experiment, George Dishman <= Re: Ballistic Theory and the Sagnac Experiment, Hexenmeister Re: Ballistic Theory and the Sagnac Experiment, Jeff Root Re: Ballistic Theory and the Sagnac Experiment, Hexenmeister Re: Ballistic Theory and the Sagnac Experiment, George Dishman Re: Ballistic Theory and the Sagnac Experiment, Hexenmeister Re: Ballistic Theory and the Sagnac Experiment, George Dishman Re: Ballistic Theory and the Sagnac Experiment, Hexenmeister Re: Ballistic Theory and the Sagnac Experiment, George Dishman Re: Ballistic Theory and the Sagnac Experiment, Hexenmeister Re: Ballistic Theory and the Sagnac Experiment, Jeff Root