| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 27 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 38:44:35 |
| Calls: | 631 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 1,187 |
| D/L today: |
23 files (29,781K bytes) |
| Messages: | 174,060 |
xkcd: oPhysics InsightoIIRC, at some point Galileo was in charge of the Pisan artillery.
https://xkcd.com/3154/
oWhen Galileo dropped two weights from the Leaning Tower of Pisa, they
put him in the history books. But when I do it, I get 'detained by >security' for ainjuring several tourists.Ao
I have been to the top of the Leaning Tower of Pisa. It is quite a ways
up. Articles can achieve significant velocity from there.
On Mon, 13 Oct 2025 17:22:10 -0500, Lynn McGuire
<lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
xkcd: oPhysics Insighto
https://xkcd.com/3154/
oWhen Galileo dropped two weights from the Leaning Tower of Pisa, they
put him in the history books. But when I do it, I get 'detained by >security' for ainjuring several tourists.Ao
I have been to the top of the Leaning Tower of Pisa. It is quite a ways >up. Articles can achieve significant velocity from there.
IIRC, at some point Galileo was in charge of the Pisan artillery.
I wonder if he was trying to find out why their "time on target"
computations [1] never worked with Aristotle's view of how things
fell.
In article <eqssekphm1g2ttdtq17kqqgo5krb90ub58@4ax.com>,
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 13 Oct 2025 17:22:10 -0500, Lynn McGuire
<lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
xkcd: rCLPhysics InsightrCY
https://xkcd.com/3154/
rCLWhen Galileo dropped two weights from the Leaning Tower of Pisa, they >>> put him in the history books. But when I do it, I get 'detained by
security' for rCyinjuring several tourists.rCOrCY
I have been to the top of the Leaning Tower of Pisa. It is quite a ways >>> up. Articles can achieve significant velocity from there.
IIRC, at some point Galileo was in charge of the Pisan artillery.
I wonder if he was trying to find out why their "time on target"
computations [1] never worked with Aristotle's view of how things
fell.
I have some doubts on whether that concept would occur to him. IIRC, the whole idea of "Time on Target" was for explosive shells.
On 10/14/2025 12:09 PM, Robert Woodward wrote:
In article <eqssekphm1g2ttdtq17kqqgo5krb90ub58@4ax.com>,
-a Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 13 Oct 2025 17:22:10 -0500, Lynn McGuire
<lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
xkcd: rCLPhysics InsightrCY
-a-a-a https://xkcd.com/3154/
rCLWhen Galileo dropped two weights from the Leaning Tower of Pisa, they >>>> put him in the history books.-a But when I do it, I get 'detained by
security' for rCyinjuring several tourists.rCOrCY
I have been to the top of the Leaning Tower of Pisa.-a It is quite a
ways
up.-a Articles can achieve significant velocity from there.
IIRC, at some point Galileo was in charge of the Pisan artillery.
I wonder if he was trying to find out why their "time on target"
computations [1] never worked with Aristotle's view of how things
fell.
I have some doubts on whether that concept would occur to him. IIRC, the
whole idea of "Time on Target" was for explosive shells.
Were explosive shells used before the USA Civil War ?
On 10/14/2025 4:26 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 10/14/2025 12:09 PM, Robert Woodward wrote:
In article <eqssekphm1g2ttdtq17kqqgo5krb90ub58@4ax.com>,
-a Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 13 Oct 2025 17:22:10 -0500, Lynn McGuire
<lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
xkcd: rCLPhysics InsightrCY
-a-a-a https://xkcd.com/3154/
rCLWhen Galileo dropped two weights from the Leaning Tower of Pisa, they >>>>> put him in the history books.-a But when I do it, I get 'detained by >>>>> security' for rCyinjuring several tourists.rCOrCY
I have been to the top of the Leaning Tower of Pisa.-a It is quite a >>>>> ways
up.-a Articles can achieve significant velocity from there.
IIRC, at some point Galileo was in charge of the Pisan artillery.
I wonder if he was trying to find out why their "time on target"
computations [1] never worked with Aristotle's view of how things
fell.
I have some doubts on whether that concept would occur to him. IIRC, the >>> whole idea of "Time on Target" was for explosive shells.
Were explosive shells used before the USA Civil War ?
Do you know the words to "The Star-Spangled Banner?"
(Earlier possibilities include 13th century China and 14th century Venice.)
On 10/14/2025 3:57 PM, Mark Jackson wrote:
On 10/14/2025 4:26 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 10/14/2025 12:09 PM, Robert Woodward wrote:
In article <eqssekphm1g2ttdtq17kqqgo5krb90ub58@4ax.com>,
-a Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 13 Oct 2025 17:22:10 -0500, Lynn McGuire
<lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
xkcd: rCLPhysics InsightrCY
-a-a-a https://xkcd.com/3154/
rCLWhen Galileo dropped two weights from the Leaning Tower of Pisa, >>>>>> they
put him in the history books.-a But when I do it, I get 'detained by >>>>>> security' for rCyinjuring several tourists.rCOrCY
I have been to the top of the Leaning Tower of Pisa.-a It is quite >>>>>> a ways
up.-a Articles can achieve significant velocity from there.
IIRC, at some point Galileo was in charge of the Pisan artillery.
I wonder if he was trying to find out why their "time on target"
computations [1] never worked with Aristotle's view of how things
fell.
I have some doubts on whether that concept would occur to him. IIRC,
the
whole idea of "Time on Target" was for explosive shells.
Were explosive shells used before the USA Civil War ?
Do you know the words to "The Star-Spangled Banner?"
(Earlier possibilities include 13th century China and 14th century
Venice.)
Ah !-a Very true.
IIRC, at some point Galileo was in charge of the Pisan artillery.
I wonder if he was trying to find out why their "time on target"
computations [1] never worked with Aristotle's view of how things
fell.
I know of Venetian use in the 15th century.
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
IIRC, at some point Galileo was in charge of the Pisan artillery.
I wonder if he was trying to find out why their "time on target" >>computations [1] never worked with Aristotle's view of how things
fell.
_Two New Sciences_ has a discussion of this and is well worth
reading. Note that Galileo is thinking throughout of bodies
attracted to the earth and never makes that great jump of Newton's.
Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:How ... Aristotelian of him.
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
IIRC, at some point Galileo was in charge of the Pisan artillery.
I wonder if he was trying to find out why their "time on target" >>>computations [1] never worked with Aristotle's view of how things
fell.
_Two New Sciences_ has a discussion of this and is well worth
reading. Note that Galileo is thinking throughout of bodies
attracted to the earth and never makes that great jump of Newton's.
I take that back. I thought there was a discussion of time of flightI appear to be projecting much more modern concepts of artillery onto
but looking it up I find there is not.... it would be difficult to do >without the calculus I suspect.
Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
IIRC, at some point Galileo was in charge of the Pisan
artillery.
I wonder if he was trying to find out why their "time on target"
computations [1] never worked with Aristotle's view of how
things fell.
_Two New Sciences_ has a discussion of this and is well worth
reading. Note that Galileo is thinking throughout of bodies
attracted to the earth and never makes that great jump of
Newton's.
I take that back. I thought there was a discussion of time of
flight but looking it up I find there is not.... it would be
difficult to do without the calculus I suspect.
On 10/15/2025 10:34 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
Paul S Person-a <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
IIRC, at some point Galileo was in charge of the Pisan
artillery.
I wonder if he was trying to find out why their "time on target"
computations [1] never worked with Aristotle's view of how
things fell.
_Two New Sciences_ has a discussion of this and is well worth
reading.-a Note that Galileo is thinking throughout of bodies
attracted to the earth and never makes that great jump of
Newton's.
I take that back.-a I thought there was a discussion of time of
flight but looking it up I find there is not.... it would be
difficult to do without the calculus I suspect.
Probably not.-a Did they know the muzzle velocity of the devices to which
a given distance/angle table applies?-a Then, assuming no meaningful
impact of air resistance:
time-to-target = distance divided by (muzzle velocity)*cos(angle).
I appear to be projecting much more modern concepts of artillery onto
the distant past.
Ancient geometry did include conic sections, although whether they
were related to the path of missiles used in indirect fire [1] I do
not know.=20
Mark Jackson wrote:
On 10/15/2025 10:34 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:I seem to recall from Aubrey that one of Elizabeth's scholars applied mathematics to gunnery, possibly Dr Dee before he became an occultist.
Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
Paul S Person-a <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
IIRC, at some point Galileo was in charge of the Pisan
artillery.
I wonder if he was trying to find out why their "time on target"
computations [1] never worked with Aristotle's view of how
things fell.
_Two New Sciences_ has a discussion of this and is well worth
reading.-a Note that Galileo is thinking throughout of bodies
attracted to the earth and never makes that great jump of
Newton's.
I take that back.-a I thought there was a discussion of time of
flight but looking it up I find there is not.... it would be
difficult to do without the calculus I suspect.
Probably not.-a Did they know the muzzle velocity of the devices to
which a given distance/angle table applies?-a Then, assuming no
meaningful impact of air resistance:
time-to-target = distance divided by (muzzle velocity)*cos(angle).
The Parliamentary officer Nathaniel Nye directed cannon in the English
civil war and published a book on the mathematics of it in 1647, in
which he cited a much earlier Italian mathematician, Tartaliga, who
wrote on the subject in 1537.
William Hyde
On 10/15/2025 4:30 PM, William Hyde wrote:While researching the history of "time on target", I found a Wikipedia
Mark Jackson wrote:
On 10/15/2025 10:34 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:I seem to recall from Aubrey that one of Elizabeth's scholars applied
Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
Paul S Persona <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
IIRC, at some point Galileo was in charge of the Pisan
artillery.
I wonder if he was trying to find out why their "time on target"
computations [1] never worked with Aristotle's view of how
things fell.
_Two New Sciences_ has a discussion of this and is well worth
reading.a Note that Galileo is thinking throughout of bodies
attracted to the earth and never makes that great jump of
Newton's.
I take that back.a I thought there was a discussion of time of
flight but looking it up I find there is not.... it would be
difficult to do without the calculus I suspect.
Probably not.a Did they know the muzzle velocity of the devices to
which a given distance/angle table applies?a Then, assuming no
meaningful impact of air resistance:
time-to-target = distance divided by (muzzle velocity)*cos(angle).
mathematics to gunnery, possibly Dr Dee before he became an occultist.
The Parliamentary officer Nathaniel Nye directed cannon in the English
civil war and published a book on the mathematics of it in 1647, in
which he cited a much earlier Italian mathematician, Tartaliga, who
wrote on the subject in 1537.
William Hyde
"Time on target" involves firing several projectiles, setting the
propellent charges, firing times, and elevation of the cannon(s)
to cause the shells to arrive at the target simultaneously.
I've seen this done using cannon that have liquid propellants
and computer control. I can't imagine it being done with fixed
charges, or without computers, save as the result of a careful
iterative set of firings to zero on on the charges, timing and
elevations needed.
Please remember that Aubrey makes sh*t up.So do lots of people. We live in an age when "skepticism" is not
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
I appear to be projecting much more modern concepts of artillery onto
the distant past.
Ancient geometry did include conic sections, although whether they
were related to the path of missiles used in indirect fire [1] I do
not know.=20
I don't know, but Galileo does talk about how the projectile follows a parabola and why. He does mention indrect fire although I don't think
it is very useful unless you have good spotting, which would have been
a problem at the time.
On Wed, 15 Oct 2025 22:00:02 -0400, Cryptoengineer
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/15/2025 4:30 PM, William Hyde wrote:
Mark Jackson wrote:
On 10/15/2025 10:34 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:I seem to recall from Aubrey that one of Elizabeth's scholars applied
Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
Paul S Person-a <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
IIRC, at some point Galileo was in charge of the Pisan
artillery.
I wonder if he was trying to find out why their "time on target" >>>>>>> computations [1] never worked with Aristotle's view of how
things fell.
_Two New Sciences_ has a discussion of this and is well worth
reading.-a Note that Galileo is thinking throughout of bodies
attracted to the earth and never makes that great jump of
Newton's.
I take that back.-a I thought there was a discussion of time of
flight but looking it up I find there is not.... it would be
difficult to do without the calculus I suspect.
Probably not.-a Did they know the muzzle velocity of the devices to
which a given distance/angle table applies?-a Then, assuming no
meaningful impact of air resistance:
time-to-target = distance divided by (muzzle velocity)*cos(angle).
mathematics to gunnery, possibly Dr Dee before he became an occultist.
The Parliamentary officer Nathaniel Nye directed cannon in the English
civil war and published a book on the mathematics of it in 1647, in
which he cited a much earlier Italian mathematician, Tartaliga, who
wrote on the subject in 1537.
William Hyde
"Time on target" involves firing several projectiles, setting the
propellent charges, firing times, and elevation of the cannon(s)
to cause the shells to arrive at the target simultaneously.
I've seen this done using cannon that have liquid propellants
and computer control. I can't imagine it being done with fixed
charges, or without computers, save as the result of a careful
iterative set of firings to zero on on the charges, timing and
elevations needed.
While researching the history of "time on target", I found a Wikipedia article asserting that it was developed by the Brits in North Africa
in 1941 or 1942.
Fixed charges I don't know about, but computers (if you mean modern
digital computers) they did not have.
OTOH, a book I purchased, /The Effects of Nuclear Weapons/, has a sort
of circular slide rule that /could/ be considered a computer of such
effects. So some such "computer" might have been involved.
And then developed further by the Americans as the war progressed.
Please remember that Aubrey makes sh*t up.
So do lots of people. We live in an age when "skepticism" is not
restricted to the paranormal, or religion, but extends to everything.