see what the culture of a fake Doppler shift spawns Chapt 8 #131; ATOM TOTALITY
in [Math]
|
Prev: Encompassing the Halting Set in PA
Next: see what the culture of a fake Doppler shift spawns Chapt 8 #133; ATOM TOTALITY
From: Archimedes Plutonium on 4 Jun 2010 00:11 Jeroen Belleman wrote: > > Answer my questions. The second one only, if you can. > > Not that it matters. I won't attempt to educate you beyond this. > > Jeroen Belleman You don't know what you are talking about and you have a foul mouth accompanying. You claim radar speed is a doppler measurement. You don't know the first thing about it. Speed radar is measured using simple math. Some police officers even do the maths rather than have the gadget compute it. In the Navy, they call it the "Mo Board" of radar telling the speed and direction of a distant ship. This speed radar has been around since world war 2. Doppler shift has nothing to do with it. Look it up, for petes sake instead of spewing off the mouth. But you don't need a coarse on speed radar, you need a coarse on manners first.
From: Enrico on 4 Jun 2010 01:09 On Jun 3, 10:11 pm, Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archime...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Jeroen Belleman wrote: > > > Answer my questions. The second one only, if you can. > > > Not that it matters. I won't attempt to educate you beyond this. > > > Jeroen Belleman > > You don't know what you are talking about and you have a foul mouth > accompanying. You claim radar speed is a doppler measurement. You > don't know the first thing about it. > > Speed radar is measured using simple math. Some police officers even > do the maths rather than have the gadget compute it. > > In the Navy, they call it the "Mo Board" of radar telling the speed > and > direction of a distant ship. This speed radar has been around since > world war 2. > > Doppler shift has nothing to do with it. > > Look it up, for petes sake instead of spewing off the mouth. > > But you don't need a coarse on speed radar, you need a coarse on > manners first. =========================================================== http://www.copradar.com/preview/chapt2/ch2d1.html Police traffic radar emits an unmodulated continuous wave (CW) and measures' reflections (echoes). Reflections are frequency shifted (Doppler shift) if the target is moving; the faster the target is traveling, the more the frequency shifts. A target traveling toward the radar shifts the frequency higher while a target traveling away from the radar shifts the frequency lower (compared to transmit frequency). The radar, by design, simultaneously transmits a continuous signal while receiving continuous signal echoes. Enrico
From: David Bernier on 5 Jun 2010 01:59 Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > > > Jeroen Belleman wrote: >> >> Answer my questions. The second one only, if you can. >> >> Not that it matters. I won't attempt to educate you beyond this. >> >> Jeroen Belleman > > You don't know what you are talking about and you have a foul mouth > accompanying. You claim radar speed is a doppler measurement. You > don't know the first thing about it. > > Speed radar is measured using simple math. Some police officers even > do the maths rather than have the gadget compute it. > > In the Navy, they call it the "Mo Board" of radar telling the speed > and > direction of a distant ship. This speed radar has been around since > world war 2. > > Doppler shift has nothing to do with it. [...] Imagine the police radar is at rest and emits sine waves with crests one meter apart (a signal at about 300 Mega-Hertz). Suppose a mirror is moving away at 10% of the speed of light from the radar, in a radial (in-line with the signal) direction. When a crest advances 1 meter, the mirror recedes by 0.1 meter. The question is then what is the crest-to-crest separation after reflection off the mirror? This might involve special relativity, I'm not completely sure. But think about planets orbiting about far away stars. It's often said that as the earth-planet radial velocity varies as the planet moves in its orbit, periodic variations in spectral lines (wavelengths or frequencies) are measured, interpreted as Doppler effects. Don't you think this is well established? David Bernier
From: Jeroen Belleman on 5 Jun 2010 17:36 On 06/05/2010 07:59 AM, David Bernier wrote: > Archimedes Plutonium wrote: >>{...] >> Doppler shift has nothing to do with it. > [...] > > Imagine the police radar [...] Don't bother. What puzzles me is: Why does he do this? What's so entertaining about it, that it's worth spending so much time on? And what draws people to keep trying to explain things, knowing full well that it's totally pointless, and that he'll never stop reciting his twisted arguments? He's been doing this for years! What's the point? I'd like to understand what kind of grotesque mind we have on our hands here. Jeroen Belleman
From: spudnik on 7 Jun 2010 18:08
AP is his own Universe (as in, the Solopsist school, the original "many universes" school of Bishop Everrit) of pidgen circumlocution about all topics, BUT I do agree that an actual doppler interferonetry would not be needed for radar-ranging objects at close range, and even that "doppler radar imaging" of storms may not actually use the principle, or only *translate* it into a graphical representation that evokes doppler- gangers. the rest of his ****, seems to be scatology, or jsut English as a One-and-a-half language ... I mean, English as a second of two halves of two langauges, as he was adopted from immigrant parents, per his CV. thusNso: the poor man is insisting upon the base of ten, and that is guaranteed to be a barren approach, by all of the work of Fermatttt (Fermat's Little Theorem e.g.; of course, the theorem applies in any base, but ... y'know?). also, the simple idea of assuming that a^n etc. are rational, thence seeking a contradiction, is very well-illustrated in the literature; however, that is in English and other languages, that AP does not appear to know past Kindergarten. > Please post your proof, at last! thusNso: maybe AP has a good thought, that speed-trap radars have no need of using such a doppler shift, assuming that it does exist, because mere timing of the radar's return, over some part of a second, is adequate to do the math. and, one always hears of "dppler radar" by weather satellites, whether or not that *inerferometry* is actully required, and the radar-ranging can stil be interpreted in terms of doppler shifts (in the colors of the Weather Channel graphics e.g.). now, why AP does not "beleive" in doppler shifts, apart from the belief in the so-called Hubble *interpretation* of the prevailing redshift-woith-distance effect, seen in the starfield ... you'd have to read his ****, more carefully; and that, ladies & germs, is scatology. --Stop BP's and Waxman's capNtrade arbitrage rip-off! http://wlym.com |