zapping a moving car with the alleged Doppler radar yet the radio wave has no Doppler Chapt 8 #140; ATOM TOTALITY
in [Math]
|
Prev: zapping a moving car with the alleged Doppler radar yet the radio wave has no Doppler Chapt 8 #139; ATOM TOTALITY
Next: JSH: Importance of knowledge
From: Ostap Bender on 7 Jun 2010 04:17 On Jun 6, 1:39 am, Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archime...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > pete wrote: > > Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > > > > radio waves instead of radar waves. > > > What's your perceived difference between the two? > > > (RADAR = Radio Detection And Ranging) > > > -- > > pete > > Wavelength of some typical EM spectrum: > > Radar 10km to 1 km Are you for real? Do you understand what a 10 km wavelength is and how useless it would be for any kind of measuring, especially for bouncing off of cars that are 5 meters long?! 10 km is about 6 miles! Radar wavelengths are on the order of a few centimeters or even millimeters! > AM 1 km to 100 m > > FM 10 m to 1 m > > The difference I wanted to point out is that the radar for Doppler > radar (with its alleged > Doppler shift) is all assumption that a Doppler shift took place. So > it is an imaginary Doppler > shift with no proof of a shift having occurred. > > The AM and FM on the other hand has the receiver inside the moving car > or the moving > Space Station (whether they can pick up the AM and FM stations). Here, > the Doppler > shift is either existing or nonexisting, since the radio would have to > be fine tuned > as per changing of the speed of the vehicle and direction of the > vehicle. > > The point I am making is that the Radar operation does not answer the > question of whether > a Doppler shift in fact exists, but imposes an alleged Shift took > place. The Radio as > receiver is the piece of equipement that answers the question of > whether a Doppler shift > exists in the first place. > > So now, let us say someone rigged a Radar that was AM radio waves and > zapped a > car moving at a fast speed away. Would the AM radio have to make any > adjustments compared to the > same car if stationary? What the radio proves, the Radar only assumes, > is that the Radio > can actually detect whether a Doppler shift had occurred, because the > radio would have > to make adjustments, depending on whether it is a coming towards or > away and how fast. > > As far as I know, no radio has ever needed a adjustment because of the > speed of the vessel > containing the radio. That means, EM waves have no Doppler effect. > > Archimedes Plutoniumhttp://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/ > whole entire Universe is just one big atom > where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
From: spudnik on 7 Jun 2010 17:33
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 teh 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 |