On Apr 29, 7:23 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:



On Apr 29, 9:14 am, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:

On Apr 29, 5:54 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Apr 29, 6:46 am, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:

On Apr 28, 10:43 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Apr 28, 6:17 pm, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:

On Apr 28, 2:43 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Apr 28, 12:32 am, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:

On Apr 27, 6:16 pm, Bryan Olson <fakeaddr...@nowhere.org> wrote:

rbwinn wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
The speed of sound is only 1,087 feet per second. �Half of that would
only be 543.5 feet per second. �That is not fast enough to change the
frequency of the light enough to worry about.
Sure it is! This is how police radar and laser guns measure the speed of
traffic, and they do so for motions ~100 times smaller. A laboratory
instrument could measure speed thousands of times better than that.

Radar does not change frequency.  It is reflected from a target at the
same frequency it had before.

Dude, just look it up.

I used to work on radar.

One application, yes. You might want to look up Doppler radar, which
meteorologists use to look for differential velocity of moist air
masses, which would be a signal for rotation, a possible tornado. This
is a little different use of radar than ranging radar, which you might
have used in Vietnam.

So are you saying that Doppler radar is top secret, and you cannot
explain it, or what?

It's not hard. Do you need a pointer for where to look it up to read
more? I can provide that. Or are you going to do more of your open-
mouthed "Feed me!" whining?

PD

Well, PD, all you are saying is that you are an important person, and
are too good to converse with the common people.

Sorry, not my intent at all. However, there are certainly
opportunities, especially on an internet-based medium, where it makes
more sense to link to other internet resources than it does to retype
them all into a newsgroup post. I realize that you probably would like
to have it all retyped into a newsgroup post, but I don't think you
should regard it as stuffy if people don't necessarily follow your
wishes.

 That is the basic
problem that scientists have and why they will become more and more
irrelevant as time continues to pass.  

Well, that's all the more reason for you to spend your time on a sci
newsgroup, isn't it? Are you spending any time on the Aztec newsgroup?
They're even more irrelevant than science newsgroups.

What I see happening with you
is that you become increasingly gun shy with every conversation
because you make mistakes like calculating t' from the Lorentz
equations at a velocity of .9c wrong.  

What mistake. I recall you've made two so far.

After a while you have nothing
to say except that you are too good to carry on a conversation.  OK,
you are too good to carry on a conversation.  But trying to carry on a
conversation with you is like trying to carry on a conversation with a
parrot anyway.  You have some phrases you have learned that you repeat
over and over.  Other than that you do not say much.

Well, it's true that I don't put what you want on a spoon and drop it
into your open mouth.

You scientists do not say much of anything to me because I am good at
catching your mistakes.

Uh-huh, keep telling yourself that.

I stop saying much when you tell me you refuse to look at links to
experimental data. This tells me that you aren't really interested in
the physics, and you're more interested in seeing how much you can get
scientists to type into a newsgroup post for you, whether you're
interested in it or not.

Now, you can make up whatever you want about that. You usually do.

 What I usually do after all scientists are in
silent mode is just go into another topic and make a statement that
will get scientists riled up like saying that radar has a carrier wave
of constant frequency.  Totally irrelevant to anything being discussed
before,

Well, you also said that radar doesn't use any frequency variation in
radar applications, which is wrong. So as well as being irrelevant,
it's wrong. And if you're doing it to get scientists riled up, that's
trolling.

So if you're telling me that what you do is post irrelevant, wrong,
trolling posts, then I guess I'd probably go along with that.

Yeah.  Well, anyway, we were discussing S' moving with a velocity of
v=.9, and t=1 sec.  You were claiming that the second event takes
place at x'= (0 -.9*1) /sqrt(.19)= -2.09
How does an event at a negative x' have any relevance to time on a
cesium clock at the origin of x'?

Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 01:54:09 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
paul.b.andersen@guesswhatuia.no> wrote:


THAT's funny.

Maybe you didn't understand that the small hot star is the B and the reflected
light might that from a K.

Of course I understood that.
That's what's hilarious.

And what's even more hilarious is your failure to
understand how ridiculous it is. :-)

Do you still want to argue about the phase difference?

I never argued about the phase difference.
I even explained it where you failed.
Forgotten that?

On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 12:55:21 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
paul.b.andersen@hiadeletethis.no> wrote:

Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 01:54:09 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
paul.b.andersen@guesswhatuia.no> wrote:


THAT's funny.
Maybe you didn't understand that the small hot star is the B and the reflected
light might that from a K.
Of course I understood that.
That's what's hilarious.

Do you not accept that the proportions of each spectral line in the reflected
light (emission OR absorption) could and probably WOULD be quite different from
those of the star?
Do you not accept that the reflected light would be more likely to resemble
that of a cooler star than a hotter one?

And what's even more hilarious is your failure to
understand how ridiculous it is. :-)

Do you still want to argue about the phase difference?
I never argued about the phase difference.
I even explained it where you failed.
Forgotten that?

You included the phase difference in your 'hilarious' claim.

Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 12:55:21 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
paul.b.andersen@hiadeletethis.no> wrote:


And what's even more hilarious is your failure to
understand how ridiculous it is. :-)

Do you still want to argue about the phase difference?
I never argued about the phase difference.
I even explained it where you failed.
Forgotten that?

You included the phase difference in your 'hilarious' claim.

Henri Wilson wrote:
"A small hot star reflecting off a very large orbiting WCH could
easily result in two different spectra, B and K, .."

This statemnt reveals a complete ignorance of the most
basic issues in Astronomy.

And what's even more hilarious is your failure to
understand how ridiculous it is, even after you have had
it explained over and over. :-)

Inability to learn is the hallmark of a moron.

Satisfied now?

rbwinn wrote:
Bryan Olson wrote:
Paul Mays wrote:
You are both correct so shake hands and come out fighting!
You lost me. I hold, I believe in agreement with Tom, that radar
reflected from a moving target is Doppler shifted from the
transmitted frequency, and the working of police radar is based on
that phenomenon. Robert claimed:

� �Radar does not change frequency. �It is reflected from a target
� �at the same frequency it had before.

We cannot both be right.

[...]

All of the radar I worked on had a carrier wave at constant
frequency.

You lost me, Robert. Is that a retraction? No one claimed, and no one
except possibly yourself implied, that you personally had background
that would require understanding of Doppler shift in radar reflection.

The carrier wave was modulated by the wave being reflected
from targets.

Lost me again. I can see how that might be an attempt to describe
something real, but there's not enough there to tell what.

Well, radar can be fairly complicated compared to relativity. The

Bryan Olson wrote:
Paul Mays wrote:
You are both correct so shake hands and come out fighting!

You lost me. I hold, I believe in agreement with Tom, that radar
reflected from a moving target is Doppler shifted from the
transmitted frequency, and the working of police radar is based on
that phenomenon. Robert claimed:

� �Radar does not change frequency. �It is reflected from a target
� �at the same frequency it had before.

We cannot both be right.
[...]

All of the radar I worked on had a carrier wave at constant
frequency.

The carrier wave was modulated by the wave being reflected
from targets.

rbwinn wrote:
Bryan Olson wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
All of the radar I worked on had a carrier wave at constant
frequency.
You lost me, Robert. Is that a retraction? No one claimed, and no one
except possibly yourself implied, that you personally had background
that would require understanding of Doppler shift in radar reflection.

The carrier wave was modulated by the wave being reflected
from targets.
Lost me again. I can see how that might be an attempt to describe
something real, but there's not enough there to tell what.

Well, radar can be fairly complicated compared to relativity. �The
fact is that I never worked on the Doppler Radar, never saw any of the
books on it, etc., for a very simple reason. �The Aviation Electronics
Technicians took care of the Doppler Radar used for Air Control. �I
did take care of all of the radar repeaters in CCA where the Doppler
Radar was used to show the airspeed of airplanes landing on the ship.
Other than that, I do not know a thing about Doppler radar.
� � What I was pointing out was that all of the radars I worked on had
a carrier wave. �So are you saying that Doppler radar does not have a
carrier wave? �If it does not have a carrier wave, how does it work?

No Robert, I'm saying what I wrote. There's no point in making up
something else and asking me if I am saying it.

You are not limited to guessing at this stuff based on your limited
experience. You can look it; read; study; learn.

Ok, you consider yourself too good to talk to me. That is what I

Bryan Olson wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
All of the radar I worked on had a carrier wave at constant
frequency.

You lost me, Robert. Is that a retraction? No one claimed, and no one
except possibly yourself implied, that you personally had background
that would require understanding of Doppler shift in radar reflection.

The carrier wave was modulated by the wave being reflected
from targets.
Lost me again. I can see how that might be an attempt to describe
something real, but there's not enough there to tell what.

Well, radar can be fairly complicated compared to relativity. The
fact is that I never worked on the Doppler Radar, never saw any of the
books on it, etc., for a very simple reason. The Aviation Electronics
Technicians took care of the Doppler Radar used for Air Control. I
did take care of all of the radar repeaters in CCA where the Doppler
Radar was used to show the airspeed of airplanes landing on the ship.
Other than that, I do not know a thing about Doppler radar.

What I was pointing out was that all of the radars I worked on had
a carrier wave. So are you saying that Doppler radar does not have a
carrier wave? If it does not have a carrier wave, how does it work?