Re: Through a glass darkly
From: jahn (susysewnshow_at_yahoo.com.au)
Date: 03/27/05
- Next message: Tom Capizzi: "Re: Circular inverse function of the hyperbola"
- Previous message: jahn: "Re: Through a glass darkly"
- In reply to: Dr ***: "Re: Through a glass darkly"
- Next in thread: Dr ***: "Re: Through a glass darkly"
- Reply: Dr ***: "Re: Through a glass darkly"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 09:30:28 -0500
"Dr ***" <paulpsremove@freeuk.com> wrote in message news:1111913701.2960.1@nnrp-t71-03.news.uk.clara.net...
>
[snip]
> | > Tell me if I'm converting this right:-
> |
> | I doubt it LOL
> | I have seen such a table for a simple dipole but
> | I can't seem to google it up today. Anyway,
> | atomic oscillators are eliptical structures.
> |
>
> Only if moving or Tx/RXing ? unmoving against background vacuum, stable non
> occulting atomic oscilators in a zero gravity field should be spherical?
Circular or Eliptical. Isotropic raditors are impossible. No magnetic
monopoles.
Exerpt:
Various polarization states of the wave are characterized by the
way the amplitude vector for the electric field depends on time:
When is constant in time, it always points in the same direction;
we refer to this case as plane polarization.
When the magnitude, is constant, but the direction rotates with
time, we refer to that as circular polarization.
When not even the magnitude is constant, we refer to that as
elliptical polarization.
The elliptical case is clearly the most general case;
--Daniel Finley 2001-01-23
http://panda.unm.edu/courses/finley/P262/CircPolar2/CircPolar2.html
http://physics.tamuk.edu/~suson/html/4323/polar.html
>
> | >
> | > a)wave at 0 E,H at 0
> | > b) wave at +max E,H at 90 deg
> | > c) wave at 0 E,H at 0
> | > d) wave at -max H,E at 90 deg
> | > e) wave at 0 E,H at 0
> | > f) = one cycle = E,H have traversed 360 deg = 90D open+ 90D close 90D
> open -
> | > 90D close =one wavelength
> | >
> | > I don't quite get the significance of your question as this is a partial
> | > description of EMR generation the shift due to motion of the particle
> would
> | > be caused by the generation point moving against the vacuum state and
> would
> | > compress or decompress the transmitted wavelength. I still cant parse
> your
> | > question as it seems to make no sense as it seems impossible not to have
> | > 360D for one wavelength
> |
> | Sadly... there is just no simple way to model the gears and cogs in
> | the first few wavelenghts of any particular structure. This is one of
> | the reasons QM is pressed beyond it's limits.
>
> Working.................. :-) Ah! ha! but am digesting below
>
> |
> | Exerpt:
> | The boundary between the near and far fields is generally considered
> | to fall at about /(2p). Furthermore, the reactive field typically becomes
> | negligible at distances of 3 to 10 . It is interesting to compute the
> | boundary at different frequencies. At 60 Hz, the boundary is 833 km.
> | Therefore, almost all cases of 60-Hz interference occur in the near
> | (reactive) field. At 100 MHz, the boundary is 0.5m, making this
> | frequency useful for radio communication. At 5x1014 Hz (optical waves),
> | the boundary is 0.1 µm, explaining why optical sources such as light
> bulbs
> | always appear as radiating sources and never as reactive sources.
> |
> | The near and far fields have other characteristics. The shape of the near
> field
> | is closely related to the structure of the source, whereas the far field
> becomes
> | independent of the source, taking the form of spherical waves. At large
> | distances, the far field takes the form of traveling plane waves. The
> requirement
> | for the plane-wave approximation is r>2(ds +dr )2 / , where ds is the size
> of the
> | source antenna, dr is the size of the receiving antenna, and r is the
> distance
> | between the antennas. The wave impedance (ratio of electric- to
> | magnetic-field magnitude) of the near field is also a function of the
> source
> | circuit, whereas in the far field, the wave impedance, , depends only on
> the
> | medium ( =377W in free space). Figure 11 graphs the wave impedance as a
> | function of distance. Table 1 summarizes the field characteristics.
> | -- Ron Schmitt, Sensor Research and Development Corp -- EDN, 3/2/2000
> |
> |
> |
> | From:
> | Understanding electromagnetic fields and antenna radiation takes (almost)
> no math
> | http://www.edn.com/contents/images/82250.pdf
> | http://www.edn.com/article/CA82250.html
> | pdf above recommended for equations
> |
> | http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jos/gdwn/Multivariable_Wave_Impedance.html
> | http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em1/lectures/node46.html
> |
> | 5.5. High-Frequency Electromagnetic Field Simulation
> | http://www.oulu.fi/atkk/tkpalv/unix/ansys-6.1/content/thy_emg5.html
> |
> | I will keep an eye open for the sketch that shows reactive
> | energy distribution. because it is almost the table you produced
> | above.
> |
> | Sue...
> |
> |
> | > |
> | > | http://www.conformity.com/0102reflectionsfig3.gif
> | > | From:
> | > | http://www.conformity.com/0102reflections.html
> | > |
> | > | >
> | > | > |
> | > | > | >
> | > | > | > |
> | > | > | > | >
> | > | > | > | >
> | > | > | > | > | > |
> | > | > | > | >
> | > | > | >
> | > | >
> | >
> http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Ewald-OseenExtinctionTheorem.html
> | > | > | > | > | > |
> | > | > | > | > | > | I see blue sky or red sky. I have no delusions that
> the
> | > | > cornea of
> | > | > | > my
> | > | > | > | > eye
> | > | > | > | > | > | is playing tricks on me or that the sun is responsible
> for
> | > the
> | > | > | > | > spectral
> | > | > | > | > | > chanes.
> | > | > | >
> | > | > | > This is nothing to do with the shift changes due to the earths
> | > rotation
> | > | > | > which are zero because the velocity difference are zero with
> respect
> | > to
> | > | > our
> | > | > | > sun. come on dont get caught be the same confusion as PD.
> | > | > |
> | > | > | Try USNO ... apparent horizon or mirage.
> | > | > | google.com
> | > | > | or have one of your minion do it for you.
> | > | > | Thanks for the warning.
> | > | >
> | > | > What was I warning you of ? and I have no minions I ate them all for
> | > | > breakfast:-)
> | > |
> | > |
> | >
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=+site:aa.usno.navy.mil+usno+atmosph
> | > ere+sunset
> | > |
> | > | >
> | > | > | >
> | > | > | > | > | > | With few if any *measurements* we can make resonable
> | > | > inferences
> | > | > | > that
> | > | > | > | > | > | the upper atmosphere is the culprit in the illusion.
> | > | > | > | > | >
> | > | > | > | > | > Uh! your off on a siding to my meaning. The SOL in
> | > independent
> | > | > of
> | > | > | > the
> | > | > | > | > | > velocity of the source ?
> | > | > | > | > |
> | > | > | > | > | Probably not, for short paths.
> | > | > | > | >
> | > | > | > | > Ugg! are you now shifting to a variable for SOL ?
> | > | > | > | No... Rembemer the disclaimer paragraph I posted.
> | > | > | > | The near field space is dominated by the coupling structure.
> | > | > | > | (See Maxwell's equations: Advanced and retarded potentials.)
> | > | > | > | E and H plane energy division is different in the near field.
> | > | > | > | Motion of the structure wrt neighboring matter alters the
> | > | > | > | isotropy of the 2D wave impedance.
> | > | > | >
> | > | > | > Yes and this generates the shift due to relative motion in the
> | > vacuum ok
> | > | > ?
> | > | > | > |
> | > | > | > | A torpedo swims out of it's tube with the addition
> | > | > | > | of the ships motion.
> | > | > | >
> | > | > | > Yes so v+v=v1= torpedo velocity
> | > | > | >
> | > | > | > It soon forgets the ships motion
> | > | > | > | and adds it's velocity to the sea currents.
> | > | > | > |
> | > | > | > Ug! what the torpedo ands its velocity to the sea current?
> | > | > | >
> | > | > | > Sea current = vsc so vsc+v1 = new sea current :-) ?
> | > | > | >
> | > | > | > | The submarine's speed is added directly to the
> | > | > | > | torpedo's speed for a 2 meter range.
> | > | > | > |
> | > | > | > Ah! so this is what you mean v+v=v1 torpedo speed on exit
> relative
> | > to
> | > | > sub
> | > | > | >
> | > | > | > Torpedo speed >2m = v1+sc = new torpedo speed relative to 0 ?
> | > | > | >
> | > | > | > | Paths this short are not popular with railroad engineers
> | > | > | > | or submarine skippers.
> | > | > | >
> | > | > | > I have no problem with driving a train or skippering a sub:-)
> | > | > | > |
> | > | > | > | Zealotry about the constant speed of
> | > | > | > | light can conceal the mechanism that reconciles the
> | > | > | > | two postulates of SR.
> | > | > | >
> | > | > | > There is no need to be a zealot as v1=v1 there is no conflict.
> you
> | > need
> | > | > to
> | > | > | > skipper more subs :-)
> | > | > |
> | > | > | Even I know torpedos have propellers so arent' ballistic.
> | > | >
> | > | > Ballistic means being able to travel at different velocities in any
> | > given
> | > | > medium so torpedoes are ballistic. No wonder you have difficulty
> getting
> | > a
> | > | > job as a kipper on a sub:-)
> | > |
> | > | ICBM's are ballistic so I'll surrender on that fine point.
> | > | But not on the principle I was illustrating with the swimming
> | > | torpedo.
> | > |
> | > | A submarine dominates the motion of the water in it's tubes.
> | > | An EM structure dominates the propagation of EM waves
> | > | in it aperture.
> | > |
> | > | >
> | > | > |
> | > | > | > |
> | > | > | > | > |
> | > | > | > | > | I though we were on the shift generated by velocity
> | > | > | > | > | > of source not pretty sky's.
> | > | > | > | > |
> | > | > | > | > | That was not the point. We identified the place in the
> | > | > | > | > | path where the distortion ocuurs.
> | > | > | > | > |
> | > | > | > | > Are you now at the atmospher boundry? see above
> | > | > | > |
> | > | > | > | Sigh... The two GPS frequencies demonstrate this effect.
> | > | > | > | Again, we don't blame it on glaucoma or shakey satellites.
> | > | > | > |
> | > | > | > How can f shift in GPS clearly relate to source spectral shift
> and I
> | > can
> | > | > | > sigh as well but for much longer and in capital :-)
> | > | > | >
> | > | >
> | >
> SIGH......................................................................
> | > |
> | > | SIGH...LOOK...
> | > | http://www.conformity.com/0102reflectionsfig3.gif
> | > |
> | > | Is this what you mean by "source spectral shift" ?
> | > |
>
> Only if you are prepared to concede that moving point 1/2*pi relative to the
> vacuum causes frequency shift
I am not even gonna conceed that is causes a wavelengh shift untill
you allow electrons, women and other minority to participate in
the United Republic of Vacuum.
Sue...
[snip]
- Next message: Tom Capizzi: "Re: Circular inverse function of the hyperbola"
- Previous message: jahn: "Re: Through a glass darkly"
- In reply to: Dr ***: "Re: Through a glass darkly"
- Next in thread: Dr ***: "Re: Through a glass darkly"
- Reply: Dr ***: "Re: Through a glass darkly"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
