Re: GPS 'GR Correction' Myth.


"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
news:pa1lf1h3l0tnj4i4om9l4486l9qqjmcs92@xxxxxxxxxx
| On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 21:12:11 GMT, "Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org>
wrote:
|
| >
| >"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
message
| >news:dddnsj$17i$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| >| Henri Wilson wrote:
| >| > On 9 Aug 2005 04:08:08 -0700, "Randy Poe"
<poespam-trap@xxxxxxxxx>
| >wrote:
| >| >> Henry Wilson wrote:
| >| >>>On the other hand, the 3gig signal has such a short wavelength
that
| >| >>>its phasing, after reflection, would be all over the place.
| >|
| >| Correct. It is.
| >|
| >| >>As a vehicle is rigid, no such thing happens. If there is
| >| >>a second reflection point of distance d from the first, then
| >| >>the reflected signal from that point has a phase of 2*pi*d/lambda
| >| >>relative to the first. This remains constant in time. The sum
| >| >>of two sinusoids of frequency f and different, constant phase
| >| >>relationship, is another sinusoid of frequency f.
| >| >
| >| >
| >| > Glad to see you are learning from me.
| >| > Now, what if the signals are 180 out?
| >| > Can you not see that the reflected beam would have a very small
| >amplitude?
| >|
| >| Of course it would.
| >| If the phase difference it is anything but zero,
| >| the amplitude will be zero.
| >
| >
| >HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
| >Ooops, I farted :-)
| >If the phase difference it is exactly pi,
| >the amplitude will be zero.
| >a)
| >|/\/\/\/\/\|
| >|\/\/\/\/\/| = |--------|
| >b)
| >|/\/\/\/\/\|
| >|/\/\/\/\/\| = ??
| >
| >
| >
| >Henri has a computer model created now, he can
| >suddenly change the direction of the wave and look
| >at the waveform's phase.
|
| It does.
|
| But it is YOUR program A. I just added the random phase bit.
|
| Andersen doesn't understand that two waves traveling in the same
diorection but
| 180 out of phase will cancel.

I know, that's why I farted uncontrollably as I rolled on the floor
with tears of laughter. There is only me and the cat here anyway
and he wanted to go out. I opened the window for him, and he
took advantage of it. I took advantage of the breeze.
Damn, I wish you'd program E = M-e.sin(E) instead of being
so stubborn.
|
| Tha's is why he cannot understand that the two stars that make up the
binary
| HD87105 (or whatever) also almost cancel each other's brightness
variation
| curves.

I know... That's why I programmed a single light source.
I could easily have programmed two sources but I wanted an
educational aid, not a simulation of a real system.
That's up to you and other students to do and get accolades for.
You might even win a Nobel prize. Hulse and Taylor did by
using GR and a pulsar, but you have no chance without Kepler's
equation, so program the ellipse correctly.
Do your fucking homework, quit teaching morons like bz
how to think and boasting how you proved Einstein wrong,
you did not.
I did.
My work is all this newsgroup and has been since before you
arrived on the scene.



!




| >| But that doesn't mean that the wave is cancelled
| >| out, it only means that it is going in another direction.
| >|
| >| Remember what we are talking about.
| >| The reflection of a plane EM-wave off a target.
| >| The phase relationships will determine in which
| >| direction the wave is reflected.
| >
| >Back to the cop's radar gun, I hope.
| >Not much point otherwise :-)
| >The phase is a function of distance.
| >The frequency is a function of speed.
| >Move the car VERY slowly and you'll see why.
| >
| >Man, what ARE you doing in an educational establishment?
| >Oh well... those that can, do. Those that can't, become
| >teaching assistants.
| >
| >
| >| If the target is a plane surface perpendicular to
| >| the incident EM-wave, all will be reflected back
| >| to the source.
| >
| >That's the general idea... This is a cop's radar gun, remember,
| >it's not aimed at a B2 or F117, or even intended to be.
| >http://www.simviation.com/pageimages/b2a.jpg
| >
| >| But if the plane surface has any angle but perpendicular,
| >| the reflected wave will go in another direction,
| >| and nothing will go back to the source.
| >
| >Yeah, stealth really works. I've got a stealth windshield
| >on my car in case there's a cop around. :-)
| >
| >
| >| The wave will always go in the direction where
| >| the phases add. That's why the perpendiculars to
| >| the direction of propagation are called
| >| "planes of equal phase".
| >|
| >| So if your car consists of only perfectly plane
| >| metallic surfaces, you have a stealth car.
| >| The probability for any plane to be exactly perpendicular
| >| to the direction to the radar gun is practically zero,
| >| and the radar wouldn't see you.
| >| http://www.jetplanes.co.uk/f117.html
| >|
| >| But cars are not like that. They have curved surfaces.
| >
| >
| >Cop bait.
| >http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/jeep_man/ab5.jpg
| >
| >
| >
| >
| >| But you are right. When the EM-wave hits the car,
| >| the phases are indeed "all over the place",
| >| which means that the wave will be reflected in
| >| just about every direction.
| >| Only a small fraction of the wave will be reflected
| >| back to the radar gun. This is because there will
| >| always be some part of the car's surface that is
| >| perpendicular to the direction to the gun.
| >|
| >| You can find this discussed in more detail here:
| >| http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/electronics/q0168.shtml
| >|
| >| The basic principle of a traffic radar isn't
| >| different from any radar, and you know that
| >| a car would show up on a radar, don't you?
| >|
| >| Paul
| >More cop bait:
| >http://www.42fordgpw.com/images/jill/CRW_3674_800px.jpg
| >Androcles.

| Sometimes I feel like a complete failure.

You don't have to be, I'll help, as I'll help anyone.

| The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong.

You didn't.
Sagnac did, in 1913. I interpreted the data in 2005.

There are others before me
[1] R.B. Driscoll, "Sagnac's Experiment Misdescribed," Galilean
Electrodynamics ..

[2] Fox, J.G., Am J Phys, "Evidence Against Emission Theories," 33,
1-17, (1965)

[3] J.P. Wesley, "The Sagnac Effect: Renshaw vs. Driscoll," Galilean
Electrodynamics 8, 86 (1997)

Not all want to claim accolades.
Some are interested in physics for it's own sake.
Quit messing with bz, he can't teach you anything, and do your fucking
homework.
Androcles



.

Quantcast