The electric and magnetic fields are perpendicular to each other as well in the propagated wave. They are locally associated with their force particle though they cannot be physically localized until that photon is created or de-created at either end of the inteval.

 

Have I lost you here, yet, Coldmush?    

 

H. 

Nothing.  You don't need to say anything at all.  There is nothing you can or should say about that because it is something you are not willing to understand or realise. 

No, it is something what you make yourself to believe, and this wrong beliefes mixed with oversized pride and internal ego prevents you from understanding how things work in a real way. Why would you say that we are inferior to you? Or our pilots are? Am i inferior to you? What can you do what i cant? brag? :) Are you smarter than me? :) sure? positive? :) lol... you make yourself look funny and silly.

 

Most, if not all radar systems can detect even birds flying and cars drifing down the freeway.  These are filtered out because they interfere with tracking other "real" targets.  You can filter this data to find smaller, harder to detect targets (like a 3m missile) through the background "noise", but this is a matter, as I said, of computing power and electronics.  Two areas in which Russia's performance has not been exactly stellar.

 

no no no... what? what are you talking about? do you know how radar works? (except that it emits waves gets return measures delay etc...) i mean... seriously... you know how it is designed? what are the main parts of receiver are? What are the issues in transmitting different kind of waveforms? Different frequencies? Do you know which processes are going on in different parts of receiver during detection? How does detection transfers into tracking? in other words... WTF are you talking about? you have NO idea how a radar works! No matter which! forget about Russian or US... you have no IDEA how a BASIC radar works! And you try to put a simple example with birds? You say we cant do electronics? Do you know that our imaging radars could do better than image quality pictures even long time ago? Do you know what it means? Do you understand how does the radar resolution is dictated? How to calculate it?

 

You are asking a lot of questions for a person who does not know any of these things himself.  I will admit I'm no expert, so Herald or Sant or whoever can correct me, but as I understand it:

 

RADAR is based on transmitting a signal and measuring the return generated off of a "target".  Like a flashlight, the more power you have to pump into the radar, the more powerful the signal you emit is, and therefore the further away you can detect an object (Example: Look at the difference between the radar on an F-15 and the radar on an Aegis cruiser.  One can detect objects in NEO, the other cannot.  This is not an accident.  One can put far more power through its radar system.  Three guesses which one it is.)

The problem is, the more powerful the signal you emit, the more returns you get.  This means your radar scope gets cluttered with all kinds of useless data (liiikke...cars on the freeway and birds in the sky!).  Since the F-117 and the B-2 were first introduced one of the favorite things everyone liked to throw out was that it had the radar cross section of a small bird.  Did you never once think how they got that information?  Radar can detect stealth aircraft, under the right circumstances, but few systems actually have the processing power to filter through all the clutter to detect the actual bird-sized target.  And even then they have to know where to look for something in the first place!  So you c

George, again your response is nothing but desperate attempt to support your (zero) credibility. And yes, if a system can effectively down a small missile right above the ground (right above the ground in direct meaning of these words) it means that it DOES have powerfull processing capability.

 

I did not and do not care of your age and occupation, it does not matter for me at all, and i did not ask for it, but what i know is, you are technically very poorly educated person. So it doesnt matter after your lame statements, are you a technician with 10 years of experience or 20 year old student. So no need to bring more color in this discussion.

No, but you did good job on finding quick article online, and paraphrasing it. The real answer of a person who knows how it works it takes just few simple words. thats it.

to this:

 

"No, but you did good job on finding quick article online, and paraphrasing it. The real answer of a person who knows how it works it takes just few simple words. thats it."

Just an observation that your opinion about the academic prowess of a person doesn't seem to hold much water.

Good radar was in MIg31. Good side of Mig25 was its ability to climb high altitude.

 

George, again 3 pages of drama which do not change anything, educate more yourself then come back.

 

And yes, specific things can be described in a simple way, and looking at the response of a person one can immediately identify was this response a compiled paraphrasing or words of understanding person.

 quantum  mechanical genius; I even gave you a hint as to the correct answer. Hint: its why I know you are full of actual ignorance.

 

Herald