Chengdu J-20 5th Generation Aircraft News & Discussions

[p3avi8tor69]

You are blind. I am debunking Gambit, amalakas, ptldm3 claims about a lot of things. Especially recently about their claim that Reflection = Transmission, non 90 degree corner reflector, etc.

Cant you see my argument, evidence and citation? cant you see they cant bring any evidence to support their claim and break my argument? where are they/the citation/evidence? show me!

Obviously you are blind and another cheer leader mentality. I notice from the beginning you are bringing no single argument except cheerleading your master.

Those guys you are cheerleading (gambit, amalakas, ptldm3) are notorious clueless and faker who have been busted, debunked, and heavily censured by a lot of knowledgeable and respectable member here like: martian, rcjmi, aerospaceengineer, blackdragon, and many others

Those three are the only ones that bring real science into the debate backed up by real world experience. You on the other hand subscribe to fanboy engineering. Anyways this is enough for me. You can go on with making a fool of yourself and continue to live in la-la land.

 

[antonius123]

Those three are the only ones that bring real science into the debate backed up by real world experience. You on the other hand subscribe to fanboy engineering. Anyways this is enough for me. You can go on with making a fool of yourself and continue to live in la-la land.

Real science?

Prove us Reflection = Transmission is real science

Those who you said to have bring real science in this forum as the matter of fact do not have clue about mold manufacturing, cannot distinguish round vs oval or cylinder vs cone shape, bringing claim 120 degree corner = corner reflector without ability to prove, etc.

See how your master gambit until now cannot prove / bring citation supporting his claim that Reflection = Transmission.

They are faker, fan boys and china hater in fact. What they are doing is only vilifying china's military tech because it is not their fan, while you are a perfect "cheer leader" here

 

[antonius123]

Those three are the only ones that bring real science into the debate backed up by real world experience.

Why dont we make it simple.

Your master Gambit claim: Reflection is Transmission also.

I with my numerous citation/evidence said: Transmission is not reflection; transmission produce wave and doing modulation, while reflection dont!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmitter

Prove us that his claim is the "real science" and mine is not. Bring us citation/physical evidence, and bust my citation/evidence that say on the other way round. Otherwise you are the same fake.

 

[no_name]

Another picture from a good angle.

 

[amalakas]

Why dont we make it simple.

Your master Gambit claim: Reflection is Transmission also.

I with my numerous citation/evidence said: Transmission is not reflection; transmission produce wave and doing modulation, while reflection dont!
Transmitter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Prove us that his claim is the "real science" and mine is not. Bring us citation/physical evidence, and bust my citation/evidence that say on the other way round. Otherwise you are the same fake.

Oh my God, please carry on bringing in these amazing gems of intellect. Every time I think there is no lower for you to get, you amaze me with new depths of ignorance.

Your wiki explains what the role of a transmitter as a physical device is, not what transmission and reflection is genius!

You are too numbnuts to even think for yourself.

If reflection and transmission were the two different things you are saying Einstein why would Radar antennas have parabolic dishes ?

I want to see you explain that.

And although I hate wiki, since you say it is a nice citation, I'll use it as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radar#Antenna_design

perhaps you want to scroll down the point where it talks about "parabolic reflectors" !!


Ahhh kids these days....

 

[gambit]

Oh my God, please carry on bringing in these amazing gems of intellect. Every time I think there is no lower for you to get, you amaze me with new depths of ignorance.

Your wiki explains what the role of a transmitter as a physical device is, not what transmission and reflection is genius!

You are too numbnuts to even think for yourself.

If reflection and transmission were the two different things you are saying Einstein why would Radar antennas have parabolic dishes ?

I want to see you explain that.

And although I hate wiki, since you say it is a nice citation, I'll use it as well.

Radar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

perhaps you want to scroll down the point where it talks about "parabolic reflectors" !!


Ahhh kids these days....

He is too stupid to realize how stupid he is.

Transmitter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In electronics and telecommunications a transmitter or radio transmitter is an electronic device which, with the aid of an antenna, produces radio waves.

The highlighted is significant -- produces radio waves.

Readers,

The above is an example of a bi-static radar configuration. In this radar set up, receivers are physically distinct from transmitters, sometimes as far as hundreds of km apart. Usually, receivers are in sync with the transmitter regarding transmit freq characteristics in order to separate target reflections/echoes from background interference.

However, ANY receiver can also pick up those signals and if a receiver have no clue of what the transmitter is doing, when it is doing it, how it is doing it, and what this 'doing' look like, then as far as this clueless receiver goes, the target IS a transmitter despite the METHOD of producing radio waves is reflection.

So if 'Receiver B' is not a conscious part of the bi-static network, conscious meaning its ID is known to all in the network, then it has no clue on whether the signals it picked up from the aircraft is transmitted by the aircraft's radar or communication antennas, or from reflections of unknown transmission sources, or both. So as far as 'Receiver B' is concerned, any detected signal is transmission = reflection.

Hence, in radar detection, transmission is often equate to reflection. It is necessary semantics to conveniently categorize any and all radiation sources of known and unknown methods.

Mr. antonius123's obsession with a citation that literally read 'transmission = reflection' is a reflection of his own technical ignorance, of which he lied about when he tried to use his aviation 'experience' and 'study' to shut down the Indian challengers to his nonsense. Too bad he is not matured enough to realize that on a military oriented forum, odds are very good that there would be members who are veterans of some militaries and who may have relevant experience in the fields under discussions.

Any wonder why he is a useful idiot to the Chinese?

 

[antonius123]

Oh my God, please carry on bringing in these amazing gems of intellect. Every time I think there is no lower for you to get, you amaze me with new depths of ignorance.

Your wiki explains what the role of a transmitter as a physical device is, not what transmission and reflection is genius!

You are too numbnuts to even think for yourself.

If reflection and transmission were the two different things you are saying Einstein why would Radar antennas have parabolic dishes ?

I want to see you explain that.

And although I hate wiki, since you say it is a nice citation, I'll use it as well.

Radar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

perhaps you want to scroll down the point where it talks about "parabolic reflectors" !!


Ahhh kids these days....

Idiot.

Reflection on radar dish doesn't mean that Reflection = Transmission.

It means Radar send the wave to object by involving 2 (different) activities: "Transmission" and "Reflection". And it doesn't make transmission become reflection or vice versa as you wish.

Maybe you still can play with word gaming by saying reflection is part of transmission which is much debatable, but for sure reflection is not transmission.

I have explained this before. You are repeating the same idiocy which i have debunked. It indicates that you are ignorant and numb.

 

[antonius123]

He is too stupid to realize how stupid he is.

Transmitter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The highlighted is significant -- produces radio waves.

Readers,

The above is an example of a bi-static radar configuration. In this radar set up, receivers are physically distinct from transmitters, sometimes as far as hundreds of km apart. Usually, receivers are in sync with the transmitter regarding transmit freq characteristics in order to separate target reflections/echoes from background interference.

However, ANY receiver can also pick up those signals and if a receiver have no clue of what the transmitter is doing, when it is doing it, how it is doing it, and what this 'doing' look like, then as far as this clueless receiver goes, the target IS a transmitter despite the METHOD of producing radio waves is reflection.

So if 'Receiver B' is not a conscious part of the bi-static network, conscious meaning its ID is known to all in the network, then it has no clue on whether the signals it picked up from the aircraft is transmitted by the aircraft's radar or communication antennas, or from reflections of unknown transmission sources, or both. So as far as 'Receiver B' is concerned, any detected signal is transmission = reflection.

Hence, in radar detection, transmission is often equate to reflection. It is necessary semantics to conveniently categorize any and all radiation sources of known and unknown methods.

Mr. antonius123's obsession with a citation that literally read 'transmission = reflection' is a reflection of his own technical ignorance, of which he lied about when he tried to use his aviation 'experience' and 'study' to shut down the Indian challengers to his nonsense. Too bad he is not matured enough to realize that on a military oriented forum, odds are very good that there would be members who are veterans of some militaries and who may have relevant experience in the fields under discussions.

Any wonder why he is a useful idiot to the Chinese?

Who said: "any detected signal is transmission"? science? or you yourself?

Dont ever try to claim your perception in the name of science (unless you can bring scientific evidence), it will make you a genuine faker and miss leader.

Gambit, you can only deceive member without critical thinking.

 

[gambit]

Who said: "any detected signal is transmission"? science? or you yourself?

Dont ever try to claim your perception in the name of science (unless you can bring scientific evidence), it will make you a genuine faker and miss leader.

Gambit, you can only deceive member without critical thinking.

So what was your aviation 'experience' and 'study' again? Lying about them?

 

[antonius123]

of which he lied about when he tried to use his aviation 'experience' and 'study' to shut down the Indian challengers to his nonsense.

You always mentioned this repeatedly in order to lure indian member support on you right? so pathetic

So what was your aviation 'experience' and 'study' again? Lying about them?

I have mentioned this and anybody else could see my answer while you dont and repeated the same question on and on.

I wont re answer this, and let you use this issue to distract the debate.

Your scientific evidence are still being waited, otherwise you are proving yourself a faker and liar.

 

[gambit]

You always mentioned this repeatedly in order to lure indian member support on you right? so pathetic

Then all you have to do is answer. ANYONE who have relevant experience about a subject in discussion would be proud to reveal it, especially if the subject have many sub-disciplines, like aviation.

So the really pathetic one is YOU for lying about your aviation 'experience' and 'study', which is further confirmed when you got busted for not knowing the answer to the question: 'What is the dominant variable in longitudinal stability?', which is first year aerodynamics.

I have mentioned this and anybody else could see my answer while you dont and repeated the same question on and on.

Humor me and everyone else and say it again. Does not take too much blood sugar to type, right?

Who said: "any detected signal is transmission"? science? or you yourself?

The receiver does. It does not know the METHOD OF PRODUCTION of the signal. So as far as it is concerned, any received signal came from a transmitter or radiator.

But, if you really have aviation experience and study, you would know this.

 

[amalakas]

Then all you have to do is answer. ANYONE who have relevant experience about a subject in discussion would be proud to reveal it, especially if the subject have many sub-disciplines, like aviation.

So the really pathetic one is YOU for lying about your aviation 'experience' and 'study', which is further confirmed when you got busted for not knowing the answer to the question: 'What is the dominant variable in longitudinal stability?', which is first year aerodynamics.


Humor me and everyone else and say it again. Does not take too much blood sugar to type, right?


The receiver does. It does not know the METHOD OF PRODUCTION of the signal. So as far as it is concerned, any received signal came from a transmitter or radiator.

But, if you really have aviation experience and study, you would know this.

Does making paper aeroplanes count for "aviation study" ?

If it does , then does writing RADAR on the nose of said paper aeroplane make you an avionics expert?
And if you draw tiny missiles and bombs on the underside of said paper aeroplane, does that make you a weapons tech?

and if you make a dozen paper aeroplanes, does that make you a squadron commander or an aircraft design bureau like LM or Sukhoi ?

questions questions questions !!!

I want somebody to please PLEASE tell me the level of education is not THIS to the rest of that hemisphere !!!

Idiot.

Reflection on radar dish doesn't mean that Reflection = Transmission.

It means Radar send the wave to object by involving 2 (different) activities: "Transmission" and "Reflection". And it doesn't make transmission become reflection or vice versa as you wish.

Maybe you still can play with word gaming by saying reflection is part of transmission which is much debatable, but for sure reflection is not transmission.

I have explained this before. You are repeating the same idiocy which i have debunked. It indicates that you are ignorant and numb.

So oh enlightened ONE, do tell us.. in what you posted above, after the second of the two activities, the "Reflection" as you typed.. is the wave any different ?

On a slightly related topic... look at the image above, do tell us, Receiver B is receiving a transmission of Transmitter A or a reflection of the transmission of Receiver A ? or Better still, a reflection of a reflection of the transmission from Transmitter A and vice versa ? Have fun ...

 

[antonius123]

So oh enlightened ONE, do tell us.. in what you posted above, after the second of the two activities, the "Reflection" as you typed.. is the wave any different ?

On a slightly related topic... look at the image above, do tell us, Receiver B is receiving a transmission of Transmitter A or a reflection of the transmission of Receiver A ? or Better still, a reflection of a reflection of the transmission from Transmitter A and vice versa ? Have fun ...

Transceiver B received the transmitted wave from Transmitter A, or from reflected wave from reflector/Dish A.

Still the transmistter is not reflector as per your wish

 

[amalakas]

Transceiver B received the transmitted wave from Transmitter A, or from reflected wave from reflector/Dish A.

Still the transmistter is not reflector as per your wish

wow, another precious example of clarity.

want to try again because that doesn't make sense?

 

[antonius123]

Then all you have to do is answer. ANYONE who have relevant experience about a subject in discussion would be proud to reveal it, especially if the subject have many sub-disciplines, like aviation.

So the really pathetic one is YOU for lying about your aviation 'experience' and 'study', which is further confirmed when you got busted for not knowing the answer to the question: 'What is the dominant variable in longitudinal stability?', which is first year aerodynamics.


Humor me and everyone else and say it again. Does not take too much blood sugar to type, right?

I never lied by saying I have experience in aviation. It is you who is lying and faking about aviation experience.

I've told you that I ever took aviation study, it was Program Study in Aeronautics & Astronautics.

What is your study?

The receiver does. It does not know the METHOD OF PRODUCTION of the signal. So as far as it is concerned, any received signal came from a transmitter or radiator.

Your sentence is not precise.

I have replied to amalakas above.

Any detected signal should be transmitted wave from transmitter or reflected wave from reflector/dish; that is the precise sentence; and it doesnt make transmission = reflection.

But, if you really have aviation experience and study, you would know this.

Really?? you are thinking that your experience make you think so?
It is another proof that you are a self claimer and faker.

In fact you are trapped with your own word gaming.

wow, another precious example of clarity.

want to try again because that doesn't make sense?

Explain why it doesnt make sense.