The Naked Scientists
  • Login
  • Register
  • Podcasts
      • The Naked Scientists
      • eLife
      • Naked Genetics
      • Naked Astronomy
      • In short
      • Naked Neuroscience
      • Ask! The Naked Scientists
      • Question of the Week
      • Archive
      • Video
      • SUBSCRIBE to our Podcasts
  • Articles
      • Science News
      • Features
      • Interviews
      • Answers to Science Questions
  • Get Naked
      • Donate
      • Do an Experiment
      • Science Forum
      • Ask a Question
  • About
      • Meet the team
      • Our Sponsors
      • Site Map
      • Contact us

User menu

  • Login
  • Register
  • Home
  • Help
  • Search
  • Tags
  • Recent Topics
  • Login
  • Register
  1. Naked Science Forum
  2. General Discussion & Feedback
  3. Just Chat!
  4. Dear Naked Scientists
« previous next »
  • Print
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down

Dear Naked Scientists

  • 20 Replies
  • 6924 Views
  • 0 Tags

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline McQueen (OP)

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 763
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 18 times
    • https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php
Re: Dear Naked Scientists
« Reply #20 on: 08/04/2016 06:56:59 »
Quote
If you want a particle model, consider firing a machine gun in all directions in a gravitation-free vacuum. What is the speed of a single bullet at distance r? How many bullets cross unit area per second at r? You need to appreciate the difference between projectile energy and flux, then apply it to photon energy and flux.

I do not want to point out that IT IS NOT A PARTICLE MODEL ( sorry for shouting, but I have posted diagrams and written about it what else is there to do ?) IT IS A SYNTHESIS OF A PARTICLE AND A WAVE just as a ultrasound used in lithotripsy.

In any case here is how the propagation of electromagnetic waves works according to GAT:


Take the transmissions from the Voyager 1 space craft. If the distance from earth is taken to be 15 billion kilometres. The transmitter power  of the radio transmitter on the Voyager 1 space craft has a power output of  about 13 watts at 8415MHz.

The 3.7m dish antenna on Voyager 1 has a gain of 48 dB which makes this an effective power in the direction of earth of 800kW. In reality the huge distance (5a54afe012345a8262e1c695c2331ba3.gif Km ) from the earth mean that the transmission is almost isotropic in nature.  So even if the transmission is considered to be a cone in cross section of the full isotropic transmission which would be spherical, the transmission still follows the inverse square law. Thus the transmission signal spreads out over an area of :

f76aa855a80b67dc7489b72d6a70e1ba.gif Kms.

Proof of the GAT lies in the fact that within that transmission cone every radio wave (photon) will have preserved its original energy or identity intact.

Thus in this case :

25ad211b1c485035943282ea0bf2b47b.gif 7c2e71b2e46ed786c69fa6579a108123.gif J.

This being so, where is the need for a wave solution or a collapse of the propagating wave function every time a signal is detected ?

Using this information it is possible to calculate the power density at earth:

f8dabbb477a13ad322f97de0c6e63888.gif watts per square metre.

Signals from Voyager are received by the large 70m dish at Goldstone. A 70m dish has an area of 3800m, so the total power it receives over that area is 872e8adb39cab5665b4cd5c5d2ff9854.gif W

The GAT theory works in every feasible situation and explains in a logical manner, every possible occurrence. What more can anyone ask ? 
Logged
Sometimes a concept is baffling not because it is profound but because it is wrong.?
 



  • Print
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up
« previous next »
Tags:
 
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
  • SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines
    Privacy Policy
    SMFAds for Free Forums
  • Naked Science Forum ©

Page created in 0.591 seconds with 23 queries.

  • Podcasts
  • Articles
  • Get Naked
  • About
  • Contact us
  • Advertise
  • Privacy Policy
  • Subscribe to newsletter
  • We love feedback

Follow us

cambridge_logo_footer.png

©The Naked Scientists® 2000–2017 | The Naked Scientists® and Naked Science® are registered trademarks created by Dr Chris Smith. Information presented on this website is the opinion of the individual contributors and does not reflect the general views of the administrators, editors, moderators, sponsors, Cambridge University or the public at large.