“aumic” theory and the propagation of light.

[russ_watters]

As usual you have misunderstood what I was statingwhich is that both a frequency of 94.1 MHz and a corressponding wave-length of about 30m do exist but that it is a composite wave made up of conduction photons with a wave-length of approx 8 x 10 ^-7 m

No, that was in my follow-up question, which you dodged. To restate:

How, precisely does a radio tower produce this wavelength?

Do you know what the accepted explanation is for how radio waves (and microwaves) are generated? How do you explain it with your assertion that its a "composite wave?" Have you ever heard of a phased array, McQueen?

McQueen, you are making up new explanations for things that are already very well understood and your explanations are quite simply absurd. Are they absurd on purpose?

Also, what is your explanation for your continued (specifically, the most recent) misuse of the word "intensity?"

Russ ,you should know , there are many ways in which the inverse square law is implemented. The way the inverse square law works for lasers defers from the manner in which the law works in other cases.

Certainly. And you apparently purposely chose a situation where it does not apply as if it somehow proves it never applies. Rather transparent.

 

[McQueen]

Yes , I do know how radio waves are generated and my theory takes this into account. A phased array is a directional antenna. No I did not dodge your question. Finally , the present theory of the propagation of electromagnetic waves is totally at odds with observations , it is unwieldy and inaccurate.

 

[russ_watters]

...the present theory of the propagation of electromagnetic waves is totally at odds with observations , it is unwieldy and inaccurate.

Explain how. Cite an experiment that contradicts the accepted theory. Claiming our present theories don't work is not an explanation - claiming your theory can explain how radio waves are produced is not an explanation. This is why I say all your posts are gibberish.

You make claims, you post math on how you want the universe to work, you claim existing theories are inadequate, but you never, ever connect your ideas to reality. You are not "doing" science here, McQueen.

More on signal generation: since energy is proportional to frequency and according to you, a single photon at 100mhz requires, (by my estimation) about 10²³ photons at 8x10^-7m wavelength, a radio station broadcasting a 100mhz signal at 1W would actually require something like 10³² watts of power to broadcast the signal. That's somewhat more than the generating capacity of the world. You don't even want to know what your microwave oven requires...

Please check my math though - or better yet, post the formula you used to calculate how blue light is produced a few posts back.

 

[McQueen]

That's called a tautology. Its redundant and the entire rest of the post is an utterly meaningless attempt to obfuscate that. In this very specific case, the inverse square law doesn't apply. I think you know that - if you didn't, you wouldn't have needed to use the example of a directional signal.
Russ , I had thought about your post , and was wondering what you were accusing me of when you said that I ……….was dodging the issue. A little bit of thought convinced me that you must have been referring to the manner in which I had left out \xi in the equations. The answer to this is that MASERS and tunnel TWT’s are highly directional and the term \xi^2 does not apply. However you did seem to have a point b’cos it didn’t leave much of a margin to work in . But it turns out that 40W is just the input power to the TW amplifier , the amplified power might be anything from 10dB to 20dB greater than the input. So in effect we are dealing not with 40W but 400W and possibly 4000W . You have repeatedly asked me “…………..McQueen what is your input to this board?” and commented “………………it’s a load of gibberish” Let’s take a look at my contribution. I have put forward a theory , which for the first time , offers a solution (1) to the constant speed of light (2) to the manner of propagation of EM radiation which works equally well for both radio-waves and higher frequencies (3) for the propagation of EM radiation as both a “particle” and a wave. (4) for an explanation of how the intensity of an EM source follows the inverse square Law etc., etc., The whole of which , is supported by valid mathematical calculations which give amazingly good results. Imagine it’s a bold hypotheses to make to state that the number of photons per square area remains constant , regardless of the distance form the source for as long as the wave is propagating. I would have thought , given that the units in question are thousandths of a millimeter and the distances involved billions of kilometers that this was a fairly note-worthy result , and a significant contribution. I can’t help it if you disagree.