Cecil Moore wrote:

...
At 1 MHz, a photon has an energy level of
4x10^-9 eV while a gamma ray photon might have
an energy level of 4x10^+9 eV or higher.

So, do I get you right here?

Like a high power hunting rifle, the energy that the photon is "shot"
from the antenna at guarantees a far and straight course of projection
(at vhf+ freqs)--as opposed to the lowly bb gun where the bb with low
energy is forced to fall to the forces of gravity (on in the photons
case, the earths magnetosphere) and come to earth much sooner?

JS
--
http://assemblywizard.tekcities.com

John Smith I wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:

...
At 1 MHz, a photon has an energy level of
4x10^-9 eV while a gamma ray photon might have
an energy level of 4x10^+9 eV or higher.

So, do I get you right here?

Like a high power hunting rifle, the energy that the photon is "shot"
from the antenna at guarantees a far and straight course of projection
(at vhf+ freqs)--as opposed to the lowly bb gun where the bb with low
energy is forced to fall to the forces of gravity (on in the photons
case, the earths magnetosphere) and come to earth much sooner?

JS

The above is meant to be a bit "humorous", but you are stating HF is
much more prone to obey magnetic forces in the magnetosphere as opposed
to high freqs where photons are endowed with much more "kinetic energy"
in the form of the voltage(E) charge they have?

Since the law of conservation of energy exists, I am assuming you
consider some relationship of E/I to have changed in the VHF photon as
opposed to the HF photon--since there is no way for the 5 watts HF to
have different power levels than 5 watts VHF?

JS
--
http://assemblywizard.tekcities.com

John Smith I wrote:
Since the law of conservation of energy exists, I am assuming you
consider some relationship of E/I to have changed in the VHF photon as
opposed to the HF photon--since there is no way for the 5 watts HF to
have different power levels than 5 watts VHF?

Five joules of HF (10 MHz) requires ten times as many
photons as five joules of VHF (100 MHz). What HF photons
lack in energy, they make up for in quantity.

I get ~7.553x10^28 photons in 5 joules of 10 MHz RF
energy and ~7.553x10^27 photons in 5 joules of 100
MHz RF energy.

The E-field/B-field ratio is the same for both in
free space.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:

...
Five joules of HF (10 MHz) requires ten times as many
photons as five joules of VHF (100 MHz). What HF photons
lack in energy, they make up for in quantity.
...

Like I said, my original post in response to you was just "a joke", of
course the velocity of all photons is assumed constant.

However, the fact we fire a shotguy (HF) or a single bullet (VHF) makes
the photons in HF assume different charastistics than that of the fewer
photons of VHF?

I mean, I may be rather dense here, but I am attempting to put the model
you are presenting here together--obviously, I am missing something ...

Regards,
JS
--
http://assemblywizard.tekcities.com

John Smith I wrote:

...
However, the fact we fire a shotguy (HF) or a single bullet (VHF) makes
...

Of course, in the above, "shotguy" = shotgun!

JS
--
http://assemblywizard.tekcities.com

John Smith I wrote:
--obviously, I am missing something ...

Maybe cause and effect? Cause and effect is indeed
missing in a lot of QED stuff. Not only do some
virtual particles move faster than the speed of
light but also apparently necessarily jump
backwards in time.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 11:34:36 -0600, Cecil Moore
wrote:
Maybe cause and effect? Cause and effect is indeed
missing in a lot of QED stuff. Not only do some
virtual particles move faster than the speed of
light but also apparently necessarily jump
backwards in time.

So-called Feynman diagrams represent antimatter particles (positrons,
anti-quarks, etc) as the corresponding "matter" particles going
backward in time. Of course no physicist actually takes this
interpretation seriously. Nor do I believe particle theorists take
virtual particles seriously. They are just a convenient
representation of the terms in a perturbation expansion. It is unclear
to me that virtual particles play a role in non-perturbative theories.

--John

John E. Davis wrote:
It is unclear
to me that virtual particles play a role in non-perturbative theories.

How about the static magnetic field from a permanent
magnet?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

John Smith I wrote:
Like a high power hunting rifle, the energy that the photon is "shot"
from the antenna at guarantees a far and straight course of projection
(at vhf+ freqs)--as opposed to the lowly bb gun where the bb with low
energy is forced to fall to the forces of gravity (on in the photons
case, the earths magnetosphere) and come to earth much sooner?

Not exactly. All photons, regardless of energy content,
travel at the speed of light (modified by VF, of course).
Your above example assumes most of the difference in energy
level is associated with the square of different velocities.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com