iamcpc, you're not even understanding the links you provide.
You asked for theories and hypothesis which I have given you. Sorry I am not a Radio Broadcast Engineer.
VHF signals are short range because they don't travel through the atmosphere that well.
HF signals are long range because they are better at traveling through the atmosphere.
Do not explain anything, formally or otherwise. They are just claims. Mere statements.
They are also, by definition, both theories and hypothesis.
Your 2nd set of links collectively describe an hypothesis as an informal explanation. Explains, but has not been tested and does not need a predictive model.
Read here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis
From the link you provided, again back to the English lessons. I thought that the dictionary would have cleared this up.
"A hypothesis (plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon"
I propose that the explanation for why different radio frequencies travel different distances is because of environmental/atmospheric reasons. One frequency is better at navigating these environmental/atmospheric conditions therefore travels farther.
Your fist set of links are generic dictionary definitions, not definition of scientific theory which is what we need here. However, they do collectively describe a theory as a formal explanation. Being formal would require a predictive model that can, and has been tested.
Read here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
Again using both of your sources I have provided you with both a theory and a hypothesis.
"A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested"
One radio frequency travels further because it is less affected by environmental/atmospheric conditions. This can be repeatedly tested using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluating results.
Your fist set of links are generic dictionary definitions, not definition of scientific theory which is what we need here. However, they do collectively describe a theory as a formal explanation. Being formal would require a predictive model that can, and has been tested.
I have a predictive model. I predict that VHF signals are more affected by environmental conditions which reduces their range.
I predict that HF signals are less affected by environmental conditions which increases their range.
We can test this by examining the range of VHF signals and HF signals. It sounds like people here have already done this and verified that VHF signals don't travel as far as HF signals supporting the original predictive model.
Your 2nd set of links collectively describe an hypothesis as an informal explanation. Explains, but has not been tested and does not need a predictive model.
In this situation the tests and results are the same. The predictive model is different.
For your last few links, you quote bits that refer to parts of the EM spectrum outside the scope of amateur radio. If you read them more honestly, you will see that the effects they are talking about are not attributed to air. The first is specifically about the ionosphere. In that one they soundly prove the OP's first post, so thanks for that. Your 2nd one, if you had the attention span to actually read it, states:
This does not change the fact that, per the articles, that environmental conditions can, and do, affect radio waves.
Ionosphere: The ionosphere is the area that enables signals on the short wave bands to traverse major distances. It crosses over the meteorological boundaries and extends from altitudes around 60 km to 700 km. The region gains its name because the air in this region becomes ionised by radiation primarily from the sun. Free electrons in this region have affect radio signals and may be able to refract them back to Earth dependent upon a variety of factors.
So parts of the atmosphere can affect radio waves. Hmm that kinda supports the predictive model?
Troposphere: As a very approximate rule of thumb, this area of the atmosphere tends to affect signals more above 30 MHz or so.
The troposhpere is where we live. And as I had stated before, it only affects signals in the 10's of GHz. Not in the amateur radio bands. They say over 30GHz - I said over 50GHz or so - so, again, thanks for providing some confirmation.
Another part of the atmosphere which affects radio waves. Hmm I'm really seeing a pattern of parts of the atmosphere affecting radio waves. Even more evidence suggesting that it's more about environmental conditions and less about the shape of the earth.
While a certain number of the collected environmental variables did play a small role in the resultant cyclic behavior of the net loss vector
Yet more evidence supporting the idea that environmental variables playing a role in radio waves.
Thanks one more time. You have gone and gotten all the information that totally disproves your unsubstantiated statements. Now I guess they are just bunk.
You ask a question, I give an answer, you then claim that the answer does not count.
Maybe this should be moved to the debating English semantics forum because, by both my definitions and yours, I have provided you with theories and hypothesis. Without language as a common ground I don't see the point of continuing in this conversation.
Show Posts
