Re: The Shapiro's experiment HOAX. A 1968 TIME article.

ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog <tomyee3@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sun, 20 Oct 2024 17:36:33 +0000, ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog wrote:
 

On Sat, 19 Oct 2024 22:05:22 +0000, rhertz wrote:
>

You are the one who started this by asserting that passive reflections
of EM radiation decay with 1/r^4, and not the usual 1/r?.

>
But it is a well-known fact that the received power of the reflected
radar signal from a point target goes as 1/r^4.
>
Look up the "radar equation"
https://www.ll.mit.edu/sites/default/files/outreach/doc/2018-07/lecture%202.

pdf

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/radar-equation
>
If the target cannot be modeled as a point, for instance if you are
reflecting off of the ground, or if the target, say, is a corner
reflector, then the equation will obviously be different.

 
Clarification: I should have qualified "corner reflector" with
the word "giant", of course. A small corner reflector that does
not intercept the entire output beam would also exhibit 1/r^4
behavior.

Typical example: the corner reflectors on the moon.
With a one meter telescope for beam formation,
and the most powerful pulsed lasers that it will support
you get about one photon back for each pulse.
To get an observable  signal overaging over pulses is needed.

This is possible because you already know how far away the Moon is,
to a few nanoseconds,

Jan