Upload & Sell: On
| p.8 #10 · silly inverse square law question. |
This thread should die it's course. Disseminating flawed knowledge is bad stuff.
I am sorry but I am in your supposed group of people who do not know what they are talking about.
Google my name, it's on my facebook web page. I am a research scientist,, who did a degree in geophysical engineering, then I did a master and now I'm nailing a PhD. Physics is the second name of my career.
I had stopped looking at this thread and had decided no to post to it anymore. However I stumbled upon it today and saw this comment and I think it needs a response.
You have your beliefs which is fine. However please note that just because you do not agree with someone else doesn't allow you to attack their words as flawed knowledge. Who is to decide that your knowledge is less flawed than the other party. Belief doesn't equate truth. The discussion has for most part been polite. However if you choose to resort to attacks rather than sound reasoning and demonstration then that violates the spirit.
As for your background, let me assure you that my engineering and science background is at least as well qualified as yours but thats not the point.
I'm sorry but this threadstill being alive is getting silly... I highly recommend reading the books instead of believing everything a person writes on the internet.
Sure please point me to a section in a book which explains this phenomenon in a manner that you are claiming and it would benefit us all I have actually read Light, Science, and Magic and it doesn't have anything which is inconsistent with what I said.
What curious said is flawed on so many levels. But it sounds "alright". Plausible. Well, it is not.
It would be beyond my place to claim that I am a great physicist, because I am not. However instead of just dismissing my fairly detailed explanation from the very basic principles as flawed, if you could point out exactly where the flaws are then it would be great. As you are doing a PhD so you would know that clearly presenting your ideas in a convincing way is at least as important as the ideas themselves. If you really believe that your ideas are correct and my explanation is wrong then please draw for me the diagrams of the correct construction for the cases that I discussed above showing where I went wrong and how the science would actually work. It would be useless for me to re-iterate my views, or try to counter the arguments as I have already done that in as much detail as I could.
However if any of you is willing to go beyond words and put the ideas clearly in diagrams then I am still willing to work with you and discuss more. Drawing forces you to put the ideas from abstract to concrete and if you do that I am confident we will eventually reach a consensus
I gotta say sorry. It was never my intention to sound inflamatory.
It is frustrating. I know that a lot of the core concepts are flawed. However, I do not, recall from memory all involved equations and minutae. It would take me time to go to a library, grab a Feinman, study it and revisit a lot of the things involved to construct the case.
Though, point sources suffer from spherical divergence due to the ever-increasing radius for a set (constant) amount of energy emmited. Imagine a kid blowing soap bubbles. Now imagine that all the soap the kid has to blow into a bubble in 1 turn is equivalent to the total energy radiated from a point source. Now the kid blows. As the bubble grows, there is less and less soap available for the bubble to grow. Basically, the soap is redistributed into an ever increasing area as the bubble grows. Same thing with light. It's energy content will decrease due to an increase in surface for a constant amount of energy as the inverse to the square of the distance. But a photon will always have the energetic level of a photon, it's energy does not decay will the path traveled unless there is interaction with an object/substance in the pathway.
As I said, I have studied lot's of physics but I have migrated away from it into earth sciences and it has been quite a while since I've touched those kind of books.
If I do get the time, count me for sure that I can send you some references and construct the case. I just don't have the time to do that.
Thanks and have a nice day.
PS: Rusty for sure has a way of explaining in very simple terms what can be made to sound complicated. Look at his post just above mine, that's the essence of it.