Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

My posts · My subscriptions
  

  Previous versions of RustyBug's message #11180486 « silly inverse square law question. »

  

RustyBug
Offline
Upload & Sell: On
Re: silly inverse square law question.


If you divide an angle in half ... does it matter how long the rays that make up the angle are. The answer is of course "No." Neither does it matter if you move the camera a longer distance along the same path (i.e. on axis) as the closer distance ... the angle of incidence remained the same, thus the angle of reflectance remained the same.

Those photons that emitted from the PLS ... AND ... are striking at an angle off of the object to be reflected IN THE DIRECTION OF the camera/eye will continue on that path to infinity, except as acted upon by an outside force.

Moving your light source closer to the object WILL put more photons on the object to be reflected because of the distance/angles associated with the ISL relationship from the PLS.

But, whatever volume of photons are put on the object to be reflected at the necessary angle to be contained within the angles of inclusion for capture ... THAT volume (1 baseball, 3 baseballs or all 20 baseballs) of photons will be reflected in accordance with AI=AR. Those then reflected photons will continue on that path ... iaw with Newton's First Law of Motion. The distance that they travel after being reflected, essentially collimated to the capture area in conjunction with AI=AR, does not cause them to lose energy, and the fact that the angles of inclusion predicated by AI=AR has already established WHICH photons are being sent along that (significantly) STRAIGHT path to the camera.



Dec 10, 2012 at 09:26 PM
RustyBug
Offline
Upload & Sell: On
Re: silly inverse square law question.


If you divide an angle in half ... does it matter how long the rays that make up the angle are. The answer is of course "No." Neither does it matter if you move the camera a longer distance along the same path (i.e. on axis) as the closer distance ... the angle of incidence remained the same, thus the angle of reflectance remained the same.

Those photons that emitted from the PLS ... AND ... are striking at an angle off of the object to be reflected IN THE DIRECTION OF the camera/eye will continue on that path to infinity, except as acted upon by an outside force.

Moving your light source closer to the object WILL put more photons on the object to be reflected because of the distance/angles associated with the ISL relationship from the PLS.

But, whatever volume of photons are put on the object to be reflected at the necessary angle to be contained within the angles of inclusion for capture ... THAT volume (1 baseball, 3 baseballs or all 20 baseballs) of photons will be reflected in accordance with AI=AR. Those then reflected photons will continue on that path ... iaw with Newton's First Law of Motion. The distance that they travel does not cause them to lose energy, and the fact that the angles of inclusion predicated by AI=AR has already established WHICH photons are being sent along that (significantly) STRAIGHT path to the camera.



Dec 10, 2012 at 08:50 PM



  Previous versions of RustyBug's message #11180486 « silly inverse square law question. »