Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #480175 > unrolled thread

It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't.

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-18 21:59 +0000
    Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-18 19:11 -0600
      Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-19 06:46 +0000
        Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-19 20:50 -0600
      Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Scott Richman <sunn@idhnonow.iv> - 2018-12-19 14:24 +0000
        Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-19 16:09 +0000
      Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-19 15:53 +0000
        Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-12-19 08:19 -0800
          Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-19 16:55 +0000
            Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-12-19 09:58 -0800
        Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-12-19 15:13 -0800
    Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-19 03:04 +0000
    Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-19 06:57 +0000
      Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-19 06:56 -0800
        Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-19 17:20 +0000
          Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-12-19 14:26 -0800
            Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-20 07:54 +0000
              Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-12-20 03:20 -0800
                Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-20 11:53 +0000
                  Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-12-20 04:53 -0800
                    Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-20 13:45 +0000
                      Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-12-20 09:18 -0800
          Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-20 07:46 -0800
            Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-20 16:25 +0000
              Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-20 18:43 +0000
                Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-20 13:32 -0800
                  Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-20 22:53 +0000
                    Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-27 13:59 -0800
                      Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-28 02:36 +0000
                        Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-30 08:46 -0800
              Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-20 13:43 -0800
              Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-27 14:04 -0800
                Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-12-27 14:20 -0800
                  Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-27 16:57 -0800
                    Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-12-27 22:44 -0800
          Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-12-23 00:34 -0800
            Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-23 18:10 +0000
              Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-12-23 16:00 -0800
                Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-24 18:27 +0000
                  Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-12-24 11:40 -0800
                    Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-12-25 00:09 -0800
    Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-12-19 18:09 -0800
    Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-22 15:18 +0000
      Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-12-22 18:31 -0800
      Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-22 21:30 -0600
        Re: It would indeed be surprising if 'c' was the,only constant which wasn't. Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-12-23 19:48 +0000

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#480300

On 20/12/2018 12:53, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Thursday, December 20, 2018 at 4:52:59 AM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote:
>> On 20/12/2018 11:20, Gary Harnagel wrote:
>>> On Thursday, December 20, 2018 at 12:54:11 AM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote:
>>>> On 19/12/2018 22:26, Gary Harnagel wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, December 19, 2018 at 10:20:53 AM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote:

>>>>>> Lasers DO NOT OBEY THE INVERSE SQUARE LAW.

>>>>> That is false.  You are indeed an ignoramus, blathering nonsense about
>>>>> things you know nothing about, which is just about everything.

>>>> Think about it Gary.
>>>> If a laser gives 1 mW per anything^2 at a distance of 1 meter, it will
>>>> give much the same power at a distance if 2 meters, or even 10 meters,
>>>> although not at 10 billion light years eh!

>>> THINK about it, Keith!  If a sun puts out 10^26 watts at the orbit of
>>> Mercury, it puts out 10^26 watts at the orbit of earth, or Mars or Pluto.
>>>   
>>> You are confusing the TOTAL power output with the power density (W/m²).

>>           "laser gives 1 mW  per anything^2"
>> It is power density i AM talking about Gary, 
> Then you are foolishly wrong.
> 
>> although your units are neater eh!

>> BUT, nevertheless:
>>
>>             "Lasers DO NOT OBEY THE INVERSE SQUARE LAW."
>>
>> Think about it Gary. If a laser gives 1 mW per anything^2 at a distance
>> of 1 meter, it will give much the same power DENSITY at a distance if 2
>> meters, or even 10 meters.
>>
>>
>> If you won't concede that i am right about that, then you never been
>> any where near a laser eh!
>>
>>
>> keith stein
> 
> Idiot!  I spent many YEARS working with lasers and I KNOW that lasers obey
> the inverse square law in the far field.


I told you the field i was considering,


  "at a distance of 1 meter, it will give much the same power DENSITY
  as at a distance if 2 meters, or even 10 meter...."


and now that i have drawn your attention once more to
what i actually said to Ken, you will have to admit that
i was entirely correct, "LASERS DO NOT OBEY THE INVERSE SQUARE LAW" eh!

   This is because a laser beam has
> a diffraction limit (look it up and LEARN something for a change), which is
> set by the aperture of said laser and its beam quality.  The fact is that
> ALL laser beams diverge in the far field and that divergence obeys optics
> principles.  You are arrogantly ignorant.


I was not unaware of any of that either Mr.Harnagel, which
is why i added
                 " although not at
                      10 billion
                   light years eh!"
!
keith stein

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#480312

On Thursday, December 20, 2018 at 6:45:23 AM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote:
>
> On 20/12/2018 12:53, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Thursday, December 20, 2018 at 4:52:59 AM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote:
> > >
> >> On 20/12/2018 11:20, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, December 20, 2018 at 12:54:11 AM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote:
> >>>> On 19/12/2018 22:26, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >>>>> On Wednesday, December 19, 2018 at 10:20:53 AM UTC-7, Keith Stein wrote:
> 
> >>>>>> Lasers DO NOT OBEY THE INVERSE SQUARE LAW.
> 
> >>>>> That is false.  You are indeed an ignoramus, blathering nonsense about
> >>>>> things you know nothing about, which is just about everything.
> 
> >>>> Think about it Gary.
> >>>> If a laser gives 1 mW per anything^2 at a distance of 1 meter, it will
> >>>> give much the same power at a distance if 2 meters, or even 10 meters,
> >>>> although not at 10 billion light years eh!
> 
> >>> THINK about it, Keith!  If a sun puts out 10^26 watts at the orbit of
> >>> Mercury, it puts out 10^26 watts at the orbit of earth, or Mars or Pluto.
> >>>   
> >>> You are confusing the TOTAL power output with the power density (W/m²).
> 
> >>           "laser gives 1 mW  per anything^2"
> >> It is power density i AM talking about Gary, 
> > Then you are foolishly wrong.
> > 
> >> although your units are neater eh!
> 
> >> BUT, nevertheless:
> >>
> >>             "Lasers DO NOT OBEY THE INVERSE SQUARE LAW."
> >>
> >> Think about it Gary. If a laser gives 1 mW per anything^2 at a distance
> >> of 1 meter, it will give much the same power DENSITY at a distance if 2
> >> meters, or even 10 meters.
> >>
> >>
> >> If you won't concede that i am right about that, then you never been
> >> any where near a laser eh!
> >>
> >>
> >> keith stein
> > 
> > Idiot!  I spent many YEARS working with lasers and I KNOW that lasers obey
> > the inverse square law in the far field.
> 
> 
> I told you the field i was considering,
> 
> 
>   "at a distance of 1 meter, it will give much the same power DENSITY
>   as at a distance if 2 meters, or even 10 meter...."
> 
> 
> and now that i have drawn your attention once more to
> what i actually said to Ken, you will have to admit that
> i was entirely correct, "LASERS DO NOT OBEY THE INVERSE SQUARE LAW" eh!

You are an utter idiot and a stupid crank.  At 10 meters it certainly
WOULD obey the ISL unless your supposed laser had an unrealistically
large aperture.  Since you didn't specify an aperture, you just compound
your display of ignorance.

> [Further display of crank behavior deleted.]

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#480307

On Wednesday, December 19, 2018 at 12:20:53 PM UTC-5, Keith Stein wrote:
> On 19/12/2018 14:56, kenseto wrote:
> > On Wednesday, December 19, 2018 at 1:57:11 AM UTC-5, Keith Stein wrote:
> >> Let us, for the sake of argument, assume that i am on a galaxy which is
> >> 10,000,000,000 light years from the earth. By a bit of good
> >> planning i have my laser with me and i shine this laser at you for a
> >> whole year. The front of this laser beam will take exactly
> >> 10,000,000,000 to reach you here on Earth (hopefully you will still be
> >> alive eh!). The rear end of my laser signal will take slightly longer to
> >> reach you because the speed of light has decreased in the year i've been
> >> holding this laser. If light decreases by my suggestion of one part in
> >> 10 billion per year, the rear end of the signal will take exactly
> >> 10,000,000,001 years to reach you here on Earth.
> > 
> > Nope, the front end of the laser beam will not reach you on earth due too the inverse square law.
> 
> 
> The good news is that you are right,Ken,
> indeed in practice one would not see the laser here on Earth.

One would not see the front end of the laser due to the inverse square law. It is dispersed in a circumference in space.
> 
> The bad news is that your reason is wrong Ken
> Lasers DO NOT OBEY THE INVERSE SQUARE LAW.
> Think about it Ken. If a laser gives 1 mW per anything^2
>   at a distance of 1 meter, it will give much the same power at
> a distance if 2 meters, or even 10 meters, 

At these small distances it is still obeying the inverse square law but the effect is so small that it is not measurable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#480310

On 20/12/2018 15:46, kenseto wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 19, 2018 at 12:20:53 PM UTC-5, Keith Stein wrote:
>> On 19/12/2018 14:56, kenseto wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, December 19, 2018 at 1:57:11 AM UTC-5, Keith Stein wrote:
>>>> Let us, for the sake of argument, assume that i am on a galaxy which is
>>>> 10,000,000,000 light years from the earth. By a bit of good
>>>> planning i have my laser with me and i shine this laser at you for a
>>>> whole year. The front of this laser beam will take exactly
>>>> 10,000,000,000 to reach you here on Earth (hopefully you will still be
>>>> alive eh!). The rear end of my laser signal will take slightly longer to
>>>> reach you because the speed of light has decreased in the year i've been
>>>> holding this laser. If light decreases by my suggestion of one part in
>>>> 10 billion per year, the rear end of the signal will take exactly
>>>> 10,000,000,001 years to reach you here on Earth.
>>>
>>> Nope, the front end of the laser beam will not reach you on earth due too the inverse square law.
>>
>>
>> The good news is that you are right,Ken,
>> indeed in practice one would not see the laser here on Earth.
> 
> One would not see the front end of the laser due to the inverse square law. It is dispersed in a circumference in space.
>>
>> The bad news is that your reason is wrong Ken
>> Lasers DO NOT OBEY THE INVERSE SQUARE LAW.
>> Think about it Ken. If a laser gives 1 mW per anything^2
>>    at a distance of 1 meter, it will give much the same power at
>> a distance if 2 meters, or even 10 meters,
> 
> At these small distances it is still obeying the inverse square law but the effect is so small that it is not measurable

If it was obeying the inverse wquare law Ken,
the power density at 10 m would be 100 times
less than the power density at 1 meter. That
is what the inverse square law implies Ken,
and for certain at these distances no laser
obeys the inverse square law Ken, even Gary
knows that eh!

keith stein

.
> 
> 
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#480321

Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 20/12/2018 15:46, kenseto wrote:
>> On Wednesday, December 19, 2018 at 12:20:53 PM UTC-5, Keith Stein wrote:
>>> On 19/12/2018 14:56, kenseto wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, December 19, 2018 at 1:57:11 AM UTC-5, Keith Stein wrote:
>>>>> Let us, for the sake of argument, assume that i am on a galaxy which is
>>>>> 10,000,000,000 light years from the earth. By a bit of good
>>>>> planning i have my laser with me and i shine this laser at you for a
>>>>> whole year. The front of this laser beam will take exactly
>>>>> 10,000,000,000 to reach you here on Earth (hopefully you will still be
>>>>> alive eh!). The rear end of my laser signal will take slightly longer to
>>>>> reach you because the speed of light has decreased in the year i've been
>>>>> holding this laser. If light decreases by my suggestion of one part in
>>>>> 10 billion per year, the rear end of the signal will take exactly
>>>>> 10,000,000,001 years to reach you here on Earth.
>>>> 
>>>> Nope, the front end of the laser beam will not reach you on earth due
>>>> too the inverse square law.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The good news is that you are right,Ken,
>>> indeed in practice one would not see the laser here on Earth.
>> 
>> One would not see the front end of the laser due to the inverse square
>> law. It is dispersed in a circumference in space.
>>> 
>>> The bad news is that your reason is wrong Ken
>>> Lasers DO NOT OBEY THE INVERSE SQUARE LAW.
>>> Think about it Ken. If a laser gives 1 mW per anything^2
>>> at a distance of 1 meter, it will give much the same power at
>>> a distance if 2 meters, or even 10 meters,
>> 
>> At these small distances it is still obeying the inverse square law but
>> the effect is so small that it is not measurable
> 
> If it was obeying the inverse wquare law Ken,
> the power density at 10 m would be 100 times
> less than the power density at 1 meter. That
> is what the inverse square law implies Ken,
> and for certain at these distances no laser
> obeys the inverse square law Ken, even Gary
> knows that eh!

Ken has absolutely no idea what the inverse square law means in term of
numbers. It’s a phrase he’s heard somewhere but what he thinks it might
mean has no bearing on what it does mean. Ask him. He will dodge. 

> 
> keith stein
> 
> .
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 



-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#480339

On Thursday, December 20, 2018 at 1:43:41 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 20/12/2018 15:46, kenseto wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, December 19, 2018 at 12:20:53 PM UTC-5, Keith Stein wrote:
> >>> On 19/12/2018 14:56, kenseto wrote:
> >>>> On Wednesday, December 19, 2018 at 1:57:11 AM UTC-5, Keith Stein wrote:
> >>>>> Let us, for the sake of argument, assume that i am on a galaxy which is
> >>>>> 10,000,000,000 light years from the earth. By a bit of good
> >>>>> planning i have my laser with me and i shine this laser at you for a
> >>>>> whole year. The front of this laser beam will take exactly
> >>>>> 10,000,000,000 to reach you here on Earth (hopefully you will still be
> >>>>> alive eh!). The rear end of my laser signal will take slightly longer to
> >>>>> reach you because the speed of light has decreased in the year i've been
> >>>>> holding this laser. If light decreases by my suggestion of one part in
> >>>>> 10 billion per year, the rear end of the signal will take exactly
> >>>>> 10,000,000,001 years to reach you here on Earth.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Nope, the front end of the laser beam will not reach you on earth due
> >>>> too the inverse square law.
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> The good news is that you are right,Ken,
> >>> indeed in practice one would not see the laser here on Earth.
> >> 
> >> One would not see the front end of the laser due to the inverse square
> >> law. It is dispersed in a circumference in space.
> >>> 
> >>> The bad news is that your reason is wrong Ken
> >>> Lasers DO NOT OBEY THE INVERSE SQUARE LAW.
> >>> Think about it Ken. If a laser gives 1 mW per anything^2
> >>> at a distance of 1 meter, it will give much the same power at
> >>> a distance if 2 meters, or even 10 meters,
> >> 
> >> At these small distances it is still obeying the inverse square law but
> >> the effect is so small that it is not measurable
> > 
> > If it was obeying the inverse wquare law Ken,
> > the power density at 10 m would be 100 times
> > less than the power density at 1 meter. That
> > is what the inverse square law implies Ken,
> > and for certain at these distances no laser
> > obeys the inverse square law Ken, even Gary
> > knows that eh!
> 
> Ken has absolutely no idea what the inverse square law means in term of
> numbers. It’s a phrase he’s heard somewhere but what he thinks it might
> mean has no bearing on what it does mean. Ask him. He will dodge. 

ROTFLOL.....Pot kettle black....

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#480353

kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
> On Thursday, December 20, 2018 at 1:43:41 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 20/12/2018 15:46, kenseto wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, December 19, 2018 at 12:20:53 PM UTC-5, Keith Stein wrote:
>>>>> On 19/12/2018 14:56, kenseto wrote:
>>>>>> On Wednesday, December 19, 2018 at 1:57:11 AM UTC-5, Keith Stein wrote:
>>>>>>> Let us, for the sake of argument, assume that i am on a galaxy which is
>>>>>>> 10,000,000,000 light years from the earth. By a bit of good
>>>>>>> planning i have my laser with me and i shine this laser at you for a
>>>>>>> whole year. The front of this laser beam will take exactly
>>>>>>> 10,000,000,000 to reach you here on Earth (hopefully you will still be
>>>>>>> alive eh!). The rear end of my laser signal will take slightly longer to
>>>>>>> reach you because the speed of light has decreased in the year i've been
>>>>>>> holding this laser. If light decreases by my suggestion of one part in
>>>>>>> 10 billion per year, the rear end of the signal will take exactly
>>>>>>> 10,000,000,001 years to reach you here on Earth.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Nope, the front end of the laser beam will not reach you on earth due
>>>>>> too the inverse square law.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> The good news is that you are right,Ken,
>>>>> indeed in practice one would not see the laser here on Earth.
>>>> 
>>>> One would not see the front end of the laser due to the inverse square
>>>> law. It is dispersed in a circumference in space.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The bad news is that your reason is wrong Ken
>>>>> Lasers DO NOT OBEY THE INVERSE SQUARE LAW.
>>>>> Think about it Ken. If a laser gives 1 mW per anything^2
>>>>> at a distance of 1 meter, it will give much the same power at
>>>>> a distance if 2 meters, or even 10 meters,
>>>> 
>>>> At these small distances it is still obeying the inverse square law but
>>>> the effect is so small that it is not measurable
>>> 
>>> If it was obeying the inverse wquare law Ken,
>>> the power density at 10 m would be 100 times
>>> less than the power density at 1 meter. That
>>> is what the inverse square law implies Ken,
>>> and for certain at these distances no laser
>>> obeys the inverse square law Ken, even Gary
>>> knows that eh!
>> 
>> Ken has absolutely no idea what the inverse square law means in term of
>> numbers. It’s a phrase he’s heard somewhere but what he thinks it might
>> mean has no bearing on what it does mean. Ask him. He will dodge. 
> 
> ROTFLOL.....Pot kettle black....
> 

Nice dodge. 

Intensity of light from a light bulb is 2.3 W/m^2 at a distance of 5 ft
from the bulb. What’s the intensity at a distance of 25 ft? What’s the
intensity at a distance of 2 ft? 

Everyone, watch him dodge. 

-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#480567

On Thursday, December 20, 2018 at 5:53:19 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
> > On Thursday, December 20, 2018 at 1:43:41 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On 20/12/2018 15:46, kenseto wrote:
> >>>> On Wednesday, December 19, 2018 at 12:20:53 PM UTC-5, Keith Stein wrote:
> >>>>> On 19/12/2018 14:56, kenseto wrote:
> >>>>>> On Wednesday, December 19, 2018 at 1:57:11 AM UTC-5, Keith Stein wrote:
> >>>>>>> Let us, for the sake of argument, assume that i am on a galaxy which is
> >>>>>>> 10,000,000,000 light years from the earth. By a bit of good
> >>>>>>> planning i have my laser with me and i shine this laser at you for a
> >>>>>>> whole year. The front of this laser beam will take exactly
> >>>>>>> 10,000,000,000 to reach you here on Earth (hopefully you will still be
> >>>>>>> alive eh!). The rear end of my laser signal will take slightly longer to
> >>>>>>> reach you because the speed of light has decreased in the year i've been
> >>>>>>> holding this laser. If light decreases by my suggestion of one part in
> >>>>>>> 10 billion per year, the rear end of the signal will take exactly
> >>>>>>> 10,000,000,001 years to reach you here on Earth.
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> Nope, the front end of the laser beam will not reach you on earth due
> >>>>>> too the inverse square law.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> The good news is that you are right,Ken,
> >>>>> indeed in practice one would not see the laser here on Earth.
> >>>> 
> >>>> One would not see the front end of the laser due to the inverse square
> >>>> law. It is dispersed in a circumference in space.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> The bad news is that your reason is wrong Ken
> >>>>> Lasers DO NOT OBEY THE INVERSE SQUARE LAW.
> >>>>> Think about it Ken. If a laser gives 1 mW per anything^2
> >>>>> at a distance of 1 meter, it will give much the same power at
> >>>>> a distance if 2 meters, or even 10 meters,
> >>>> 
> >>>> At these small distances it is still obeying the inverse square law but
> >>>> the effect is so small that it is not measurable
> >>> 
> >>> If it was obeying the inverse wquare law Ken,
> >>> the power density at 10 m would be 100 times
> >>> less than the power density at 1 meter. That
> >>> is what the inverse square law implies Ken,
> >>> and for certain at these distances no laser
> >>> obeys the inverse square law Ken, even Gary
> >>> knows that eh!
> >> 
> >> Ken has absolutely no idea what the inverse square law means in term of
> >> numbers. It’s a phrase he’s heard somewhere but what he thinks it might
> >> mean has no bearing on what it does mean. Ask him. He will dodge. 
> > 
> > ROTFLOL.....Pot kettle black....
> > 
> 
> Nice dodge. 
> 
> Intensity of light from a light bulb is 2.3 W/m^2 at a distance of 5 ft
> from the bulb. What’s the intensity at a distance of 25 ft? What’s the
> intensity at a distance of 2 ft? 
> 
> Everyone, watch him dodge. 

Moron, I don’t have to dodge. Answer this: does light obey the inverse square law at any distance? Keith asserted that laser light does not obey ISL at close distances. Do you agree with him.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#480588

kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
> On Thursday, December 20, 2018 at 5:53:19 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
>>> On Thursday, December 20, 2018 at 1:43:41 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 20/12/2018 15:46, kenseto wrote:
>>>>>> On Wednesday, December 19, 2018 at 12:20:53 PM UTC-5, Keith Stein wrote:
>>>>>>> On 19/12/2018 14:56, kenseto wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, December 19, 2018 at 1:57:11 AM UTC-5, Keith Stein wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Let us, for the sake of argument, assume that i am on a galaxy which is
>>>>>>>>> 10,000,000,000 light years from the earth. By a bit of good
>>>>>>>>> planning i have my laser with me and i shine this laser at you for a
>>>>>>>>> whole year. The front of this laser beam will take exactly
>>>>>>>>> 10,000,000,000 to reach you here on Earth (hopefully you will still be
>>>>>>>>> alive eh!). The rear end of my laser signal will take slightly longer to
>>>>>>>>> reach you because the speed of light has decreased in the year i've been
>>>>>>>>> holding this laser. If light decreases by my suggestion of one part in
>>>>>>>>> 10 billion per year, the rear end of the signal will take exactly
>>>>>>>>> 10,000,000,001 years to reach you here on Earth.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Nope, the front end of the laser beam will not reach you on earth due
>>>>>>>> too the inverse square law.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> The good news is that you are right,Ken,
>>>>>>> indeed in practice one would not see the laser here on Earth.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> One would not see the front end of the laser due to the inverse square
>>>>>> law. It is dispersed in a circumference in space.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> The bad news is that your reason is wrong Ken
>>>>>>> Lasers DO NOT OBEY THE INVERSE SQUARE LAW.
>>>>>>> Think about it Ken. If a laser gives 1 mW per anything^2
>>>>>>> at a distance of 1 meter, it will give much the same power at
>>>>>>> a distance if 2 meters, or even 10 meters,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> At these small distances it is still obeying the inverse square law but
>>>>>> the effect is so small that it is not measurable
>>>>> 
>>>>> If it was obeying the inverse wquare law Ken,
>>>>> the power density at 10 m would be 100 times
>>>>> less than the power density at 1 meter. That
>>>>> is what the inverse square law implies Ken,
>>>>> and for certain at these distances no laser
>>>>> obeys the inverse square law Ken, even Gary
>>>>> knows that eh!
>>>> 
>>>> Ken has absolutely no idea what the inverse square law means in term of
>>>> numbers. It’s a phrase he’s heard somewhere but what he thinks it might
>>>> mean has no bearing on what it does mean. Ask him. He will dodge. 
>>> 
>>> ROTFLOL.....Pot kettle black....
>>> 
>> 
>> Nice dodge. 
>> 
>> Intensity of light from a light bulb is 2.3 W/m^2 at a distance of 5 ft
>> from the bulb. What’s the intensity at a distance of 25 ft? What’s the
>> intensity at a distance of 2 ft? 
>> 
>> Everyone, watch him dodge. 
> 
> Moron, I don’t have to dodge. 

And yet you just did. You can’t answer the question. 

> Answer this: does light obey the inverse square law at any distance?
> Keith asserted that laser light does not obey ISL at close distances. Do
> you agree with him.
> 



-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#480670

On Thursday, December 27, 2018 at 9:36:30 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
> > On Thursday, December 20, 2018 at 5:53:19 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, December 20, 2018 at 1:43:41 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On 20/12/2018 15:46, kenseto wrote:
> >>>>>> On Wednesday, December 19, 2018 at 12:20:53 PM UTC-5, Keith Stein wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 19/12/2018 14:56, kenseto wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Wednesday, December 19, 2018 at 1:57:11 AM UTC-5, Keith Stein wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Let us, for the sake of argument, assume that i am on a galaxy which is
> >>>>>>>>> 10,000,000,000 light years from the earth. By a bit of good
> >>>>>>>>> planning i have my laser with me and i shine this laser at you for a
> >>>>>>>>> whole year. The front of this laser beam will take exactly
> >>>>>>>>> 10,000,000,000 to reach you here on Earth (hopefully you will still be
> >>>>>>>>> alive eh!). The rear end of my laser signal will take slightly longer to
> >>>>>>>>> reach you because the speed of light has decreased in the year i've been
> >>>>>>>>> holding this laser. If light decreases by my suggestion of one part in
> >>>>>>>>> 10 billion per year, the rear end of the signal will take exactly
> >>>>>>>>> 10,000,000,001 years to reach you here on Earth.
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> Nope, the front end of the laser beam will not reach you on earth due
> >>>>>>>> too the inverse square law.
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> The good news is that you are right,Ken,
> >>>>>>> indeed in practice one would not see the laser here on Earth.
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> One would not see the front end of the laser due to the inverse square
> >>>>>> law. It is dispersed in a circumference in space.
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> The bad news is that your reason is wrong Ken
> >>>>>>> Lasers DO NOT OBEY THE INVERSE SQUARE LAW.
> >>>>>>> Think about it Ken. If a laser gives 1 mW per anything^2
> >>>>>>> at a distance of 1 meter, it will give much the same power at
> >>>>>>> a distance if 2 meters, or even 10 meters,
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> At these small distances it is still obeying the inverse square law but
> >>>>>> the effect is so small that it is not measurable
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> If it was obeying the inverse wquare law Ken,
> >>>>> the power density at 10 m would be 100 times
> >>>>> less than the power density at 1 meter. That
> >>>>> is what the inverse square law implies Ken,
> >>>>> and for certain at these distances no laser
> >>>>> obeys the inverse square law Ken, even Gary
> >>>>> knows that eh!
> >>>> 
> >>>> Ken has absolutely no idea what the inverse square law means in term of
> >>>> numbers. It’s a phrase he’s heard somewhere but what he thinks it might
> >>>> mean has no bearing on what it does mean. Ask him. He will dodge. 
> >>> 
> >>> ROTFLOL.....Pot kettle black....
> >>> 
> >> 
> >> Nice dodge. 
> >> 
> >> Intensity of light from a light bulb is 2.3 W/m^2 at a distance of 5 ft
> >> from the bulb. What’s the intensity at a distance of 25 ft? What’s the
> >> intensity at a distance of 2 ft? 
> >> 
> >> Everyone, watch him dodge. 
> > 
> > Moron, I don’t have to dodge. 
> 
> And yet you just did. You can’t answer the question. 

I never seen you answering any question.....so what else is new?

> 
> > Answer this: does light obey the inverse square law at any distance?
> > Keith asserted that laser light does not obey ISL at close distances. Do
> > you agree with him.
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#480342

On Thursday, December 20, 2018 at 11:24:54 AM UTC-5, Keith Stein wrote:
> On 20/12/2018 15:46, kenseto wrote:
> > On Wednesday, December 19, 2018 at 12:20:53 PM UTC-5, Keith Stein wrote:
> >> On 19/12/2018 14:56, kenseto wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, December 19, 2018 at 1:57:11 AM UTC-5, Keith Stein wrote:
> >>>> Let us, for the sake of argument, assume that i am on a galaxy which is
> >>>> 10,000,000,000 light years from the earth. By a bit of good
> >>>> planning i have my laser with me and i shine this laser at you for a
> >>>> whole year. The front of this laser beam will take exactly
> >>>> 10,000,000,000 to reach you here on Earth (hopefully you will still be
> >>>> alive eh!). The rear end of my laser signal will take slightly longer to
> >>>> reach you because the speed of light has decreased in the year i've been
> >>>> holding this laser. If light decreases by my suggestion of one part in
> >>>> 10 billion per year, the rear end of the signal will take exactly
> >>>> 10,000,000,001 years to reach you here on Earth.
> >>>
> >>> Nope, the front end of the laser beam will not reach you on earth due too the inverse square law.
> >>
> >>
> >> The good news is that you are right,Ken,
> >> indeed in practice one would not see the laser here on Earth.
> > 
> > One would not see the front end of the laser due to the inverse square law. It is dispersed in a circumference in space.
> >>
> >> The bad news is that your reason is wrong Ken
> >> Lasers DO NOT OBEY THE INVERSE SQUARE LAW.
> >> Think about it Ken. If a laser gives 1 mW per anything^2
> >>    at a distance of 1 meter, it will give much the same power at
> >> a distance if 2 meters, or even 10 meters,
> > 
> > At these small distances it is still obeying the inverse square law but the effect is so small that it is not measurable
> 
> If it was obeying the inverse wquare law Ken,
> the power density at 10 m would be 100 times
> less than the power density at 1 meter.

The intensity of light per unit area on the screen does decrease.... have you measured the intensity at 1 meter and at 10 meter?

> That
> is what the inverse square law implies Ken,
> and for certain at these distances no laser
> obeys the inverse square law Ken, even Gary
> knows that eh!

You are wrong.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#480568

On Thursday, December 20, 2018 at 11:24:54 AM UTC-5, Keith Stein wrote:
> On 20/12/2018 15:46, kenseto wrote:
> > On Wednesday, December 19, 2018 at 12:20:53 PM UTC-5, Keith Stein wrote:
> >> On 19/12/2018 14:56, kenseto wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, December 19, 2018 at 1:57:11 AM UTC-5, Keith Stein wrote:
> >>>> Let us, for the sake of argument, assume that i am on a galaxy which is
> >>>> 10,000,000,000 light years from the earth. By a bit of good
> >>>> planning i have my laser with me and i shine this laser at you for a
> >>>> whole year. The front of this laser beam will take exactly
> >>>> 10,000,000,000 to reach you here on Earth (hopefully you will still be
> >>>> alive eh!). The rear end of my laser signal will take slightly longer to
> >>>> reach you because the speed of light has decreased in the year i've been
> >>>> holding this laser. If light decreases by my suggestion of one part in
> >>>> 10 billion per year, the rear end of the signal will take exactly
> >>>> 10,000,000,001 years to reach you here on Earth.
> >>>
> >>> Nope, the front end of the laser beam will not reach you on earth due too the inverse square law.
> >>
> >>
> >> The good news is that you are right,Ken,
> >> indeed in practice one would not see the laser here on Earth.
> > 
> > One would not see the front end of the laser due to the inverse square law. It is dispersed in a circumference in space.
> >>
> >> The bad news is that your reason is wrong Ken
> >> Lasers DO NOT OBEY THE INVERSE SQUARE LAW.
> >> Think about it Ken. If a laser gives 1 mW per anything^2
> >>    at a distance of 1 meter, it will give much the same power at
> >> a distance if 2 meters, or even 10 meters,
> > 
> > At these small distances it is still obeying the inverse square law but the effect is so small that it is not measurable
> 
> If it was obeying the inverse wquare law Ken,
> the power density at 10 m would be 100 times
> less than the power density at 1 meter. That
> is what the inverse square law implies Ken,
> and for certain at these distances no laser
> obeys the inverse square law Ken, even Gary
> knows that eh!

Your guesses are wrong. Laser light and all lights obey the ISL at any distance.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#480573

On Thursday, December 27, 2018 at 4:04:19 PM UTC-6, kenseto wrote:

> Your guesses are wrong. Laser light and all lights obey the ISL at any distance.

At any sufficiently large distance, yes.

At ***any*** distance, no.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#480584

On Thursday, December 27, 2018 at 5:20:31 PM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> On Thursday, December 27, 2018 at 4:04:19 PM UTC-6, kenseto wrote:
> 
> > Your guesses are wrong. Laser light and all lights obey the ISL at any distance.
> 
> At any sufficiently large distance, yes.
> 
> At ***any*** distance, no.

It depends on the aperture opening and the distance. At very small opening the laser appears to not divergent at small distance. But that does not mean that it is not obeying the ISL....it just mean that it is not visually observable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#480595

On Thursday, December 27, 2018 at 6:57:42 PM UTC-6, kenseto wrote:
> On Thursday, December 27, 2018 at 5:20:31 PM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> > On Thursday, December 27, 2018 at 4:04:19 PM UTC-6, kenseto wrote:
> > 
> > > Your guesses are wrong. Laser light and all lights obey the ISL at any distance.
> > 
> > At any sufficiently large distance, yes.
> > 
> > At ***any*** distance, no.
> 
> It depends on the aperture opening and the distance. At very small opening the laser appears to not divergent at small distance. But that does not mean that it is not obeying the ISL....it just mean that it is not visually observable.

You said ***ALL*** lights. 

It is trivial to envision counterexamples which absolutely are NOT obeying
the inverse square law at small distance. Consider a flat panel screen 
with phosphor dots that preferentially radiate in the orthogonal direction.

You are a microbe-sized man standing between the phosphor dots. Standing 
between the dots, you are bathed in light, but light is not particularly
intense.

As you rise, the light gets brighter and brighter, reaching a maximum a 
few millimeters above the flat panel, after which the intensity is more 
or less constant for a while, then gradually falls off.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1orxzpU-xalN2a_DyF1vRUdY85y7vr2zB/view

You can check this out for yourself. Close one eye, and bring the other
eye close to the screen. Looking directly at the screen, the light has the
same intensity as when you are sitting at a normal distance from the screen,
but the light coming from the side is much dimmer.

As you withdraw your eye from the screen, the sum total of the light
reaching your eyeball is approximately the same until the "hot spot"
reaches the edge of the screen. Then the light falls off, and at large
distances it falls off at an inverse square rate.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#480454

On Wednesday, December 19, 2018 at 11:20:53 AM UTC-6, Keith Stein wrote:

> The bad news is that your reason is wrong Ken
> Lasers DO NOT OBEY THE INVERSE SQUARE LAW.

Of course they do. For a limited distance, a laser beam might not seem to
spread too much (especially if you collimate the beam through a large
telescope) but sooner or later, diffraction ALWAYS takes over.

Don't you know ***ANYTHING*** about optics?

Obviously not.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#480464

On 23/12/2018 08:34, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 19, 2018 at 11:20:53 AM UTC-6, Keith Stein wrote:
> 
>> The bad news is that your reason is wrong Ken
>> Lasers DO NOT OBEY THE INVERSE SQUARE LAW.
> 
> Of course they do. For a limited distance, a laser beam might not seem to
> spread too much (especially if you collimate the beam through a large
> telescope) but sooner or later, diffraction ALWAYS takes over.

 >> Lasers DO NOT OBEY THE INVERSE SQUARE LAW.
 >> Think about it Ken. If a laser gives 1 mW per anything^2
 >> at a distance of 1 meter, it will give much the same power
 >> at a distance if 2 meters, or even 10 meters,
 >
 > At these small distances it is still obeying the inverse square law 
but the effect is so small that it is not measurable

If it was obeying the inverse square law Ken,
the power density at 10 m would be 100 times
less than the power density at 1 meter. That
is what the inverse square law implies Ken,
and for certain at these distances no laser
obeys the inverse square law Ken.

> Don't you know ***ANYTHING*** about optics?
> Obviously not.

You want to back Ken Seto on this Mr.Homolog ?
I told you what range i was considering, and
I do know enough about lasers to know I'm
right eh!

Happy Christmas to you.

keith stein

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#480471

On Sunday, December 23, 2018 at 12:10:21 PM UTC-6, Keith Stein wrote:
> On 23/12/2018 08:34, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> > On Wednesday, December 19, 2018 at 11:20:53 AM UTC-6, Keith Stein wrote:
> > 
> >> The bad news is that your reason is wrong Ken
> >> Lasers DO NOT OBEY THE INVERSE SQUARE LAW.
> > 
> > Of course they do. For a limited distance, a laser beam might not seem to
> > spread too much (especially if you collimate the beam through a large
> > telescope) but sooner or later, diffraction ALWAYS takes over.
> 
>  >> Lasers DO NOT OBEY THE INVERSE SQUARE LAW.
>  >> Think about it Ken. If a laser gives 1 mW per anything^2
>  >> at a distance of 1 meter, it will give much the same power
>  >> at a distance if 2 meters, or even 10 meters,
>  >
>  > At these small distances it is still obeying the inverse square law 
> but the effect is so small that it is not measurable
> 
> If it was obeying the inverse square law Ken,
> the power density at 10 m would be 100 times
> less than the power density at 1 meter. That
> is what the inverse square law implies Ken,
> and for certain at these distances no laser
> obeys the inverse square law Ken.
> 
> > Don't you know ***ANYTHING*** about optics?
> > Obviously not.
> 
> You want to back Ken Seto on this Mr.Homolog ?
> I told you what range i was considering, and
> I do know enough about lasers to know I'm
> right eh!

I own several lasers ranging from the laser pointer in my desktop to an 
old research-grade laser that I picked up from eBay several years ago and
that I've used in several hobby projects.

I'm not even counting the lasers in my Blu-Ray players or the optical
drives on my computers.

Let's look at my laser pointer. If I shine it across the house, maybe 
around 10 meters of so (rough eyeball estimate), the beam spreads to a
diameter of about... uh... 1.2 centimeters or so??? That means the beam
divergence is about 1.2 mrad, maybe 1.3 mrad.

At 100 meters, the beam will spread to about 12 to 13 cm diameter.
So even over relatively modest distances, the beam from my laser pointer
will obey the inverse square law. 

You wouldn't be making the ignorant statements that you make if you had
any practical experience with lasers at all. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#480496

On 24/12/2018 00:00, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> On Sunday, December 23, 2018 at 12:10:21 PM UTC-6, Keith Stein wrote:
>> On 23/12/2018 08:34, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, December 19, 2018 at 11:20:53 AM UTC-6, Keith Stein wrote:
>>>
>>>> The bad news is that your reason is wrong Ken
>>>> Lasers DO NOT OBEY THE INVERSE SQUARE LAW.
>>>
>>> Of course they do. For a limited distance, a laser beam might not seem to
>>> spread too much (especially if you collimate the beam through a large
>>> telescope) but sooner or later, diffraction ALWAYS takes over.
>>
>>   >> Lasers DO NOT OBEY THE INVERSE SQUARE LAW.
>>   >> Think about it Ken. If a laser gives 1 mW per anything^2
>>   >> at a distance of 1 meter, it will give much the same power
>>   >> at a distance if 2 meters, or even 10 meters,
>>   >
>>   > At these small distances it is still obeying the inverse square law
>> but the effect is so small that it is not measurable
>>
>> If it was obeying the inverse square law Ken,
>> the power density at 10 m would be 100 times
>> less than the power density at 1 meter. That
>> is what the inverse square law implies Ken,
>> and for certain at these distances no laser
>> obeys the inverse square law Ken.
>>
>>> Don't you know ***ANYTHING*** about optics?
>>> Obviously not.
>>
>> You want to back Ken Seto on this Mr.Homolog ?
>> I told you what range i was considering, and
>> I do know enough about lasers to know I'm
>> right eh!
> 
> I own several lasers ranging from the laser pointer in my desktop to an
> old research-grade laser that I picked up from eBay several years ago and
> that I've used in several hobby projects.
> 
> I'm not even counting the lasers in my Blu-Ray players or the optical
> drives on my computers.
> 
> Let's look at my laser pointer. If I shine it across the house, maybe
> around 10 meters of so (rough eyeball estimate), the beam spreads to a
> diameter of about... uh... 1.2 centimeters or so??? That means the beam
> divergence is about 1.2 mrad, maybe 1.3 mrad.
> 
> At 100 meters, the beam will spread to about 12 to 13 cm diameter.
> So even over relatively modest distances, the beam from my laser pointer
> will obey the inverse square law.
> 
> You wouldn't be making the ignorant statements that you make if you had
> any practical experience with lasers at all.
> 

            Lasers DO NOT OBEY THE INVERSE SQUARE LAW.

   Think about it Mr.Homolog. If a laser gives 1 mW per anything squared
   at a distance of 1 meter, it will give much the same power density at
   a distance if 2 meters, or even 10 meters.

keith stein

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#480501

On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 12:27:25 PM UTC-6, Keith Stein wrote:
> On 24/12/2018 00:00, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:

> > You wouldn't be making the ignorant statements that you make if you had
> > any practical experience with lasers at all.
> > 
> 
>             Lasers DO NOT OBEY THE INVERSE SQUARE LAW.
> 
>    Think about it Mr.Homolog. If a laser gives 1 mW per anything squared
>    at a distance of 1 meter, it will give much the same power density at
>    a distance if 2 meters, or even 10 meters.

(sigh)
Go online, buy yourself an inexpensive laser pointer, and check out how
the spot diameter varies with distance, instead of fantasizing about how
it OUGHT to work.

I see cat chaser toys on Amazon for less than ten dollars.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web