Re: inverse square law
Posted by Cathryn on April 10, 2006 at 13:16:54:

Thanks, John, for putting this in terms even I could follow. Makes perfect sense, and ear tones don't seem to follow this rule.

I do have a question. You say , "twice as far from the source of a disturbance" which is kind of vague unless you specify km or mi. Still, I get what you are saying for the most part. Your (4*pi*radius*radius), however, left me appropriately humbled.

Cathryn


Cathryn


Follow Ups:
     ● ratio - John Vidale  13:56:31 - 4/10/2006  (36211)  (1)
        ● Re: ratio - Cathryn  14:59:45 - 4/10/2006  (36223)  (0)