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