7 ms·
So it is doubly incorrect... They are completely misusing the word exponential to mean quadratic which is already incredibly annoying, but it is not even quadra
by krastanov 7y ago
So it is doubly incorrect... They are completely misusing the word exponential to mean quadratic which is already incredibly annoying, but it is not even quadratic, it is constant.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- whatshisface 7y agoNot squared, inverse square. That's faster than exponential.
- AnimalMuppet 7y agoYou may need to check your math. Inverse square does not fall off faster than exponential.
- whatshisface 7y ago1/x² has a singularity and rises faster than exponential as you approach it. We're talking about getting closer to the source, not further.
- AnimalMuppet 7y agoAh, I see. In that direction, you are correct.
- Retric 7y agoIt should be obvious that real world antenna don’t behave this way as they are not point sources. But, mathematically you’re correct.
- whatshisface 7y agoAs you get closer and closer to the surface of the phone, phenomena progress from a visible glow, to pair production, to the thermodynamic stability of quark-gluon plasma.
- krastanov 7y agoNo. All polynomials and rational functions fall off drastically slower than exponential.
- whatshisface 7y agoWe're talking about the rise in power as you get closer. 1/x² has a singularity, I doubt exp(x) can beat that...
- tomrod 7y agoGood point! -ln(x) may (would have to check), but exp(0) = 1 and 1/02 is defined as positive infinity (the Real numbers are not closed under division).
- enedil 7y agoNo, division just isn't a total function.
- tomrod 7y agoI think these may be the same thing in this case.
- fulldecent2 7y agoI'm following along in this thread here and double checking everybody's math. So... does this mean I will die from radiation or not?
- whatshisface 7y agoThis thread is actually irrelevant to the radiation question due to the plane radiator thing mentioned above.