Strange

More people complain that the rate of change is accelerating and causing stress and other problems.

Not necessarily. That is why we have an adjustable lens.

Well, let's see: they are diverging when they leave the Sun, they travel in straight lines so I guess they must still be diverging when the reach the Earth. What do you think?

Do you think they stop diverging?

Now that is irrelevant. Do you think that only the rays that don't reach the Earth follow an inverse square law? And wrong. Approximately, yes. Personally, I would not have objected to the use of the word, assuming that you meant more parallel than the crepuscular rays. That is why I referred you to the picture you posted that showed the parallel edges of the road diverging in the same way. This seems to be another utterly pointless (but more interesting) thread about your inability to understand perspective.

Really? The rays of light are radiating in a sphere from the surface of the Sun. Therefore the area subtended grows as distance2, therefore the intensity falls off as 1/distance2. Therefore the rays are not parallel. The rays that arrive at your eye (if you were foolish enough to look at the sun) would include both converging and diverging rays, because of its finite size (as you get half right).

And the reason the intensity falls off with an inverse square law is because they are not parallel, as you claimed. So very relevant.

That doesn't stop you looking at the picture. Except we do. For example, we have had two threads in the last few days about perspective.

! Moderator Note As this is about geometry/perspective, I will move it to Mathematics You might want to compare with the parallel road edges in your other thread about perspective.

! Moderator Note Why is this in Speculations? Are you proposing some “theory” to explain this?

As you say, all your ideas. You keep creating threads where you post unexplained equations, which are mathematically inconsistent and nonsensical. When asked to show how you derived the equation, you just post a different, equally meaningless, equation with no explanation. You refuse to explain what you are trying to say or do with these equations, why or how you have made them up, or otherwise engage in discussion. Next time: 1. start with some well established theory 2. show how you derive an equation from that 3. explain why you are posting the equation and what it means. (You have never done any of the above.)

You can stop there.

So your claims of “accelerated” photons that are not “really” accelerated is just irrelevant then. As well as being nonsensical.

How is an "accelerating photon" different from one that is not accelerating?

OK. So you agree that nothing is really accelerated by perspective. So... What does an accelerated photon look like? And, as you agree it is not "really" accelerated, why mention it?

Are you trying to make some point about relativity (where the effects are also due to geometry)?

Perspective has been known about for several centuries. Do you? Do you realise that your claims of "acceleration" is exactly as sensible as worrying that the passengers in a cruise ship will be crushed as it sails off into the distance?

In case anyone else is reluctant to follow the link, it is just a video of a motorbike. It makes as much sense as the rest of the opening post (ie none). What does an “accelerated photon” look like? How much faster than c do you think it is going?

If a bike is coming towards you then the wheels will not look circular which, by your reasoning, would mean a very bumpy ride.

! Moderator Note There is no basis for discussion in this. Do not bring this up again (whatever it was).

Do you have any evidence that those contribute to population decline?

! Moderator Note More info here: https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/108127-typesetting-equations-with-latex-updated/

As noted in the first post, you can use math tags: [ math] y = x^2 [/math] => [math] y = x^2 [/math] or Inline brackets: \ ( y = x^2 \) => \( y = x^2 \) or Display brackets: \ [ y = x^2 \] => \[ y = x^2 \] (I have added some extra spaces to show the markup.)

I wonder if it's possible that off-planet manufacturing could become practical enough that the use of gold for industrial purposes was economical while still restricting the supply on Earth to keep the value of the "precious metal" high in things like jewellery and currency. This assumes there are large-scale applications for gold which are limited by the price. Do you have any examples in mind?

! Moderator Note As my assumption that this was homework appears to be wrong, I have moved this back to the original forum.