Inverse square law

[Terry]

Methink the great one has slipped up a little in this paragraph:

The prayers, considered as a transmitted signal of some bizarre nature, whether they had to go through a deity, or directly affected the reproductive systems of the subjects, would be expected to obey the Law of Inverse Squares, one of the most very fundamental laws of nature that has never in the history of our species been "disobeyed." The expected attenuation, over the distances involved, would have had a parallel in a tourist standing on the Great Wall of China, shouting to his wife in New Jersey, and expecting her to not only hear, but to understand his message.

I don't buy the prayer claim for a minute. But assuming there were to be a god involved, I don't think we can say that there would be any attenuation. Since the usual concept of the christian god is that it is omnipresent, it could pick up the weak signal from the pray-er in the USA and emit a signal in Asia which was stronger than the received one. Just like a cell tower, or a ham radio repeater.

Also, the inverse square law is not universal. The strong nuclear force doesn't follow it, for a start.

--Terry

 

[The Bad Astronomer]

I can think of several ways around this:

1) Since God is everywhere, then he picks up every bit of energy from the prayer. Think of Him as having an antenna all over the sky.

2) The energy is beamed, and not emitted omnidirectionally (in an expanding sphere). That's why we can pick up the incredibly weak signals from interplanetary spacecraft.

3) This whole thing is a crock.

I'm going with (3).

 

[Terry]

I can think of several ways around this:

[...]

3) This whole thing is a crock.

I'm going with (3).

Yeah, me too. I just don't think "inverse square" is a good argument in this case. For telekenisis, I could see the relevance. But not for prayer.


--Terry.

(typo corrected)

 

[jj]

Yeah, me to. I just don't think "inverse square" is a good argument in this case. For telekenisis, I could see the relevance. But not for prayer.


--Terry.

Well, agreed, but I can see how the mistake would happen.

All "really known" long-range forces appear to be x^-2, due to the fact there are 3 dimensions to spread out in, yes? No?

If somebody just doesn't credit the whole magical thinking thing at all, violations are not going to come to mind, perhaps.

 

[drkitten]

Well, agreed, but I can see how the mistake would happen.

All "really known" long-range forces appear to be x^-2, due to the fact there are 3 dimensions to spread out in, yes? No?

No, or at least, not without a great deal of work to make it happen. For example, in a whispering chamber, a person standing at a focus can hear very clearly what is said at the other focus, but a person standing in the "middle" of the room cannot. The room's shape acts to focus the sound waves. More mundanely, I can talk on the telephone to a person on a different continent, who can hear me clearly, while a person in the next room cannot eavesdrop. The phone acts to transport my speech in a very non-uniform and non-x^2 way.

Given that we have no evidence about how prayer works, we have no evidence that the Invisible Pink Unicorn didn't erect a huge pray-o-phone that connects the people involved. The inverse square law is pretty much a red herring in this context; if we had evidence that prayer worked (inverse square or not), that would trump our theories about inverse squares. On the other hand, since we have no credible evidence that prayer works, arguing about the mechanism by which it doesn't work is kind of silly.

 

[Terry]

Well, agreed, but I can see how the mistake would happen.

All "really known" long-range forces appear to be x^-2, due to the fact there are 3 dimensions to spread out in, yes? No?

At a sufficiently large distance, sure. But the magnetic field round a current-carrying wire looks like it goes as 1/R if you are sufficiently close to it (if I recall correctly).

If somebody just doesn't credit the whole magical thinking thing at all, violations are not going to come to mind, perhaps.

I suppose so. But adding in a "relay" system, like a god for prayers, or a repeater for radio signals changes the whole argument. Looked at simplistically, you could say cell phones violate the inverse square law. After all, how can my 0.5w transmitter in the USA produce a strong signal in my mother's receiver in the UK?

Again, I really have no bone to pick with Mr. Randi's conclusion. I just think this part of the argument is bogus.

--Terry.

 

[jj]

At a sufficiently large distance, sure. But the magnetic field round a current-carrying wire looks like it goes as 1/R if you are sufficiently close to it (if I recall correctly).


But that's not a point source, it's a line source. A line source reduces the order by 1, a plane source by 2, etc, in the near field.




I suppose so. But adding in a "relay" system, like a god for prayers, or a repeater for radio signals changes the whole argument. Looked at simplistically, you could say cell phones violate the inverse square law. After all, how can my 0.5w transmitter in the USA produce a strong signal in my mother's receiver in the UK?


I understand that part of your argument, I'm simply saying that somebody who doesn't accept the idea of god isn't too likely to come up with that idea in the first place.

Cellphones are different in that they are known to exist.


Again, I really have no bone to pick with Mr. Randi's conclusion. I just think this part of the argument is bogus.

--Terry.

I think it demonstrates that non-secular arguments don't really creep into his thinking much. I find this unsurprising. Your dispute with it is reasonable, but I think his statement is pretty much so as well.

 

[Terry]

I understand that part of your argument, I'm simply saying that somebody who doesn't accept the idea of god isn't too likely to come up with that idea in the first place.
[...]
I think it demonstrates that non-secular arguments don't really creep into his thinking much. I find this unsurprising. Your dispute with it is reasonable, but I think his statement is pretty much so as well.

Last reply, since I think we're in violent agreement, and I never did like seeing dead horses flogged...

I don't accept the idea of god, and I did think of it.


--Terry.

 

[jj]

I don't accept the idea of god, and I did think of it.


--Terry.

Ok. I must admit to thinking "that's not really germane" when reading the inverse-square law, but on the more general basis that the whole thing is contra-physical anyhow, and so any logic basic on reality is not going to convince the purveyor of nonsense.

 

[BillyJoe]

...the great one...

He is not the Messiah, he's just a naughty little boy.
.....and, at the moment, he's pissing into the bath tub.

 

[Zep]

But what is the EVIDENCE? And how valid is it?

So far, it seems to be complete cow-stomach-lining...

 

[Terry]

Re: Re: Inverse square law

... the great one ...
He is not the Messiah, he's just a naughty little boy.

I meant the Amazing one. Jeeze, how'd that happen?

--Terry.

 

[number9]

Two words

Quantum Woowoodynamics.

The inverse square law does not apply to these "messages" any more than it does to "electrons."

You have to integrate the probability (and improbability) amplitude over all possible (and impossible) paths to arrive at the total (im)probability for the presumed path.

Not surprisingly, those who understand the complicated math for this always arrive at the "correct" answer: Unity.

 

[T'ai Chi]

I don't buy the original claim either, but when studying odd phenomena, it is probably dangerous to assume they must operate like already understood phenomena.

 

[jj]

Re: Two words

Quantum Woowoodynamics.

The inverse square law does not apply to these "messages" any more than it does to "electrons."

You have to integrate the probability (and improbability) amplitude over all possible (and impossible) paths to arrive at the total (im)probability for the presumed path.

Not surprisingly, those who understand the complicated math for this always arrive at the "correct" answer: Unity.

The point you're making is, then?

 

[number9]

Re: Re: Two words

The point you're making is, then?

As always, falsifiable or viable.

 

[Rolfe]

Looked at simplistically, you could say cell phones violate the inverse square law.

I think I'm in violent agreement too, but since this is exactly what I thought when I first read the commentary, I'll add my tuppenceworth.

Prayer would be like asking a friend to do a favour for you. You contact the friend in some way, not to get into the details, and the friend goes to the place where the favour needs to be done, or pulls some strings and contacts someone else, however he manages it, "it is arranged", as they say. Where does the inverse square law possibly apply?

It's exactly like phoning a friend in another continent and asking the friend to go do whatever it is you wanted done.

Now you may believe prayer is possible, or you may believe it's a lotta hooey. You're entirely free to believe that it's a lotta hooey and say so as loudly as you like. But requiring that prayer (if it existed which you don't think it does) should obey a physical law which is self-evidently irrelevant is just silly. It's daft. It's poor tactics.

Frankly, it makes Randi look silly and indeed irrational in his attacks on the "enemy". I wish he hadn't used that argument.

Rolfe.

 

[gerdbonk]

The mention of the inverse square law gave me pause as well, but I am not as educated as others are to be able to properly express my concern.

On a different note:

I haven't read the study, but can anyone verify that it adjusted for the "background noise" of daily prayers against all in vitro fertilization procedures by members of churches that rule the process immoral?

 

[Dr Adequate]

Re: Re: Two words

The point you're making is, then?

...a joke.

Rolfe --- what you said.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

gerdbonk said:
I haven't read the study, but can anyone verify that it adjusted for the "background noise" of daily prayers against all in vitro fertilization procedures by members of churches that rule the process immoral?

I think I can say without fear of contradiction that it did not. Nor did it control for any of the other prayers being said for or against the people undergoing the procedure or the people doing the praying. Or the experimenters. Or the doctors. Or the fertilized eggs. The entire premise is so preposterous that it competes directly with homeopathy for the International Preposterosity Prize.

Rolfe said:
Prayer would be like asking a friend to do a favour for you. You contact the friend in some way, not to get into the details, and the friend goes to the place where the favour needs to be done, or pulls some strings and contacts someone else, however he manages it, "it is arranged", as they say. Where does the inverse square law possibly apply?

It's exactly like phoning a friend in another continent and asking the friend to go do whatever it is you wanted done.

I believe you contacted your friend via known methods of communication. That would not include prayer. So it is not really exactly like phoning a friend. Even so, the inverse square law would apply to that cell phone call you made.

That said, I think the Bad Astronomer missed a possiblity:

4) Even the weakest degraded signal reaching the prayees and annointing them is enough to make god notice and do the favor. He's especially fond of in vitro fertilization, don't you know.

~~ Paul