"Capt RB" wrote in message
...

"Edgar" wrote in message
...

No I haven't. You are confusing _into_ and _onto_.
Your beam of light only goes onto a square foot. Nothing can go into
something that only exists in two dimensions.



The concept of divergence (used in geometrical calculus) is a measure of
any
type of flux crossing a surface as the enclosed volume goes to zero. As
the
limit is taken, the enclosed volume shrinks to zero faster than the
surface
area. The divergence is a measure of flux crossing a surface of zero
enclosed volume.

In the case of a beam of light entering an enclosed surface, the
divergence
would be zero as the light source is external to the enclosed volume. The
total flux entering and leaving the surface (even if it is flat consider
both sides) is zero.

A sphere does exist in two dimensions, for instance in both angle and
radius. Only two dimensions needed to define the surface or volume. Not
all
coordinate systems are cartesian or orthogonal.

"Capt RB" wrote in message
...

"Edgar" wrote in message
...

No I haven't. You are confusing _into_ and _onto_.
Your beam of light only goes onto a square foot. Nothing can go into
something that only exists in two dimensions.



The concept of divergence (used in geometrical calculus) is a measure of
any
type of flux crossing a surface as the enclosed volume goes to zero. As
the
limit is taken, the enclosed volume shrinks to zero faster than the
surface
area. The divergence is a measure of flux crossing a surface of zero
enclosed volume.

In the case of a beam of light entering an enclosed surface, the
divergence
would be zero as the light source is external to the enclosed volume. The
total flux entering and leaving the surface (even if it is flat consider
both sides) is zero.

I said that in considerably fewer words...

A sphere does exist in two dimensions, for instance in both angle and
radius.

No , it does not exist in two dimensions since it is a solid shape and has
volume.

Only two dimensions needed to define the surface or volume.

No, that is not right. You only have to define one thing, namely the radius
of a sphere, not any angle, but the radius itself means nothing unless you
add to the definition the word _sphere_ , which is by definition a three
dimensional shape since the radius is not limited to just the x and y
coordinates.

Not all coordinate systems are cartesian or orthogonal

Can't comment on that. those two are enough for me..

"Wilbur Hubbard" wrote in message
...

"Edgar" wrote in message
...

"Wilbur Hubbard" wrote in message
...

"Edgar" wrote in message
...

"Joe" wrote in message
ups.com...

How much do you think a square foot of coffee weighs?
A 20' addition to Redcloud could carry just over 2000 square feet
of
cargo.

Could you cram 20 pounds into a square foot?

Joe

You cannot cram anything _into_ a square foot. Do you mean cubic
foot?

If you can't cram anything into a square foot there would be no such
thing as a square foot full of light. All square feet would be too
dark
to see. So you have made an incorrect statement.

Wilbur Hubbard

No I haven't. You are confusing _into_ and _onto_.
Your beam of light only goes onto a square foot. Nothing can go into
something that only exists in two dimensions.

Wrong again, Edgar. A square exists in two-dimensions. A photon at rest
exists also only in two dimensions. It is only when a photon travels
that it exists in three dimensions. A photon in a square is not
traveling. It cannot travel in two dimensions. But it exists. Therefore
it is IN the square.
I hope this helps.

Wilbur Hubbard

No, you are wrong again by your own words.
The square exists. The photon exists. Both are two dimensional (I'll take
your word for that about the photon for the purpose of this discussion).
So as the photon lies there on the square everything is two dimensional and
there is no volume. So you still have nowhere to park something which has a
volume.

"Edgar" wrote in message
...

"Wilbur Hubbard" wrote in message
...

"Edgar" wrote in message
...

"Wilbur Hubbard" wrote in message
...

"Edgar" wrote in message
...

"Joe" wrote in message
ups.com...

How much do you think a square foot of coffee weighs?
A 20' addition to Redcloud could carry just over 2000 square
feet
of
cargo.

Could you cram 20 pounds into a square foot?

Joe

You cannot cram anything _into_ a square foot. Do you mean
cubic
foot?

If you can't cram anything into a square foot there would be no
such
thing as a square foot full of light. All square feet would be too
dark
to see. So you have made an incorrect statement.

Wilbur Hubbard

No I haven't. You are confusing _into_ and _onto_.
Your beam of light only goes onto a square foot. Nothing can go
into
something that only exists in two dimensions.

Wrong again, Edgar. A square exists in two-dimensions. A photon at
rest
exists also only in two dimensions. It is only when a photon travels
that it exists in three dimensions. A photon in a square is not
traveling. It cannot travel in two dimensions. But it exists.
Therefore
it is IN the square.
I hope this helps.

Wilbur Hubbard

No, you are wrong again by your own words.
The square exists. The photon exists. Both are two dimensional (I'll
take
your word for that about the photon for the purpose of this
discussion).
So as the photon lies there on the square everything is two
dimensional and
there is no volume. So you still have nowhere to park something which
has a
volume.

Now you're side-stepping. You said you can't cram anything _into_ a
square foot.
I said you can. The word _into_ does not have to have three dimensions
to apply. You can put something into a square. As long as what you put
into the square has only two dimensions it will fit into the square. A
square exists and has no volume. Will you not agree that one can put
many small squares into a larger square? Sure, you can. Same thing with
photons of light. They have no volume unless they travel.

Wilbur Hubbard