Not noticing that the surface area of a sphere increases in direct relationship with the increase in volume of a sphere is poor physics, sorry.
What? Not noticing that birds can fly is also poor physics. Neither has anything to do with the discussion at hand.
You claimed that "volume happens to be a key component of the inverse square LAW". I just pointed out that it isn't; that it is the relationship between distance and surface area that directly leads to the inverse square law. There is no volume, and definitely no increase in volume.
I cant believe you came back for more by trying to make me look bad a physics.
I'm not doing anything of that sort; I'm just pointing out the misconceptions and errors in your description.
(I do wonder, though, which one of the last two words above has the typo. Is is a missing t, or jumbled letters with a c turned into an s?)
Remember the wave is expanding outward from source in all directions, it expands into the increasing volume of the sphere
No. It does not expand into "the increasing volume of the sphere".
As the wave propagates, the area of the wavefront increases as \$A(r) = 4 \pi r^2\$ where \$r\$ is the distance travelled by the wavefront. There is no volume involved.
Instead of a continuous wave, consider a pulse-like waveform. The volume of the pulse (technically, the volume in which the pulse exceeds a given intensity threshold), is a spherical shell whose thickness is the pulse width \$w\$: \$V(r) = \frac{4}{3} \pi (r^3 - w^3)\$. This is a cubic relationship, \$r^3\$, and therefore not related at all to the inverse square law.
The peak of the pulse occurs at a given distance from the source, and its area is \$A(r) = 4 \pi r^2\$. Another way to put it is that the pulse intensity is constant in each solid angle distended from the source, and it is the area of the solid angle that depends on the square of the distance. Because the intensity is uniformly spread across this solid angle and therefore the surface area, the intensity at distance \$r\$ is inversely proportional to the square of the distance; this being the inverse-square law by definition. Volume is not involved.
energy and potential difference are part area measurements as well.
No, they are not.
Potential differences are measured at two or more different
points. There is no area (or volume) involved.
Energy has no area or volume dependence at all, either.
This isn't fun if you don't counter my points, and only pile on additional word salad in an effort to hide the errors in your description. Remember, anyone can read this thread, and those without your emotional investment on your word salad are probably wondering why you do not respond to my points about the errors in your description, especially because those points are something anyone can research and even experimentally verify for themselves.
I do lose my interest when this becomes a social game – "I don't find your arguments sophisticated enough to answer" –, so if your goal is to avoid responding to my points, I suggest you try that route; it tends to work.