And we have established that you do not even understand basic math. Open your mind, learn math and science, and you will likely be taken more seriously.
The conference hall debate!
- Thread starter theorist-constant12345
- Start date
- Status
I know science can predict the angle of light needed for a rainbow , but how does it predict where the raindrops will be?
''It is a mix of frequencies between 400 and 800 nanometers.''
And what is the frequency value of the mix has an whole?
Yeah and claiming it has something to do with the topic,
Yeah I remember you "used to be a poker player".
It was arguing about poker where you showed that you DON'T understand "variance and variants".
Pure gibberish.
Gibberish again.
And THAT explains why you don't know - because you're not "in science".
That's irrelevant.
How is that irrelevant?
You are saying you can predict a rainbow , you must be able to predict where the raindrops will fall and angle of fall etc?
It does not predict where they are, nor does it need to.
It has several such frequencies. It has an average frequency, an average energy at one frquency, a peak frequency, and a peak energy at a specific frequency. Which would you like to know, and what light source are you asking about?
No.
Not required.
I just googled it (wondering why TC didn't.)
I didn't read it, it is someones blog.
http://www.trishock.com/academic/rainbows.shtml
(I did only mention rainbows with calculus cause it has to do with light, but I didn't expect such a strong and telling reaction.)
I didn't read it, it is someones blog.
http://www.trishock.com/academic/rainbows.shtml
(I did only mention rainbows with calculus cause it has to do with light, but I didn't expect such a strong and telling reaction.)
Last edited:
Yes; passive, pressure, and radiation are all real terms. The problem is that you use those terms and others in a completely incoherent form. The sentence conveys no actual meaning!
You can report what ever you want. If the moderators go to the post in question they will come to the same conclusion: "Nobody could possible think that sentence makes any sense at all."
Shut this shit down, please mods. Either he's trolling or mindblowingly delusional.
So you are saying you cannot see after sundown? That would (possibly) indicate that you suffer from either a Vitamin A deficiency and/or a condition known as Night Blindness. I am capable of seeing perfectly well after dark, even on mostly overcast nights.
We ARE seeing the colors in white light... white light is all the colors combined. When you see an object (such as a blue car), you see that blue color because the car "absorbs" the Red, Orange, Yellow, Green, Indigo, and Violet wavelengths, reflecting the Blue wavelength. Thus, you see blue.
HOWEVER
Take an object that is red, and I mean a nice solid red. Now, hold that object under a blue light (preferably without other sources of light present)
What color do you see?
You will see black.
The reason for this is that the blue light has no red wavelength, so the red paint cannot reflect it.
You have to recall, there are two different "whites":
White, when referring to paints, dyes, etc, is actually made with a slightly blue tint to it (old bakers trick - add a tiny bit of blue dye to white icing to make it really pop - it actually makes it whiter)
White, when referring to light, is the mixture of all the wavelengths of light in equal measure being reflected from an object.
Black, when referring to paints/dyes, is shown when an object ABSORBS all the spectrum of light.
This is why a black object (such as asphalt or a black car) heats up MUCH faster under the sun than, say, a white object.
I presume you refer to the lightning bolt? You ARE aware that the reason it appears solid is:
A) Lightning has supercharged/superheated the air enough to ionize it, creating plasma (the 4th state of matter) - it is NOT just light
B) The light emitted by the lightning is SO bright that it dazzles the photoreceptors in the eye, making you incapable of seeing anything directly behind it (much the same as when you try to look at, say, the sun... please, don't do that for any length of time)
The problem is... you ARE NOT talking good physics... you aren't talking "physics" at all. You are talking stone-age style observation of an entirely unfamiliar phenomenon as though we, as a society, had no knowledge of it.
Technically speaking, there is no forum rules against being "incomprehensibly ignorant" of a subject
*sigh*
Trust me... I know the feeling. I work in IT... you wouldn't believe some of the questions I've had posed to me by my managers on why we can't do things a certain way... makes me want to put my head thru a wall!
This is the most attention I've given to the pseudo section anyway.
I usually just ignore it.
I usually just ignore it.
Surely there's got to be something about remaining incomprehensibly ignorant after correction?
And persisting in posting incomprehensible ignorance?
Only to the point that it is discernible that the user in question is not in fact ignorant, but simply trolling...
In my opinion, we passed that point about ten pages ago... but I'm leaving this one up to James
Probably the best option...
We could all "shut this shit down" by simply not replying. Since we continue to reply, we must feel some value in doing so. (I find him sort of amusing myself, and the thread is undoubtedly in the correct area.)
- Status