Discussion in 'General Chat' started by musicguy, May 10, 2011.
Being old must suck.
Yes need proofreader?
"Shine" isn't exactly the most technical term anyway. Correcting someone for saying a diamond "shines" is pretty dumb in and of itself. Obviously they're not actually glowing, but neither are "shiny" materials either.
1. To emit light.
2. To reflect light; glint or glisten.
So...there you go.
Also: "Shine on you crazy diamond."
Diamonds refract. Not reflect or shine or anything else.
There you go.
"Shine" is a colloquial word, so why compare it directly to technical terms? If they were writing a technical article, fine, correct them. Otherwise it's silly to correct anybody for saying that diamonds "shine", especially given the common usage of that phrase.
Also diamonds do absolutely reflect. The only reason they cause dispersion is because a well-cut diamond enables many reflections about the interior faces of the stone and thus a path length long enough to lead to significant refraction. They also reflect off the exterior faces, but only ~4% of the incident light.
Is a piece of well polished silver "shiny?" It's not actually emitting any light, it's simply reflective. But it certainly fits any reasonable colloquial definition of "shiny."
Not really, but whatever. Blackhood was still completely incorrect.
(They disperse light because of the nature of what dispersion is).
I don't get it. This is silly and everything it says stems from something rather trivial, but why is it a 'math fail'?
If you just take a chunk of diamond and shine light through it, you're not going to notice much in the way of dispersion despite the intrinsically high refractive index of diamond. You need it to bounce around in the stone and then all come out the top facet rather than leak out all over the place. There's a reason well-cut stones are so much brighter and have better dispersion than poorly cut stones.
But yes, obviously there's still some level of dispersion whenever you have any change in refractive index.
I think you guys should take your diamond argument to Facebook
It says that the decimal expansion of pi necessarily includes every possible digit combination by virtue of the fact it is an infinite, non-repeating series of digits. This is wrong, and trivially so— you can construct an infinite non-repeating sequence using only the digits 0-8, that necessarily won't include any digit sequences that contain any 9s. Pi also doesn't include any infinitely repeating rational-number decimal expansions, or else it would be rational itself.
As it happens, mathematicians seem to think the decimal expansion of pi includes all finite sequences of digits, but there's no reason simply to assume this to be the case.
...and the pi argument too
Unless it's about cream pi
Separate names with a comma.