Things your dumb friends post on facebook

Discussion in 'General Chat' started by musicguy, May 10, 2011.

  1. Neo_Version 7

    Neo_Version 7 Senior member

    Messages:
    19,625
    Likes Received:
    4,608
    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2007
    :facepalm::facepalm:
     
  2. Piobaire

    Piobaire Not left of center?

    Messages:
    50,301
    Likes Received:
    13,554
    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2006
    Location:
    In My Douchemobile
    :confused:
     
  3. Bhowie

    Bhowie Senior member

    Messages:
    13,100
    Likes Received:
    2,980
    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2008
    Location:
    Running the trap house.
    Being old must suck.
     
  4. lawyerdad

    lawyerdad Senior member

    Messages:
    21,935
    Likes Received:
    7,130
    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2006
    

    Yes need proofreader?
     
  5. Gibonius

    Gibonius Senior member

    Messages:
    11,160
    Likes Received:
    4,023
    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2009
    Location:
    Suburban Sprawl Sector 3, Maryland
    "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."
     
  6. Blackhood

    Blackhood Senior member

    Messages:
    2,904
    Likes Received:
    364
    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2010
    Location:
    Cambridge, UK
    Diamonds refract. Not reflect or shine or anything else.
     
  7. Betelgeuse

    Betelgeuse Senior member

    Messages:
    5,144
    Likes Received:
    6,357
    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2012
    Location:
    Mexico City
    There you go.
     
  8. Gibonius

    Gibonius Senior member

    Messages:
    11,160
    Likes Received:
    4,023
    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2009
    Location:
    Suburban Sprawl Sector 3, Maryland
    

    "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."
     
  9. why

    why Senior member

    Messages:
    9,735
    Likes Received:
    405
    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2007
    

    Not really, but whatever. Blackhood was still completely incorrect.

    (They disperse light because of the nature of what dispersion is).
     
  10. why

    why Senior member

    Messages:
    9,735
    Likes Received:
    405
    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2007
    

    I don't get it. This is silly and everything it says stems from something rather trivial, but why is it a 'math fail'?
     
  11. Gibonius

    Gibonius Senior member

    Messages:
    11,160
    Likes Received:
    4,023
    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2009
    Location:
    Suburban Sprawl Sector 3, Maryland
    

    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.
     
  12. HRoi

    HRoi Senior member

    Messages:
    17,801
    Likes Received:
    5,801
    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2008
    I think you guys should take your diamond argument to Facebook
     
  13. tagutcow

    tagutcow Senior member

    Messages:
    10,618
    Likes Received:
    682
    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2006
    Location:
    Greensboro NC
    

    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.
     
    Last edited: Apr 3, 2013
  14. HRoi

    HRoi Senior member

    Messages:
    17,801
    Likes Received:
    5,801
    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2008
    ...and the pi argument too
     
  15. HRoi

    HRoi Senior member

    Messages:
    17,801
    Likes Received:
    5,801
    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2008
    Unless it's about cream pi
     

Share This Page

Styleforum is proudly sponsored by