NBA: The "4th" @ Wannabe Kobe and the Stephenaires: Game Thread

[Rogue]

Forum posting is more like creative writing than expository writing. Creative writing employs methods and usages of words so that tones aren't so easily discerned until you're familiar with the author's works. Since you're not familiar with mine, you have no idea. You haven't read enough of my writing on different subjects using different tones to be able to categorize which tone I am using. You're just being a pretentious little argumentative prick like usual.

What tone was that?

I'm more curious about things you wrote in the tone of a physicist tbh, like those scholar articles you've written. I read some physics papers during undergraduate years and most of those writers, albeit having great knowledge in their own field, sounded dumb as ...

[DMC]

I'm more curious about things you wrote in the tone of a physicist tbh, like those scholar articles you've written. I read some physics papers during undergraduate years and most of those writers, albeit having great knowledge in their own field, sounded dumb as ...

I'm not a physicist tbh but I agree, and some physical scientists are bipolar.

[DMC]

being cornered into a response like this
predictably ty Law school student who will be a sham to his profession

I dragged the poor soul from pillar to post in the Curry thread. Eventually even a cat gets tired of swatting around a dead mouse.

[Rogue]

I'm not a physicist tbh but I agree, and some physical scientists are bipolar.

Someone who's an expert in particle physics isn't a physicist? I'm confused, and disappointed tbh, I was poised to have several serious discussions with you concerning particle physics tbh

[DMC]

Someone who's an expert in particle physics isn't a physicist? I'm confused, and disappointed tbh, I was poised to have several serious discussions with you concerning particle physics tbh

I'm an engineer. We can still discuss particle physics, but my expertise is in application, not theory. I am not a Ph.D.. My degree is MSEE.

If you want to discuss particle beam lensing or partial pressures in a vacuum, I'm your guy. If you want to discuss QED, that's not my forte but I can.

[Rogue]

I'm an engineer. We can still discuss particle physics, but my expertise is in application, not theory. I am not a Ph.D.. My degree is MSEE.

If you want to discuss particle beam lensing or partial pressures in a vacuum, I'm your guy. If you want to discuss QED, that's not my forte but I can.

Thanks, here's a very simple question concerning color mixing (additive mixing). If you mix a red light beam and a green one, then the color of the new light is yellow, which's common sense, but I'm not sure if the color is the same as a pure yellow beam that's acquired by using a yellow-colored filter (or that is extracted from a beam of white light using prism)

I assume they're not the same, tbh. The color of a light is dependent on its frequency which's a const, and the white light can be regarded as a mix that consists of lights of all frequencies. So if you mix two lights (green and red, for example) the new light is in fact a mix of two pure lights. The stimulus it makes on your retina is equivalent of a pure yellow light (because our retinas are so dumb they can only recognize the equivalent frequency, or the average frequency of the lights involved) so it looks yellow in our eyes. To tell the difference, just filter it through a prism. The mixed lights would be refracted by different angles and hence would be separate again, while the pure light would remain a pure light after going through the prism.

Am I right or wrong?

[DMC]

You're asking about nonchromatic yellow vs red&green combination on the cones of the eyes. One is a fundamental wavelength that cannot be broken down (fundamental) and the other is a combination of colors that only appear to be yellow after striking the red and green cones simultaneously.

You're partly right and partly wrong. Yes they are different, one being a fundamental wavelength, the other being a perceived wavelength, however the eyes don't make that call. That happens in the brain. The eyes still detect red and green, or in the case of the fundamental yellow frequency, yellow. So think of it in terms of two sensors sending in different frequencies and the CPU using a heterodyne effect on those frequencies.

It's my belief that s produce the 570-590nm wavelength and not a combination of red and green.

[Rogue]

umm... I don't think there's any essential difference of wavelength between the colors of lights produced by s and those by whites, or those by s tbh. What makes the difference of "color" is the density of melanin under our skins imho. The more melanin there is under someone's skin, the darker he/she looks that's why some s may also look black as coal if they spend too much time in sunbathing tbh.

[Rogue]

but if a white man (the Sheamus type) exposes himself in sunlight too much, chance is he'll either get burnt or suffer skin cancer before acquiring the bronze-colored skin because whites genetically lack the ability to produce melanin, imho.