Joe marler and White Boots

[Daftmedic]

 

[Constantine]

Colours are light frequencies, made from absorbing parts of white light and not others. In fact, magenta (the colour of my boots) doesn’t actually exist. Our eyes and brains can't see a whole bunch of colours in the spectrum between red and blue, and thus creates magenta in our occipital lobe to approximate what those colours are.

Still don't have a sexual orientation though.

 

[OB..]

I think refract is right?

refract

rɪˈfrakt/

verb

verb: refract; 3rd person present: refracts; past tense: refracted; past participle: refracted; gerund or present participle: refracting

1.
(of water, air, or glass) make (a ray of light) change direction when it enters at an angle.

"the rays of light are refracted by the material of the lens"

Reflection makes no changes to the incident light. The reflected light matches the angle of incidence and does not pass through a different medium. Refraction occurs between different media and bends the light rather than reflecting it. Colour is produced because an object absorbs some frequencies of the incident light and reflects the rest. The colour of an object can change if the incident light is itself coloured.

 

[crossref]

In fact, magenta (the colour of my boots) doesn’t actually exist. Our eyes and brains can't see a whole bunch of colours in the spectrum between red and blue, and thus creates magenta in our occipital lobe to approximate what those colours are.

.

hmm - how is that different from any other colour? there are different frequencies of light, and colour is constructed by the brain. It's an old philosopher's saw that my red could be your green and his yellow etc etc.

 

[Constantine]

I probably did get it wrong, but it's hard to think of the right physics concepts when most of your mental energy is going into not calling someone a ****head.

 

[Constantine]

hmm - how is that different from any other colour? there are different frequencies of light, and colour is constructed by the brain. It's an old philosopher's saw that my red could be your green and his yellow etc etc.

Because magenta is the only colour that does not have a light frequency.

 

[RobLev]

Because magenta is the only colour that does not have a light frequency.

If (and only if) you exclude white as a colour.

 

[crossref]

(rushes off to check wikipedia to get to the bottom of this.... click.. click... 'Ah, I see' )

A spectral color is a color that is evoked by a single wavelength of light in the visible spectrum, or by a relatively narrow band of wavelengths. Every wavelength of light is perceived as a spectral color, in a continuous spectrum; the colors of sufficiently close wavelengths are indistinguishable.



Non-spectral colors - Among some of the colors that are not spectral colors are:

Grayscale (achromatic) colors, such as white, gray, and black
Any color obtained by mixing a gray-scale color and yet another color (either spectral one or not spectral), such as pink, which is a mixture of a reddish color and white.
Purple colors, which in color theory include line of purples colors (such as, approximately, magenta and rose), and other variations of purple and variations of pink.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectral_color

 

[OB..]

If (and only if) you exclude white as a colour.

And black.

From the point of view of an artist, all these colours do exist, since the brain can perceive them. The physics of frequencies etc is irrelevant. I am sure the man on the Clapham omnibus would agree, though he might dispute some of the terms (see the earlier discussion about Cambridge Blue).

 

[Daftmedic]

And black.

From the point of view of an artist, all these colours do exist, since the brain can perceive them. The physics of frequencies etc is irrelevant. I am sure the man on the Clapham omnibus would agree, though he might dispute some of the terms (see the earlier discussion about Cambridge Blue).

I hear that's the only university of any note!

 

[didds]

hmmm... is light ENTERING the leather of a boot? Or reflecting off its surface?

light refracts THROUGH a lens because it enters one side and exists another.

light reflects OFF a mirror because it is sent in another direction when it hits the surface.

I'd maintain light hits the boot and reflected away from the surface - it doesn't enter the leather and exit the other side (eg inside the boot) at another angle.

didds

 

[RobLev]

hmmm... is light ENTERING the leather of a boot? Or reflecting off its surface?

light refracts THROUGH a lens because it enters one side and exists another.

light reflects OFF a mirror because it is sent in another direction when it hits the surface.

I'd maintain light hits the boot and reflected away from the surface - it doesn't enter the leather and exit the other side (eg inside the boot) at another angle.

didds

You'd be right.

 

[menace]

I probably did get it wrong, but it's hard to think of the right physics concepts when most of your mental energy is going into not calling someone a ****head.

That's cause you should have called him a p@@f..:biggrin::biggrin::sarc:

 

[menace]

hmmm... is light ENTERING the leather of a boot? Or reflecting off its surface?

light refracts THROUGH a lens because it enters one side and exists another.

light reflects OFF a mirror because it is sent in another direction when it hits the surface.

I'd maintain light hits the boot and reflected away from the surface - it doesn't enter the leather and exit the other side (eg inside the boot) at another angle.

didds

Yes...but I still want to know if it was fair to call him a p@@f for suggesting pink is a gay colour!
(Geez he'd hate the NZ superrugby pinkbats referees kit!)

 

[Constantine]

No, it's not. Using the word poof as an insult basically equates calling someone gay as an insult and reinforce the idea that being gay is a bad thing.

I prefer 'douche' for a not-too-sweary insult.

 

[dave_clark]

and your preference for a sweary insult?

 

[Browner]

Theoretical !
.............

If you're responding to a provoking insult, and you've been offended, then that is your mindset established.

Thereafter the language you use in response is theoretically irrelevant, you can use any retort /slur you wish, ....ie you haven't targeted the person because of his/her race or orientation or religion, you've merely responded to him/her being an arsrhole.

This makes the response 'non' racist/phobic etc ..... Because you treat all provokers with equal rebuff.

I don't discriminate, 'anyone' who targets me, gets it....irrespective of their colour creed religion or sexual orientation.

 

[crossref]

Theoretical !
.............

If you're responding to a provoking insult, and you've been offended, then that is your mindset established.

Thereafter the language you use in response is theoretically irrelevant, you can use any retort /slur you wish, ....ie you haven't targeted the person because of his/her race or orientation or religion, you've merely responded to him/her being an arsrhole.

This makes the response 'non' racist/phobic etc ..... Because you treat all provokers with equal rebuff.

I don't discriminate, 'anyone' who targets me, gets it....irrespective of their colour creed religion or sexual orientation.

and how does that approach work out for you, then?

 

[Browner]

It cultivates my non racist/phobic/religious reputation!

Constantine's 15 yo 9 should have left the field IMHO, its called 'learning' ( that his comments were unacceptable).

 

[menace]

and your preference for a sweary insult?

Ooh I hope it's c@nt??? :epper:epper::deadhorse::chair::knuppel2:

:biggrin::biggrin:

(Somehow I think I'm going to get a backhand for that..:shrug