 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 16 May 2003 08:57:32 -0400, Warp wrote:
> simian <sim### [at] localhost localdomain> wrote:
>> Observable and invisible are different things.
>
> Right. They are opposite things.
>
>> The hot air over a road is invisible but observable by the turbulent
>> distortion.
>
> It can't be invisible if it's observable. :)
Assume wise expression and far away look.
Can you see the wind, Grasshopper?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
simian wrote:
> Assume wise expression and far away look.
> Can you see the wind, Grasshopper?
Trees moving back and forth makes the wind blow.
--
Tim Cook
http://home.bellsouth.net/p/PWP-empyrean
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GFA dpu- s: a?-- C++(++++) U P? L E--- W++(+++)>$
N++ o? K- w(+) O? M-(--) V? PS+(+++) PE(--) Y(--)
PGP-(--) t* 5++>+++++ X+ R* tv+ b++(+++) DI
D++(---) G(++) e*>++ h+ !r--- !y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <9l1acvo9rnd6u8ci0pehb6qv6pvguudkla@4ax.com>,
Peter Popov <pet### [at] vipbg> wrote:
> It's just that the nitrogen molecule scatters blue. Dust can be of any
> color, making up for some gorgeous sunsets after a sandstorm (we had
> some last month when a heat wave from North Sahara hit us.)
Well, dust can be of any colored substance, but particles of the size
that will stay in the atmosphere for any significant amount of time are
small enough that they scatter blue wavelengths more. Similar to the
reasons shorter wavelengths are used for higher magnification microscopy.
Try pouring a little milk into a glass of water and shine a flashlight
through it...depending on the angle you observe it at, the scattered
beam will appear blue or orange.
--
Christopher James Huff <cja### [at] earthlinknet>
http://home.earthlink.net/~cjameshuff/
POV-Ray TAG: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg
http://tag.povray.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 16 May 2003 21:39:44 -0400, Tim Cook wrote:
> simian wrote:
>> Assume wise expression and far away look. Can you see the wind,
>> Grasshopper?
>
> Trees moving back and forth makes the wind blow.
Is the rippling grass to be ignored because we trample it underfoot?
Are the clouds to be forgotten because we cannot reach them?
Is the man off stage with the big fan to be given no credit?
You have only answers, Grasshopper, should you not be asking questions?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 16 May 2003 08:57:32 -0400, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>
> It can't be invisible if it's observable. :)
>
You can observe something without seeing it. The meaning of "observe" is not
the same as the meaning of visible.
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"sascha" <sas### [at] userssourceforgenet> wrote in message
news:3eba479a@news.povray.org...
> At school a teacher told us that reflection is caused if the surface is
> electroconductive
Interesting anyway. Seems this discussion is including refraction as being a
part of reflection, then I happened to think about how shallow angles cause
more reflection (Fresnel) and so could easily be thought of as a refractive
effect instead of purely a reflective one. That being to do with air or an
atmospheric effect anyhow. I don't know if this holds true for solid objects
and absolute voids (vacuum of space) or not. Never learned enough from
physics, myself, to know.
But going by what you said there, glancing lightwaves could be electrically
different than ones bouncing directly off of a surface.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
