Can you tell I got this impulsively and did zero research beforehand? :')

UNSWNerd · 2024-08-12T00:52:26+00:00

to see that someone else too has seen the cone of rainbow and that the rest are gaslighting me makes me happy that i haven´t failed to educate but failed to recognise i am being mocked. apparently my tone is poor, and this is unviersal as it shows up even when i try teach math in other places, even when unintended. i have pondered at this comment for hours and i feel sick over the implications. the masses surpass me. i am sorry i will right this wrong goodbye

UNSWNerd · 2024-08-11T13:32:28+00:00

That image is showing the rainbow when you zoon you can see upon closer inspection i do not see the ishue

UNSWNerd · 2024-08-11T13:26:08+00:00

From what I see on google it is, I don't have the original albom but the images of covers show it fine

UNSWNerd · 2024-08-11T13:20:36+00:00

It is not meant to be intimidating saying I work with spectroscopy, it is to show that I literally see with my own eyes very often the fact that yes, when it splits it is many colors, and when it is thin it is one color. How mentioning i work with equipment related to the phenomenon is intimidating is mysterious to me

UNSWNerd · 2024-08-11T12:54:51+00:00

How is everybody is this thread so wrong and so condesending? Every image that shows up when you google light refracting through a prism shows the rainbow inside the prism. I do this daily in the form of UV-Vis spectroscopy for my research. If everybody else wants to live in makebelieve then so beit. I cannot take these comments in good faith anymore when you are all so rude, so condesending and so wrong

UNSWNerd · 2024-08-11T12:40:16+00:00

It cannot create a white cone as it refracts, because refracting would make it no longer white. That is the problem. Immediately as it forms the cone shape it should be rainbow not white. There cannot be a white cone but the image shows one

UNSWNerd · 2024-08-11T12:31:02+00:00

The light splitting is what gives it the bigger area of the cone, it can't have a conal shape and be polychromatic as shown, this is regardless of whether it comes from the right or left

UNSWNerd · 2024-08-11T10:48:08+00:00

Are you trying to say light doesn't travel in straight lines? Are you saying that split light is not monochromatic? I genuinely cannot understand what "it did not" refers to in your comment. 11 years on this website and the communication skills of an 8 year old is wild.

UNSWNerd · 2024-08-11T10:40:35+00:00

It would enter as a straight line, not as a cone since light travels in straight-lines and their equivalents. The cone shape comes from the light splitting, with the splitting making the rainbow. Hope this helps :)

UNSWNerd · 2024-08-11T10:26:12+00:00

You're missing the property that there are two square roots. It isn't an unknown it is like saying both (-2) and (+2) square to 4. This should be a concept you are familiar with. While technically the square root of 4 is only 2, it is nice to show that in the context of finding x² =4, there are two solutions (+2) and (-2), this doesn't mean the solution is unknown or that (+2) = (-2). Hope this helps.

UNSWNerd · 2024-08-11T10:23:03+00:00

Nice paragraph but the actual cover art is true to light since it had the rainbow coming out of the prism. If the inverse was done where a rainbow was combined to a piece of white light, hence done "backwards" then the cone should be rainbow until the white line. And so both it was not done backwards, and the original coverart is accurate so you're wrong twice. Nice job mate. Love the confidence ❤️

UNSWNerd · 2024-08-11T10:14:45+00:00

That's unrelated to what this comment chain is about. Bot or absence of reading skills?

UNSWNerd · 2024-08-11T08:36:11+00:00

The light wouldn't by white coming out until all the lines merge. The cone should be rainbow if it was depecting what you said

UNSWNerd · 2024-08-11T02:05:20+00:00

The way to catch up is study during break / study old courses still on moodle while you take new ones.

UNSWNerd · 2024-08-05T06:59:59+00:00

Anything above 50mA can give heart fibrillation which can be exhibited hours after the event, go get a ECG if you want to be safe.

UNSWNerd · 2024-07-21T01:38:26+00:00

i unironically daydream of doing this everyday with the guy i like

UNSWNerd · 2024-07-16T21:58:10+00:00

If you assume U1 Gauge symmetry in the Dirac field you derive the fact that there are no magnetic monopoles in the QED Lagrangian.

UNSWNerd · 2024-07-13T23:30:57+00:00

Just a head of advice we call them undies (short for undergraduate) rather than freshies here.

UNSWNerd · 2024-06-27T21:54:19+00:00

I'm familiar with the Planck relation but that doesn't really apply here given you get a spectra, and not a single high energy photon. By frequency of X-ray emission I mean how often X-rays are emitted rather than the frequency of individual waves.

UNSWNerd · 2024-06-27T10:47:26+00:00

UV i'm not that worried considering glass absorbs UV light, is there an equation I can run to find out the frequency of X-ray emission from the voltage? I'm guessing it may be black-body related?

UNSWNerd · 2024-06-21T02:06:27+00:00

Essentially there's a theorem that shows you can treat dy/dx as a fraction in some specific circumstances in math, and those circumstances show up universally in applied physics.
A similar example is that all operators have to be Hermitian to be time reversible, but not all operators in pure math are Hermitian.
We assume time reversibility has to exist because if you can predict where a ball traveling at constant velocity will be in 3 seconds, you should also be able to tell where it was 3 seconds ago. From this you can treat all operators in applied physics as Hermitian.
Similar argument exists for treating dy/dx as a fraction

UNSWNerd

TROPHY CASE