Click to expand
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#2

noobiereaper (07/08/2013) []
Too bad its wrong. The change in color or whiteness in your hair and clothes come from the change from air and small fibers that is present in the dry state. When you wet something, the water binds the small fibers and other strands of fabric within a "water bubble" and thus concentrates the color since it is much more tightly packed / concentrated.
The whitening effect comes from the small fibres and fabrics scatter light and make it appear whiter. It works in the same way clouds scatter light and appear white when the water is in fact, colorless. And if you "wet" / condensate the water, it will be transparant.
I have probably ****** up with my lanuage, but you guy get the point.
The whitening effect comes from the small fibres and fabrics scatter light and make it appear whiter. It works in the same way clouds scatter light and appear white when the water is in fact, colorless. And if you "wet" / condensate the water, it will be transparant.
I have probably ****** up with my lanuage, but you guy get the point.
#3 to #2

noobiereaper (07/08/2013) []
The fail stands in the density part, the density does not increase for the hair itself, but the water aact as a binder to pack all fibres.
And it is not that less light may shine through it, but rather that the scattering effect of the small fibres is greatly reduced.
It works with any liquid binder, not just water. Even yellow oil for example.
And it is not that less light may shine through it, but rather that the scattering effect of the small fibres is greatly reduced.
It works with any liquid binder, not just water. Even yellow oil for example.
#5 to #3

gomugomuno (07/09/2013) []
density is kg/m^3 so if the hair fibres are closer together you can get more hair into that m^3 so the density does increase
#32 to #5

noobiereaper (07/09/2013) []
no, you are calculating the density with the air inbetween...
#12

ImmortalBaconEater (07/09/2013) []
My hair gets lighter when its wet. Just realized that's weird. Does this mean I'm the Antichrist?
#74 to #31

funkyrednipples (07/10/2013) [] Yeah it's from one of my friends blog, Funny stuff there with out the "annoying last comment" I'll try posting more from it.
#57

orichic (07/09/2013) []
Assume that leap years begin in year 0 (they don’t, but it’s a good benchmark)
2001 is the year Half Life came out for PlayStation.
495 leap years since year 0 (not including 0) (2001/4 = 500 R1 (drop R); 2000/400 = 5, 500 5 = 495) (every four hundred years a leap year is not counted)
4 + 9 + 5 = 18
Make it a complex trinomial (3 terms; see where I’m going with this?), drop 18 for now so the discriminant formula can be used easily
4x^2 + 9x +5 = 0
Using the discriminant formula : b^2 – 4ac
9^2 – 4(4)(5)
81 – 80 = 1
D > 0 Therefore there are two real roots
Using the quadratic formula:
X = 1.25, x = 1
SUM OF ROOTS: 2.25
2.25 x 1 (root) = 2.25
Bring back 18 from 4 + 9 + 5
18 / 2.25 = 8
5 leap years knocked off (400, 800, 1200, 1600, 2000; remember 0 is not counted)
8 – 5 is 3.
Half Life 3 Confirmed.
2001 is the year Half Life came out for PlayStation.
495 leap years since year 0 (not including 0) (2001/4 = 500 R1 (drop R); 2000/400 = 5, 500 5 = 495) (every four hundred years a leap year is not counted)
4 + 9 + 5 = 18
Make it a complex trinomial (3 terms; see where I’m going with this?), drop 18 for now so the discriminant formula can be used easily
4x^2 + 9x +5 = 0
Using the discriminant formula : b^2 – 4ac
9^2 – 4(4)(5)
81 – 80 = 1
D > 0 Therefore there are two real roots
Using the quadratic formula:
X = 1.25, x = 1
SUM OF ROOTS: 2.25
2.25 x 1 (root) = 2.25
Bring back 18 from 4 + 9 + 5
18 / 2.25 = 8
5 leap years knocked off (400, 800, 1200, 1600, 2000; remember 0 is not counted)
8 – 5 is 3.
Half Life 3 Confirmed.
#72 to #57

anonymous (07/09/2013) []
That's just pulling random numbers out of your ass man.
Gregorian leap day calendar was first used in 1582, meaning we have had 132.75 leap years in the past 531 years, and to account for slight differences between astronomical and calendar years 3 leap days are omitted every 400 years, this means that in total we have had 129.73 leap days in total not 495.
You also can't just discard remainders and roots from the equation and keep them for later use.
Even assuming you got everything right down to the 85 is 3, the completely butchered leap year equation means that 8  3.0229 = 4.9771
Half Life 4.9771 Confirmed?
But why do I care I know this is just copypasta anyway
Gregorian leap day calendar was first used in 1582, meaning we have had 132.75 leap years in the past 531 years, and to account for slight differences between astronomical and calendar years 3 leap days are omitted every 400 years, this means that in total we have had 129.73 leap days in total not 495.
You also can't just discard remainders and roots from the equation and keep them for later use.
Even assuming you got everything right down to the 85 is 3, the completely butchered leap year equation means that 8  3.0229 = 4.9771
Half Life 4.9771 Confirmed?
But why do I care I know this is just copypasta anyway
#23

anonymous (07/09/2013) []
When light strikes an object, some of it penetrates the object, and some of it is reflected and reaches your eye. When an object is wet, more light penetrates the object, so less light is reflected. As a result, less light reaches your eye and so the wet object looks darker.
#11

danruaul (07/09/2013) []
I propose a different explanation.
Instead of "shine through", the light reflects.
Since water reflects light, the light is reflected by the water on the hair.
It is therefore reflected before it reached the hair.
Less light reaches the hair, therefore less reflects from the hair.
The color of hair is light reflected by the hair.
It is less, therefore not as bright.
Instead of "shine through", the light reflects.
Since water reflects light, the light is reflected by the water on the hair.
It is therefore reflected before it reached the hair.
Less light reaches the hair, therefore less reflects from the hair.
The color of hair is light reflected by the hair.
It is less, therefore not as bright.
#65

cheesewithmold (07/09/2013) []
The light still shines through when your hair is wet, it's just that it doesn't bounce back.
#19

chaossniper (07/09/2013) []
not completly false, thing is when hair gets wet the scales on the hair rise which make the hair less round and the light is reflected randomly
plus there are more neps and the hair is less straight so each hair will reflect light in a different manner
plus there are more neps and the hair is less straight so each hair will reflect light in a different manner