Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Because the full spectrum of light continues on even though the object absorbs part of that wavelength.
|
Again, this is still false by definition, unless you want to redefine either wavelength, sunlight, or absorption. |
The only thing that I am redefining is that objects do not (N) reflect their wavelength so that a replica of that object is in the light. We see the object because when look at it, the non-absorbed light is revealing the object to us. |
A drunken moneky banging away at a computer keyboard randomly would make more sense than you do in the gibberish quoted.
Objects reflect their wavelenghts? Huh? WTF does that even mean, peacegirl? You think this is a claim of science?
You think science claims that a
replica of the object is in the light? No, this is not a claim of any science.
Now according to you, the object is not reflected by the light, or the light is not reflected by the object -- whatever the fuck you imagine yourself to be saying -- but also it is
not absorbed. So if it is neither reflected nor absorbed,
what the fuck happens to it? Does it simply sit there stationary at the object? If you are claiming that, then you are contradicting yourself yet again, as you have admitted that light moves continuously!
Also, if you are claiming now that the light allows us to see because it somehow clings to the object without being absorbed or reflected,
how the fuck does that permit us to see the object? HOW do we see light that has not traveled to our eyes, which appears to be your latest batshit-insane claim? What is the PHYSICAL MECHANISM for this miracle, and no, "voila, we see!" will not cut it!
She may have me on Pretend Ignore for the time being, so if anyone is interested in copying this for her perusal, feel free.