Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
4. At any given time, for the light which is then present at the film and interacting with it, was that light previously anywhere else, or was that same light always at the film, or did it just spontaneously come into existence there?
|
Yes, that light was previously traveling along the day it was emitted from the Sun. |
Okay, so at any point in time, the light present at the film (whose wavelength interacts with the film to determine the color of the resulting photographic image) is light which has travelled to get there.
Has that light travelled from the sun to the camera by way of the object being photographed, or did it just travel straight from the sun to the camera while bypassing the object completely (i.e. without ever travelling from the object to the camera)? |
The light from the sun is at the camera if it's daylight because the stream of photons are everywhere. It doesn't go from the object to the camera. If it's not daylight, then the light must be surrounding the object, not the camera, for a picture to be taken or for us to see the object with our eyes. |
So if the light arrived directly from the sun, rather than arriving via the object (our newly-blue ball) being photographed, then why is that light of blue wavelength only, rather than a combination of all wavelengths like regular sunlight? |
Spacemonkey, please think carefully about this because there is a logical explanation but only if you will allow yourself to see it. The object is capable of absorbing the wavelength [coming from the light] as we see the object in real time. We are able see the wavelength that is remaining and the only reason we didn't come to this conclusion is because we believed that the eyes were a sense organ. There is nothing being reflected. It is true that light travels at a finite speed, but it doesn't take every wavelength that it crosses with it. Light interacts with objects, but it is the property of light that we see, not the property of the object. The object is not capable of reflecting anything. All it does is absorbs certain wavelengths so we are able to see the object. |
We're talking about cameras here, Peacegirl, not vision. And you've said that the light at the film (whose wavelength determines the color of the resulting image) is light which has come from the Sun directly without ever arriving by way of the object. So absorption of other wavelengths cannot explain why that light at the film is only blue light. That only makes sense if the light at the film has come from the object which absorbed the non-blue light. And you just denied that this is where that light came from.
So try again.
You've said that the wavelength of the light at the film will determine the color of the resulting photographic image. You've said that this light arrived at the camera, but never travelled from the object to the camera. So...
1. Why is that light only light of blue wavelength?
2. Was it also still light of only blue wavelength just before it arrived?
(Remember, I'm asking you about cameras, not vision. Cameras, not vision.)