Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
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.) |
In addition to this, why
isn't there light at the camera which has arrived from the object?
If the camera is pointed at the object, and there is a constant stream of photons hitting the object and bouncing off in all directions, why isn't any of that light arriving at the camera?
Why isn't the light at the film (whose wavelength is determining the color of the resulting photographic image) light which previously bounced off the surface of the object in order to later arrive at the camera?
If there
is light from the object present, in addition to the light whose wavelength will affect the film (light which you say never came from the object), then why is only the latter light (not from the object) and not the former light (from the object) capable of affecting the film?