View Single Post
  #4702  
Old 01-12-2012, 08:05 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDLXXX
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
The point of reflection is just the surface of the lake, and there is no convergence of photons there. With a concave reflective surface you get a focal or image point in front of that surface. But a lake is not concave. With a flat surface the travelling light from a given point on the object does not converge but instead diverges when reflected. So you get a virtual image point under the lake's surface. But nothing is actually there but water. There is no convergence of photons there either. It is just a visual illusion, just like how when you look in a mirror it seems as if there is an image of you behind the surface. But if you actually look behind the mirror there's nothing really there.

Do you realize that this is primary school level optics that we are having to explain to you? The kind taught to and understood by young children?
Fair enough. Then I'll explain it in a different way based on primary school level optics. :laugh: It's as simple as this. Nothing from the object is being reflected. We are able to see the image on the water because each photon from the object directly correlates with the virtual image on the water. But it is there instantly because of the fact that objects don't reflect light. All they do is absorb light in order that we can look out, through the eyes, to see that which is in our visual range in real time.
If I hadn't read further through the thread, I wouldn't have known you had reverted to speaking here of (P)reflection rather than (N)reflection. (The latter just is light bouncing off objects, which you later admit happens but try to distinguish from 'reflection'.) And none of your above post explains what you were trying to do with your 'image point' diversion.
There is a distinction between light from the Sun bouncing off of objects and non-absorbed light being reflected from objects. Objects do not reflect non-absorbed light. The ability of objects to absorb light allows us to see them, but that does not mean the wavelengths that are not absorbed are being reflected.

The image point in a mirror image is identifiable, but first I need to explain why the photons on the retina/film is a mirror image. Our eyes do not receive images in delayed time which is the present scientific explanation.
Reply With Quote
 
Page generated in 0.32191 seconds with 10 queries