A Troubling Question

23 thoughts on “A Troubling Question”

  1. Also, your definition of bottoms is lacking/ clouded( no, not the white females lack of ass) but rather, that YOU are actually beneath the cloud.

    So in your question, you are not quite getting to the bottom of the matter:
    The thickness of stratospheric layers acting- perhaps- as a lens.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. A photograph only records. It doesn’ “emit” waves. The key is this emmission of waves.

    So, a type of photography- the x-ray, might do what you are asking. It can both see through and around things, because it emits waves.

    The key is emission of waves, whereas a camera merel records light in a one way transfer.

    Like

    1. Well, an infrared camera does, and that doesn’t see cloud bottoms (cloud porn joke in here somewhere)… Moreover, if the point of diffraction is above all clouds, what possible interference pattern could account for ALL light going to the underside of a cloud?

      Like

      1. Moreover, the non diffracted, non obstructed light…. Shouldn’t that go from the top down and not bottom up? I’m not trying to be difficult…. I really don’t get it, or the current explanations are inadequate.

        Like

      2. Yeah, I think it is the great mystery of “enlightened holes”. You can’t ever get to the bottom of it. Unless you’re married to the idea of one great mystery revealing another great mystery, each of which is designed to suck you in to a great loss of time that you will never get back.

        In which case, perhaps we can explain black holes- but likely never women, or clouds….

        But remember: your definitional phrase ” ALL light” is an unreal measure: re/diffracted light waves interact with weather conditions ( ice crystals, gasses) and available light is magnified.

        Like

  3. To clarify, diffraction is definitely occurring to some percent of the light… Yet we consistently we the bottom and not the top of clouds lit. If the point of diffraction is in the upper atmosphere, it’s above the clouds – all of them. What new linear path can light take from the upper atmosphere to hit the cloud bottom?

    Like

    1. Well, I read these before posting and found it fairly convincing until I realized that the “light bending” hypothesis falls apart in my mind taking into account our inability to take photographs of the underside of clouds.

      Light’s path is bent by water and glass too, so when we take a photograph through them, what we see is the same thing the light “sees” ( wherever the light ends up ) even if it would have not been visible under normal circumstances. It accounts for why things look wavy when shooting the ocean floor from above the surface.

      Another example is when photographers use a quartz ball so that they can exploit the light bending as an optical effect. The object bends the light consistently whether it be for sun rays or for cameras.

      Like

Tell it like it is...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s