Why MT doesn't believe in this.

[Duel of Fates]

Right, what light it gives off. Emitting light is not the same as reflecting light. When you look at a white object, the light reflected off of it contains all the wavelengths not absorbed by the object. So what you are seeing is pretty much all the colors (wavelengths) of the original light source. The converse is true with a black object. The light is absorbed to such an extent that you will see no colors. Ever notice if you have two objects sitting out in the sun, one white and one black, the black one is hotter than the white one.

I know it seems kind of assbackwards. But it's true.

[Darth Crater]

Right, what light it gives off. Emitting light is not the same as reflecting light. When you look at a white object, the light reflected off of it contains all the wavelengths not absorbed by the object. So what you are seeing is pretty much all the colors (wavelengths) of the original light source. The converse is true with a black object. The light is absorbed to such an extent that you will see no colors. Ever notice if you have two objects sitting out in the sun, one white and one black, the black one is hotter than the white one.

I know it seems kind of assbackwards. But it's true.

Everything you've said above is true. I already knew before this discussion that all of that was true. As you say, the light given off by leaves is green, which means it didn't absorb the green (the exact opposite of what you said in your first post, which was that "If plants are green, that wavelength is absorbed the most"). What I was trying to work out was, why does it specifically not absorb green, especially when that's pretty much the sun's peak output?

[Duel of Fates]

You missed it. It absorbs the green wavelength. All the other wavelengths are reflected,(not emitted). What you perceive as green, is really all other wavelengths hitting your eyes.

[Darth Crater]

I'm sorry, but could you link me to a scientific source stating that? The system you describe (identifying colors as the absence of that color) makes no sense whatsoever. We call things green because they give off green light. If all the green was being absorbed, our eyes would perceive a magenta-ish color, and we wouldn't call what we saw "green". By your system, since white is a mixture of all colors, things we perceived as white would be those that absorbed all colors (something we call "black"). None of this is even taking me any closer to understanding the original problem; does anyone else have any input?

(Also, I was using "gives off" as a general term; it encompasses both reflected and emitted light, and obviously only the former applies to the plants in question)

[Mandalore]

That's a good question....perhaps the plant organ system is incapable of absorbing the amount given off, much like our cells will burst when over-saturated with water. Perhaps the plants do not have a filtering system that can let in partial amounts.

[(SWGO)Minas_Thirith]

1. Nothing popped out of nowhere, if you read the bible your bound to find a couple of times(example Deuteronomy 33:27) "god is eternal"
Definition of eternal: Being without beginning or end, the only other thing i could name eternal is time.

MT

MT everything has a beginning, nothing is eternal, it is beyond that of the human brain to visualize what happened before the universe was created so i believe that there was no big bang, because something must have created it, there was no god to create everything, and if you think god created life, what created god? I do however believe in evolution, which is a series of mutations over millions of years, there is proof today of these mutations, like people being born with extra fingers or toes etc... Over a long period of time these mutations could create something that doesn't look anything like a human. Anyway this is just my opinion and your free to believe what you think.[/quote]

Then tell me, when did time start? does time has a beginning? or an end? in my opinion time has alwayes been, and will alwayes be, time is eternal and your argument would be invalid.

BTW 40 pages nice going....hmmmm i think we need a "hall of fame" for certain threads

MT

[(SWGO)SirPepsi]

@Darth Crater and @DuelofFates:

Try this website; it might help to clear some of this stuff up. http://learn.colorotate.org/how-do-we-perceive-color.html

[Duel of Fates]

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hb ... igabs.html
Sorry about the mixup, here is the website I was trying to show you.

[Darth Crater]

That's probably the best explanation I've come across so far (that it's a byproduct of the plants being descended from aquatic life). I'm still not entirely convinced that other colors wouldn't have some sort of advantage, but I might be able to understand that by looking further into how photosynthesis actually uses the light.

Thanks for the link, Pepsi, though I'm not sure how accurate that is since it's not by or citing any scientific source.

[Col. Hstar]

Some threads won't die I guess. I've been gone 4 weeks and this one is still going strong.