Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chocolategravy" data-source="post: 6593317" data-attributes="member: 6778085">There isn't a contradiction.  You see applying physics to a magical fireball makes no sense but expecting a fire set by a spell to generate heat is not applying physics to magic, right?  In no way have I said all spells work the same.  I have said that YOU are applying things to spell that the spell doesn't specify.  No, but one would hope you'd bother reading it to understand it rather than keep going on with your preconceived notions of adding lots of things to a spell that aren't there.  It's not inconceivable light would pass through.  I've given several examples of exactly the opposite, a gem and a one-way mirror.  What you seem to find inconceivable is that a caster can make an object that ISN'T a gem or a one-way mirror.  For some reason you've read the spell such that every image is a glittering translucent gem.  But making the image translucent, when the spell does not say such, has consequences that make the spell useless.   The only light you are receiving from the spell is coming from other sources in the room.  If it does not reflect light like a normal object but instead transmits it, it will NOT look at all like a normal object for many reasons, one of which being lack of shadow.    That isn't paradoxical, it is contrary to the spell which states explicitly that it does not create light.  If it both reflects and transmits light to the proper intensity to appear to be an object it will have to create light or it will only be at half intensity.  I see perfectly well how you are misunderstanding how the spell is stated to work and how you don't appreciate the consequences of making the spell far far more complex than it needs to be.  Again, if you have the inside of the box both reflecting light in order to be seen and transmitting light through it, the only way for this not to be at half intensity would be if the box is creating light, and the spell doesn't do that.  You are saying that if you look at this box, because there is a light inside it, you can see the light.  Go and look at a lit light bulb for a second.  That is what you are saying you are seeing.  Anyone looking directly at the box will see a bright retina burning light.  In other words they aren't see a box, they're seeing light from behind the box.You're going to turn around and say no, they don't see a bright spot of light, they just see the light from the torch that isn't directly from the torch.  So what you'll really be saying is that you can't see light directly from the torch but you can see light from the torch that goes and bounces off a wall first.  So WALLS can see light directly from the torch but your eyes can't.  And... why?  Nothing about that is in the spell.  Further, light that then bounces off the walls then has what effect on the image?  None of this makes sense.  What does make sense is treating the image like an image and not some super complex sometimes translucent sometimes not light emitting but not light creating sometimes reflecting but not always ball of craziness.</blockquote>

Verification