In my opinion we can see an object by the light reflecting from the object. But If the light is under the specises, I think, it passes through the object and we cannot see the light reflecting from the object. so we can't see the object but see just the light itself.
What's wrong in my thoughts?
2007-09-09 18:49:40 · 4 answers · asked by Anonymous in Science & Mathematics ➔ Physics
As the light passes through an object (permitting it is transparent enough), some will be absorbed, and some will be transmitted. The transmitted light will enter the ocular, then our eyes giving us a nice, well lit image of what we wanted to see. Other microscopes, such as a dissecting scope, have their lightsources on top.
2007-09-09 18:54:22 · answer #1 · answered by Phillip R 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You're hung up on semantics. Seeing just means an image forms on the retina. All seeing is seeing "just the light itself", reflected or otherwise. By your narrow definition, the doctor can't see your X-ray when he puts the negative up on the light chart. And, no one has ever really seen a movie in the theaters. It's all just a back-lighting trick. I want my money back!
2007-09-10 16:10:43 · answer #2 · answered by Dr. R 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
When the light is under it, we can see the light which is transmitted, but not absorbed. So we can "see the object", since different sections of it absorb some light, and transmit some.
2007-09-09 18:54:40 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yep You're wrong.
The light is under translucent objects. For opaque objects (like mineral samples ) the light is from the top.
2007-09-09 18:56:50 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋