On 23-11-2017 0:34, Kenneth wrote:
> "Kenneth" <kdw### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
>>> On 9-11-2017 13:46, clipka wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Uh... and what exactly would "not cast shadows" do, if not make the
>>>> object "transparent to the light [directly from light sources]"?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Well, my thoughts did not go into that direction to tell the truth. Just
>>> no shadows, without implications.
>>>
>>
>> I'm actually with Thomas on this one-- and not just to be argumentative ;-)
>>
>> In its strictest sense, no_shadow implies only what it says (IMO), [blah,blah]
> 
> Well, a lightbulb finally went off in my brain, so please forget my silly
> argument.
> 
> If the wall object (with no_shadow) casts no shadow from a light, then what is
> supposed to fill that no-longer-existing 'shadow area'? The light, of course.
> Otherwise, there would be an illogical 'void' in that area, filled with...
> what??  ;-)
> 
> Duh. It took me 'only' ten days to realize this... :-[
> 

LOL
I am still pondering the issue; higher dimension bypasses. :-)

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message