I just couldn't write tonight. So here are three photos all about light and shade.
I love how the rainbow divides the two shades of grey. I never noticed that before. My husband tells me it is probably to do with the way the particles of water bend the light. These scientific phenomena move easily between the magic and the mundane.
The shadows on the play equipment, mixed so beautifully in with the graffiti, just begged to be caught on camera. I am sure a more experienced photographer who perhaps didn't have a dog dragging on a leash, might have found a more mysterious angle.
And the last... that patterned light-splash on a trunk. Ephemeral and dancing until captured in digital memory in such defined parameters. The drive to capture beauty is frustrating but also interesting. What does my phone's robotic eye see?
Just light and shadow (like any artist) and the way the two form an image depicting three dimensions when diligently reproduced. Fascinating.
Knowing how a rainbow works makes it more magical, not less, because it adds layers of wonder and appreciation, without taking any away. Scientists see the pretty colours just like you do, but they also see an example of dispersion, evidence of the wave nature of light – it’s flight as a pair of twining, inter-supporting fields, caught for the tiniest instant in a water drop that slows and untwists the colours, and sends them back to your eye – where you take them as photons – particles, all or nothing – flicking a molecule’s shape to trigger a release of transmitter…
When a well-read person reads a new book they see layers of meaning – links to other books, references to many sources, they recognise clichés and standard plots. Being well-read helps you appreciate each new book you pick up as it adds to your knowledge.
Literacy of all sorts should be prized.
I am sorry you feel silly. I think anotherkatewilson’s explanation of the science is so beautiful. Not everybody can reveal science so eloquently and poetically. I hope you can see the comment like that too.
I think there are three people involved in this. There is my comment about scientific phenomena “moving easily between the magic and the mundane”. I was very tired when I wrote that and I can’t honestly say what I was thinking. But I respect science and I also hold onto some childhood magic like the idea that there might be ghosts (something my husband absolutely discounts). But I can see how my post might be read as a disgruntlement with science and I regret that. Then there was your response. Reading it now, I think maybe I can see how you could love science but still write that. But when I first read it, I was deeply shocked that I had elicited that response. Especially the last line about a law against facts. You put a smiley face which perhaps indicated that it was in jest but I really wasn’t sure. So then I read anotherkatewilson’s response and to me it was a kind of mini essay on a topic she is deeply passionate about. I’m not sure that I see it as scolding you. What I’m trying to say is… written text is so tricky in the getting across of true meaning and mood. My original writing was ambiguous in its meaning. And two of us misread the intention of your response. I can’t speak for anotherkatewilson to say whether she intended to rebuke you. But I read it as somebody who knew about rainbows and felt compelled to reveal another kind of beauty in them that WAS based in science, not just in appearance. So I want to claim at least part of the blame for you feeling silly and apologize for my ambiguous post.
Out of the Cave 
I’ve never seen the sky cut into two shades of blue by a rainbow like that before before either……
I’m also falling asleep and having trouble writing – I’m told i had too much to drink at dinner …yawn
LikeLiked by 1 person
I love how the scientific chatter always seems to ruin the magic of the moment. 😦
And once you hear the chat, you can’t undo it. ;(
Should be a law against facts. 🙂
LikeLiked by 3 people
Oh dear. That sounds scary. 😳🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Got me thinking
LikeLiked by 1 person
Knowing how a rainbow works makes it more magical, not less, because it adds layers of wonder and appreciation, without taking any away. Scientists see the pretty colours just like you do, but they also see an example of dispersion, evidence of the wave nature of light – it’s flight as a pair of twining, inter-supporting fields, caught for the tiniest instant in a water drop that slows and untwists the colours, and sends them back to your eye – where you take them as photons – particles, all or nothing – flicking a molecule’s shape to trigger a release of transmitter…
When a well-read person reads a new book they see layers of meaning – links to other books, references to many sources, they recognise clichés and standard plots. Being well-read helps you appreciate each new book you pick up as it adds to your knowledge.
Literacy of all sorts should be prized.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Will crawl back into my silliness cave.
LikeLike
I am sorry you feel silly. I think anotherkatewilson’s explanation of the science is so beautiful. Not everybody can reveal science so eloquently and poetically. I hope you can see the comment like that too.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I love science.
Not everybody can read my comment as anything else. Perhaps the commenter should have come to my blog before scolding me.
LikeLike
What a wonderful explanation! Thank you. That is science as poetry. 👍👍👍👍👍
LikeLiked by 2 people
My husband just said that was the best writing he has ever heard. 🙂
LikeLike
I think there are three people involved in this. There is my comment about scientific phenomena “moving easily between the magic and the mundane”. I was very tired when I wrote that and I can’t honestly say what I was thinking. But I respect science and I also hold onto some childhood magic like the idea that there might be ghosts (something my husband absolutely discounts). But I can see how my post might be read as a disgruntlement with science and I regret that. Then there was your response. Reading it now, I think maybe I can see how you could love science but still write that. But when I first read it, I was deeply shocked that I had elicited that response. Especially the last line about a law against facts. You put a smiley face which perhaps indicated that it was in jest but I really wasn’t sure. So then I read anotherkatewilson’s response and to me it was a kind of mini essay on a topic she is deeply passionate about. I’m not sure that I see it as scolding you. What I’m trying to say is… written text is so tricky in the getting across of true meaning and mood. My original writing was ambiguous in its meaning. And two of us misread the intention of your response. I can’t speak for anotherkatewilson to say whether she intended to rebuke you. But I read it as somebody who knew about rainbows and felt compelled to reveal another kind of beauty in them that WAS based in science, not just in appearance. So I want to claim at least part of the blame for you feeling silly and apologize for my ambiguous post.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You know what they say about a picture and thousands of words!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes. 3000 in three clicks! What a night!
LikeLike
😂
LikeLiked by 1 person
the praying mantis is a knock-out one for me —
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks. It’s on a clothes peg. So very small. But super cute.
LikeLiked by 1 person