invisible reflection?

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

My invisible monk wearing an amulet of reflection was zapped by a wand. The
beam bounced off him because of the amulet! How can something reflect if
one can not perceive the reflected surface?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

Haakon Studebaker wrote:

> My invisible monk wearing an amulet of reflection was zapped by a
> wand. The beam bounced off him because of the amulet! How can something
> reflect if one can not perceive the reflected surface?

That depends on how invisibility and reflection "work". This may or may
not be relevant, but ultraviolet and infrared light can reflect off
objects, and you cannot see light in these wavelengths. For example, it's
certainly possible, at least in theory, to have a surface that transmits
light in the visible spectrum and is therefore invisible (at least, if it
has an index of refraction the same as the air around it), but that
reflects ultraviolet or infrared light.

--
Benjamin Lewis

Although the moon is smaller than the earth, it is farther away.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

In article <Xns9653B5D0374B1heptapodyahoocom@216.196.97.131>,
Haakon Studebaker <heptapod@gmail.com> wrote:

> My invisible monk wearing an amulet of reflection was zapped by a wand. The
> beam bounced off him because of the amulet! How can something reflect if
> one can not perceive the reflected surface?

I'd say this is "reflection" in magical (pseudo-physical) sense rather
than optical. An amulet of boing just sounds silly.

--
There's nothing quite like the joy of first hearing an Alvin & the Chipmunks
cover of Pink Floyd's "The Final Cut." "Not Now John" is especially sublime.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

chuck wrote:

> Benjamin Lewis <bclewis@cs.sfu.ca> wrote in
> news:yy7o7ji5jo9c.fsf@css.css.sfu.ca:
>
>> Haakon Studebaker wrote:
>>
>>> My invisible monk wearing an amulet of reflection was zapped by a
>>> wand. The beam bounced off him because of the amulet! How can something
>>> reflect if one can not perceive the reflected surface?
>>
>> That depends on how invisibility and reflection "work". This may or may
>> not be relevant, but ultraviolet and infrared light can reflect off
>> objects, and you cannot see light in these wavelengths. For example,
>> it's certainly possible, at least in theory, to have a surface that
>> transmits light in the visible spectrum and is therefore invisible (at
>> least, if it has an index of refraction the same as the air around it),
>> but that reflects ultraviolet or infrared light.
>
> Yeah, what what about elfs, gnomes and other infravision creatures (yes
> this is getting silly, but that's half the fun of usenet)

Infrared and ultraviolet were just an example. We could postulate that
reflection can reflect things in the "magic" portion of the spectrum, if
such a thing existed, or that it only reflects magic, and not
electromagnetic radiation at all.

It may appear that a sleep ray, for example, is visible light, but what you
really see is the interaction between the sleep magic and particles in the
air. This is why it can appear that "visible light" is bouncing off an
invisible object.

--
Benjamin Lewis

Although the moon is smaller than the earth, it is farther away.

 

[Chuck]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

Benjamin Lewis <bclewis@cs.sfu.ca> wrote in
news:yy7o7ji5jo9c.fsf@css.css.sfu.ca:

> Haakon Studebaker wrote:
>
>> My invisible monk wearing an amulet of reflection was zapped by a
>> wand. The beam bounced off him because of the amulet! How can something
>> reflect if one can not perceive the reflected surface?
>
> That depends on how invisibility and reflection "work". This may or may
> not be relevant, but ultraviolet and infrared light can reflect off
> objects, and you cannot see light in these wavelengths. For example, it's
> certainly possible, at least in theory, to have a surface that transmits
> light in the visible spectrum and is therefore invisible (at least, if it
> has an index of refraction the same as the air around it), but that
> reflects ultraviolet or infrared light.
>

Yeah, what what about elfs, gnomes and other infravision creatures (yes this
is getting silly, but that's half the fun of usenet)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

Gregory Weston wrote:
<snip>
> I'd say this is "reflection" in magical (pseudo-physical) sense
rather
> than optical. An amulet of boing just sounds silly.

And it sounds like it's a cousin of the Amulet of Bling.

-K

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

John Campbell wrote:

> Benjamin Lewis wrote:
>> Haakon Studebaker wrote:
>>
>>> My invisible monk wearing an amulet of reflection was zapped by a
>>> wand. The beam bounced off him because of the amulet! How can something
>>> reflect if one can not perceive the reflected surface?
>> That depends on how invisibility and reflection "work". This may or may
>> not be relevant, but ultraviolet and infrared light can reflect off
>> objects, and you cannot see light in these wavelengths. For example,
>> it's certainly possible, at least in theory, to have a surface that
>> transmits light in the visible spectrum and is therefore invisible (at
>> least, if it has an index of refraction the same as the air around it),
>> but that reflects ultraviolet or infrared light.
>>
> Not relevant, I think. Of the attacks that reflection protects
> against - beams of death, disintegration, cold, fire, magic missile,
> sleep, acid, lightning, and Medusa's and floating eyes' gaze - only the
> last three involve the electromagnetic spectrum to any degree greater
> than as pretty special effects.

I was just using these examples as an analogy.

> And reflection doesn't help against pure light-based attacks like
> exploding yellow lights or the blinding flash of lightning bolts (even
> when the bolt itself is reflected).
> It's not that reflection and
> invisibility are operating on different frequency bands; they're
> operating in totally different media.
>
> Medusa's gaze somewhat confuses the issue, though. I'm not sure
> why reflection should protect against Medusa and floating eyes but not
> against pyrolisks or Archons, and that reflection protects against her
> gaze whether the PC is visible or not, but only bounces back and
> petrifies her when the PC is visible seems logically inconsistent.

There are two components to Medusa's gaze: the visible (EM radiation)
component and the magic component. Both of these are required for the
stoning effect. When the character is invisible and has reflection, the
magic component gets reflected but the EM component does not, so neither
the transmitted nor the reflected component are effective. If the
character is visible, both components are reflected, and Medusa gets
stoned.

> When you then further consider that she can be petrified with an
> invisible mirror, but not with an invisible shield of reflection, logic
> just packs it in.

Um.
<scratches head>

I can't explain this, but I note that one has to explicitly (a)pply the
mirror, so this would probably be a good place to start searching for the
explanation.

--
Benjamin Lewis

Although the moon is smaller than the earth, it is farther away.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

"Martin Read" <mpread@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message
> It must be a tragic world where understanding prevents the appreciation
> of beauty. I understand why diamonds sparkle with such "inner fire" in
> the light. It doesn't stop me going "ooooh, sparkly!" when I see a
> diamond.

What about when you see a white gem?
or a worthless piece of white glass?
Beauty is in the eye of the holder of a blessed touchstone

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.nethack (More info?)

Benjamin Lewis wrote:
> Haakon Studebaker wrote:
>
>
>>My invisible monk wearing an amulet of reflection was zapped by a
>>wand. The beam bounced off him because of the amulet! How can something
>>reflect if one can not perceive the reflected surface?
>
>
> That depends on how invisibility and reflection "work". This may or may
> not be relevant, but ultraviolet and infrared light can reflect off
> objects, and you cannot see light in these wavelengths. For example, it's
> certainly possible, at least in theory, to have a surface that transmits
> light in the visible spectrum and is therefore invisible (at least, if it
> has an index of refraction the same as the air around it), but that
> reflects ultraviolet or infrared light.
>
Not relevant, I think. Of the attacks that reflection protects
against - beams of death, disintegration, cold, fire, magic missile,
sleep, acid, lightning, and Medusa's and floating eyes' gaze - only the
last three involve the electromagnetic spectrum to any degree greater
than as pretty special effects. And reflection doesn't help against pure
light-based attacks like exploding yellow lights or the blinding flash
of lightning bolts (even when the bolt itself is reflected). It's not
that reflection and invisibility are operating on different frequency
bands; they're operating in totally different media.

Medusa's gaze somewhat confuses the issue, though. I'm not sure
why reflection should protect against Medusa and floating eyes but not
against pyrolisks or Archons, and that reflection protects against her
gaze whether the PC is visible or not, but only bounces back and
petrifies her when the PC is visible seems logically inconsistent. When
you then further consider that she can be petrified with an invisible
mirror, but not with an invisible shield of reflection, logic just packs
it in.

--
John Campbell
jcampbel@lynni-nc.om