I dont think anyone can answer this

Originally posted by dadudemon
To be honest, his "syntax" seems to not be American/British at times. I do not know how to explain it but my experiences allow me to make conclusions that are usually correct when it comes to language. I am not "magic": it's just experience from talking and writing to people from different language for 15 years.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Or he could be one of the many Americans who suffers from a poor education and just doesn't grasp the written word very well.

After re-reading his posts, I confused him for another poster. He wasn't the person I thought he was. This guy is just a bad speller and doesn't know where to place punctuation.

I would see jake gyllenhaal....ahaha inside joke

That's an interesting thought experiment. Maybe someone has already done this experiment before.

See, a mirror's ability to reflect doesn't simply depend on the wavelength of the light in relation to the construction of the mirror, but also the angle of approach. Assuming that you have a perfect vacuum inside of it.

So it would eventually die down to the invisible spectrum. The time it takes for that to happen of course depends on the size of the ball, the location of the light source, and the initial angle of approach, assuming we have a perfect vacuum and 100% reflective material---from an orthogonal angle of approach. If the beam of light is fired from the center of the sphere (focal point) then it will only bounce back and forth in a simple hour-glass shaped pattern. If fired anywhere else it would go in a determined trajectory around the focal point.

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
It remains me of a prison. 🙁

Reminds me of Gantz.

Originally posted by Astner
See, a mirror's ability to reflect doesn't simply depend on the wavelength of the light in relation to the construction of the mirror, but also the angle of approach. Assuming that you have a perfect vacuum inside of it.

So it would eventually die down to the invisible spectrum. The time it takes for that to happen of course depends on the size of the ball, the location of the light source, and the initial angle of approach, assuming we have a perfect vacuum and 100% reflective material---from an orthogonal angle of approach. If the beam of light is fired from the center of the sphere (focal point) then it will only bounce back and forth in a simple hour-glass shaped pattern. If fired anywhere else it would go in a determined trajectory around the focal point.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Well that's all fine and dandy, but how 'bout ya PROVE it.

A beam is rotational symmetric, and the angle of approach is the same as the angel of departure relative to the normal vector of the sphere. That should give you the basics of the understanding of its trajectory.

As for that the reflectivity relies on the angle of approach, it depends on that additional distance light has to travel as it's being reflected. You need to end at a whole wave length for 100% reflectivity.