grotesk

yeah something like that....pot...black...kettle

yeah but slightly more amusing

huh?...so Callipygous, put a different hat and coat on it...and you begin to come around.

as you wish

of course it requires light to be blue, you even said it yourself...

so what external force(s) does the sphere require to exist?...who said the sphere was hard...

colour requires external source to be valid no?...therefore it is a process - you even said yourself it reflects the blue in the white light - isn't that a process?

yes colour is a property and a process, a property of what?....and the spherical substance is a property of blue? not in my opinion. your posts are becoming more and more vague.

a flaw in your explanantion maybe?

and distilled water is light grey??

so are you agreeing it *has* to be a substance?

So what is reflecting the blue light?... like i said define 'it'. is it a substance?...whats the substance? how can you say blue does not rely on light source when you also say it has to reflect light?... oh, and you'll be doing me a favour by ignoring my posts

No i wouldn't thanks for your advice, but its not necessary please define 'it'. again, i'm not after your advice - keep that to yourself. for the pupose of the question we do *know* its a sphere in everyday language, and we do *know* it's blue in colour. it matters not if you are blind, colour blind or just an argumentative colour'phile' the sphere...is a sphere. the blue relies on lightsource AND perception. the spherical property of the object is more of a constant in my opinion, none of your explanations change my mind (not even the patronising ones). what does the blue light reflect off?

oh?...so what colour is distilled water, and if you want a solid, what colour is frozen distilled water. i agree there's no such thing as an absince of light, but what about an absence of light? correct, of the suns rays...change the light source and?... not strictly true is it?...perception does not change the physical dimensions or mass of an object. and rest assured i never want to *get into crap*....you can please yourself of course.

its not human perception that colour can only exist due to matter...its fact. colour relises on light, matter and perception. as said before and probably poo-pooed by you, at night without suns rays, blue doesn't exist, shape does...and different receptors on different animals define colour differently to humans....but the shape is still present...physically.

"hey fred i see a sphere over there" "gee tom, thats great" no need for further explanation...of the *property* of the sphere, the colour can only exist (in this instance) because of the matter.

i'm not talking about actually removing properties, just demonstrating my theory on why it is more sphere than blue, like i said we know its spherical, we know its blue...and blue is a property of the sphere, can you reverse that statement?...that the sphere is a property of what?...of 'blue'

Didn't you say in your first post it was more blue??? anyway looking at it from object definition, it is more a sphere than it is blue. if forced to use a single definition you would say it's a 'ball' or a 'sphere', not a 'blue'...