bloodhound Posted April 16, 2004 Posted April 16, 2004 I am sure its not a colour. I am sure white isnt a colour either. and is there such thing as particles of darkness? and do they travel and the speed of light?
YT2095 Posted April 16, 2004 Posted April 16, 2004 black is not a color, it`s the default state. White is an equal mix of all colors in addative synthesis (using colored light to generate as opposed to subtractive where filters are used to block all but the specified color). the speed of darkness would therefore be the rate that light leaves the area
Sayonara Posted April 16, 2004 Posted April 16, 2004 A colour is only a label we assign to a mix of light. #000 is just as valid as #FFF.
iglak Posted April 17, 2004 Posted April 17, 2004 black is the absence of color dark is the absence of light color cannot be detected without light the absence of light would appear as the absence of color
Misodoctakleidi Posted April 17, 2004 Posted April 17, 2004 Black absorbes all light, white reflects all light. Most of the universe is made of darkmatter but no one really knows what it is.
Sayonara Posted April 17, 2004 Posted April 17, 2004 Hence why black is not a color No, black is a colour. Colours are just labels. What it isn't is a colour of light.
swansont Posted April 17, 2004 Posted April 17, 2004 No' date=' black [i']is[/i] a colour. Colours are just labels. What it isn't is a colour of light. There are two distinctions to be made. Color as a frequency of light, or color as perceived by our eyes. Neither white nor black is a frequency to be found in the spectrum. But neither is brown, or a number of other colors found in a crayon box or at the local home improvement/paint store. Those colors are how combinations of frequencies are perceived by our eyes.
swansont Posted April 17, 2004 Posted April 17, 2004 Black absorbes all light' date=' white reflects all light.[/quote'] There are no perfect absorbers or reflectors.
YT2095 Posted April 17, 2004 Posted April 17, 2004 There are two distinctions to be made. Color as a frequency of light' date=' or color as perceived by our eyes. Neither white nor black is a frequency to be found in the spectrum. But neither is brown, or a number of other colors found in a crayon box or at the local home improvement/paint store. Those colors are how combinations of frequencies are perceived by our eyes.[/quote']the colors in a crayon box are subtractive systhesis only, to function correctly they need white light, much in the same way a sculptor will start with a solid cube of material and subtract all the bits that don`t look like what he wants to sculpt. black is NOT a frequency, you`re quite right, it`s the default state as I mentioned earlier, colors such as brown are a mix of certain frequencies, but have no single specific frequency as a result, and will often rely upon subtractive synthesis for their effect. white on the other hand is similar but cannot be quantified in the way that Brown can be, it again is an equal mix of ALL primary addative colors all at equal amplitude but requires interferance, making all colors present at equal amplitude and at infinate occurance. our "eyes" are just the media through which we observe this, and need not apply, as the same can be done in the radio band as well
iglak Posted April 17, 2004 Posted April 17, 2004 We have defined color as a a specific wavelength of light, or a combination of specific wavelengths. Color is also defined as what color of light an object would reflect if it were in white light. in red light, a box of crayons would still be whatever color they are, they would just appear as a different color, more red, thus function incorrectly (as YT said). we all sorta know this, but i felt it needed to be directly mentioned
-Demosthenes- Posted April 18, 2004 Posted April 18, 2004 No' date=' black [i']is[/i] a colour. Colours are just labels. What it isn't is a colour of light. I agree, only you spelled color wrong
Sayonara Posted April 18, 2004 Posted April 18, 2004 I agree, only you spelled solor wrong Well, you people took our language and messed about with it, so I'm going to say "no" to that
Glider Posted April 18, 2004 Posted April 18, 2004 I think it shows deep insight and self awareness on the part of our US cousins. Either try to teach American schoolkids to spell properly (e.g. colour, behaviour, haemglobin, foetus), or make the words easier to spell (color, behavior, hemaglobin, fetus). Which way would you go?
YT2095 Posted April 18, 2004 Posted April 18, 2004 give it another 10 years or so, it probably won`t even matter, it`ll all be this SMS text shorthand
swansont Posted April 18, 2004 Posted April 18, 2004 I think it shows deep insight and self awareness on the part of our US cousins. Either try to teach American schoolkids to spell properly (e.g. colour' date=' behaviour, haemglobin, foetus), or make the words easier to spell (color, behavior, hemaglobin, fetus).[/quote'] No, it was the "extra vowel" tax, without representation, that we were rebelling against.
Glider Posted April 19, 2004 Posted April 19, 2004 give it another 10 years or so, it probably won`t even matter, it`ll all be this SMS text shorthand Tragically, you're probably right. It has started appearing in essays and research reports submitted by students (can you believe that?). It's insidious, you begin to see thing like "4 example, previous research suggests...". I hate it and I've warned them that if I see it, I'll stop reading the report at that point and fail them. No, it was the "extra vowel" tax, without representation, that we were rebelling against. Aha! I see...hehehe.
Sayonara Posted April 19, 2004 Posted April 19, 2004 Tragically, you're probably right. It has started appearing in essays and research reports submitted by students (can you believe that?). It's insidious, you begin to see thing like "4 example, previous research suggests...".[/i'] I hate it and I've warned them that if I see it, I'll stop reading the report at that point and fail them. That's nothing new as a process, it's just the information that is changing. People have been abusing English for centuries.
Glider Posted April 19, 2004 Posted April 19, 2004 True, but it makes it no more acceptable. I know language must evolve, but 4 is a number, 'u' is not a word and sentences containing such appreviations are not acceptable in formal documents. Even accepted abbreviations such as can't, won't and don't are not acceptable in formal academic writing. Students are taught this, and yet they persist...little weasels!
Sayonara Posted April 19, 2004 Posted April 19, 2004 So you are suggesting we remove all students from the gene pool? OK.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now