Stretch your mind - a litle bit of fun

[grotesk]

a flaw in your explanantion maybe?

[Callipygous]

a flaw in your explanantion maybe?

 

how about this... all substances interact with light, if you interact with something it is impossible not to change it, however slightly. the color of something is the result of how it alters white light that hits it.

 

so, all substances have color.

[mossoi]

While it MIGHT be true to say that all substances have colour (hydrogen gas?) could you not also say that all substances have all colours? At some point water is going to reflect/refract every colour in the spectrum. It may be reflecting yellow at one point but that doesn't mean the water is yellow.

 

Plastic objects are a good example of this - the reflective nature of most plastics means that pretty much any colour can be seen reflected from a plastic ball in the right conditions and that's without changing any of the balls properties, just its environment.

[grotesk]

how about this... all substances interact with light' date=' if you interact with something it is impossible not to change it, however slightly. the color of something is the result of how it alters white light that hits it.

 

so, all substances have color.[/quote'] so, colour is the process of light reflection, an external force or source to the substance...it seems you are confirming my theory.

[Callipygous]

i dont quite follow you, at what point does water reflect every color? you mean like in a rainbow? are you sure this is true of all substances?

 

i think color is more what is reflected back than what is refracted. you can see the surface of the water because some light is reflected back at you. does the full spectrum rainbow occur in reflection or only refraction?

[grotesk]

i dont quite follow you' date=' at what point does water reflect every color? you mean like in a rainbow? are you sure this is true of all substances?

 

i think color is more what is reflected back than what is refracted. you can see the surface of the water because some light is reflected back at you. does the full spectrum rainbow occur in reflection or only refraction?[/quote'] i think he means it is capable of reflecting any colour...maybe he will respond

[Callipygous]

so, colour is the process of light reflection, an external force or source to the substance...it seems you are confirming my theory.

 

your theory that what? it relies on something besides itself? no, our perception of it relies on something besides itself. the properties are still there, just as we assume the sphere is still spherical when were not touching it. thats like saying spheres require our fingers inorder to be spheres, and therefore that property is less important.

 

color isnt a process, its a property.

[grotesk]

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.

[Callipygous]

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 property of an object, just like shape is a property of an object. i think color is a property, not a process. (except when your talking about "coloring" some food : P)

[grotesk]

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?

[Callipygous]

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?

 

how does it require an external source to be valid any more than shape does?

 

does hardness require something to strike it to be valid? does that make it a process?

[grotesk]

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

[Callipygous]

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

 

none... the sphere requires nothing to be a sphere, it requires no light to be a blue object, nothing needs to hit it in order for it to be hard... or soft, whatever, it doesnt matter. all these properties are there whether anything is interacting with it or not.

[grotesk]

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

[Callipygous]

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

 

give me a quote of that one...

[grotesk]

blue means if you were to shine a white light on it only the blue would come back.

as you wish

[Callipygous]

what part of that means it has to have light to be blue? it has properties that make it so if one were to shine a light on it blue light would come back. those properties dont go away when you turn off the light. the only thing that goes away is your method of observing that property.

 

i know something is hard because when i squeeze it it doesnt give very much. if i stop squeezing it, it doesnt stop being hard, im just not testing it anymore.

[mossoi]

i dont quite follow you, at what point does water reflect every color? you mean like in a rainbow? are you sure this is true of all substances?

 

i think color is more what is reflected back than what is refracted. you can see the surface of the water because some light is reflected back at you. does the full spectrum rainbow occur in reflection or only refraction?

It doesn't have to be the full colour spectrum all the time - water with a coloured light on it will reflect that colour. This is true of many substances. If the ball were subjected to very bright red light would we not see red light reflected back?

[mossoi]

We're trying to decide if it's more blue or more spherical. We've tried to define how blue it is and how spherical it is but what about considering what more means?

 

Could "being more" be measured by the number of different external criteria that cause the property to be evident. So a ball in a dark room but in your hands is more spherical, whereas a ball in a lit room but not touchable could be more blue.

 

If we look at it from this angle then the ball is more spherical - it's easier to disguise it's blueness than its sphericity ergo its spends more time being observably spherical than observably blue.

 

Also...

 

Is it more plastic than it is blue or spherical?

[Callipygous]

We're trying to decide if it's more blue or more spherical. We've tried to define how blue it is and how spherical it is but what about considering what more means?

 

Could "being more" be measured by the number of different external criteria that cause the property to be evident. So a ball in a dark room but in your hands is more spherical' date=' whereas a ball in a lit room but not touchable could be more blue.

 

If we look at it from this angle then the ball is more spherical - it's easier to disguise it's blueness than its sphericity ergo its spends more time being observably spherical than observably blue.

 

Also...

 

Is it more plastic than it is blue or spherical? [/quote']

 

 

:eek:

 

aka double EEK

 

is it less red than it is square? : P

[Callipygous]

It doesn't have to be the full colour spectrum all the time - water with a coloured light on it will reflect that colour. This is true of many substances. If the ball were subjected to very bright red light would we not see red light reflected back?

 

 

good question. i suppose its possible. the best answer i have for that is that color would have to be defined on a practical basis. that is to say, as far as were concerned the ball is blue, whether we can force it to reflect red light or not. if the ball is moving fast enough you see it as an oval(and if you really get it moving it probably is an oval) does that mean the same ideas go for shapes?

 

i want a smiley thats stroking its chin.

[grotesk]

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

[jdurg]

If you want to get REALLY picky, you can say that there is no such thing as scientific FACT because every property of everything known to man relies on observation. If you're not observing it in some manner, than it doesn't have that property. The only reason you say it has the property is because you observed it as such. To a person who is deaf, blind, and completely numb, nothing has properties to it since they can't see it, hear it, or feel it. (And if that instance were me, I'd be asking for the cyanide mighty quickly. )

 

So for me, the reason I'm arguing that it is more spherical is because observing it as a sphere relies on far fewer things than observing it as blue does. Also, more people are able to observe it as a sphere than as blue. To observe it as a sphere, you need to have the ability to touch and interpret that 'touch' in your brain. To observe it as blue, you need to be able to see that light is reflecting off of the surface, that the light being reflected is able to be absorbed by your observation device, and that your brain is able to interpret those results as 'blue'. To a blind person, they can't observe it as blue. A blind person can 'observe' it as a sphere. This is the whole reason behind my argument. (Though in reality, this argument is about as foolish as arguing over whether burning in magma is more painful than burning in the sun. )

[grotesk]

Though in reality, this argument is about as foolish as arguing over whether burning in magma is more painful than burning in the sun.

yeah but slightly more amusing

[Callipygous]

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

 

or maybe you just took stuff to personally because you dont realize that this is a debate, not a contest?