Re: Favourite colour

On 15 Aug 2005, at 10:45, Matt Marsh wrote:


> Kevin Mulligan wrote:
>
>
>> As a philosopher I'd like to point out that your studies are a  
>> waste  of time.  Anything with any supposed scientific backing is  
>> going to  turn out to be wrong sooner or later.
>>
>>
>
> What a load of twaddle.
>
>
>
>> As I already said, talking about colours in relation to light is  
>> a  non-argument unless you can explain why light would possesses  
>> the  characteristics of a colour.
>>
>>
>
> Of course "light" possesses the characteristics of a colour.  
> "Light" is not just one wavelength, but a collection of  
> wavelengths. And different wavelengths represent different colours.  
> So the wavelength is the property specifying the colour of the  
> "light".
>

You haven't explained anything, all you've done is regurgitate a poor  
textbook definition of light.  Why do wavelengths of light represent  
different colours?  If they really do, why can't the colours be seen  
as they pass through the air?

If white light really did contain every other colour then surely a  
room lit by the sun would be flooded with every possible colour?   
This is obviously not the case therefor the logical conclusion is  
that white light contains no colours and is not a colour, it only  
serves to illuminate objects and which will possess colours of their  
own.


>
> Matt
>
> -- 
> Matt N. Marsh
> Email: matt-ko/[email protected]          Yahoo: marshmn
>   Web: http://www.mattmarsh.net/  Jabber: mattmarsh-/[email protected]
>                                      MSN: matt-ko/[email protected]
>                                      ICQ: 250467363
>                                      AIM: MattMarshUK
>
> _______________________________________________
> public mailing list
> public-Hb7ITwsGSD4lroQnaJEqWdi2O/[email protected]
> http://lists.blitzed.org/listinfo/public
>
>