Re: Favourite colour

On 15 Aug 2005, at 11:15, Mrten wrote:


> Om 00:57 op maandag 15 augustus 2005, Kevin Mulligan:
>
>
>
>> 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?
>>
>>
>
> why is the sky (sky-)blue? isnt the sky really air?
>

I'm not entirely sure why the sky is blue.  To be consistent in my  
argument I would say that one or more of the atmospheric layers  
possesses the characteristic falsely known as "sky blue".

Air, I believe, has no colour which is apparent when it condenses and  
forms mist or clouds which are typically white although the presense  
of excess water (which, as refraction shows, contains myriad colours)  
can turn them black.

As you can see, my argument makes perfect sense.


>
>
>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>
> to be really taken seriously as a philosopher, you need to be at least
> 42 years old, understand and be able to explain the relevance of that
> number, have a foot-long beard, wear thick grey woollen socks in open
> shoes and babble incomprehensibly.
>
> i think fail at least two points of that definition (or do you?).
>

I fail all but one point there.  Most of the the good philosophers  
have been dead for thousands of years anyway.  The current ones are  
just rehashing old arguments and further obfuscating things by using  
ridiculous jargon.


>
> "do-not-stereotype" Mrten.
> -- 
> Contrary to popular opinion, the plural of 'anecdote' is not 'fact'.
>
>
>