# Are white and black considered colors?



## bluedasher (Nov 16, 2010)

Since there has been an on going debate about this overwhelming an existing thread I have taken it upon myself to create this thread to settle disputes going on pertaining to whether or not black and white are colors. If you have input please back it up with evidence. I do not want this thread to become a place for an argument I want quite the opposite. This thread is just for you guys to give your opinions on the subject and have a discussion about this. So, the big question...

Are black and white colors and if not should they be considered colors?

I personally believe that black is the absence of all colors in the spectrum and that white is the presence of _all_ colors in the spectrum. 

Please, leave your input.


----------



## souljahsu (Nov 16, 2010)

Black isn't a color because it is the absence of all the light.


----------



## Toad (Nov 16, 2010)

```
color: #000000;
color: #ffffff;
```
I'm a web designer, yes they are both colours.

Really: There is not a concrete definition of colour as it is treated so differently in different situations. Although "black" IS the absence of light, that does not mean it cannot be referred to as a "colour".


----------



## vcuber13 (Nov 16, 2010)

http://tinyurl.com/23uwu57


----------



## RyanO (Nov 16, 2010)

souljahsu said:


> Black isn't a color because it is the absence of all the light.


 
An absence of light does not necessitate an absence of color. This is similar to saying zero isn't a number.


----------



## ColdFactor (Nov 16, 2010)

black is absence of light?

i can see black because my eyes detect the 'light'.


----------



## bluedasher (Nov 16, 2010)

vcuber13 said:


> http://tinyurl.com/23uwu57



Well, from page two and on there has been quite a debate going on so many people don't think it is a simple as searching it on Google.

http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/s...ncle-Tyson-WCA-s-scrambling-orientation/page2


----------



## FatBoyXPC (Nov 16, 2010)

Taken from the other thread:




qqwref said:


> Color:
> 1. the quality of an object or substance with respect to light reflected by the object [...]
> 
> Black:
> ...


 
In response to:




fatboyxpc said:


> That's wikipedia, where anybody would edit that definition. By definition, black is not a color:
> 
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/color
> 
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/black - though if you go all the way down to the 20th definition, color is used in the definition.



Now, if we compare 0 to black, then would white be compared to infinity? _If_ so:

Though the definition of infinity has the word number, the definition of number suggests that infinity cannot be a number. It seems that zero can be considered a "sum" or a "total count," but something infinite could not be totaled.

qqwref: By definition I disagree, though I do see your point. This article though explains how zero is a number: http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/63315.html


----------



## Stefan (Nov 16, 2010)

fatboyxpc said:


> That's wikipedia, where anybody would edit that definition.



********.



fatboyxpc said:


> By definition, black is not a color:
> 
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/color



First time that page mentions black: _"achromatic *colours* such as white or *black*"_



fatboyxpc said:


> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/black - though if you go all the way down to the 20th definition, color is used in the definition.


 
_"all the way down to the 20th definition"_? You mean the *very first* noun definition?


----------



## qqwref (Nov 16, 2010)

fatboyxpc said:


> Now, if we compare 0 to black, then would white be compared to infinity?


Nope. It's not at all the same idea as infinity. White = reflecting all the light = yet another possible way an object can reflect light.


Since this is a new topic I feel I should quote this from the previous:


qqwref said:


> As long as most people would say "black" is an acceptable answer to the question "What color is this?", how can you say black isn't a color? The same applies to white.


----------



## cmhardw (Nov 16, 2010)

fatboyxpc said:


> Now, if we compare 0 to black, then would white be compared to infinity?


 
A more apt comparison may be the concept of probability. If black is 0, then white would be more like the number 1. This would assume that every color is represented somewhere on this continuum between 0 and 1.


----------



## hic0057 (Nov 16, 2010)

First thing I need to say is change the heading from color to colour.

Dictionary.reference;
Colour:the quality of an object or substance with respect to light reflected by the object, usually determined visually by measurement of hue, saturation, and brightness of the reflected light; saturation or chroma; hue.

Black is something that absorb all primary colours and White reflects all primary colours.

If someone says what colour cube do you have? 99% of cubers won't be able to answer that question technically.


----------



## KYLOL (Nov 16, 2010)

First thing I need to say is keep the heading as color.

Dictionary.reference;

Color : The quality of an object or substance with respect to light reflected by the object, usually determined visually by measurement of hue, saturation, and brightness of the reflected light; saturation or chroma; hue.

Edit : I know people enjoy these debates, but it's pretty obvious white and black are colors. They say so in Harry Potter. Also, I think it is simpler to just call them colors and leave it alone.


----------



## irontwig (Nov 16, 2010)

You have a pretty useless definition of the word "colour" if it doesn't contain white and black. 
By the way: what's the probability that so many people in the same thread have a broken "u" key?


----------



## Zubon (Nov 16, 2010)

Sure, black and white may have different physics than the other colors in the spectrum, but our eyes detect no light or a mixture of all colors and our brain gives these states labels we call color. 

When you see no light or mixed light, your brain labels these as the colors black and white. When you see other frequencies, you brain labels them as other colors.

In the real world, black and white are for all practical purposes color. I think we can all agree that that is the general acceptance. When you buy paint, you can get black and white. So yes, they are colors just like the others. They just have a more interesting story behind them.


----------



## FatBoyXPC (Nov 16, 2010)

Stefan said:


> ********.



How so? At most, if it's a protected page, you submit a request for it. At that point an administrator can change it. So you can pull a technicality on "anybody" if it is a protected page, but the point is that it is a definition from a person, not an actual resource (such as a dictionary).





Stefan said:


> You mean the *very first* noun definition?


 
I don't see how this matters? Colors are referred to in adjective forms all the time.

The wikipedia article itself states that "in practice it can be considered a color" which suggests it is not actually a color (or it wouldn't be only in practice).

qqwref: Just because "most people" say it's a color, does not make it a color. Most people refer to clear as a color as well, but clear as (hopefully we can agree) is actually colorless. Yes, reflecting all light is a way to reflect light, but if you don't reflect any light, how can you consider that a way to reflect light? I see the purpose as a property or such, but we cannot say it reflects when it quite clear in the definition that it does not.

irontwig: There is a handful of words spelled differently in "American English" rather than just English. Favourite is another example of this, and ironically enough it comes up as being misspelled with my spell-checker.


----------



## irontwig (Nov 16, 2010)

fatboyxpc said:


> irontwig: There is a handful of words spelled differently in "American English" rather than just English. Favourite is another example of this, and ironically enough it comes up as being misspelled with my spell-checker.


 
Yikes, that's completely new to me.


----------



## ~Adam~ (Nov 16, 2010)

I was taught in secondary school that black and white are not technically colours, but then again I was taught a lot of false stuff back then (for example the orbits of electrons).
They are clearly both colours and Chris makes an excellent point with regards to probability.
I have no idea why Fatboy would jump straight from black being 0 to white being ∞.
It seems logical until you think about it for about a nano second.

I prefer the colour vs color debate.
'American English' is English with a few words spelt differently and very little else.
Why bother changing anything at all?


----------



## MTGjumper (Nov 16, 2010)

fatboyxpc said:


> irontwig: There is a handful of words spelled differently in "American English" rather than just English. Favourite is another example of this, and ironically enough it comes up as being misspelled with my spell-checker.


 
My favourite colour is grey. I wonder if that made sense to Americans  (For what it's worth it's actually orange.)


----------



## Godmil (Nov 16, 2010)

Oh dear gawd, people like to complicate things.

Technically black and white aren't colours but it's convenient to call them such, end of story.

If you want a really good analogy jump to sound, black would be silence, white would be static (white noise). Colour is defined by the frequency of light, in the same way that a musical note is defined by the frequency of the sound wave... you don't listen to static and say "what note is that?" it's not a note, it's all frequencies jumbled up... just the same as white light.
For anyone saying "how can I see black then if there is no light?" - you're not seeing black you're seeing dark dark grey, cube's aren't really true black or white, it's just convenient to call them such.

:fp


----------



## Stefan (Nov 16, 2010)

fatboyxpc said:


> How so? At most, if it's a protected page, you submit a request for it.



Yes, you can vandalize, but it'll likely get fixed quickly. Plus wikipedia is generally *not* written by moronic kids with no idea what they're doing. Don't make it sound like it is (90% of my "********" were for that alone). And the article doesn't just state that "oh well, black's a color". It provides a proper justification for it as well. And apparently the wikipedia community agrees.



fatboyxpc said:


> the point is that it is a definition from a person, not an actual resource (such as a dictionary).



Oh you mean the dictionary definition was from a robot or god or whatever, not a person?



fatboyxpc said:


> I don't see how this matters? Colors are referred to in adjective forms all the time.



Buuuuuuuuullshiiiiiiiiiiiit. No they're not. They're often *used* in adjective form, but rarely referred to like that. You'd have to do that like "the red color" or "the color that is red" instead of "red". Do you do that? No you don't. And take the title of this thread, for example. It's a noun there. Just like in almost all uses inside the thread.



fatboyxpc said:


> The wikipedia article itself states that "in practice it can be considered a color" which suggests it is not actually a color (or it wouldn't be only in practice).



Yeah sure, ignore the rest of the sentence.

"Although *black* is sometimes described as an "achromatic", or hueless, *color*, in practice it can be considered a color"

First of all, the part that you left out says *sometimes*. Why did you hide that, and even added "*only* in practice"? Secondly, it's still referred to as a color, just a special kind. The way I read that is that while it's sometimes described as a special color, it's usually a regular one. That said, I don't really like the wording there. Thirdly, white and gray are achromatic/hueless colors as well, so if you say that makes black a non-color, you must also say white and gray aren't colors. Do you?

And now I'll leave because I'm quite sure you're just trolling. You can't be serious with all that stuff.


----------



## Dene (Nov 16, 2010)

Lolololololo Mr. Pochmann is on the case and people are getting owned.


BTW people the world is spelt with a "u" and black and white are clearly both colours so get over your academic "definition" mishmash crap and accept Dene's knowledge as perfect.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Nov 16, 2010)

I was at MathsJam last weekend, and someone discussed how the British curriculum says that 0 is not even or odd, nor is it a number. Now _there_'s something that has a real answer, and is actually a problem.

The answer to the thread title is an unambiguous "yes".
The questions now might be "By whom?" and "Are they correct?" but it's as useful as asking if another 6.77 should be considered a WR.


----------



## MTGjumper (Nov 16, 2010)

I can't ever remember being taught that 0 wasn't a number, or that it wasn't even or odd.


----------



## Lucas Garron (Nov 16, 2010)

MTGjumper said:


> I can't ever remember being taught that 0 wasn't a number, or that it wasn't even or odd.


I should probably have clarified that I don't know the extent, recent, and accuracy of the claim. But such rigid nonsense is an issue in teaching all around the world.


----------



## Godmil (Nov 16, 2010)

It's not nonsense, Zero isn't a number, it's a concept (it wasn't 'invented' until a long time after the number system came about). Zero is useful in maths, but otherwise it's just a concept. (Same as infinity, that's something that is only useful in mathematics and hyperbole)


----------



## Kirjava (Nov 16, 2010)

Godmil said:


> Zero isn't a number


 
Are you using a definition of the word number that most of us are unaware of?


----------



## irontwig (Nov 16, 2010)

Godmil said:


> It's not nonsense, Zero isn't a number, it's a concept (it wasn't 'invented' until a long time after the number system came about). Zero is useful in maths, but otherwise it's just a concept.



How is that different from any other number?


----------



## Godmil (Nov 16, 2010)

I know, I thought it was really weird the first time I heard that it hadn't been invented (as something meaningful) until like the middle ages. But if you think about it what real use does it have other than in mathematics. Addition, subtraction, multiplication and division are all things that are useful tools in everyday life (outside of mathematics), all of which produce no useful result when used with a zero (neither does 'odd or even' as mentioned before). We're all so used to imagining a number scale where you can go -2 -1 0 1 2... and Zero seems to fill that space between -1 and 1 nicely, but negative numbers themselves are pretty weird. We're all so used to having zero as a number, but remember for hundreds and hundreds of years mathematicians got on perfectly fine without it. Don't get me wrong, it is extremely important in mathematics (and I'm sure there are more than a few computer scientists and statisticians here who will agree with that), but in general terms it is simply a symbol that is shorthand for 'no number' rather than a 'number that is zero'.

<_< I'm going to make a lot of enemies with this aren't I?


----------



## Kirjava (Nov 16, 2010)

Godmil said:


> I know, I thought it was really weird the first time I heard that it hadn't been invented (as something meaningful) until like the middle ages. But if you think about it what real use does it have other than in mathematics. Addition, subtraction, multiplication and division are all things that are useful tools in everyday life (outside of mathematics), all of which produce no useful result when used with a zero (neither does 'odd or even' as mentioned before). We're all so used to imagining a number scale where you can go -2 -1 0 1 2... and Zero seems to fill that space between -1 and 1 nicely, but negative numbers themselves are pretty weird. We're all so used to having zero as a number, but remember for hundreds and hundreds of years mathematicians got on perfectly fine without it. Don't get me wrong, it is extremely important in mathematics (and I'm sure there are more than a few computer scientists and statisticians here who will agree with that), but in general terms it is simply a symbol that is shorthand for 'no number' rather than a 'number that is zero'


 
None of the things you mentioned dictate if or why zero is a number or not.

Could you define the word 'number' for us?


----------



## Stefan (Nov 16, 2010)

Godmil said:


> <_< I'm going to make a lot of enemies with this aren't I?


 
Nah... you're too cute and amusing.


----------



## ben1996123 (Nov 16, 2010)

imo, yes.


----------



## Godmil (Nov 16, 2010)

Kirjava said:


> Could you define the word 'number' for us?



I'm afraid I can't. If I tried I'd probably tie myself into a semantic mess.
I'm not going to beat a drum and say "everyone should reject the idea that Zero is a number" cause it would be meaningless. I generally think of Zero as a number myself (by the way I define numbers).
But what I will say is, if you read a little about the history of 'zero' it gives you pause for thought about it's general usage. Like I said before (if I quickly look this up) it wasn't until 1200AD+ that people in Europe thought of zero as being a number. Which seems pretty weird given we've all grown up with it think it's as obvious as 1 2 and 3.


----------



## Kirjava (Nov 16, 2010)

What does the period it was created in have to do with anything?


----------



## Godmil (Nov 16, 2010)

Kirjava said:


> What does the period it was created in have to do with anything?



Yep fair enough, it is kind of arbitrary.
I'm just going to duck my head, point in one direction and go "Oh my gosh, look at that." Then run the opposite way.
If there's one think I know about this forum it's that nobody can survive an argument with Kirjava (or Stefan for that matter, but he's been mercifully restrained).


----------



## Kirjava (Nov 16, 2010)

It was hardly an argument, you could've at least listed a valid reason why it isn't a number. (Reasons certainly exist)


----------



## Stefan (Nov 16, 2010)

Godmil said:


> or Stefan for that matter, but he's been mercifully restrained


 
Nothing to do with mercy, there's just nothing to say. You're stating zero is not a number but don't give any real reason, so there's nothing to work with. Looks like you just don't like the developments of the past few centuries. Maybe you also shouldn't use a computer. People did fine without one until very recently.


----------



## Godmil (Nov 16, 2010)

Kirjava said:


> It was hardly an argument, you could've at least listed a valid reason why it isn't a number. (Reasons certainly exist)



Yeah I know, it's just I'm at work at the moment and I could see this requiring an awful lot of research before I could confidently come up with something that would probably only have a slim chance at best of persuading you.
Sorry to bow out of what could have been an interesting discussion, but I really am pretty busy.

EDIT:


Stefan said:


> Looks like you just don't like the developments of the past few centuries. Maybe you also shouldn't use a computer. People did fine without one until very recently.


Haha, yes  I did come across like that.

If I were to get stuck into it (which I'm afraid I can't as I'm really getting behind now with work), I'd start to define numbers as a way of quantifying real objects... 1 apple, 2 apples, where zero would be the absence of apples rather than something real.... However, if I really wanted to define numbers, it's been a while, but I believe it's done in set theory, where zero is an empty set, then the numbers come from 1 = one empty set, 2 = two empty sets, which unfortunately (I think) gives the definition of Zero, but I'm afraid I'd really need to do a lot more research on that, it's been more than a decade since I studied maths, and all I know of set theory is what my friend taught me. So you see, I've really backed myself into a corner here.


----------



## cmhardw (Nov 16, 2010)

Godmil said:


> I know, I thought it was really weird the first time I heard that \( \pi \) hadn't been invented (as something meaningful) until like the *pyramids were built in Old Kingdom Egypt*. But if you think about it what real use does \( \pi \) have other than in mathematics. Addition, subtraction, multiplication and division are all things that are useful tools in everyday life (outside of mathematics), all of which produce no useful result when used with \( \pi \) (neither does circle *circumference or area* as mentioned before). We're all so used to imagining a number scale where you can go -2 -1 0 1 2... and \( \pi \) seems to fill that space between *3* and *4* nicely, but negative numbers themselves are pretty weird. We're all so used to having \( \pi \) as a number, but remember for hundreds and hundreds of years mathematicians got on perfectly fine without it. Don't get me wrong, it is extremely important in mathematics (and I'm sure there are more than a few *engineers* and *architects* here who will agree with that), but in general terms it is simply a symbol that is shorthand for '*3.1415...*' rather than a '*ratio of a circle's circumference to it's diameter*'.
> 
> <_< I'm going to make a lot of enemies with this aren't I?



Fixed.


----------



## Godmil (Nov 16, 2010)

Hahahahaha. Excellent Chris!


----------



## cmhardw (Nov 16, 2010)

Godmil, just so you know, I was trying to paraphrase your argument in such a way as to show you why we are reacting to your zero argument in the way we are. Your zero argument, to me, reads very similarly to how that pi argument reads.


----------



## FMC (Nov 16, 2010)

well,what about this?


----------



## cmhardw (Nov 16, 2010)

FMC said:


> well,what about this?


 
According to that site, definition 3, which they say is the most accurate:


> Is black a color?
> 
> No, black is not a color; a black object absorbs all the colors of the visible spectrum and reflects none of them to the eyes.
> 
> ...


----------



## Slash (Nov 16, 2010)

I think a color is something you can see. So, for example, air doesn't have color. But I might expressed myself wrong, but I think e.g water doesn't have color either.
We've learned something in chemistry about this, I'll try to translate it but I don't guarantee that you'll understand it, sorry.
So, as you might know, everything is made of atoms, which are made of protons, electrons and neutrons. Now we only care about electrons. So, every single electron is on certain a "track"* around the "core" (which is made of protons and neutrons). But if you give energy to it ("induce" it), it might go to another track (and if there's an electron, it'll also go to another track etc.). If it does, it shows some kind of color and thus you'll be able to see it. So, if the energy of light is enough to send electrons on another track, they have color.
What does it have to do with black and white? Well, it's simple: you see them, don't you? Therefore they're both colors.

* if a word is between quotation marks, that means that I'm not sure in the translation.

EDIT: I've just read your post, Chris (and the FMC's).
I think it's good to consider whether black or transparent is not a color...


----------



## FMC (Nov 16, 2010)

Slash said:


> * if a word is between quotation marks, that means that I'm not sure in the translation


"track"--orbit
"core"--nucleus
''induce"--excite


----------



## qqwref (Nov 16, 2010)

irontwig said:


> What's the probability that so many people in the same thread have a broken "u" key?


I've been wondering that too. I guess the keyboards in the UK and Australia (and some places in Europe) are just poorly manufactured.

PS: Can people stop saying "technically" or "scientifically speaking" or whatever? We're not being technical because this is not a discussion on wavelengths. It's a discussion on color. Black objects CAN reflect light and white objects CAN absorb light. Nothing is purely black or white anyway. Deal with it.



fatboyxpc said:


> I don't see how this matters? Colors are referred to in adjective forms all the time.


Uh, it matters because "definition 20" is not some obscure definition found at the bottom of the page, but is actually the most accepted definition for the noun form?



fatboyxpc said:


> (1)qqwref: Just because "most people" say it's a color, does not make it a color.
> (2) Most people refer to clear as a color as well, but clear as (hopefully we can agree) is actually colorless.
> (3) Yes, reflecting all light is a way to reflect light, but if you don't reflect any light, how can you consider that a way to reflect light?
> (4) I see the purpose as a property or such, but we cannot say it reflects when it quite clear in the definition that it does not.


(1) That's not what I mean (and, wait, are you actually acknowledging that some people would find "black" a nonsensical answer to the question "what color is this?"?). I mean that color is a concept that people understand intuitively, and so there is no point in having a definition that goes against our intuitive understanding, because then you can't explain anything related to human experience using that definition.
(2) Clear isn't a color because it's a separate aspect of appearance. Things can be clear and orange.
(3,4) "How do you reflect light?" "I don't reflect any." That's how. This isn't any different (or harder to understand) then the concept of zero being a possible number of things. Look at it like this, suppose I hit you with a red and a blue photon and you can reflect or absorb each of those two. I think is is pretty obvious there are 4 ways you could reflect light: don't reflect either, reflect red only, reflect blue only, reflect both.

And again, the definition may be pretty specific, but remember that people will call things "black" or "white" when they reflect a small amount of light, or absorb a small amount of light. That's how you can actually see the features of a black backpack.


----------



## HaraldS (Nov 16, 2010)

I belive black and white are colors. But why is it called "colorblind" when you still can see black and white?


----------



## qqwref (Nov 16, 2010)

HaraldS said:


> I belive black and white are colors. But why is it called "colorblind" when you still can see black and white?


Well, colorblind people are blind to some colors (actually, that's not strictly true, they're blind to some *distinctions* between colors). For instance one type can't tell red and green apart, but can easily tell those two from yellow or blue.


----------



## Stefan (Nov 16, 2010)

qqwref said:


> Can people stop saying "technically" or "scientifically speaking" or whatever?


 
But... that automatically gives one authority!


----------



## FatBoyXPC (Nov 16, 2010)

Stefan said:


> Yes, you can vandalize, but it'll likely get fixed quickly. Plus wikipedia is generally *not* written by moronic kids with no idea what they're doing. Don't make it sound like it is (90% of my "********" were for that alone). And the article doesn't just state that "oh well, black's a color". It provides a proper justification for it as well. And apparently the wikipedia community agrees.



I didn't mention vandalizing once, in fact, I showed how to properly submit changes to a protect page (which I believe that is).




Stefan said:


> Oh you mean the dictionary definition was from a robot or god or whatever, not a person?



Oh, I mean the dictionary that you use in education systems and to define words otherwise. We use the dictionary as a reference often enough (we as in the people here on the forum), and typically the dictionary definition is used to settle things. You by chance remember that "go back to whear you learn what look means" don't you? I'm guessing wherever that place might have been (I believe you suggested preschool) would have taught me the defition from a dictionary.





Stefan said:


> Buuuuuuuuullshiiiiiiiiiiiit. No they're not. They're often *used* in adjective form, but rarely referred to like that. You'd have to do that like "the red color" or "the color that is red" instead of "red". Do you do that? No you don't. And take the title of this thread, for example. It's a noun there. Just like in almost all uses inside the thread.



Alright, you got me, I shouldn't have said referred. You understood my point though, which is what matters.




Stefan said:


> Yeah sure, ignore the rest of the sentence.
> 
> "Although *black* is sometimes described as an "achromatic", or hueless, *color*, in practice it can be considered a color"
> 
> ...


 
The way I read this, it says sometimes that it is described as achromitic or hueless. It appears to me that "sometimes" has nothing to do with it being called a color "in practice." I didn't say that is what makes black not a color, I'm talking about how it specifically does not reflect any light, whereas white clearly does. The article states that as well.

qqwref:
1: I'm not saying people find it nonsensical. I'm only saying that science teachers and students will acknolwedge that people think black is a color, but by their scientific reasoning it is not.

2: Yes, that would normally be referred to as translucent orange though, or by most others I'm sure we'd hear "see through orange." Typically when people say something is clear, they mean colorless, much like water or glass.

3: Right, but if the definition of color states that light is reflected for it to be a color (which it does), then reflecting no light means you are not a color. Though I understand your point (reflecting/absorbing the photons), if you reflect nothing then you are not reflecting. I think a better way to word that would be there are 4 possible outcomes, instead of 4 ways to reflect light.

And about your "technically" comment, I thought that's why this thread was created? So people could debate about whether they are or are not colors (which would be a technicality matter?)


----------



## Slash (Nov 16, 2010)

FMC said:


> "track"--orbit
> "core"--nucleus
> ''induce"--excite


 
thank you
:fp: I could've known excite...


----------



## Stefan (Nov 16, 2010)

fatboyxpc said:


> I didn't mention vandalizing once, in fact, I showed how to properly submit changes to a protect page (which I believe that is).



You made it sound like anyone can write anything there. Well... go ahead and try to get the page to say for more than an hour that black isn't a color. Good luck.



fatboyxpc said:


> You by chance remember that "go back to whear you learn what look means" don't you?



Ha, was that you? I had already forgotten about that. Don't see how that has anything to do with our current situation, though, unless you can show me any reasonable definition anywhere that says look doesn't mean look. About color, we do have differing reasonable definitions.



fatboyxpc said:


> Alright, you got me, I shouldn't have said referred. You understood my point though, which is what matters.



Yeah, your point was to try hiding the fact that you were caught wrongly downplaying the definition you didn't like.



fatboyxpc said:


> science teachers and students will acknolwedge that people think black is a color, but by their scientific reasoning it is not.



[citation needed]


----------



## Stefan (Nov 16, 2010)

fatboyxpc said:


> science teachers and students will acknolwedge that people think black is a color, but by their scientific reasoning it is not.



So... I googled "is black a color" inurl:edu. First hit doesn't seem to really discuss it, second hit says _"which is black, a color"_, and third hit looked most promising. The page is titled "Ask a Color Scientist", it's from the Munsell Color Science Laboratory at the Rochester Institute of Technology. Hope it's scientific enough. They write:



> Scientifically speaking, is black a color? Is white a color? (862)
> 
> *There is no question that black and white are colors.*
> 
> The technical definition of color that is internationally agreed upon includes them as colors and, specifically, there is a definition of achromatic colors as follows: "A color lacking hue; white or grey or black".


----------



## FatBoyXPC (Nov 16, 2010)

Anybody can write anything on wikipedia, that's the whole point of the project. Now I do agree with you that people do administer a hefty load of the articles on the site, but the reason changes are made is because people show some sort of validity that the administrators deem it should stay on there. I don't see how scientific reasoning is not enough to at least state "technically black is not a color" and provide adequate definitions.

Yeah, that was me, but my point was that you told me to go back to where I learned what it meant, which was from a teacher (presumably preschool?) who (my guess) got the definition from her education, that (my guess) stemmed eventually from a dictionary. There is a technicality in that argument (about looking) as well but it is long gone and not relevant here.

Actually, it has nothing to do with disliking the definition, I hit used find to search for color, grabbed the definition number and came back.

As for the citations, I'm sure there is some sort of criteria they need to meet? I was basing that statement off hearing about this debate every year since at least 6th grade in every science class, and often in art class as well. However, since I know the size of the debate, I did some googling even though I'm rather confident if you weren't going to prove a point here you would agree with me on this).

A simple google "Is black a color" and the first result says something really close to what I said: The answer to this question is one of the most debated issues about color. Ask a scientist and you'll get the physics reply: “Black is not a color, white is a color.”

http://www.colormatters.com/vis_bk_white.html


----------



## Stefan (Nov 16, 2010)

fatboyxpc said:


> http://www.colormatters.com/vis_bk_white.html



Seriously? A site full of ads, made by a single person who doesn't look much like a scientist, is your answer to the site I just showed? Wow.


----------



## Owen (Nov 16, 2010)

Of course black and white are colors. Everything has a color. If they weren't colors, you couldn't buy black and white paints.


----------



## FatBoyXPC (Nov 16, 2010)

Stefan said:


> Seriously? A site full of ads, made by a single person who doesn't look much like a scientist, is your answer to the site I just showed? Wow.


 
Please refer to the "criteria" bit of my sentence? Even still if we ask a scientist and (if) he gives us an opinion, that is still an opinion, not a fact. If he gives us a fact, we'll want some sort of citation from that as well. This seems like it would continue to go into a circle until we get to a universally accepted definition of terms. Is a dictionary not just that?

Here is a site that claims it has expert scientists and you can submit questions to scientists. I did a search, I found this article:

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy00/phy00156.htm

"ProfHoff" (I'll take a guess this is a Professor Richard Hoffman) states that "The color of an object depends on the wavelengths of colors reflected from the object." This means an object has no color if there is nothing reflected off an object.

Again though, shouldn't we need proof of what he says?


----------



## Stefan (Nov 16, 2010)

fatboyxpc said:


> Even still if we ask a scientist and (if) he gives us an opinion, that is still an opinion, not a fact.



It doesn't matter whether that scientist's opinion is "fact", only what it is. Your assertion in question was not about the color issue itself. It was about what scientists would say. You said they'd say that scientifically, black is not a color. I showed a clear, strong counterexample.



fatboyxpc said:


> "The color of an object depends on the wavelengths of colors reflected from the object." *This means an object has no color if there is nothing reflected off an object.*



No it doesn't. And he doesn't say so, either. Only you do. And he doesn't say black isn't a color, in fact he very much does talk about it as one, using it as the extreme example of dark colors. And in another answer he's clearer:

_"dark *colors* absorb better than light; flat *black* absorbs best of all."_
-- http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy00/phy00232.htm

Try again?



fatboyxpc said:


> Again though, shouldn't we need proof of what he says?



No. Again, this is not about the color issue itself but about your assertion of what scientists would say. Besides, you don't prove or disprove definitions.


----------



## FatBoyXPC (Nov 17, 2010)

I went ahead and submitted the question "Scientifically speaking, is black a color?" so we can get this settled out.

I did not once say that he said that bit you bolded, but it's seems like quite logical sense. The color depends on the wavelengths reflected from an object. If the criteria to be / have color is to have reflected wavelengths, how can you have color without these reflected wavelengths?


----------



## Stefan (Nov 17, 2010)

fatboyxpc said:


> If the criteria to be / have color is to have reflected wavelengths



He didn't say "*Whether an object has a color* depends on the wavelengths...".
He said "*The color of an object* depends on the wavelengths...".
Rephrased: "*What color an object has* depends on the wavelengths...".

Not whether, but which one. And then he used black as an example in the very next paragraph:

_"When a black object is illuminated by white light, all wavelengths are absorbed
and none are reflected -- that's why the object appears black."_


----------



## FatBoyXPC (Nov 17, 2010)

I see the mistake I made here. Now this has raised questions about why things are taught certain ways in the education system I grew up with.


----------



## Stefan (Nov 17, 2010)

fatboyxpc said:


> I went ahead and submitted the question "Scientifically speaking, is black a color?"



Is it visible somewhere already?

I suspect you'll get a mixture of contradicting answers, just like this previous time it was asked:
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/gen99/gen99457.htm
(or they'll just refer you to that)


----------



## FatBoyXPC (Nov 17, 2010)

Not that I know of, it didn't give me a link after clicking submit, and it also didn't email me a link. I looked for an article like that, but I guess I didn't put the right phrase into the search. Maybe I did see it though, because the second post describing color as a "human sensation" seems really familiar.


----------



## Drake (Nov 17, 2010)

Hmm black is made by absorbing all other color, and white is made y reflecting all colors. I would say no, but there is so much people that say color even if its not. But no its not an color.


----------



## bluedasher (Nov 17, 2010)

HaraldS said:


> I belive black and white are colors. But why is it called "colorblind" when you still can see black and white?



Because you can't see the _real_ colors.


----------



## JL58 (Nov 17, 2010)

Which brings us to the concept of "real" colo(u)rs.
In my opinion there is no such thing. Colors are fabricated by our response to wavelengths, filtered by our eyes pigments and integrated by our brain. They vary tremendously from one human being to the other, with "color blindness" as extreme cases. These pigments were developed over the years to respond differently and only to the energy wavelengths in a very narrow band, the one that can traverse water, likely because life comes from there and no further discrimination of light was needed at the time (interesting evolution leftovers). As such colors are only a partial perception of light. The absence of energy in the narrow visible spectrum does not mean there is no perception. Hence I would characterize black and white as perceptions from my eyes and call them "colors".

Another thing: many talk only about reflected light. To be accurate, we are sensitive to emitted light in the visible spectrum, not just the reflected light. A body will emit a mix of light, part being through the reflection process, part from its own temperature (all of it in the case of a black body). Without black bodies there will be no light. For most of it the sun is a dark body. To a lesser extent, but still for its exact purpose a light bulb is used as a black body.


----------



## Kirjava (Nov 17, 2010)

Drake said:


> Hmm black is made by absorbing all other color, and white is made y reflecting all colors.


 
I don't think you know what colour is.


----------



## Dene (Nov 17, 2010)

fatboyxpc said:


> Please refer to the "criteria" bit of my sentence? Even still if we ask a scientist and (if) he gives us an opinion, that is still an opinion, not a fact. If he gives us a fact, we'll want some sort of citation from that as well. This seems like it would continue to go into a circle until we get to a universally accepted definition of terms. Is a dictionary not just that?


 
Wasn't it decided that there is no "fact" of this matter, but only different answers depending on the definition given?


----------



## gavnasty (Nov 17, 2010)

souljahsu said:


> Black isn't a color because it is the absence of all the light.


 
Go buy every color of paint and mix them.


----------



## aronpm (Nov 17, 2010)

Slash said:


> So, as you might know, everything is made of atoms, which are made of protons, electrons and neutrons. _Now we only care about electrons._


Hell no! I care about protons and neutrons. I can't have an atom without protons.




FMC said:


> "track"--orbit
> "core"--nucleus
> ''induce"--excite


 
"Orbit"? What are you talking about? Electrons don't orbit the nucleus.


----------



## Whyusosrs? (Nov 17, 2010)

@90% of this thread:


----------



## Ashmnafa (Nov 17, 2010)

Stefan said:


> ********.


 
Oh how I wish I could tell my teachers that when they say we cannot use Wikipedia.


----------



## maggotcuber (Nov 17, 2010)

Godmil said:


> Oh dear gawd, people like to complicate things.
> 
> Technically black and white aren't colours but it's convenient to call them such, end of story.
> 
> ...


 
your analogy makes no sense if you think about it.
so why is it that when you mix 2 non-colors you get a color? (ie. black + white = grey)
if you mix silence with static you still get static. the silence doesnt change the way the static is.


----------



## FMC (Nov 17, 2010)

aronpm said:


> "Orbit"? What are you talking about? Electrons don't orbit the nucleus.


 
you may have to check Bohr Model


----------



## Whyusosrs? (Nov 17, 2010)

FMC said:


> you may have to check Bohr Model


 
define: orbit 
the (usually elliptical) path described by one celestial body in its revolution about another; "he plotted the orbit of the moon"


So by saying that electrons "orbit" your ambiguity was taken as the more well-know definition of orbit where it is an elliptical path. If you wanted to say that they "orbited" you would need to say that they travel in a circular orbit.


----------



## hic0057 (Nov 17, 2010)

qqwref said:


> I've been wondering that too. I guess the keyboards in the *UK and Australia (and some places in Europe)* are just poorly manufactured.


 Don't you mean USA not Aussie, UK and others.
In Science I've just done a section on Light and Colour and I've probably learnt more about black and white now then those classes.

We also need a poll to see who believe in whether black or white are colours or not


----------



## aronpm (Nov 17, 2010)

FMC said:


> you may have to check Bohr Model


 
Did you even read that article? From the article you _just_ linked:


> The Bohr model is a primitive model of the hydrogen atom. As a theory, it can be derived as a first-order approximation of the hydrogen atom using the broader and much more accurate quantum mechanics, and thus may be considered to be an obsolete scientific theory.


----------



## FMC (Nov 17, 2010)

aronpm said:


> Did you even read that article? From the article you _just_ linked:


first of all,why do you discuss the validity of bohr model here? i know that electrons donot orbit the nucleus like planets and bohr model is not a successful theory,
secondly i just suggested a better word for "track" and that should not imply that electrons actually orbit nucleus.
MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING


----------



## FatBoyXPC (Nov 17, 2010)

Stefan, I received an email back. Nathan Unter (who is on this list of expert scientists) said "No. It is the absence of light." Unfortunately I still don't see a public link for this. 

Edit:

I didn't realize you had double posted earlier and included a link to the Rochester Institute of Technology. I'd really like for them to include where that definition can be found. Either way, that is some obvious debate about it even in the science realm of things.


----------



## Stefan (Nov 17, 2010)

Ashmnafa said:


> Oh how I wish I could tell my teachers that when they say we cannot use Wikipedia.



I'm pretty sure they do let you use Wikipedia. Just not as a reference. But you can still learn a lot there, and get lots of references there. It is a very useful tool. And anything you write that requires a citation for your teacher probably requires and has a citation on wikipedia as well.



hic0057 said:


> In Science I've just done a section on Light and Colour and I've probably learnt more about black and white now then those classes.



That's cause we obsess about details that your school doesn't have time for 



fatboyxpc said:


> Stefan, I received an email back. Nathan Unter (who is on this list of expert scientists) said "No. It is the absence of light."



Note he didn't say "It is the absence of *color*". At best, that's an incomplete answer. He'd need to define what color and light are and how they relate to each other. Pretty pathetic if that was his whole answer.

Anyway, as I hope is clear now, different people have different opinions about this, even scientists. And I stand by my earlier assertion that the only wrong opinion is the opinion that one's own color-opinion is the sole correct one and that different color-opinions are wrong.


----------



## cmhardw (Nov 17, 2010)

Stefan said:


> Anyway, as I hope is clear now, different people have different opinions about this, even scientists. And I stand by my earlier assertion that *the only wrong opinion is the opinion that one's own color-opinion is the sole correct one and that different color-opinions are wrong.*


 
Well said.


----------



## Stefan (Nov 17, 2010)

fatboyxpc said:


> I didn't realize you had double posted earlier



Argh. The whole point of double-posting is to have you *not* miss the additional information 



fatboyxpc said:


> I'd really like for them to include where that definition can be found.



Well, not surprisingly (though surprisingly far down), their page does cover the question "What is color?":
http://www.cis.rit.edu/research/mcsl2/outreach/faq.php?catnum=#230


----------



## hatter (Nov 17, 2010)

Honestly, as an engineering student, I _think _ (as in I admit I can in no way know this for sure, it is just a speculation) that the reason science hasn't "agreed" upon a solid answer on this is because it is completely insignificant. And, you know what? I'm really glad! I'd rather people put their brains to finding higgs-boson, the cure to cancer, or any number of things rather than waste their time on something as petty as the title of black or white.


I think I do have some weight in this to say that I am an optical engineering major so everything I do deals with light and how it is affected. Black and white can be very important but if they are colors or not is of no value to me (and, as I would assume, any other scientist, artist, etc).


----------



## bluedasher (Nov 18, 2010)

Stefan said:


> Note he didn't say "It is the absence of *color*". At best, that's an incomplete answer. He'd need to define what color and light are and how they relate to each other. Pretty pathetic if that was his whole answer.



Yeah,that response doesn't seem too detailed. However, "Color is the byproduct of the spectrum of* light*, as it is reflected or absorbed, as received by the human eye and processed by the human brain" Quote taken from this website:
http://www.devx.com/projectcool/Article/19954

So the absence of light inevitably, _is_ the absence of color.


----------



## Kirjava (Nov 18, 2010)

Black and white are colours. I am correct.

PROVE ME WRONG.


----------



## Metroidam11 (Nov 18, 2010)

Stupid thread. Of course its a color! Anything that you can see has a pigment. The absence of light is darkness. You see black in darkness. But it is also possible to see black in the light. Like someone said earlier, its like saying 0 is not a number. Even though it is. This shouldn't be a debate. When you say white is all colors you are referring to light, not colors. Colors are the pigments that are reflected from an object when light hits it.


----------



## bluedasher (Nov 18, 2010)

Kirjava said:


> Black and white are colours. I am correct.
> 
> PROVE ME WRONG.



Prove yourself.


----------



## Kirjava (Nov 18, 2010)

I already proved it by stating that I was correct.


----------



## MichaelP. (Nov 18, 2010)

I really don't know enough about this to state anything useful that I'm sure about and *I'm completely speculating*, but I don't think that black is a color, because it is the extremes that we cannot see. If the definition of color is reflected light unto are pupils, then black wouldn't be a color because it doesn't reflect light. From what I understand though, the black that doesn't reflect light is like the inside a black hole, where as the black of anything we can see (for example an off TV screen) is pseudo-black. So pseudo-black is a color, and black isn't.


----------



## bluedasher (Nov 18, 2010)

Kirjava said:


> I already proved it by stating that I was correct.



Since when is that proof? What are you, a god who knows all or something?


----------



## Stefan (Nov 18, 2010)

bluedasher said:


> Yeah,that response doesn't seem too detailed. However, "Color is the byproduct of the spectrum of* light*, as it is reflected or absorbed, as received by the human eye and processed by the human brain" Quote taken from this website:
> http://www.devx.com/projectcool/Article/19954
> 
> So the absence of light inevitably, _is_ the absence of color.


 
You're a quite funny guy.

1. That's a different source. You don't know whether the first agrees with this. Beware, you might not get what you want.

2. _"Color is the byproduct of the spectrum of light, as it is reflected or *absorbed*"_. Black absorbs quite a lot, don't you think?

3. But this part is the most fun: "CMYK stands for cyan, magenta, yellow, *black* -- the four *colors* that make up the standard printing process". Yep, that very article calls black a color.

So you combine the two sources and get that black is *a color that is the absence of color*. Cool.

Why do you guys keep pointing out texts that disagree with you? You're making this way too easy.


----------



## FatBoyXPC (Nov 18, 2010)

Stefan said:


> Argh. The whole point of double-posting is to have you *not* miss the additional information



Ha, I think what happened was I was writing my reply before you got that second post in. Actually, I was somewhat surprised to see the double post, but then realized it's because you wanted me to see it in the event I had already read your post. I do agree though, and just like Chris said: "Well said."



Stefan said:


> Why do you guys keep pointing out texts that disagree with you? You're making this way too easy.



Lol. At least some texts disagree with themselves


----------



## bluedasher (Nov 18, 2010)

Stefan said:


> You're a quite funny guy.
> 
> 1. That's a different source. You don't know whether the first agrees with this. Beware, you might not get what you want.
> 
> ...



That's a good idea. Lets keep editing your message and make it impossible for people to respond to the right post. Yes, I think black does absorb light. Notice, IT NEEDS LIGHT TO ABSORB. No light equals no color. Color is a relative term. People refer to black and white as colors, but they are not. Scientifically speaking they are not colors.


----------



## Stefan (Nov 18, 2010)

Sorry about the editing. I wrote pretty much what's there now, then realized I didn't actually get your point and asked for it instead, then got your point and realized you really don't make sense and put the original back, pretty much just adding the "so you combine" line.

And again: Why do you try to argue using an article that actually disagrees with you?



bluedasher said:


> Scientifically speaking they are not colors.



[citation needed]


----------



## Stefan (Nov 18, 2010)

bluedasher said:


> No light equals no color.


 
So if there's no light, red is not a color?


----------



## Kirjava (Nov 18, 2010)

bluedasher said:


> What are you, a god who knows all or something?


 
I must be. No-one has challenged my statement with contradictory information.


----------



## cmhardw (Nov 18, 2010)

Stefan said:


> So if there's no light, red is not a color?


 
OOooooohhh...... I've mostly been lurking, but this comment piques my interest.

If color is determined by light and perception of things at that moment, then yes a red object in a darkened room (read: pitch black) has no color. *Or* you could make a reasonable argument that its color is black at that moment in time.

If color is a property of a shape, determining how it will *reflect* light, then a red object that is in a pitch black room is still red, even in the absence of light.

Wow..... ok this brings me into the discussion now. I never thought about a red apple being a black apple when the lights are turned off. But this *is* how my mind would perceive it (or at least dark gray, since there would need to be enough light that I could know that I was looking at an apple). Or, perhaps the dark gray apple is still a red apple, I am only perceiving it as dark gray because of the lower lighting.

My head asplode go boom

Chris


----------



## bluedasher (Nov 18, 2010)

Stefan said:


> Sorry about the editing. I wrote pretty much what's there now, then realized I didn't actually get your point and asked for it instead, then got your point and realized you really don't make sense and put the original back, pretty much just adding the "so you combine" line.
> 
> And again: Why do you try to argue using an article that actually disagrees with you?
> 
> ...



I'll repeat this again. Color is a relative term. Of course people refer to black as colors, but IMO it isn't. Also many websites agree with me. Why don't you back up your argument with a website that says something along the lines of, "Black is not a color?"

I guess I meant IMO and since many websites agree with me I take it as scientific proof. As far as the citation goes I probably should have one, but once again can you show me a website that proves your theory?


----------



## FatBoyXPC (Nov 18, 2010)

Bluedasher: I'm not sure if you have read through the post history in this thread, but if you have, you would understand that at best you will find this is debated even by scientists against scientists.

Chris: The red apple with the light turned off is in one of the articles Stefan or I mentioned, the one that says "No light and color." I think it even says the apple is still red.


----------



## bluedasher (Nov 18, 2010)

Stefan said:


> So if there's no light, red is not a color?



Yeah, that's what I've always heard. Red is a color because it reflects/absorbs light. However, when there is no light for the object to reflect/absorb the object that is red will be black. At least that's what I have heard. I wonder, however, if absorbing light is almost like sticking a metal spoon in a flame. After you take the spoon out of the flame it is still hot. this might apply to why the object that is red could be red for a bit longer without light.


----------



## bluedasher (Nov 18, 2010)

fatboyxpc said:


> Bluedasher: I'm not sure if you have read through the post history in this thread, but if you have, you would understand that at best you will find this is debated even by scientists against scientists.



Yes, I understand that. So there is really no citation that anyone could give to prove there theory. The question that this thread is based on is purely personal preference that you could back up with a plausible explanation. As far as theories go, most of them tend to lean towards the conclusion that black is not a color as far as I've seen.


----------



## hatter (Nov 18, 2010)

I'll say this again:

Scientists don't care if black and/or white should be labeled as colors. The _only _important thing is that black absorbs all light and white reflects all light. Red, for instance, absorbs a lot of light and reflects only a small range of light... same with blue, green, magenta, turquoise, and every other color. Black and white are special, but the classification of white or black is irrelevant and obviously no one side can convince the other.


----------



## Stefan (Nov 18, 2010)

cmhardw said:


> If color is determined by light and perception of things at that moment, then yes a red object in a darkened room (read: pitch black) has no color.



That's a different issue, though. We weren't talking about whether an object *has* a color if there's no light, we were talking about whether black *is* a color.

Yours is an interesting question as well, but I'm not sure I'd agree with you that the object wouldn't have a color.



bluedasher said:


> Why don't you back up your argument with a website that says something along the lines of, "Black is *not* a color?"



Huh? Why would I try to back up my argument with a website disagreeing with me? That appears to be your job.



bluedasher said:


> but once again can you show me a website that proves your theory?



Again: I'm neither of the opinion that black is a color, nor am I of the opinion that it isn't. I say it depends on the definition.

If you want me to show a site that says black *is* a color... what about the Rochester one I already showed?



bluedasher said:


> Red is a color because it reflects/absorbs light.



Black also absorbs light, so now you're saying it is a color? You're confusing.



bluedasher said:


> when there is no light for the object to reflect/absorb the object that is red will be black.



Way to change the subject. This is not about the color an object has, this is about whether black is a color.


----------



## bluedasher (Nov 18, 2010)

Stefan said:


> Black also absorbs light, so now you're saying it is a color? You're confusing. Way to change the subject. This is not about the color an object has, this is about whether black is a color.



Black does absorb light, but it doesn't reflect any and I'm not mistaken the reflected light is what we see. I was answering your question. "So if there's no light, red is not a color?"


----------



## cmhardw (Nov 18, 2010)

Stefan said:


> That's a different issue, though. We weren't talking about *what color* an object *has* if there's no light, we were talking about *whether* black *is a color*.


 
Yeah, but I think the question is still interesting. The answer seems to depend on the definition of color.

Let's consider two camps:

1) Black *is* a color
If color is the brain's perception of a certain input from the retinas through the optical nerve, then then a red apple is the color black (or dark gray) when left in a darkened room and *perceived* by a person.

If color is a property of an object (i.e. the chemical structure of the surface of the item dictates that it will absorb all wavelengths of light except for those that fall within the spectrum we call "red"), then even in a darkened room with no light at all that apple is still the color red.

2) Black *is not* a color

If color is the brain's perception of a certain input from the retinas through the optical nerve, then a red apple has no color (or has the color dark gray) when left in a darkened room and *perceived* by a person.

If color is a property of an object (i.e. the chemical structure of the surface of the item dictates that it will absorb all wavelengths of light except for those that fall within the spectrum we call "red"), then even in a darkened room with no light at all that apple is still the color red.

At least that's how I see it so far. The problem with this line of thinking is that we run into the issue of "What color does the apple have if no one is looking at it," which again depends on the definition of property of the object, or perceived state of the object. However, I still find the question interesting.


----------



## bluedasher (Nov 18, 2010)

Chris: You didn't sign your name at the end of your post. Haha.


----------



## cmhardw (Nov 18, 2010)

bluedasher said:


> Chris: You didn't sign your name at the end of your post. Haha.


 
I'm trying to wean myself off of that


----------



## Stefan (Nov 18, 2010)

bluedasher said:


> Black does absorb light



Black doesn't absorb light, black things do.



bluedasher said:


> but it doesn't reflect any



A black body, not black, indeed doesn't. Go on...



bluedasher said:


> and I'm not mistaken the reflected light is what we see.



Now you've lost me. What's your point here?

You seem to have somehow missed this, btw:



Stefan said:


> bluedasher said:
> 
> 
> > but once again can you show me a website that proves your theory?
> ...


----------



## bluedasher (Nov 18, 2010)

Stefan: What I meant by this: "and I'm not mistaken the reflected light is what we see." is that if colors reflect light and we see colors, yet black doesn't reflect light so it is not a color. Looking back at that post by me I am seeing how that can confuse somebody. As far as your Rochester website that you did indeed give a link to, it really isn't relevant anymore. When I asked you for a source I figured based on your other posts that you were defending the fact that black and white were colors and I wanted you to prove it. However, you don't think that, so don't back up what you don't think.


----------



## Stefan (Nov 18, 2010)

cmhardw said:


> Yeah, but I think the question is still interesting.



Yes, I agree, I was just too slow to edit that in.



bluedasher said:


> colors reflect light and we see colors,



Again: colors don't reflect light, *objects* do.



bluedasher said:


> yet black doesn't reflect light so it is not a color.



You still haven't given a reason why not reflecting light means that black isn't a color.



bluedasher said:


> As far as your Rochester website that you did indeed give a link to, it really isn't relevant anymore.



Yeah, sure, continue ignoring that site. You claim "scientifically speaking" black isn't a color, ask for a website saying it is one, and conveniently ignore the by far most scientific source presented which clearly states _"There is no question that black and white are colors"_. Well done, you're hopeless, and I'm out of here.


----------



## Dene (Nov 18, 2010)

@Chris:

Of course an apple in a room with no light is still red. There might be insufficient lighting to activate the cones that perceive colour so the object will be perceived in shades of grey, but given sufficient light (not much is needed) the true nature of the object will be seen. 

That is, the colour is a property of the object.

To be honest this is more of a philosophical argument though. Berkeley might disagree.


----------



## Stefan (Nov 18, 2010)

One more little thing...



fatboyxpc said:


> Bluedasher: I'm not sure if you have read through the post history in this thread, but if you have, you would understand that at best you will find this is *debated even by scientists against scientists*.



No, not really. I haven't seen any scientists "debate" it. I've just seen them having differing opinions. As hatter pointed out, scientists don't really care much (of course they might have an opinion about it and share it if asked, for example by us).


----------



## JL58 (Nov 18, 2010)

May I stress again that colors don't really exist? It's just coming from a fabricated resonance of 2 resonators (one for blue wavelength and one for red wavelength) in our eyes. The real world is black, white and shades of grey, only defined by the intensity of light.
But as far as I can see through my human eyes the decoding of the light combination I receive is translated in blue, green, yellow, etc. depending on the overall light intensity, its blue component level and its red component level.

Trying to translate this to sound you realize that our eye is a very poor sensor: its like hearing a noise and being able to say how loud it is, how much of a middle C it contains and how much of the next G key it contains - no more. Well the eye is actually very powerful as it can do this crude analysis for any point in the field of view at the same time, and that's a lot of information. But as a frequency analyzer it is not the best tool we have.

Going back to colors, the perception we have can be modeled in the YCrCb space (Y is the luminance or overall light intensity, Cr is the level of the red component of light and Cb the blue component). A zero value for both Cr and Cb correspond to all shade of grey (from black to white). Any non zero value of Cr or Cb will add hue to the perceived color. Please refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YCbCr if you're curious (Stephan is right, lots of good stuff there  )
Black and white belong to this space, as much as all shades of grey. And all of those are only singularities of the color space we can perceive. 

If we were missing one of the eye pigments (extreme case of color blindness) we would see all shades of gray, including black and white and anything going from bright red to teal, but no blue, green yellow or orange in the case blue was missing, or from vivid blue to yellowish orange, but without purple, green, or red in the case red was missing. 

If we had one more pigment type, TV's would need one more color to display beyond RGB. Its like seeing space in the 4 dimensions compared to what we are used to. Hard to comprehend.

All this to say (again): colors are only created by physiological benefits of 2 frequency resonators and have no physical reality. The real world is just grey. Our preceptions of pitch black and bright white are very subjective, reflecting our limitation as a light sensing machine. We see black when the light level is just too low for our sensor to feel. We see white when all our sensors (luminance, red an blue) are saturated in the narrow spectrum we are receptive to.

One more thing, from a very different angle: when a kid asks for the color of an object and s/he's told it's black or white he understand exactly what the answer is. A kid's learning about black, white, red, green or pink is the same. We all know what a black cat or a white T-shirt look like. These are perfect descriptors of the intensity of light and color saturation our eyes would receive when we see one. This are perfect descriptors of what our brain integrates and of how our data processing is functioning.

I think white and black belong to the color space


----------



## Stefan (Nov 18, 2010)

Ugh, another little thing:


bluedasher said:


> When I asked you for a source I figured based on your other posts that you were defending the fact that black and white were colors and I wanted you to prove it.


1. I *was* defending the opinion that black and white are colors. It *is* valid.
2. You asked me for a site that says black is *not* a color.
3. Again: you don't prove or disprove definitions.


----------



## cmhardw (Nov 18, 2010)

Stefan said:


> Ugh, another little thing:


 
Stefan, are you sure you weren't meaning to quote bluedasher there? I don't remember posting that.


----------



## rock1313 (Nov 18, 2010)

black and white is a shade


----------



## Stefan (Nov 18, 2010)

Chris: oops, my mistake, probably caused by the new forum software repeatedly including quotes I've long used already so I have to cut them out. Will fix.



rock1313 said:


> black and white is a shade


 
The question is whether they're colors.


----------



## bluedasher (Nov 18, 2010)

Stefan said:


> Ugh, another little thing:
> 1. I *was* defending the opinion that black and white are colors. It *is* valid.



Why defend something that is not _your_ opinion? I already know that under the right circumstances black can be considered a color. Merely can it not be considered a color? I believe that you can look at this question (Which is almost flawed considering there is no right answer) and say black is a color and it is not a color. This almost isn't worth debating since everyone will still refer to black as a color if proven otherwise.


----------



## Stefan (Nov 18, 2010)

bluedasher said:


> Why defend something that is not _your_ opinion?



It is valid. Always defending truth and reason. One of my biggest flaws. Huge waste of time.



bluedasher said:


> I believe that you can look at this question (Which is almost flawed considering *there is no right answer*)



There are *several* right answers.



bluedasher said:


> I believe that you can look at this question [...] and say black *is a color and it is not a color*.


 
Of course I can. And I do. Like I clearly stated at least two times! Where have you been?!


----------



## bluedasher (Nov 18, 2010)

Stefan said:


> It is valid. Always defending truth and reason. One of my biggest flaws.
> There are *several* right answers.
> Of course I can. And I do. Like I clearly stated at least two times! Where have you been?!



When I say there is no right answer I'm implying that there are multiply answers that could be considered right. 

I guess it doesn't seem like you are defending both possibilities because you seem determined to prove my theory false when no one can _prove _anything. We can only state that there are two theories that have not been proven.


----------



## Stefan (Nov 18, 2010)

bluedasher said:


> When I say there is no right answer I'm implying that there are multiply answers that could be considered right.



No you're not. That might be what you mean, but it's not implied. Rather the opposite.



bluedasher said:


> I guess it doesn't seem like you are defending both possibilities



Don't guess. Just don't ignore my stance which, again, *I've clearly stated at least twice*.



bluedasher said:


> you seem determined to prove my theory false when no one can prove anything



Your opinion that black isn't a color is ok, I did *not* try to prove that wrong. What's *not* ok is your opinion that people who say it *is* a color are wrong, and that's why I've argued.



bluedasher said:


> We can only state that there are two theories that have not been proven.


 
Could you please get rid of your obsession with proving definitions (or theories, if you want to call it that)? How many times do you need to be told that one doesn't prove or disprove definitions? If you think otherwise, ok, say that (and preferably explain how), but don't just keep repeating it over and over again.


----------



## Narraeson (Nov 25, 2010)

Gotta love these stupid kinds of debates... They are both non-colors. Yes, I just made that up. LIVE WITH IT.



Chocolate Rain, Some stay dry while Others Lose The Game


----------



## Grzegorz (Aug 4, 2011)

I think we're pretty sure that white is a colour. 

I think you all are wrong. (I could be wrong too)
colours exist like numbers exist.*

You have black and true black. We know currently only one thing that shows (hehe) true black. A black hole! since it doesn't emit light. 
If that black wallet on your desk would be truly black, you would see a 'gap' amidst your other stuff. We can safely say that any black in anyday life is a color, since we can see it. Truly black would be a gap. And even if it were truly black we could say the wallet had a colour. ->

1.Suppose you have seen only one color in life (a wall of white/green/whatever); there wouldn't be a concept colour for you, as you haven't seen anything else to relate to. Colors wouldn't exist if we hadn't two or more. 
2a.I've read nearly all of this thread. only (about) 3 or 4 people mentioned that colour is a result of a wave.
2b. This isn't entirely true. By saying this, one implies:"registering a certain wave result in seeing a certain colour". 
3a.*since color is a concept, a 'colour' (black** included) already was a color before we even saw them. Just like numbers, though an imaginary concept, already 'existed' before we even thought. imaginary is replaceable with virtual. 
3b. We aren't aware of the concept 'color' since colour is much more natural than numbers. We constantly(***) see colour.

2c. Now i create a situation to this more clear
s(uppose)1: There are only for colours (black-red-green-white)
s2: There are 3 different creatures.
s3: Of the light spectrum those creatures can only register the three exact same frequencies. (the not frequency (absence of light),Hz1,Hz2,Hz3)
C(reature)1: (human like) sees black when there isn't any light. red when hz1. green when hz2, white when hz3.
c2: (human with rare color blindness; not really blind, it turns the colours around ->) black when no light. green when hz1. red when hz2. white when hz3.
c3: (xenomorph) red when no light. white when hz1. black when hz2. green when hz3.

So every creature above mentioned sees everything in the same form, but has not the same corresponding colour. Creature2 does indeed exist; there are people with 2 colour diseases (1: redwavelengt stays red, greenwavelength becomes red & 2: greenwavelength stays green, redwavelength becomes green) resulting in disease which turn around the colours. But it feels totally natural for them that everything green for them is actually red.
!!!!*But it totally feels natural for them to say that black isn't a colour because their brains always have corresponded the absence of light with black.* 

Only because we evolved the same way, i may assume that green which i see is the same green you see.

colour is not an result of, it's in it's own right, so it can be used to 'label' an lightfrequency.

***not-truly-black is a colour. So everything around us has color.


----------

