|
black people (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| trancaholic |
Well, I'm no physicist (this should really be answered by Drug_Tito) but there is a frequency corresponding to green light (hence why it's in the rainbow). Colours corresponding to a specific frequency is called spectral colours when you go completely nazi-correct on the terminology, but I don't know whether that distinction is mirrored in daily usage of the term. I'm practically just re-iterating what I was told back in basic school.
Anyway, I found the following snippet at Wikipedia:
| quote: | Most light sources are not pure spectral sources; rather they are created from mixtures of various wavelengths and intensities of light. To the human eye, however, there is a wide class of mixed-spectrum light that is perceived the same as a pure spectral color. In the table above, for instance, when your computer screen is displaying the "orange" patch, it is not emitting pure light at a fixed wavelength of around 600 nm (which is in fact not a thing most computer screens are even able to do). Rather, it is emitting a mixture of about two parts red to one part green light. Were you to print this page on a color printer, the orange patch on the paper, when lit with white light, would reflect yet another, more continuous spectrum. We cannot see those differences (although many animals can), and the reason has to do with the pigments that make up our color vision cells (see below).
A useful quantification of this property is the dominant wavelength, which matches a wavelength of spectral light to a non-spectral source that evokes the same color perception. Dominant wavelength is the formal background for the popular concept of hue.
In addition to the many light sources that can appear to be pure spectral colors but are actually mixtures, there are many color perceptions that by definition cannot be pure spectral colors due to desaturation or because they are purples (which are a mixture of red and violet light, from either end of the spectrum). Some examples of necessarily non-spectral colors are the achromatic colors (black, gray and white) and other colors such as pink, tan and magenta.
|
As you can see, there appear to be three classes of colours: the "pure" ones (the spectral colours), the "blends" (pink etc.), and the achromatic ones (including black and white). So while this wiki-page makes the mistake (IMO) of classifying black and white as colours, it does distinguish between them and "chromatic colours".
Skimming this thread again, I'm suddenly puzzled by what the distinction between "blacks" being really black or merely equipped with a surplus of pigments has to do with the original "question"? |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| Hehe, well, I'm not a physicist either, but yeah what you said is correct. Basically the colors you have in a rainbow make up a basic spectrum and you get other colors like pink and brown by adding white light to them or making them dimmer. The fact is that you can make combinations of colors look as uniform colors, hence blue+yellow=green. Basically it's because each of our 3 types of eye color receptors respond not to a single frequency but to a band of frequencies. Meaning if you look at a piece of orange paper, your red receptors will pick up the reflected light at, say, 70% efficiency, while your greens will do it at, say, 30%, and blues at 1%. Now, if you take a look at a bunch of very small red and green dots (say there are 2 times more red ones, which is how a computer would make an orange color), your red receptors will pick up 2 times more light from the dots than would the green receptors, and you'll basically get the same visual appearance. But while in the first case the orange light was a single spectral line, in the second case it's not a spectral color because there are 2 spectral lines. |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
@ Trancaholic: Quick question, why is white not a color then? |
I say white is a color! :p
It's color #FFFFFF in HTML :toothless
discuss...
:haha: |
|
|
| h0tsweetbabyd0l |
i agree wit trancaholic white and black cannot be considered as colors !
btw what is the point about this thread?black people...discuss?yeah well they are human being as everyone else so i dunno :rolleyes: |
|
|
| St_Andrew |
| quote: | Originally posted by Trancer-X
First you have to explain to us why Asian's have straight pubes. |
Yeah this one is weird :toothless |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| quote: | Originally posted by h0tsweetbabyd0l
i agree wit trancaholic white and black cannot be considered as colors |
Yeah, we know. We're just fooling around. ;)
As far as the initial thread title goes, someone was trying to stir the - so we just took the thread and started having fun with it.
If I was a mod this thread would have been deleted, but I'm not. :) |
|
|
| h0tsweetbabyd0l |
| quote: | Originally posted by Trancer-X
If I was a mod this thread would have been deleted, but I'm not. :) |
yea w0rd |
|
|
| St_Andrew |
Nah leave it, I think it's awesome how we can turn a stupid thread into a sophisticated debate of what a color really is :)
You always learn something new ;) |
|
|
| LeopoldStotch |
i will tell you this ..
if it wasn't for "african american" people, then :
there wouldn't be loud mouths in the entertainment business, such as chris rock, stephen a. smith, al sharpton, johnnie cochran, and rev. jesse jackson
the sports industry would be verrry boring right now
the word "looter" wouldn't be much of an issue
and i wouldn't be making a cool $300 a week on sports games .... :wtf: :nervous: ......
but seriously .. this is a stupid topic ...
:rolleyes: |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| quote: | Originally posted by LeopoldStotch
the word "looter" wouldn't be much of an issue
|
Well, not all blacks are African-American, and I'm pretty sure that the Nazi's looted more than anyone else in recent history. |
|
|
| LeopoldStotch |
| quote: | Originally posted by Trancer-X
Well, not all blacks are African-American, and I'm pretty sure that the Nazi's looted more than anyone else in recent history. |
yeah i know about the nazi's and how they tried to "loot" everyone's belongings ..
but according to "new orleans propaganda", all "black people" are "looters" .. it's pretty lame .. i usually ignore that type of b.s. the media tries to feed the people ...
and true that not all african-americans are black .. because there are the south africans, whom are not black ..
but the term "african-american" is very controversial .. you can say it is the "politically correct" way to saying black person, but why is it that way ? .. when we say "african-american", we can talk about the history and background of the the term .. how the africans was shipped to the carribean sea to some random island, where they are sold to slavetraders, and then the slavetraders sent the africans to the mainland (u.s.) to the southern farms, because the farmers needed help tending the farm ... but i am not going to get too deep into this topic, because we can go on and on about the history of slavetrading ...
then again, we can always blame history, and point the finger at the majority european powerhouses (england and spain) for starting slave trading .. but that topic would bring this thread off topic .. :rolleyes: |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| quote: | Originally posted by LeopoldStotch
but that topic would bring this thread off topic .. :rolleyes: |
LOL
it's okay, I don't think this thread really even has a topic. ;) |
|
|
|
|
