Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

How Does A Green Apple Turn To Red?

light

  • Please log in to reply
106 replies to this topic

#18 xyz

xyz

    Explaining

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 540 posts

Posted 19 June 2016 - 05:37 PM

Black isn't really a colour, it's a lack of colour. Ironically, the lighter your skin, the more 'cloured' you are.

 

I'm suggest that in the absence of visible wavelengths of light, everything in the universe is black, yes.

 

It's not a red apple in the dark. It's what would be a red apple if there were white light reflecting off of it.

By what assumption do you consider everything in the Universe is ''black''?

 

You are clearly viewing this from your subjective visual experience and not thinking objectively.



#19 pzkpfw

pzkpfw

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 182 posts

Posted 19 June 2016 - 05:39 PM

Well obviously in ''darkness'' nobody can see that the apple is red, in fact we can't even see the apple, but by the very fact we cant see if the apple is red in the dark, gives us the objective question of whether or not the apple is still red in the dark.
The apple stays red in the shade but is less illuminated, but we can still see it is red, if we were to turn the light down more, we can still see it is red, so why we would we think it wasn't red in the dark?
I observe the apple only needs illumination to become visible but does not need anything to be red?


It does "need" something to be red.

That something is the chemicals making up its skin, which reflect the frequency of light which we perceive as red.

Quite simple. And in total darkness, those chemicals don't vanish into Unicorn land.

#20 xyz

xyz

    Explaining

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 540 posts

Posted 19 June 2016 - 05:44 PM

It does "need" something to be red.

That something is the chemicals making up its skin, which reflect the frequency of light which we perceive as red.

Quite simple. And in total darkness, those chemicals don't vanish into Unicorn land.

I understand what you are saying, but from your answer I do not think you quite understand what I am discussing. 

 

Not what we perceive to be red, an apple that is in reality actually red.  

 

I actually think that the wavelengths of light are brilliantly man made and are independent of an objects colour?



#21 A-wal

A-wal

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1436 posts

Posted 19 June 2016 - 05:50 PM

By what assumption do you consider everything in the Universe is ''black''?

Due to the fact that in the absence of visible light everything IS black. Having the potential to be something in the right conditions (when it has light reflecting off of its surface) doesn't stop everything from being black when those conditions aren't met.

 

I actually think that the wavelengths of light are brilliantly man made and are independent of an objects colour?

What? The 'colour' of an object is just another way of saying what wavelengths of light it reflects rather than absorbs.



#22 xyz

xyz

    Explaining

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 540 posts

Posted 19 June 2016 - 05:56 PM

Due to the fact that in the absence of visible light everything IS black. Having the potential to be something in the right conditions (when it has light reflecting off of its surface) doesn't stop everything from being black when those conditions aren't met.

 

What? The 'colour' of an object is just another way of saying what wavelengths of light it reflects rather than absorbs.

No , the absence of light does not make things automatically turn ''black'', the black you see is ''darkness'' not of the object. 

 

How is a wavelength of light in anyway directly related to an object?

 

Just because we can mix wavelengths of light to make different ''colours'' or split light into colours this does not show a direct relationship to an objects colour. 



#23 pzkpfw

pzkpfw

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 182 posts

Posted 19 June 2016 - 06:07 PM

...
I actually think that the wavelengths of light are brilliantly man made and are independent of an objects colour?


This is why I jumped out of your previous "see" thread.

You plainly want to insist on your own metaphysical weird ideas, and your asking of questions is just a dishonest game.

#24 xyz

xyz

    Explaining

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 540 posts

Posted 19 June 2016 - 06:12 PM

This is why I jumped out of your previous "see" thread.

You plainly want to insist on your own metaphysical weird ideas, and your asking of questions is just a dishonest game.

No,there is a question mark, and the questions I am asking are objective,

 

Diffraction, refraction, wavelengths are temporal distortions of light , objects are seemingly constant in their colour and different to the former mentioned distortions. 



#25 A-wal

A-wal

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1436 posts

Posted 19 June 2016 - 06:24 PM

How is a wavelength of light in anyway directly related to an object?

The wavelengths of light that it reflects rather than absorbs are what determines its colour. No light reflecting from it means no colour. That's why it's black in the dark.



#26 xyz

xyz

    Explaining

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 540 posts

Posted 19 June 2016 - 06:32 PM

The wavelengths of light that it reflects rather than absorbs are what determines its colour. No light reflecting from it means no colour. That's why it's black in the dark.

So you think that an object reflects light, can you prove this? 

 

If I shun a laser at the wall what reflective beam do you think I would ''see'' in the subjective sense?



#27 A-wal

A-wal

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1436 posts

Posted 19 June 2016 - 06:49 PM

So you think that an object reflects light, can you prove this?

Yes, I can see the object.

 

If I shun a laser at the wall what reflective beam do you think I would ''see'' in the subjective sense?

You would see the light that's has bounced off of the wall and reached your eye.



#28 xyz

xyz

    Explaining

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 540 posts

Posted 19 June 2016 - 06:55 PM

Yes, I can see the object.

 

You would see the light that's has bounced off of the wall and reached your eye.

You avoided the question and came back with a subjective education answer which we are all aware of . 

 

 

''Seeing'' the object is not proof that light is reflecting off the object.   You would not subjectively see any light that bounces of the wall , the space remains subjectively ''gin-clear''. 

 

 

I asked you for evidence proof and not just an objective thought with no substance. 

 

A laser beam shows us the wall does not subjectively reflect light when exposed in a medium of smoke, this leads to the integrity of a wall reflecting light when the experiment proves otherwise.


Edited by xyz, 19 June 2016 - 06:58 PM.


#29 A-wal

A-wal

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1436 posts

Posted 20 June 2016 - 08:54 AM

A laser beam shows us the wall does not subjectively reflect light when exposed in a medium of smoke, this leads to the integrity of a wall reflecting light when the experiment proves otherwise.

What? :) I think you need medical (psychiatric) help.



#30 Farming guy

Farming guy

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 986 posts

Posted 20 June 2016 - 06:07 PM

This reminds me of on old BC cartoon where one character asks how we know that we all see color the same.  He speculates that we might  see a color and call it red when we are actually seeing green, but calling it red because that is what everyone else calls it.  I don't know why, but that still makes me chuckle these many years later.

 

Of all our senses, I believe the sense of humor is most important.



#31 pzkpfw

pzkpfw

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 182 posts

Posted 20 June 2016 - 06:15 PM

This ( Synesthesia ) has always seemed interesting to me: https://en.wikipedia...iki/Synesthesia

#32 xyz

xyz

    Explaining

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 540 posts

Posted 24 June 2016 - 03:52 AM

What? :) I think you need medical (psychiatric) help.

You are quite welcome to think whatever you like , your thinking can only ever be assumption when you do not know me or even understand what I am saying. 

 

Answer a few basic question, lets try it this way. 

 

In the daytime if I shine a laser on a wall, the picture in my mind does not reveal a laser beam seen passing through the space, do you agree with this subjective observation?

 

In the same experiment, my mind does not reveal any reflective rays seen in the space, do you agree with this subjective observation?

 

I will wait for an answer for these before I continue.



#33 pzkpfw

pzkpfw

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 182 posts

Posted 24 June 2016 - 03:58 AM

... In the daytime if I shine a laser on a wall, the picture in my mind does not reveal a laser beam seen passing through the space, do you agree with this subjective observation?


In ideal "gin clear" conditions (no dust, no mist) yes, you won't see the laser beam in transit.

(You probably will see a dot on the wall, where the laser hits, and the material of the wall spits photons back out in various directions, some hitting your eye.)

There's little subjective about this, as your observation will match that of other people, and be agreed by experiment.
 

In the same experiment, my mind does not reveal any reflective rays seen in the space, do you agree with this subjective observation?


How is this question different to the first?

How is this subjective?

Edited by pzkpfw, 24 June 2016 - 03:59 AM.


#34 xyz

xyz

    Explaining

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 540 posts

Posted 24 June 2016 - 04:45 AM

In ideal "gin clear" conditions (no dust, no mist) yes, you won't see the laser beam in transit.

(You probably will see a dot on the wall, where the laser hits, and the material of the wall spits photons back out in various directions, some hitting your eye.)

There's little subjective about this, as your observation will match that of other people, and be agreed by experiment.
 

How is this question different to the first?

How is this subjective?

Subjective is of the mind, the ''pictures'' you ''see'' in your sight cortex(brain) , the visualisations in your head of what is perceived.   The objective is to think about about and question the things we do not ''see'' in our minds such as ''light'' in gin-clear form passing through space. 

 

 

''(You probably will see a dot on the wall, where the laser hits, and the material of the wall spits photons back out in various directions, some hitting your eye.)''

 

You will 'see' a dot on the wall, a visual picture in your brain, then you interweave subjective and objective in the rest of your statement making a contradictory answer to my question.

 

 

 You objectively see Photons reflecting, you do not subjectively see them , you agree with this?


Edited by xyz, 24 June 2016 - 04:45 AM.




Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: light