It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is a blue object really blue, or is it in fact every other colour except blue?

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 10:03 AM
link   
With my limited knowledge, I understand the following.....

Light (which consists of all the colours of the spectrum (hence rainbows and the like), reflects. It bounces off objects. That's why we wear white to reflect the suns light to keep cooler and that's why black makes us hot, because it absorbs light. (Black in my opinion isn't a colour, or if it is, then it is made up of every colour in the spectrum, because it absorbs those colours and doesn't reflect any.

Using that maxim - of light being reflective and black being absorbent, then surely, in terms of the colours we see objects as (irrespective of the definition of the colour we give it as seen by individuals), then the viewed object must be every other colour than the colour it appears?!

So, if we view a red brick, that object is absorbing every colour of the spectrum, yet reflecting the colour red. Therefore it isn't red. The same would be said of any colour object... it is every colour than the one seen.
Obviously, different materials have the ability to reflect different light, therefore colours, and all other light must be reflected off that object, except where you have a black object, which absorbs ALL light.

In a totally black room you see nothing. In a way, a totally black cat for example, is actually invisible. It is only visible because of the other reflective objects around it. Put it in a light free room and it's gone.

So, we see colours as reflections, and these reflections enable us to see the objects around us... The variations of colour depend on the atomic structure of that object, and that gives us the amazing variety of colours we see.

It fascinates me to think in this way, and in my mind it makes perfect sense... However, if a blue object is actually only reflecting blue, that 'blue' maybe 'green' to someone else... either by a learnt process, or by eye/brain effects.

So in a nutshell - a red object is every colour but that. Comments?




posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 10:07 AM
link   
Colour is our perception, therefore although in reality it may reflecting every other wavelength except what we perceive as red, to our perception it's colour is red.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 10:15 AM
link   
very interesting

i was wondering myself, do we see a blue color, when the blue "wave" of light is absorbed or the only "lightwave" that is reflected ?



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 10:15 AM
link   
reply to post by ckitch
 


Good post.

It makes you think that from a philosophical perspective, we only see distortions of the one true reality.

What I mean is, a blue object has been distorted from being pure white by removing blue so as to reflect blue.

So by distorting reality in similar ways, we are able to have a more versatile experience, although maybe not a true one.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 10:21 AM
link   
reply to post by ckitch
 

That's funny, I read an article just the other day about this.
It said that in a certain part of the world, people said that water was white like milk
and the sky is black like coal.
Just goes to show you, color is what we perceive it to be.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 10:23 AM
link   
Look up a book by Michael Talbot called the The Holographic Universe

Also this is a good lecture by him



I always thought it was weird that he was talking about a Holographic universe along time ago, and now, people are starting to take that theory seriously.

He talks about what your are talking about perception and much like you describe.

ANd this video is one about conscious observer in quantum physics.




eta. theres also the measurement problem in quantum mechanics, thats the whole its not there until you observe it thing, so an individuals observation changes his reality.

Measurement problem
edit on 7-9-2011 by benrl because: Wiki source



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 10:24 AM
link   
reply to post by john_bmth
 

the objects "ABSORB" every other color and reflect the blue wavelength.

While perception can be subjective to the individual; take the individual out of the process and fora "blue"object reflecting"blue"light.The wavelength of the blue light is absolutely;repeatably measureable.You may call it "light blue";some will say"teal" but the wavelength is" xxx nm".


edit on 7-9-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-9-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 10:46 AM
link   
There is no such thing as color as we think of it and see it. Like said before, all objects are colorless and can either reflect or absorb wavelengths of light. If it reflects a specific wavelength, we can see it, if it absorbs it, we cannot see it.

Now, ask yourself this:

How do you know that the color 'red' that you see is the same color 'red' that I see?

We both grew up being taught that this color, 'red' = certain objects. So even if I saw 'green' and we all called it 'red', there would be no way to know because you always see 'red' and call it 'red'. So who knows if other people's brains conceptualize the wavelength as the same color in our perception or not?



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by icepack
very interesting

i was wondering myself, do we see a blue color, when the blue "wave" of light is absorbed or the only "lightwave" that is reflected ?


that Q puts things in great perspective.

we say we see green plants when in reality, the green plant's chlorophyll pigment is absorbing all color wavelengths except the color green.


so color means what visible light the object reflects (or emits)

so yea green plants are all colors except green. and likewise black is absorbing all visible wavelengths in the color spectrum so we see only black for it has absorbed all colors



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by 46ACE
reply to post by john_bmth
 

the objects "ABSORB" every other color and reflect the blue wavelength.

While perception can be subjective to the individual; take the individual out of the process and fora "blue"object reflecting"blue"light.The wavelength of the blue light is absolutely;repeatably measureable.You may call it "light blue";some will say"teal" but the wavelength is" xxx nm".


edit on 7-9-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-9-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)
Yes but 'blue' is our perception of a given wavelength. It doesn't actually exist except in our brain.
edit on 7-9-2011 by john_bmth because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash
There is no such thing as color as we think of it and see it. Like said before, all objects are colorless and can either reflect or absorb wavelengths of light. If it reflects a specific wavelength, we can see it, if it absorbs it, we cannot see it.

Now, ask yourself this:

How do you know that the color 'red' that you see is the same color 'red' that I see?

We both grew up being taught that this color, 'red' = certain objects. So even if I saw 'green' and we all called it 'red', there would be no way to know because you always see 'red' and call it 'red'. So who knows if other people's brains conceptualize the wavelength as the same color in our perception or not?


I'm daltonic, so i perceive some colors the wrong way, like some shades of grey that look like grey to everybody except me, i see green. The same thing appens to some greens and some blues, i perceive them blue or green, respectively. And some reds that i see brown.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by ckitch

So, if we view a red brick, that object is absorbing every colour of the spectrum, yet reflecting the colour red. Therefore it isn't red. The same would be said of any colour object... it is every colour than the one seen.


It depends what your definition of "is" is.

Do we define what colour an object "is" as what we see, or do we define it as what the object absorbs?
In fact, we define "colour" as what our brain assigns to whatever wavelength of light reaches our eyes. Since the only light that reaches our eyes is the light that's reflected, what colour an object "is" is, by definition, the light it reflects.

A red brick is red.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash
So who knows if other people's brains conceptualize the wavelength as the same color in our perception or not?
I do to some degree.

A significant percentage of the male population is color blind, and I've administered color-blindness tests to qualify people to assess colors visually in a manufacturing environment.

Here's an example test, that you can administer to see who has problems with color perception:

www.toledo-bend.com...

Some people can't be visual color inspectors if they're color blind, but they can do other things. There are instruments to measure color, but they're not always economical in low cost manufacturing environments.

Back to the OP, if an object appears blue, it's blue because it reflects the blue light. We define colors by what an object reflects and how it appears to us, not by what it absorbs.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 01:49 PM
link   
Within our own frame of reference, the colors we see are based on our own perception. Studies of the color blind show that red is not red, it is only the commonly accepted idea of red. Our brain is a powerful tool, but it is not percieving the world as it truely is. In fact, our brains are limited in their ability to really understand what goes on around us.

Think about this : If everything you've ever seen, touched, loved or known has, in reality, only occurred inside your brain, how can you trust your perception of reality? Are galaxires really billions of light years away, or are they really next to, inside and all around us. When you remove light from the equation alltogether, the universe is still in the stage we describe as the "Singularity". The moment right before the big bang. Without light, the big bang can't happen, and if it never happened, everything is still one.

Also consider that research has lead to the discovery that light might not travel at the same speed throughout the universe. In fact, the distortion might be greater than you ever imagined. In order to explain this simply, imagine that the milky way galaxy is billions of lightyears away from the closest galaxy by our own definitions. What if it took like billions of years to travel a couple thousand miles instead? What if it was really right in front of your face, and you could touch it if you had the knowledge to? What if it was really so far away, we couldn't comprehend the distance.

As far as color goes, it's really easy to describe our bias as observers. If we all wore green tinted glasses from birth without realizing it, would we describe all the colors as shades of green if we were told they were red, blue, yellow, orange, ect..? If we ever took off those glasses, would we change our ideas about colors, or say the colors changed?

Food for thought.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 02:54 AM
link   
reply to post by ignant
 


My thought exactly.... Everything that isn't black, is reflecting one colour (albeit shades of), and absorbing all others. And black is only visible because all other objects around it are reflecting a colour... Hence a black cat on a black sofa is virtually invisible, hence animals in the wild having camouflaged coats etc.

PS Whether we all see the same red or blue is a separate subject, and pretty much academic.



edit on 8-9-2011 by ckitch because: typo



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 03:03 AM
link   
reply to post by CLPrime
 


Interesting observation.... I understand what you are saying... From an earthly humanistic point of view the red brick is red.. it's easier that way, as it enables us to define the object from other objects. Whether your red might be my blue doesn't matter, we have to work with one understanding, as we do with calling it a brick. If we all called it something different, we'd be permanently confused.

Accepting the brick is red, even though it can't be, is our logical mind at work, as in gazing at the night sky and pretty much viewing it as one level of stars across the sky... Not that they are all at different distances.

Along the lines of the red brick must be red, because that's what our eyes see, is the question of sound... Does a tree falling in the forest make a sound, if no one is there to hear it, given sound is only in our ears. Generally, we think it does, because when we hear it, that confirms it, for sanities sake.



edit on 8-9-2011 by ckitch because: typo



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 03:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by JameSimon

Originally posted by muzzleflash
There is no such thing as color as we think of it and see it. ...


I'm daltonic, so i perceive some colors the wrong way, like some shades of grey that look like grey to everybody except me, i see green. The same thing appens to some greens and some blues, i perceive them blue or green, respectively. And some reds that i see brown.


I was told the OPs theory in Air Force Tech School in 74 and bases on that, I tend to agree with muzzleflash that there is no color, just absorption and reflection of light frequency base on the make up of the materials properties.

As for being Daltonic, I'm assuming your defination of seeing something as green is based on someone else telling you something else was green? I'm not sure how you can tell something is a color you can't see.

And to add to the confusion, if there is a light in a sealed room of mirrors and the light is turned off, why does the room get dark? Shouldn't it just keep bouncing from mirror to mirror? I tend to think the light's still there, just something happened that changed it's propertys from visible to invisible. ow, my head's starting to hurt thinking about this stuff.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 03:35 AM
link   
reply to post by paraclete1
 


Your room of mirrors had me going for a moment, but I guess the light does bounce from one mirror to the next (at the speed of light), so when you switch off your light source, which began the route for reflection, the light travels around the mirrors and back to the light source, which is now off so the light reflection stops? Good conundrum though.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by paraclete1
And to add to the confusion, if there is a light in a sealed room of mirrors and the light is turned off, why does the room get dark? Shouldn't it just keep bouncing from mirror to mirror? I tend to think the light's still there, just something happened that changed it's propertys from visible to invisible. ow, my head's starting to hurt thinking about this stuff.


It gets absorbed by the material, refracted, weakened. Unless you can create a perfect mirror that reflects 100% of the data, you will have complete loss at light speed.

It's not really a connundrum, unless you're five.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by ckitch
reply to post by CLPrime
 


Interesting observation.... I understand what you are saying... From an earthly humanistic point of view the red brick is red.. it's easier that way, as it enables us to define the object from other objects. Whether your red might be my blue doesn't matter, we have to work with one understanding, as we do with calling it a brick. If we all called it something different, we'd be permanently confused.

Accepting the brick is red, even though it can't be, is our logical mind at work, as in gazing at the night sky and pretty much viewing it as one level of stars across the sky... Not that they are all at different distances.


This is why we don't fully comprehend multiple dimensions beyond the 3d, or quantum mechanics.

We are set about deciding what something is, when in reality, most things are defined by what they aren't.

Need proof? Look up at the stars at night and try to decide what each one is. Check out the double slit experiment and decide what an electron is. Try to figure what the mechanism behind quantum entanglement (spooky action at a distance) is. Try to describe what the speed of light is (because it's not constant througout the universe). Try to determine what the distance between two objects really is (because if we measure distance with light, and light can't be trusted... well, whatever.).


edit on 2011/9/8 by sbctinfantry because: Tried to figure out what the best way to write this is.




top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join