Overheads

ok this puzzles me a bit.

You know the overheads old professors that don't know how to use powerpoint (or refuse to, whatever) uses. What would happen if you make, like, a gigantig overhead. And put a continious strip of color on a transparancy (ignore the fact that we're talking about color PIGMENTS here, so that my "theory" would hold anyway) but is color continious? Like, would you start to see "pixels" on the overhead if you had one sufficiently large? Is color countable, is it discrete or is it continious? With color, i'm more than likely refering to photons with different wavelengths.

Everything is discrete at some level.

The frequency of a photon can be changed with your relative velocity, so the real issue here is whether time and space are discrete or continuous.

Assuming the accuracy of measuring instruments can never be infinte, we can never know whether time and space is continuous or discrete. However if measuring instruments show that there is a discrete limit there will be evidence to suggest that there is a discrete limit. Until either of these conditions are satisfied we don't know.

There would surely be some areas of the "colour sheet" that wouldn't be that colour, as every possible area would not be filled with molecules that absorbed light in the correct spectrum, so to some degree the colour must be discrete.

I know that the original post kind of disregarded this, but colour doesn't make sense at this level unless you talk about it in terms of light absorbing molecules.

Well, it all make sense when you refer to the phrase;
"Looking at the world through rose tinted glasses."
That would explain why a rainbow does not look as spectacular to me than everyone else thinks it to be.
This leads me to muse that perhaps WE are infact the ones that are colour blind. And in actual fact, we are labelling the humans with superior receptiveness to other frequencies as disabled. Should this be a case of discrimination? Are we being ignorant?

You know, if you set a television so that to you it looks as close to real life as possible, other people will think it looks better on different settings.

>>5
No man can be this retarded, and there are no women on the internet... WHAT ARE YOU?

>>7

I have another quote that I learnt from taking pictures in a picture vending machine the other day;
"Colour My World."
Now it's possible that the creator of this phrase did not realise it's signficance at the the time. But if we read this quote in relation to the argument in this thread, I have reason to believe that with my impeccable skills, I have found the answer that we all seek. This being, that colour is infact a Human Perception. That being said, I shall refer to the inferences in my previous argument, and therefore conclude that colour is infact, the epitome of human ignorance.

>>8
Colour is how the human eye interpets different frequencies of light.

>>9

Yes, I have referred to that in my previous post >>5. The point is. Colour is a Human Interpretation. Every other living thing's eyesight is compared to a humans. Therefore don't you agree that we are ignorant? We are discriminatory? We are egoists?? I shall leave you with another one of my quotes that I picked up:

"Light is neither a wave or a particle."

Colour is the sensory input given to the brain. A colour is caused by a certain amplitude (not too dim or bright) and frequency (lower frequency = red, high frequency = blue etc..) of photons.

I don't see what the big deal is.

>>11
Neither do I. I don't see how this makes us ignorant... the fact the we understand what colour is indicates the opposite.

>>10

Oh come on, work on your style, troll. Not subtle AT ALL

True light can be represented by some function f(x) where x=frequency and f(x)=quantitiy of photons with frequency x.  Humans interpret f(x) in a manner that reduces it to just three variables, RGB (or hue saturation luminescence if you prefer).  This is why your monitor can display colors that look just like real life by manipulating just three families of photons.  Of course, three variables is a poor representation of a continuous function, but it's better than black and white which reduces light to just one variable, brightness.

>>14
Yes, that's right, it derives from having only 3 different types cells for colour reception. Therefore, for instance, a mixture of red and blue looks to us like purple, even though it's simply red and blue. Purple light is a diferent thing entirely, yet that also looks like purple to humans.

Purple isn't part of the spectrum. Yellow and Cyan can either be an illusiary combination of red and green or green and blue respectively or part of the spectrum.

illusory*

>>16
Yes it is, we just don't see it. There is a difference between a mixture of red and green light and pure yellow light, but we percieve both as being yellow.

True love can be represented by some function f(x) where x=love and f(x)=quantitiy of hearts with frequency x.  Humans interpret love in a manner that reduces it to just three variables, RGB (random girl/boy).  This is why your legs can display signs that look just like real love by manipulating just three families of rich males.  Of course, three rich males is a poor combination of a taste, but it's better than black and white which reduces love to just one colour, grey.

>>18
That's what I meant?