you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 0 points 1 month ago (11 children)

Color is definitely a wavelength. The names we give colors like “yellow” or “blue” are massive ranges of wavelengths. That’s the problem here… the ball can be both green and yellow because no body asked if it was yellow-green, they only gave a binary option: “is a tennis ball yellow or green”. It’s neither. It’s between the two.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    These balls are all the same color

    image

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (3 children)

    Color is definitely a wavelength.

    Apparently didn't read the article?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    Color is not wavelength! And we’ve known this for a long time. But the problem is that we want something that is an empirical, measurable number that’s outside of an observer, that’s a thing out there in the world, that would be the same number regardless of who looks at it. And color, at its core, is not that.

    I did in fact read the article. It’s dumb. Color is a wavelength. They’re conflating language with color.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [S] 0 points 4 weeks ago (3 children)
  • [–] 0 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

    lol yes it is. wtf is this claim?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [S] 0 points 3 weeks ago

    No, it's not. Nothing on that graphic is purple. Definitionally, purple is an interference of red and blue/violet light. You just don't know what you're talking about. Magenta isn't a wavelength. Grey isn't a wavelength. Salmon isn't a wavelength. Impossible colors aren't wavelengths. The only colors that are wavelengths are pure, perfectly saturated spectral colors.

  • source
  • parent