| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 23 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 54:56:45 |
| Calls: | 583 |
| Files: | 1,139 |
| D/L today: |
179 files (27,921K bytes) |
| Messages: | 111,802 |
On Mon, 25 Aug 2025 19:40:34 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/25/25 1:11 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:Color
On Mon, 25 Aug 2025 07:10:35 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/24/25 10:03 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 21:55:37 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/24/25 9:51 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 21:49:37 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/24/25 9:44 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 21:39:39 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/24/25 9:30 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 21:19:42 -0400, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>
On 8/24/25 9:15 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 21:11:52 -0400, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 8/24/25 9:07 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Mon, 25 Aug 2025 09:02:19 +0800, wij wrote:
On Mon, 2025-08-25 at 00:56 +0000, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 25 Aug 2025 08:45:10 +0800, wij wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On Mon, 2025-08-25 at 00:38 +0000, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 25 Aug 2025 08:14:41 +0800, wij wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On Sun, 2025-08-24 at 23:13 +0000, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 19:04:47 -0400, Richard Damon >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 8/24/25 7:00 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 18:56:35 -0400, Richard Damon >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 8/24/25 6:33 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 18:26:20 -0400, Richard Damon >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 8/24/25 6:18 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 18:15:38 -0400, Richard >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Damon wrote:
On 8/24/25 6:09 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 18:06:55 -0400, Richard >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Damon wrote:
On 8/24/25 6:02 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 17:51:50 -0400, Richard >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Damon wrote:
But NO colors exist on it, only frequencies. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 8/24/25 5:03 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 16:56:25 -0400, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I repeat: there is only ONE electromagnetic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spectrum and pink does NOT exist on it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are NO pink photons. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
But a "Spectrum" is also the intensity of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the signal at each wavelength. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On 8/24/25 4:37 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 13:24:19 -0700, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chris M. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thomasson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>There is only ONE electromagnetic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spectrum.
But "Color" is a perception, not just a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wavelength of light. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On 8/23/2025 2:56 PM, Mr Flibble >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just as pink isn't a physical colour, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Olcott's Halting Problem proof >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> refutations are equally imaginary. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>There are no pink photons; only >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spectral colours physically exist. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
What about a pink flower? ;^) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
/Flibble >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There are "Purples" that don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correspond to a single wavelength >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> either.
There ARE spectrums that are "pink", a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bit more Red than other frequencies, but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> most other frequencies present. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
/Flibble
The problem here is the word has multiple >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meanings, and you need to use the one that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relates to the words being used. It can be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> both the range of values something can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> span over, or the collection of amounts >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you have at each of those. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Note, "Colors" are a perception based >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> term, and while single frequency light has >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a perceived color (if visible) that color >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is NOT defined by that frequency (and is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in fact, to a degree subjective, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as each person has a slightly different >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> response characteristics). Thus, when you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talk about colors, you are NOT talking >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about mono-chromatic light, but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perception.
That is why "Infra-Red" isn't a color, but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a frequency band as part of the spectrum, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but "Red" is a color, but doesn't limit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the frequency of lights that can be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> present (some "Reds" have bits all the way >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to "blue"). There is a "Red Band" which as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mono-chromatic like looks Red, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but Red can have frequencies in it outside >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that band (but will normally be dominated >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with that band) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Think about how it is used for the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spectrum of the sound of a violin string >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being played.
This is just one of Olcott's errors again, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> insisting that a word has the meaning you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want it to mean, even if not appropriate >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the context. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
/Flibble
Each of those frequencies has a perceived >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> color,
but the frequence does not define the color. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
-a-a-a-a From >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -a-a-a-a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
And points out that it also can have the other meaning.No, your source is pointing out that there are multiple ways to define >>>> the term, and you only match the more restricted and niche version ofAnd that article ends in:But you do get pink with a slight absortion in the non-red part of >>>>>>>> the specturm.Then why does the page I have quoted "define" it.But it doesn't. If you meant spectral, you should have used >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the word.Damon is but Damon is an idiot.I never said spectral colour and perceived colour are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the same thing.And so you will say you monitor can;t show you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> orange?But "Color" isn't from ONE cone, but a processing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of several cones with different sensitivity bands >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in close proximity.You are arguing with the science as well as me: a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> retinal cone signal is the result of just four to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seven photons hitting the cone simulataneously; >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for rods it is an individual photon. THERE ARE NO >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PINK PHOTONS.Of course not. And since NO beams is truely >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> MONO-CHROMATIC, it could be argued that spectral >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> colors don't actually "exists" but are only >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definitions.Only spectral colours physically exist, any >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other colours are quite literally figments of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your imagination based on electrical signals >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (or lack thereof) the cones in your retinas are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sending. This is science, mate, CONVENTIONAL >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> science.No, White is a color, it isn't a spectral >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> color.
Color (or colour in Commonwealth English) is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the visual perception produced by the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> activation of the different types of cone >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cells in the eye caused by light. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There is a DIFFERENT (compond) term >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Spectral Color"
that relates to what you are talking about, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but it isn't "Color". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
By your definition White and Black aren't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> colors either.
Correct, white is not a PHYSICAL colour and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> black is absence of light. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
/Flibble
There are many physical things with the color >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of white, so it is a "Physical Color", >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which is generally defined as the color >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something appears to be, again, not limited to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mono-chromatic colors. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Black is also a "Color" as it is a perception. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You are just showing the same it must be my >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way or the highway of PO, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even when the conventional definitions that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> apply to that context disagree. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
/Flibble
And other colors are not "figments", but the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> result of the beam of light containing multiple >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wavelengths at once. The relative density of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> each frequency is what is called the "spectrum" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for that light, and our perception of it, the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Color".
Your problem is, again, you aren't using the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> words as conventionally defined, and thus >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> showing the same stupidity of Olcott, insisting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that he gets to redefine anything he wants, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which is just proof that he doesn't care about >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> communication.
If you want to prove yourself to be back into >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that same bin,
continue in your obtuseness. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
/Flibble
We DON'T see the individual signals, we see the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perceived combination of the signals. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Doesn't matter that there are no "pink photons" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there are light spectra that can hit a region of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the eye to produce a signal that says "pink >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> light".
Or, do you think that you monitor can't show you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> orange?
as there is no "orange photons" emitted by your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> screen, only combinations of the Red, Green, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Blue pixels that make up the screen that reach >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your eyes to close for you eye to perceive them as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from different spots.
THERE ARE NO PINK PHOTONS. Correct, whilst there >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are orange photons my monitor only emits red, green >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and blue photons at different intensities. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You can get monitors/TVs with a fourth yellow >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sub-pixel,
I would be interested in seeing what that looks >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like.
/Flibble
THen what color does it show you for a orange? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There isn't even a Reg-Green Photon that is used to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> display orange.
As I said, the problem is color is not restricted to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mono-chromatism,
but is a perceptive function.
All you are doing is showing you have the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cognative error as Peter,
thinking that you have the power to redefine what >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> words mean in normal context.
You are a f--king idiot, mate. My monitor only has >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> monochromatic red, green and blue LEDs (or red, green >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and blue filters) so can only emit red, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> green or blue photons.
I never said that COLOUR isn't a perceptive function, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I said pink isn't a PHYSICAL COLOUR because there are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no PINK PHOTONS because there is no wavelength >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> corresponding to the colour pink.
/Flibble
Spectral color and perceived color are different >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> things.
Richard Damon is correct, you are wrong. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You are also an idiot.
/Flibble
Then, who suggests pink is a physical colour? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
/Flibble
'color' is actually not easy to understand and ambiguous. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color You might not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand English?
You are worse than olcott, read something about color >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before arguing it.
I understand English better than you, mate. I repeat: you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are an idiot,
like Damon and Olcott.
Yes "colour" is ambiguous which is why I QUALIFIED it with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the word "physical" which obviously referred to it being >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spectral.
/Flibble
The problem is that "Physical Color" is actualy a term of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> art with meaning.
No it isn't.
/Flibble
I can quote things too, mate:
Source?
"Key Aspects of Physical Color Physical Property: Color is >>>>>>>>>>> considered a physical property because it can be observed >>>>>>>>>>> without causing a chemical change in the substance.
Which doesn't say it is spectral.
Quoting somethiing that doesn't support your claim doesn't help >>>>>>>>>> your position.
Note, the following seems to be a new entry.
Visible Spectrum: The colors we see are part of the visible >>>>>>>>>>> electromagnetic spectrum."
So, that defined VISIBLE spectrum, not physical color
Pink is not part of the visible electromagnetic spectrum. >>>>>>>>>>Which has nothing to do with physical color.
Another quote:
""Physical color" refers to the color of an object as an
observable, inherent property that can be seen and measured
without changing its chemical composition. This property is
determined by how the object's material interacts with light, >>>>>>>>> specifically which parts of the visible spectrum it absorbs and >>>>>>>>> reflects. For example,
a blue substance has a physical color because its material
absorbs certain wavelengths of light and reflects blue
wavelengths, which then reach our eyes."
Again: pink is not part of the visible spectrum. You are proven >>>>>>>>> wrong yet again, mate. Lrn2science.
/Flibble
Nothing says we are looking at mono-chromatic light.
Sorry, the fact you just fail to provide sources shows you likely >>>>>>>> have something to hide.
"If color is solely the way physics describes it, the visible
spectrum of light waves, then black and white are outcasts and
donrCOt count as true, physical colors." --
https://www.britannica.com/story/are-black-and-white-
colors
There, a real credible quote from a credible source. Now shut the >>>>>>> f--k up and f--k off.
/Flibble
If you include in the definition of color, however, all of the ways >>>>>> in which human eyes process light and the lack of it, then black and >>>>>> white,
as well as pink, earn their places in the crayon box.
Even the section you are quoting qualifies its statement with:
It depends on how you want to define color. If color is solely the >>>>>> way physics describes it, the visible spectrum of light waves, then >>>>>> black and white are outcasts and donrCOt count as true, physical
colors.
So, only *IF* you are defining color spectrally (the way physics
describes it) do you get your results.
So, your source is admitting it isn't giving a diffinative
definition.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same was I used
it.
I told you to f--k off -- you lost the argument and all you have now >>>>> is just noise.
/Flibble
it.
Maybe you should learn to follow your own advice and admit you were
wrong.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am you
lying c-nt.
/Flibble
Sorry, you are just misreading your test.
You don't seem to understand the rules of linguistics.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am using
it you lying c-nt.
/Flibble
On 8/24/2025 6:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/24/25 9:12 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 21:09:07 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/24/25 8:56 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Mon, 25 Aug 2025 08:45:10 +0800, wij wrote:It seems you sense of reality is off, look who started the thread
On Mon, 2025-08-25 at 00:38 +0000, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Mon, 25 Aug 2025 08:14:41 +0800, wij wrote:
On Sun, 2025-08-24 at 23:13 +0000, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 19:04:47 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/24/25 7:00 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 18:56:35 -0400, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>And so you will say you monitor can;t show you orange?
On 8/24/25 6:33 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 18:26:20 -0400, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>But "Color" isn't from ONE cone, but a processing of several >>>>>>>>>>>> cones with different sensitivity bands in close proximity. >>>>>>>>>>>>
On 8/24/25 6:18 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 18:15:38 -0400, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Of course not. And since NO beams is truely MONO- >>>>>>>>>>>>>> CHROMATIC, it
On 8/24/25 6:09 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 18:06:55 -0400, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>No, White is a color, it isn't a spectral color. There are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> many physical things with the color of white, so it is a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Physical Color",
On 8/24/25 6:02 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:Correct, white is not a PHYSICAL colour and black is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> absence of light.
On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 17:51:50 -0400, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>But NO colors exist on it, only frequencies. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 8/24/25 5:03 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 16:56:25 -0400, Richard Damon >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
But a "Spectrum" is also the intensity of the signal at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> each wavelength.
On 8/24/25 4:37 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 13:24:19 -0700, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
But "Color" is a perception, not just a wavelength of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> light.
On 8/23/2025 2:56 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just as pink isn't a physical colour, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Olcott's Halting Problem proof refutations are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> equally imaginary.
What about a pink flower? ;^)
There are no pink photons; only spectral colours >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> physically exist.
/Flibble
There are "Purples" that don't correspond to a single >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wavelength either.
There ARE spectrums that are "pink", a bit more Red >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than other frequencies, but most other frequencies >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> present.
There is only ONE electromagnetic spectrum. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
/Flibble
The problem here is the word has multiple meanings, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you need to use the one that relates to the words being >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> used. It can be both the range of values something can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> span over, or the collection of amounts you have at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> each
of those.
Note, "Colors" are a perception based term, and while >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> single frequency light has a perceived color (if >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> visible) that color is NOT defined by that frequency >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (and is in fact, to a degree subjective, as each person >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has a slightly different response characteristics). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus, when you talk about colors, you are NOT talking >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about mono-chromatic light, but perception. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That is why "Infra-Red" isn't a color, but a frequency >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> band as part of the spectrum, but "Red" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a color, but doesn't limit the frequency of lights >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that can be present (some "Reds" have bits all the way >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to "blue"). There is a "Red Band" which as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mono-chromatic like looks Red,
but Red can have frequencies in it outside that band >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (but will normally be dominated with that band) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Think about how it is used for the spectrum of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sound
of a violin string being played.
This is just one of Olcott's errors again, insisting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that a word has the meaning you want it to mean, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even if
not appropriate in the context.
I repeat: there is only ONE electromagnetic spectrum and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pink does NOT exist on it.-a There are NO pink photons. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
/Flibble
Each of those frequencies has a perceived color, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but the frequence does not define the color. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
-a -a-a-a-a From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Color (or colour in Commonwealth English) is the visual >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perception produced by the activation of the different >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> types of cone cells in the eye caused by light. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There is a DIFFERENT (compond) term "Spectral Color" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that relates to what you are talking about, but it isn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Color".
By your definition White and Black aren't colors either. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
/Flibble
which is generally defined as the color something >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> appears to
be, again, not limited to mono-chromatic colors. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Black is also a "Color" as it is a perception. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You are just showing the same it must be my way or the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> highway of PO,
even when the conventional definitions that apply to that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> context disagree.
Only spectral colours physically exist, any other colours >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
quite literally figments of your imagination based on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> electrical signals (or lack thereof) the cones in your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> retinas are sending. This is science, mate, CONVENTIONAL >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> science.
/Flibble
could be argued that spectral colors don't actually "exists" >>>>>>>>>>>>>> but are only definitions.
And other colors are not "figments", but the result of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> beam of light containing multiple wavelengths at once. The >>>>>>>>>>>>>> relative density of each frequency is what is called the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "spectrum" for that light, and our perception of it, the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Color".
Your problem is, again, you aren't using the words as >>>>>>>>>>>>>> conventionally defined, and thus showing the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>> stupidity of
Olcott, insisting that he gets to redefine anything he wants, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> which is just proof that he doesn't care about communication. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If you want to prove yourself to be back into that same bin, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> continue in your obtuseness.
You are arguing with the science as well as me: a retinal cone >>>>>>>>>>>>> signal is the result of just four to seven photons hitting the >>>>>>>>>>>>> cone simulataneously;
for rods it is an individual photon. THERE ARE NO PINK >>>>>>>>>>>>> PHOTONS.
/Flibble
We DON'T see the individual signals, we see the perceived >>>>>>>>>>>> combination of the signals.
Doesn't matter that there are no "pink photons" there are light >>>>>>>>>>>> spectra that can hit a region of the eye to produce a signal >>>>>>>>>>>> that says "pink light".
Or, do you think that you monitor can't show you orange? as >>>>>>>>>>>> there is no "orange photons" emitted by your screen, only >>>>>>>>>>>> combinations of the Red, Green, and Blue pixels that make up >>>>>>>>>>>> the
screen that reach your eyes to close for you eye to perceive >>>>>>>>>>>> them as from different spots.
THERE ARE NO PINK PHOTONS. Correct, whilst there are orange >>>>>>>>>>> photons my monitor only emits red, green and blue photons at >>>>>>>>>>> different intensities.
You can get monitors/TVs with a fourth yellow sub-pixel, I would >>>>>>>>>>> be interested in seeing what that looks like.
/Flibble
THen what color does it show you for a orange?
There isn't even a Reg-Green Photon that is used to display >>>>>>>>>> orange.
As I said, the problem is color is not restricted to
mono-chromatism,
but is a perceptive function.
All you are doing is showing you have the same cognative error as >>>>>>>>>> Peter,
thinking that you have the power to redefine what words mean in >>>>>>>>>> normal context.
You are a f--king idiot, mate. My monitor only has monochromatic >>>>>>>>> red, green and blue LEDs (or red, green and blue filters) so can >>>>>>>>> only emit red,
green or blue photons.
I never said that COLOUR isn't a perceptive function, I said pink >>>>>>>>> isn't a PHYSICAL COLOUR because there are no PINK PHOTONS because >>>>>>>>> there is no wavelength corresponding to the colour pink.
/Flibble
Spectral color and perceived color are different things.
Richard Damon is correct, you are wrong.
I never said spectral colour and perceived colour are the same
thing.
You are also an idiot.
/Flibble
Then, who suggests pink is a physical colour?
Damon is but Damon is an idiot.
/Flibble
calling Pink not a physical color.
A guess you are just admitting you don't know what you are talking
about.
That would be a case psychological projection mate as reality is that I
said pink is NOT a physical colour whilst you said it is. Take your
f--king medication.
/Flibble
Maybe you should, as I am using the word as it is typically used:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color
The physical color of an object depends on how it absorbs and scatters
light.
Kind of sounds like you are describing a "material" and how it acts in a
ray tracer/marcher or something. Are you saying that a photon should be white, aka all colors. So it can "hit" a material and give off the "infinite" spectrum of colors? Some of which are pink?
Thus, physical color is NOT about individual photon frequency, and
thus NOT spectral color.
On 8/26/25 1:23 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Mon, 25 Aug 2025 19:40:34 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:And admits it isn;t the only meaning for it, and that is in fact an odd
On 8/25/25 1:11 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Mon, 25 Aug 2025 07:10:35 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:And points out that it also can have the other meaning.
On 8/24/25 10:03 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 21:55:37 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:No, your source is pointing out that there are multiple ways to
On 8/24/25 9:51 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 21:49:37 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:And that article ends in:
On 8/24/25 9:44 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 21:39:39 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:But you do get pink with a slight absortion in the non-red part >>>>>>>>> of the specturm.
On 8/24/25 9:30 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 21:19:42 -0400, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>
On 8/24/25 9:15 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 21:11:52 -0400, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Then why does the page I have quoted "define" it.
On 8/24/25 9:07 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Mon, 25 Aug 2025 09:02:19 +0800, wij wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>But it doesn't. If you meant spectral, you should have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> used the word.
On Mon, 2025-08-25 at 00:56 +0000, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 25 Aug 2025 08:45:10 +0800, wij wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On Mon, 2025-08-25 at 00:38 +0000, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 25 Aug 2025 08:14:41 +0800, wij wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Damon is but Damon is an idiot.
On Sun, 2025-08-24 at 23:13 +0000, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 19:04:47 -0400, Richard Damon >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:I never said spectral colour and perceived colour are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the same thing.
On 8/24/25 7:00 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 18:56:35 -0400, Richard Damon >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
And so you will say you monitor can;t show you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> orange?
On 8/24/25 6:33 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 18:26:20 -0400, Richard >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Damon wrote:
But "Color" isn't from ONE cone, but a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> processing of several cones with different >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sensitivity bands in close proximity. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 8/24/25 6:18 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 18:15:38 -0400, Richard >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Damon wrote:You are arguing with the science as well as me: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a retinal cone signal is the result of just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> four to seven photons hitting the cone >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulataneously; for rods it is an individual >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> photon. THERE ARE NO PINK PHOTONS. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Of course not. And since NO beams is truely >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> MONO-CHROMATIC, it could be argued that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spectral colors don't actually "exists" but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are only definitions.
On 8/24/25 6:09 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 18:06:55 -0400, Richard >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Damon wrote:Only spectral colours physically exist, any >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other colours are quite literally figments of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your imagination based on electrical signals >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (or lack thereof) the cones in your retinas >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are sending. This is science, mate, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CONVENTIONAL science.
No, White is a color, it isn't a spectral >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> color.
On 8/24/25 6:02 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 17:51:50 -0400, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
But NO colors exist on it, only >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> frequencies.On 8/24/25 5:03 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 16:56:25 -0400, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I repeat: there is only ONE >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> electromagnetic spectrum and pink does >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NOT exist on it. There are NO pink >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> photons.
But a "Spectrum" is also the intensity >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the signal at each wavelength. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On 8/24/25 4:37 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 13:24:19 -0700, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chris M. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thomasson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>There is only ONE electromagnetic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spectrum.
But "Color" is a perception, not just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a wavelength of light. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On 8/23/2025 2:56 PM, Mr Flibble >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just as pink isn't a physical >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> colour, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Olcott's Halting Problem proof >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> refutations are equally imaginary. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>There are no pink photons; only >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spectral colours physically exist. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
What about a pink flower? ;^) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
/Flibble >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There are "Purples" that don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correspond to a single wavelength >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> either.
There ARE spectrums that are "pink", a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bit more Red than other frequencies, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but most other frequencies present. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
/Flibble
The problem here is the word has >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> multiple meanings, and you need to use >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the one that relates to the words being >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> used. It can be both the range of values >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something can span over, or the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> collection of amounts you have at each >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of those.
Note, "Colors" are a perception based >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> term, and while single frequency light >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has a perceived color (if visible) that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> color is NOT defined by that frequency >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (and is in fact, to a degree subjective, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as each person has a slightly different >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> response characteristics). Thus, when >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you talk about colors, you are NOT >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking about mono-chromatic light, but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perception.
That is why "Infra-Red" isn't a color, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but a frequency band as part of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spectrum, but "Red" is a color, but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't limit the frequency of lights >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that can be present (some "Reds" have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bits all the way to "blue"). There is a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Red Band" which as mono-chromatic like >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> looks Red,
but Red can have frequencies in it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> outside that band (but will normally be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dominated with that band) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Think about how it is used for the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spectrum of the sound of a violin string >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being played. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This is just one of Olcott's errors >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> again,
insisting that a word has the meaning >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you want it to mean, even if not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> appropriate in the context. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
/Flibble
Each of those frequencies has a perceived >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> color,
but the frequence does not define the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> color.
-a-a-a-a From >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -a-a-a-a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ >> Color
Color (or colour in Commonwealth English) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is the visual perception produced by the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> activation of the different types of cone >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cells in the eye caused by light. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There is a DIFFERENT (compond) term >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Spectral Color" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that relates to what you are talking >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about, but it isn't "Color". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
By your definition White and Black aren't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> colors either.
Correct, white is not a PHYSICAL colour and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> black is absence of light. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
/Flibble
There are many physical things with the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> color of white, so it is a "Physical Color", >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which is generally defined as the color >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something appears to be, again, not limited >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to mono-chromatic colors. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Black is also a "Color" as it is a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perception.
You are just showing the same it must be my >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way or the highway of PO, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even when the conventional definitions that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> apply to that context disagree. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
/Flibble
And other colors are not "figments", but the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> result of the beam of light containing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> multiple wavelengths at once. The relative >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> density of each frequency is what is called >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the "spectrum" for that light, and our >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perception of it, the "Color". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Your problem is, again, you aren't using the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> words as conventionally defined, and thus >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> showing the same stupidity of Olcott, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> insisting that he gets to redefine anything he >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wants, which is just proof that he doesn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> care about communication. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If you want to prove yourself to be back into >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that same bin,
continue in your obtuseness. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
/Flibble
We DON'T see the individual signals, we see the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perceived combination of the signals. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Doesn't matter that there are no "pink photons" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there are light spectra that can hit a region of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the eye to produce a signal that says "pink >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> light".
Or, do you think that you monitor can't show you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> orange?
as there is no "orange photons" emitted by your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> screen, only combinations of the Red, Green, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Blue pixels that make up the screen that reach >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your eyes to close for you eye to perceive them >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as from different spots.
THERE ARE NO PINK PHOTONS. Correct, whilst there >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are orange photons my monitor only emits red, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> green and blue photons at different intensities. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You can get monitors/TVs with a fourth yellow >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sub-pixel,
I would be interested in seeing what that looks >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like.
/Flibble
THen what color does it show you for a orange? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There isn't even a Reg-Green Photon that is used >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to display orange.
As I said, the problem is color is not restricted >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to mono-chromatism,
but is a perceptive function.
All you are doing is showing you have the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cognative error as Peter,
thinking that you have the power to redefine what >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> words mean in normal context.
You are a f--king idiot, mate. My monitor only has >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> monochromatic red, green and blue LEDs (or red, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> green and blue filters) so can only emit red, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> green or blue photons.
I never said that COLOUR isn't a perceptive >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> function,
I said pink isn't a PHYSICAL COLOUR because there >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are no PINK PHOTONS because there is no wavelength >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> corresponding to the colour pink.
/Flibble
Spectral color and perceived color are different >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> things.
Richard Damon is correct, you are wrong. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You are also an idiot.
/Flibble
Then, who suggests pink is a physical colour? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
/Flibble
'color' is actually not easy to understand and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ambiguous.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color You might not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand English?
You are worse than olcott, read something about color >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before arguing it.
I understand English better than you, mate. I repeat: you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are an idiot,
like Damon and Olcott.
Yes "colour" is ambiguous which is why I QUALIFIED it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with the word "physical" which obviously referred to it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being spectral.
/Flibble
The problem is that "Physical Color" is actualy a term of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> art with meaning.
No it isn't.
/Flibble
I can quote things too, mate:
Source?
"Key Aspects of Physical Color Physical Property: Color is >>>>>>>>>>>> considered a physical property because it can be observed >>>>>>>>>>>> without causing a chemical change in the substance.
Which doesn't say it is spectral.
Quoting somethiing that doesn't support your claim doesn't >>>>>>>>>>> help your position.
Note, the following seems to be a new entry.
Visible Spectrum: The colors we see are part of the visible >>>>>>>>>>>> electromagnetic spectrum."
So, that defined VISIBLE spectrum, not physical color
Pink is not part of the visible electromagnetic spectrum. >>>>>>>>>>>Which has nothing to do with physical color.
Another quote:
""Physical color" refers to the color of an object as an
observable, inherent property that can be seen and measured >>>>>>>>>> without changing its chemical composition. This property is >>>>>>>>>> determined by how the object's material interacts with light, >>>>>>>>>> specifically which parts of the visible spectrum it absorbs and >>>>>>>>>> reflects. For example,
a blue substance has a physical color because its material >>>>>>>>>> absorbs certain wavelengths of light and reflects blue
wavelengths, which then reach our eyes."
Again: pink is not part of the visible spectrum. You are proven >>>>>>>>>> wrong yet again, mate. Lrn2science.
/Flibble
Nothing says we are looking at mono-chromatic light.
Sorry, the fact you just fail to provide sources shows you
likely have something to hide.
"If color is solely the way physics describes it, the visible
spectrum of light waves, then black and white are outcasts and >>>>>>>> donrCOt count as true, physical colors." --
https://www.britannica.com/story/are-black-and-white-
colors
There, a real credible quote from a credible source. Now shut the >>>>>>>> f--k up and f--k off.
/Flibble
If you include in the definition of color, however, all of the
ways in which human eyes process light and the lack of it, then
black and white,
as well as pink, earn their places in the crayon box.
Even the section you are quoting qualifies its statement with:
It depends on how you want to define color. If color is solely the >>>>>>> way physics describes it, the visible spectrum of light waves,
then black and white are outcasts and donrCOt count as true,
physical colors.
So, only *IF* you are defining color spectrally (the way physics >>>>>>> describes it) do you get your results.
So, your source is admitting it isn't giving a diffinative
definition.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same was I used >>>>>> it.
I told you to f--k off -- you lost the argument and all you have
now is just noise.
/Flibble
define the term, and you only match the more restricted and niche
version of it.
Maybe you should learn to follow your own advice and admit you were
wrong.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am you
lying c-nt.
/Flibble
Sorry, you are just misreading your test.
You don't seem to understand the rules of linguistics.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am using
it you lying c-nt.
/Flibble
usage of it, and isn't the primary meaning of it.
Sorry, when your source disclaims it being definitive, you lost your
case.
On Tue, 26 Aug 2025 21:23:35 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/26/25 1:23 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Mon, 25 Aug 2025 19:40:34 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:And admits it isn;t the only meaning for it, and that is in fact an odd
On 8/25/25 1:11 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:Color
On Mon, 25 Aug 2025 07:10:35 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/24/25 10:03 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 21:55:37 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/24/25 9:51 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 21:49:37 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/24/25 9:44 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 21:39:39 -0400, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>
On 8/24/25 9:30 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 21:19:42 -0400, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 8/24/25 9:15 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 21:11:52 -0400, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 8/24/25 9:07 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Mon, 25 Aug 2025 09:02:19 +0800, wij wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On Mon, 2025-08-25 at 00:56 +0000, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 25 Aug 2025 08:45:10 +0800, wij wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On Mon, 2025-08-25 at 00:38 +0000, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 25 Aug 2025 08:14:41 +0800, wij wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On Sun, 2025-08-24 at 23:13 +0000, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 19:04:47 -0400, Richard Damon >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 8/24/25 7:00 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 18:56:35 -0400, Richard Damon >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 8/24/25 6:33 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 18:26:20 -0400, Richard >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Damon wrote:
On 8/24/25 6:18 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 18:15:38 -0400, Richard >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Damon wrote:
On 8/24/25 6:09 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 18:06:55 -0400, Richard >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Damon wrote:
On 8/24/25 6:02 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 17:51:50 -0400, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
But NO colors exist on it, only >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> frequencies.On 8/24/25 5:03 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 16:56:25 -0400, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I repeat: there is only ONE >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> electromagnetic spectrum and pink does >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NOT exist on it. There are NO pink >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> photons.
But a "Spectrum" is also the intensity >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the signal at each wavelength. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On 8/24/25 4:37 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 13:24:19 -0700, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chris M. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thomasson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>There is only ONE electromagnetic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spectrum. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
But "Color" is a perception, not just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a wavelength of light. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On 8/23/2025 2:56 PM, Mr Flibble >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just as pink isn't a physical >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> colour, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Olcott's Halting Problem proof >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> refutations are equally imaginary. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>There are no pink photons; only >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spectral colours physically exist. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
What about a pink flower? ;^) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
/Flibble >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There are "Purples" that don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correspond to a single wavelength >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> either. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There ARE spectrums that are "pink", a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bit more Red than other frequencies, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but most other frequencies present. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
/Flibble >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The problem here is the word has >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> multiple meanings, and you need to use >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the one that relates to the words being >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> used. It can be both the range of values >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something can span over, or the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> collection of amounts you have at each >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of those.
Note, "Colors" are a perception based >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> term, and while single frequency light >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has a perceived color (if visible) that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> color is NOT defined by that frequency >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (and is in fact, to a degree subjective, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as each person has a slightly different >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> response characteristics). Thus, when >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you talk about colors, you are NOT >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking about mono-chromatic light, but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perception. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That is why "Infra-Red" isn't a color, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but a frequency band as part of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spectrum, but "Red" is a color, but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't limit the frequency of lights >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that can be present (some "Reds" have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bits all the way to "blue"). There is a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Red Band" which as mono-chromatic like >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> looks Red, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but Red can have frequencies in it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> outside that band (but will normally be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dominated with that band) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Think about how it is used for the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spectrum of the sound of a violin string >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being played. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This is just one of Olcott's errors >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> again,
insisting that a word has the meaning >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you want it to mean, even if not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> appropriate in the context. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
/Flibble
Each of those frequencies has a perceived >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> color,
but the frequence does not define the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> color.
-a-a-a-a From >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -a-a-a-a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
And points out that it also can have the other meaning.No, your source is pointing out that there are multiple ways toAnd that article ends in:But you do get pink with a slight absortion in the non-red part >>>>>>>>>> of the specturm.Then why does the page I have quoted "define" it.But it doesn't. If you meant spectral, you should have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> used the word.Damon is but Damon is an idiot.I never said spectral colour and perceived colour are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the same thing.And so you will say you monitor can;t show you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> orange?But "Color" isn't from ONE cone, but a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> processing of several cones with different >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sensitivity bands in close proximity. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You are arguing with the science as well as me: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a retinal cone signal is the result of just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> four to seven photons hitting the cone >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulataneously; for rods it is an individual >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> photon. THERE ARE NO PINK PHOTONS. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Of course not. And since NO beams is truely >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> MONO-CHROMATIC, it could be argued that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spectral colors don't actually "exists" but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are only definitions.Only spectral colours physically exist, any >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other colours are quite literally figments of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your imagination based on electrical signals >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (or lack thereof) the cones in your retinas >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are sending. This is science, mate, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CONVENTIONAL science. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>No, White is a color, it isn't a spectral >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> color.
Color (or colour in Commonwealth English) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is the visual perception produced by the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> activation of the different types of cone >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cells in the eye caused by light. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There is a DIFFERENT (compond) term >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Spectral Color" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that relates to what you are talking >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about, but it isn't "Color". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
By your definition White and Black aren't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> colors either.
Correct, white is not a PHYSICAL colour and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> black is absence of light. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
/Flibble
There are many physical things with the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> color of white, so it is a "Physical Color", >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which is generally defined as the color >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something appears to be, again, not limited >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to mono-chromatic colors. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Black is also a "Color" as it is a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perception.
You are just showing the same it must be my >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way or the highway of PO, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even when the conventional definitions that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> apply to that context disagree. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
/Flibble
And other colors are not "figments", but the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> result of the beam of light containing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> multiple wavelengths at once. The relative >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> density of each frequency is what is called >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the "spectrum" for that light, and our >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perception of it, the "Color". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Your problem is, again, you aren't using the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> words as conventionally defined, and thus >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> showing the same stupidity of Olcott, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> insisting that he gets to redefine anything he >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wants, which is just proof that he doesn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> care about communication. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If you want to prove yourself to be back into >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that same bin,
continue in your obtuseness. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
/Flibble
We DON'T see the individual signals, we see the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perceived combination of the signals. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Doesn't matter that there are no "pink photons" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there are light spectra that can hit a region of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the eye to produce a signal that says "pink >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> light".
Or, do you think that you monitor can't show you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> orange?
as there is no "orange photons" emitted by your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> screen, only combinations of the Red, Green, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Blue pixels that make up the screen that reach >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your eyes to close for you eye to perceive them >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as from different spots.
THERE ARE NO PINK PHOTONS. Correct, whilst there >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are orange photons my monitor only emits red, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> green and blue photons at different intensities. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You can get monitors/TVs with a fourth yellow >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sub-pixel,
I would be interested in seeing what that looks >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like.
/Flibble
THen what color does it show you for a orange? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There isn't even a Reg-Green Photon that is used >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to display orange.
As I said, the problem is color is not restricted >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to mono-chromatism,
but is a perceptive function.
All you are doing is showing you have the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cognative error as Peter,
thinking that you have the power to redefine what >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> words mean in normal context.
You are a f--king idiot, mate. My monitor only has >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> monochromatic red, green and blue LEDs (or red, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> green and blue filters) so can only emit red, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> green or blue photons.
I never said that COLOUR isn't a perceptive >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> function,
I said pink isn't a PHYSICAL COLOUR because there >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are no PINK PHOTONS because there is no wavelength >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> corresponding to the colour pink. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
/Flibble
Spectral color and perceived color are different >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> things.
Richard Damon is correct, you are wrong. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You are also an idiot.
/Flibble
Then, who suggests pink is a physical colour? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
/Flibble
'color' is actually not easy to understand and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ambiguous.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color You might not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand English?
You are worse than olcott, read something about color >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before arguing it.
I understand English better than you, mate. I repeat: you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are an idiot,
like Damon and Olcott.
Yes "colour" is ambiguous which is why I QUALIFIED it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with the word "physical" which obviously referred to it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being spectral.
/Flibble
The problem is that "Physical Color" is actualy a term of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> art with meaning.
No it isn't.
/Flibble
I can quote things too, mate:
Source?
"Key Aspects of Physical Color Physical Property: Color is >>>>>>>>>>>>> considered a physical property because it can be observed >>>>>>>>>>>>> without causing a chemical change in the substance.
Which doesn't say it is spectral.
Quoting somethiing that doesn't support your claim doesn't >>>>>>>>>>>> help your position.
Note, the following seems to be a new entry.
Visible Spectrum: The colors we see are part of the visible >>>>>>>>>>>>> electromagnetic spectrum."
So, that defined VISIBLE spectrum, not physical color
Pink is not part of the visible electromagnetic spectrum. >>>>>>>>>>>>Which has nothing to do with physical color.
Another quote:
""Physical color" refers to the color of an object as an >>>>>>>>>>> observable, inherent property that can be seen and measured >>>>>>>>>>> without changing its chemical composition. This property is >>>>>>>>>>> determined by how the object's material interacts with light, >>>>>>>>>>> specifically which parts of the visible spectrum it absorbs and >>>>>>>>>>> reflects. For example,
a blue substance has a physical color because its material >>>>>>>>>>> absorbs certain wavelengths of light and reflects blue
wavelengths, which then reach our eyes."
Again: pink is not part of the visible spectrum. You are proven >>>>>>>>>>> wrong yet again, mate. Lrn2science.
/Flibble
Nothing says we are looking at mono-chromatic light.
Sorry, the fact you just fail to provide sources shows you >>>>>>>>>> likely have something to hide.
"If color is solely the way physics describes it, the visible >>>>>>>>> spectrum of light waves, then black and white are outcasts and >>>>>>>>> donrCOt count as true, physical colors." --
https://www.britannica.com/story/are-black-and-white-
colors
There, a real credible quote from a credible source. Now shut the >>>>>>>>> f--k up and f--k off.
/Flibble
If you include in the definition of color, however, all of the >>>>>>>> ways in which human eyes process light and the lack of it, then >>>>>>>> black and white,
as well as pink, earn their places in the crayon box.
Even the section you are quoting qualifies its statement with: >>>>>>>>
It depends on how you want to define color. If color is solely the >>>>>>>> way physics describes it, the visible spectrum of light waves, >>>>>>>> then black and white are outcasts and donrCOt count as true,
physical colors.
So, only *IF* you are defining color spectrally (the way physics >>>>>>>> describes it) do you get your results.
So, your source is admitting it isn't giving a diffinative
definition.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same was I used >>>>>>> it.
I told you to f--k off -- you lost the argument and all you have >>>>>>> now is just noise.
/Flibble
define the term, and you only match the more restricted and niche
version of it.
Maybe you should learn to follow your own advice and admit you were >>>>>> wrong.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am you >>>>> lying c-nt.
/Flibble
Sorry, you are just misreading your test.
You don't seem to understand the rules of linguistics.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am using
it you lying c-nt.
/Flibble
usage of it, and isn't the primary meaning of it.
Sorry, when your source disclaims it being definitive, you lost your
case.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am using
it you lying c-nt.
/Flibble
On 8/26/25 9:28 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Tue, 26 Aug 2025 21:23:35 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:And says that this isn't the only possible defintion of it, thus saying
On 8/26/25 1:23 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Mon, 25 Aug 2025 19:40:34 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:And admits it isn;t the only meaning for it, and that is in fact an
On 8/25/25 1:11 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:Color
On Mon, 25 Aug 2025 07:10:35 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/24/25 10:03 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 21:55:37 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/24/25 9:51 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 21:49:37 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/24/25 9:44 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 21:39:39 -0400, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>
On 8/24/25 9:30 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 21:19:42 -0400, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 8/24/25 9:15 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 21:11:52 -0400, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 8/24/25 9:07 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Mon, 25 Aug 2025 09:02:19 +0800, wij wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On Mon, 2025-08-25 at 00:56 +0000, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 25 Aug 2025 08:45:10 +0800, wij wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On Mon, 2025-08-25 at 00:38 +0000, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 25 Aug 2025 08:14:41 +0800, wij wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On Sun, 2025-08-24 at 23:13 +0000, Mr Flibble >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 19:04:47 -0400, Richard Damon >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 8/24/25 7:00 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 18:56:35 -0400, Richard >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Damon wrote:
On 8/24/25 6:33 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 18:26:20 -0400, Richard >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Damon wrote:
On 8/24/25 6:18 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 18:15:38 -0400, Richard >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Damon wrote:
On 8/24/25 6:09 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 18:06:55 -0400, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 8/24/25 6:02 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 17:51:50 -0400, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
But NO colors exist on it, only >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> frequencies. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On 8/24/25 5:03 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 16:56:25 -0400, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I repeat: there is only ONE >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> electromagnetic spectrum and pink does >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NOT exist on it. There are NO pink >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> photons.
But a "Spectrum" is also the intensity >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the signal at each wavelength. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On 8/24/25 4:37 PM, Mr Flibble >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 13:24:19 -0700, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chris M. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thomasson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>There is only ONE electromagnetic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spectrum. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
But "Color" is a perception, not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just a wavelength of light. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On 8/23/2025 2:56 PM, Mr Flibble >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just as pink isn't a physical >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> colour, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Olcott's Halting Problem proof >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> refutations are equally >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> imaginary. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>There are no pink photons; only >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spectral colours physically exist. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
What about a pink flower? ;^) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
/Flibble >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There are "Purples" that don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correspond to a single wavelength >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> either. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There ARE spectrums that are "pink", >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a bit more Red than other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> frequencies, but most other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> frequencies present. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
/Flibble >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The problem here is the word has >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> multiple meanings, and you need to use >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the one that relates to the words >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being used. It can be both the range >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of values something can span over, or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the collection of amounts you have at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> each of those. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Note, "Colors" are a perception based >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> term, and while single frequency light >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has a perceived color (if visible) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that color is NOT defined by that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> frequency (and is in fact, to a degree >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subjective, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as each person has a slightly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different response characteristics). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus, when you talk about colors, you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are NOT talking about mono-chromatic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> light, but perception. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That is why "Infra-Red" isn't a color, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but a frequency band as part of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spectrum, but "Red" is a color, but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't limit the frequency of lights >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that can be present (some "Reds" have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bits all the way to "blue"). There is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a "Red Band" which as mono-chromatic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like looks Red, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but Red can have frequencies in it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> outside that band (but will normally >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be dominated with that band) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Think about how it is used for the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spectrum of the sound of a violin >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> string being played. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This is just one of Olcott's errors >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> again,
insisting that a word has the meaning >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you want it to mean, even if not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> appropriate in the context. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
/Flibble
Each of those frequencies has a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perceived color, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but the frequence does not define the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> color.
-a-a-a-a From >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -a-a-a-a https://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/
And points out that it also can have the other meaning.No, your source is pointing out that there are multiple ways toAnd that article ends in:But you do get pink with a slight absortion in the non-red >>>>>>>>>>> part of the specturm.I can quote things too, mate:Then why does the page I have quoted "define" it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>But it doesn't. If you meant spectral, you should have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> used the word.Damon is but Damon is an idiot.I never said spectral colour and perceived colour >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are the same thing.You are a f--king idiot, mate. My monitor only >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has monochromatic red, green and blue LEDs (or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> red, green and blue filters) so can only emit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> red, green or blue photons.And so you will say you monitor can;t show you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> orange?THERE ARE NO PINK PHOTONS. Correct, whilst >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there are orange photons my monitor only emits >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> red, green and blue photons at different >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intensities. You can get monitors/TVs with a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fourth yellow sub-pixel,But "Color" isn't from ONE cone, but a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> processing of several cones with different >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sensitivity bands in close proximity. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You are arguing with the science as well as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me:Of course not. And since NO beams is truely >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> MONO-CHROMATIC, it could be argued that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spectral colors don't actually "exists" but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are only definitions. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Only spectral colours physically exist, any >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other colours are quite literally figments >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of your imagination based on electrical >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> signals (or lack thereof) the cones in your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> retinas are sending. This is science, mate, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CONVENTIONAL science. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>No, White is a color, it isn't a spectral >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> color.Correct, white is not a PHYSICAL colour >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and black is absence of light. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Color (or colour in Commonwealth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> English)
is the visual perception produced by the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> activation of the different types of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cone cells in the eye caused by light. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There is a DIFFERENT (compond) term >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Spectral Color" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that relates to what you are talking >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about, but it isn't "Color". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
By your definition White and Black >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aren't colors either. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
/Flibble
There are many physical things with the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> color of white, so it is a "Physical >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Color",
which is generally defined as the color >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something appears to be, again, not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> limited to mono-chromatic colors. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Black is also a "Color" as it is a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perception.
You are just showing the same it must be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> my way or the highway of PO, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even when the conventional definitions >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that apply to that context disagree. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
/Flibble
And other colors are not "figments", but the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> result of the beam of light containing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> multiple wavelengths at once. The relative >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> density of each frequency is what is called >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the "spectrum" for that light, and our >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perception of it, the "Color". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Your problem is, again, you aren't using the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> words as conventionally defined, and thus >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> showing the same stupidity of Olcott, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> insisting that he gets to redefine anything >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> he wants, which is just proof that he >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't care about communication. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If you want to prove yourself to be back >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into that same bin,
continue in your obtuseness. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
a retinal cone signal is the result of just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> four to seven photons hitting the cone >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulataneously; for rods it is an individual >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> photon. THERE ARE NO PINK PHOTONS. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
/Flibble
We DON'T see the individual signals, we see >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the perceived combination of the signals. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Doesn't matter that there are no "pink >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> photons" there are light spectra that can hit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a region of the eye to produce a signal that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> says "pink light".
Or, do you think that you monitor can't show >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you orange?
as there is no "orange photons" emitted by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your screen, only combinations of the Red, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Green, and Blue pixels that make up the screen >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that reach your eyes to close for you eye to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perceive them as from different spots. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I would be interested in seeing what that looks >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like.
/Flibble
THen what color does it show you for a orange? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There isn't even a Reg-Green Photon that is used >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to display orange.
As I said, the problem is color is not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> restricted to mono-chromatism, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but is a perceptive function. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
All you are doing is showing you have the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cognative error as Peter,
thinking that you have the power to redefine >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what words mean in normal context. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I never said that COLOUR isn't a perceptive >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> function,
I said pink isn't a PHYSICAL COLOUR because there >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are no PINK PHOTONS because there is no >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wavelength corresponding to the colour pink. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
/Flibble
Spectral color and perceived color are different >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> things.
Richard Damon is correct, you are wrong. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You are also an idiot.
/Flibble
Then, who suggests pink is a physical colour? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
/Flibble
'color' is actually not easy to understand and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ambiguous.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color You might not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand English?
You are worse than olcott, read something about color >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before arguing it.
I understand English better than you, mate. I repeat: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you are an idiot,
like Damon and Olcott.
Yes "colour" is ambiguous which is why I QUALIFIED it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with the word "physical" which obviously referred to it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being spectral.
/Flibble
The problem is that "Physical Color" is actualy a term >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of art with meaning.
No it isn't.
/Flibble
Source?
"Key Aspects of Physical Color Physical Property: Color is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> considered a physical property because it can be observed >>>>>>>>>>>>>> without causing a chemical change in the substance. >>>>>>>>>>>>>Which doesn't say it is spectral.
Quoting somethiing that doesn't support your claim doesn't >>>>>>>>>>>>> help your position.
Note, the following seems to be a new entry.
Visible Spectrum: The colors we see are part of the visible >>>>>>>>>>>>>> electromagnetic spectrum."
So, that defined VISIBLE spectrum, not physical color >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Pink is not part of the visible electromagnetic spectrum. >>>>>>>>>>>>>Which has nothing to do with physical color.
Another quote:
""Physical color" refers to the color of an object as an >>>>>>>>>>>> observable, inherent property that can be seen and measured >>>>>>>>>>>> without changing its chemical composition. This property is >>>>>>>>>>>> determined by how the object's material interacts with light, >>>>>>>>>>>> specifically which parts of the visible spectrum it absorbs >>>>>>>>>>>> and reflects. For example,
a blue substance has a physical color because its material >>>>>>>>>>>> absorbs certain wavelengths of light and reflects blue >>>>>>>>>>>> wavelengths, which then reach our eyes."
Again: pink is not part of the visible spectrum. You are >>>>>>>>>>>> proven wrong yet again, mate. Lrn2science.
/Flibble
Nothing says we are looking at mono-chromatic light.
Sorry, the fact you just fail to provide sources shows you >>>>>>>>>>> likely have something to hide.
"If color is solely the way physics describes it, the visible >>>>>>>>>> spectrum of light waves, then black and white are outcasts and >>>>>>>>>> donrCOt count as true, physical colors." --
https://www.britannica.com/story/are-black-and-white-
colors
There, a real credible quote from a credible source. Now shut >>>>>>>>>> the f--k up and f--k off.
/Flibble
If you include in the definition of color, however, all of the >>>>>>>>> ways in which human eyes process light and the lack of it, then >>>>>>>>> black and white,
as well as pink, earn their places in the crayon box.
Even the section you are quoting qualifies its statement with: >>>>>>>>>
It depends on how you want to define color. If color is solely >>>>>>>>> the way physics describes it, the visible spectrum of light
waves, then black and white are outcasts and donrCOt count as >>>>>>>>> true, physical colors.
So, only *IF* you are defining color spectrally (the way physics >>>>>>>>> describes it) do you get your results.
So, your source is admitting it isn't giving a diffinative
definition.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same was I >>>>>>>> used it.
I told you to f--k off -- you lost the argument and all you have >>>>>>>> now is just noise.
/Flibble
define the term, and you only match the more restricted and niche >>>>>>> version of it.
Maybe you should learn to follow your own advice and admit you
were wrong.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am
you lying c-nt.
/Flibble
Sorry, you are just misreading your test.
You don't seem to understand the rules of linguistics.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am
using it you lying c-nt.
/Flibble
odd usage of it, and isn't the primary meaning of it.
Sorry, when your source disclaims it being definitive, you lost your
case.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am using
it you lying c-nt.
/Flibble
the other defintion is also valid, and thus can't be excluded.
You just don't understand the linguistics.
On Tue, 26 Aug 2025 21:54:19 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/26/25 9:28 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:wiki/
On Tue, 26 Aug 2025 21:23:35 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/26/25 1:23 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Mon, 25 Aug 2025 19:40:34 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/25/25 1:11 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Mon, 25 Aug 2025 07:10:35 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/24/25 10:03 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 21:55:37 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/24/25 9:51 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 21:49:37 -0400, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>
On 8/24/25 9:44 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 21:39:39 -0400, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 8/24/25 9:30 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 21:19:42 -0400, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 8/24/25 9:15 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 21:11:52 -0400, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 8/24/25 9:07 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Mon, 25 Aug 2025 09:02:19 +0800, wij wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On Mon, 2025-08-25 at 00:56 +0000, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 25 Aug 2025 08:45:10 +0800, wij wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On Mon, 2025-08-25 at 00:38 +0000, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 25 Aug 2025 08:14:41 +0800, wij wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On Sun, 2025-08-24 at 23:13 +0000, Mr Flibble >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 19:04:47 -0400, Richard Damon >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 8/24/25 7:00 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 18:56:35 -0400, Richard >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Damon wrote:
On 8/24/25 6:33 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 18:26:20 -0400, Richard >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Damon wrote:
On 8/24/25 6:18 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 18:15:38 -0400, Richard >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Damon wrote:
On 8/24/25 6:09 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 18:06:55 -0400, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 8/24/25 6:02 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 17:51:50 -0400, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
But NO colors exist on it, only >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> frequencies. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On 8/24/25 5:03 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 16:56:25 -0400, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I repeat: there is only ONE >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> electromagnetic spectrum and pink does >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NOT exist on it. There are NO pink >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> photons. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
But a "Spectrum" is also the intensity >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the signal at each wavelength. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On 8/24/25 4:37 PM, Mr Flibble >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 13:24:19 -0700, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chris M. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thomasson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/23/2025 2:56 PM, Mr Flibble >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just as pink isn't a physical >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> colour, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Olcott's Halting Problem proof >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> refutations are equally >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> imaginary. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What about a pink flower? ;^) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>There is only ONE electromagnetic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spectrum. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There are no pink photons; only >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spectral colours physically exist. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>But "Color" is a perception, not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just a wavelength of light. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
/Flibble >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There are "Purples" that don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correspond to a single wavelength >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> either. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There ARE spectrums that are "pink", >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a bit more Red than other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> frequencies, but most other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> frequencies present. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
/Flibble >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The problem here is the word has >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> multiple meanings, and you need to use >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the one that relates to the words >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being used. It can be both the range >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of values something can span over, or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the collection of amounts you have at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> each of those. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Note, "Colors" are a perception based >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> term, and while single frequency light >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has a perceived color (if visible) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that color is NOT defined by that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> frequency (and is in fact, to a degree >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subjective, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as each person has a slightly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different response characteristics). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus, when you talk about colors, you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are NOT talking about mono-chromatic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> light, but perception. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That is why "Infra-Red" isn't a color, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but a frequency band as part of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spectrum, but "Red" is a color, but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't limit the frequency of lights >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that can be present (some "Reds" have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bits all the way to "blue"). There is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a "Red Band" which as mono-chromatic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like looks Red, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but Red can have frequencies in it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> outside that band (but will normally >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be dominated with that band) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Think about how it is used for the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spectrum of the sound of a violin >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> string being played. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This is just one of Olcott's errors >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> again, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> insisting that a word has the meaning >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you want it to mean, even if not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> appropriate in the context. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
/Flibble >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Each of those frequencies has a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perceived color, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but the frequence does not define the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> color.
-a-a-a-a From >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -a-a-a-a https://en.wikipedia.org/
And says that this isn't the only possible defintion of it, thus sayingColorAnd admits it isn;t the only meaning for it, and that is in fact an
And points out that it also can have the other meaning.No, your source is pointing out that there are multiple ways to >>>>>>>> define the term, and you only match the more restricted and niche >>>>>>>> version of it.And that article ends in:But you do get pink with a slight absortion in the non-red >>>>>>>>>>>> part of the specturm.I can quote things too, mate:Then why does the page I have quoted "define" it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>But it doesn't. If you meant spectral, you should have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> used the word.Damon is but Damon is an idiot.I never said spectral colour and perceived colour >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are the same thing.You are a f--king idiot, mate. My monitor only >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has monochromatic red, green and blue LEDs (or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> red, green and blue filters) so can only emit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> red, green or blue photons.And so you will say you monitor can;t show you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> orange?THERE ARE NO PINK PHOTONS. Correct, whilst >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there are orange photons my monitor only emits >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> red, green and blue photons at different >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intensities. You can get monitors/TVs with a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fourth yellow sub-pixel, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would be interested in seeing what that looks >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like.But "Color" isn't from ONE cone, but a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> processing of several cones with different >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sensitivity bands in close proximity. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You are arguing with the science as well as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me:Of course not. And since NO beams is truely >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> MONO-CHROMATIC, it could be argued that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spectral colors don't actually "exists" but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are only definitions. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Only spectral colours physically exist, any >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other colours are quite literally figments >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of your imagination based on electrical >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> signals (or lack thereof) the cones in your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> retinas are sending. This is science, mate, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CONVENTIONAL science. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>No, White is a color, it isn't a spectral >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> color.Correct, white is not a PHYSICAL colour >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and black is absence of light. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Color (or colour in Commonwealth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> English)
is the visual perception produced by the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> activation of the different types of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cone cells in the eye caused by light. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There is a DIFFERENT (compond) term >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Spectral Color" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that relates to what you are talking >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about, but it isn't "Color". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
By your definition White and Black >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aren't colors either. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
/Flibble
There are many physical things with the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> color of white, so it is a "Physical >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Color",
which is generally defined as the color >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something appears to be, again, not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> limited to mono-chromatic colors. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Black is also a "Color" as it is a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perception.
You are just showing the same it must be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> my way or the highway of PO, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even when the conventional definitions >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that apply to that context disagree. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
/Flibble
And other colors are not "figments", but the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> result of the beam of light containing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> multiple wavelengths at once. The relative >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> density of each frequency is what is called >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the "spectrum" for that light, and our >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perception of it, the "Color". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Your problem is, again, you aren't using the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> words as conventionally defined, and thus >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> showing the same stupidity of Olcott, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> insisting that he gets to redefine anything >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> he wants, which is just proof that he >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't care about communication. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If you want to prove yourself to be back >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into that same bin, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> continue in your obtuseness. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
a retinal cone signal is the result of just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> four to seven photons hitting the cone >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulataneously; for rods it is an individual >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> photon. THERE ARE NO PINK PHOTONS. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
/Flibble
We DON'T see the individual signals, we see >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the perceived combination of the signals. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Doesn't matter that there are no "pink >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> photons" there are light spectra that can hit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a region of the eye to produce a signal that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> says "pink light".
Or, do you think that you monitor can't show >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you orange?
as there is no "orange photons" emitted by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your screen, only combinations of the Red, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Green, and Blue pixels that make up the screen >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that reach your eyes to close for you eye to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perceive them as from different spots. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
/Flibble
THen what color does it show you for a orange? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There isn't even a Reg-Green Photon that is used >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to display orange.
As I said, the problem is color is not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> restricted to mono-chromatism, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but is a perceptive function. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
All you are doing is showing you have the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cognative error as Peter,
thinking that you have the power to redefine >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what words mean in normal context. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I never said that COLOUR isn't a perceptive >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> function,
I said pink isn't a PHYSICAL COLOUR because there >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are no PINK PHOTONS because there is no >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wavelength corresponding to the colour pink. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
/Flibble
Spectral color and perceived color are different >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> things.
Richard Damon is correct, you are wrong. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You are also an idiot.
/Flibble
Then, who suggests pink is a physical colour? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
/Flibble
'color' is actually not easy to understand and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ambiguous.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color You might not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand English?
You are worse than olcott, read something about color >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before arguing it.
I understand English better than you, mate. I repeat: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you are an idiot,
like Damon and Olcott.
Yes "colour" is ambiguous which is why I QUALIFIED it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with the word "physical" which obviously referred to it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being spectral.
/Flibble
The problem is that "Physical Color" is actualy a term >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of art with meaning.
No it isn't.
/Flibble
Source?
"Key Aspects of Physical Color Physical Property: Color is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> considered a physical property because it can be observed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without causing a chemical change in the substance. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Which doesn't say it is spectral.
Quoting somethiing that doesn't support your claim doesn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>> help your position.
Note, the following seems to be a new entry.
Visible Spectrum: The colors we see are part of the visible >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> electromagnetic spectrum."
So, that defined VISIBLE spectrum, not physical color >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Pink is not part of the visible electromagnetic spectrum. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Which has nothing to do with physical color.
Another quote:
""Physical color" refers to the color of an object as an >>>>>>>>>>>>> observable, inherent property that can be seen and measured >>>>>>>>>>>>> without changing its chemical composition. This property is >>>>>>>>>>>>> determined by how the object's material interacts with light, >>>>>>>>>>>>> specifically which parts of the visible spectrum it absorbs >>>>>>>>>>>>> and reflects. For example,
a blue substance has a physical color because its material >>>>>>>>>>>>> absorbs certain wavelengths of light and reflects blue >>>>>>>>>>>>> wavelengths, which then reach our eyes."
Again: pink is not part of the visible spectrum. You are >>>>>>>>>>>>> proven wrong yet again, mate. Lrn2science.
/Flibble
Nothing says we are looking at mono-chromatic light.
Sorry, the fact you just fail to provide sources shows you >>>>>>>>>>>> likely have something to hide.
"If color is solely the way physics describes it, the visible >>>>>>>>>>> spectrum of light waves, then black and white are outcasts and >>>>>>>>>>> donrCOt count as true, physical colors." --
https://www.britannica.com/story/are-black-and-white-
colors
There, a real credible quote from a credible source. Now shut >>>>>>>>>>> the f--k up and f--k off.
/Flibble
If you include in the definition of color, however, all of the >>>>>>>>>> ways in which human eyes process light and the lack of it, then >>>>>>>>>> black and white,
as well as pink, earn their places in the crayon box.
Even the section you are quoting qualifies its statement with: >>>>>>>>>>
It depends on how you want to define color. If color is solely >>>>>>>>>> the way physics describes it, the visible spectrum of light >>>>>>>>>> waves, then black and white are outcasts and donrCOt count as >>>>>>>>>> true, physical colors.
So, only *IF* you are defining color spectrally (the way physics >>>>>>>>>> describes it) do you get your results.
So, your source is admitting it isn't giving a diffinative >>>>>>>>>> definition.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same was I >>>>>>>>> used it.
I told you to f--k off -- you lost the argument and all you have >>>>>>>>> now is just noise.
/Flibble
Maybe you should learn to follow your own advice and admit you >>>>>>>> were wrong.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am >>>>>>> you lying c-nt.
/Flibble
Sorry, you are just misreading your test.
You don't seem to understand the rules of linguistics.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am
using it you lying c-nt.
/Flibble
odd usage of it, and isn't the primary meaning of it.
Sorry, when your source disclaims it being definitive, you lost your
case.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am using
it you lying c-nt.
/Flibble
the other defintion is also valid, and thus can't be excluded.
You just don't understand the linguistics.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am you
lying c-nt.
/Flibble
On 8/26/25 9:57 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Tue, 26 Aug 2025 21:54:19 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:And says that this isn't the only possible defintion of it, thus saying
On 8/26/25 9:28 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:wiki/
On Tue, 26 Aug 2025 21:23:35 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/26/25 1:23 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Mon, 25 Aug 2025 19:40:34 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/25/25 1:11 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Mon, 25 Aug 2025 07:10:35 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/24/25 10:03 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 21:55:37 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/24/25 9:51 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 21:49:37 -0400, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>
On 8/24/25 9:44 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 21:39:39 -0400, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 8/24/25 9:30 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 21:19:42 -0400, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 8/24/25 9:15 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 21:11:52 -0400, Richard Damon >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 8/24/25 9:07 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Mon, 25 Aug 2025 09:02:19 +0800, wij wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On Mon, 2025-08-25 at 00:56 +0000, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 25 Aug 2025 08:45:10 +0800, wij wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On Mon, 2025-08-25 at 00:38 +0000, Mr Flibble >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On Mon, 25 Aug 2025 08:14:41 +0800, wij wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On Sun, 2025-08-24 at 23:13 +0000, Mr Flibble >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 19:04:47 -0400, Richard >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Damon wrote:
On 8/24/25 7:00 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 18:56:35 -0400, Richard >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Damon wrote:
On 8/24/25 6:33 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 18:26:20 -0400, Richard >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Damon wrote:
On 8/24/25 6:18 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 18:15:38 -0400, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 8/24/25 6:09 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 18:06:55 -0400, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 8/24/25 6:02 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 17:51:50 -0400, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
But NO colors exist on it, only >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> frequencies. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On 8/24/25 5:03 PM, Mr Flibble >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 16:56:25 -0400, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I repeat: there is only ONE >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> electromagnetic spectrum and pink >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does NOT exist on it. There are NO >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pink photons. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
But a "Spectrum" is also the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intensity of the signal at each >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wavelength. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On 8/24/25 4:37 PM, Mr Flibble >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 13:24:19 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -0700, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chris M. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thomasson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/23/2025 2:56 PM, Mr Flibble >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just as pink isn't a physical >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> colour, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Olcott's Halting Problem proof >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> refutations are equally >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> imaginary. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What about a pink flower? ;^) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are no pink photons; only >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spectral colours physically >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exist. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But "Color" is a perception, not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just a wavelength of light. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>There is only ONE electromagnetic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spectrum. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There are "Purples" that don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correspond to a single wavelength >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> either. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There ARE spectrums that are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "pink", >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a bit more Red than other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> frequencies, but most other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> frequencies present. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
/Flibble >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The problem here is the word has >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> multiple meanings, and you need to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use the one that relates to the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> words being used. It can be both the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> range of values something can span >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> over, or the collection of amounts >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you have at each of those. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Note, "Colors" are a perception >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> based term, and while single >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> frequency light has a perceived >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> color (if visible) that color is NOT >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defined by that frequency (and is in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fact, to a degree subjective, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as each person has a slightly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different response characteristics). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus, when you talk about colors, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you are NOT talking about >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mono-chromatic light, but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perception. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That is why "Infra-Red" isn't a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> color, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but a frequency band as part of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spectrum, but "Red" is a color, but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't limit the frequency of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lights that can be present (some >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Reds" have bits all the way to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "blue"). There is a "Red Band" which >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as mono-chromatic like looks Red, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but Red can have frequencies in it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> outside that band (but will normally >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be dominated with that band) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Think about how it is used for the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spectrum of the sound of a violin >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> string being played. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This is just one of Olcott's errors >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> again, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> insisting that a word has the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning you want it to mean, even if >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not appropriate in the context. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
/Flibble >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Each of those frequencies has a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perceived color, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but the frequence does not define the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> color.
-a-a-a-a From >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -a-a-a-a https:// en.wikipedia.org/
And says that this isn't the only possible defintion of it, thusColorAnd admits it isn;t the only meaning for it, and that is in fact an
And points out that it also can have the other meaning.No, your source is pointing out that there are multiple ways to >>>>>>>>> define the term, and you only match the more restricted andAnd that article ends in:But you do get pink with a slight absortion in the non-red >>>>>>>>>>>>> part of the specturm.I can quote things too, mate:Then why does the page I have quoted "define" it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>But it doesn't. If you meant spectral, you should have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> used the word.Damon is but Damon is an idiot.I never said spectral colour and perceived colour >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are the same thing.You are a f--king idiot, mate. My monitor only >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has monochromatic red, green and blue LEDs (or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> red, green and blue filters) so can only emit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> red, green or blue photons. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And so you will say you monitor can;t show you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> orange?But "Color" isn't from ONE cone, but a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> processing of several cones with different >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sensitivity bands in close proximity. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You are arguing with the science as well as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me:Of course not. And since NO beams is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truely MONO-CHROMATIC, it could be argued >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that spectral colors don't actually >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "exists" but are only definitions. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Only spectral colours physically exist, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any other colours are quite literally >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> figments of your imagination based on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> electrical signals (or lack thereof) the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cones in your retinas are sending. This >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is science, mate, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CONVENTIONAL science. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>No, White is a color, it isn't a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spectral color. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are many physical things with the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> color of white, so it is a "Physical >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Color",Correct, white is not a PHYSICAL colour >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and black is absence of light. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Color (or colour in Commonwealth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> English) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is the visual perception produced by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the activation of the different types >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of cone cells in the eye caused by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> light.
There is a DIFFERENT (compond) term >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Spectral Color" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that relates to what you are talking >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about, but it isn't "Color". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
By your definition White and Black >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aren't colors either. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
/Flibble
which is generally defined as the color >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something appears to be, again, not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> limited to mono-chromatic colors. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Black is also a "Color" as it is a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perception.
You are just showing the same it must be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> my way or the highway of PO, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even when the conventional definitions >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that apply to that context disagree. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
/Flibble
And other colors are not "figments", but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the result of the beam of light containing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> multiple wavelengths at once. The relative >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> density of each frequency is what is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> called the "spectrum" for that light, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> our perception of it, the "Color". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Your problem is, again, you aren't using >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the words as conventionally defined, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thus showing the same stupidity of Olcott, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> insisting that he gets to redefine >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anything he wants, which is just proof >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that he doesn't care about communication. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If you want to prove yourself to be back >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into that same bin, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> continue in your obtuseness. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
a retinal cone signal is the result of just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> four to seven photons hitting the cone >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulataneously; for rods it is an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> individual photon. THERE ARE NO PINK >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PHOTONS.
/Flibble
We DON'T see the individual signals, we see >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the perceived combination of the signals. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Doesn't matter that there are no "pink >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> photons" there are light spectra that can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hit a region of the eye to produce a signal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that says "pink light". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Or, do you think that you monitor can't show >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you orange?
as there is no "orange photons" emitted by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your screen, only combinations of the Red, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Green, and Blue pixels that make up the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> screen that reach your eyes to close for you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eye to perceive them as from different >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spots.
THERE ARE NO PINK PHOTONS. Correct, whilst >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there are orange photons my monitor only >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emits red, green and blue photons at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different intensities. You can get >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> monitors/TVs with a fourth yellow sub-pixel, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would be interested in seeing what that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> looks like.
/Flibble
THen what color does it show you for a orange? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There isn't even a Reg-Green Photon that is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> used to display orange.
As I said, the problem is color is not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> restricted to mono-chromatism, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but is a perceptive function. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
All you are doing is showing you have the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cognative error as Peter, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinking that you have the power to redefine >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what words mean in normal context. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I never said that COLOUR isn't a perceptive >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> function,
I said pink isn't a PHYSICAL COLOUR because >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there are no PINK PHOTONS because there is no >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wavelength corresponding to the colour pink. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
/Flibble
Spectral color and perceived color are different >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> things.
Richard Damon is correct, you are wrong. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You are also an idiot.
/Flibble
Then, who suggests pink is a physical colour? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
/Flibble
'color' is actually not easy to understand and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ambiguous.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color You might not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand English?
You are worse than olcott, read something about >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> color before arguing it.
I understand English better than you, mate. I repeat: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you are an idiot,
like Damon and Olcott.
Yes "colour" is ambiguous which is why I QUALIFIED it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with the word "physical" which obviously referred to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it being spectral.
/Flibble
The problem is that "Physical Color" is actualy a term >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of art with meaning.
No it isn't.
/Flibble
Source?
"Key Aspects of Physical Color Physical Property: Color >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is considered a physical property because it can be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> observed without causing a chemical change in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> substance.
Which doesn't say it is spectral.
Quoting somethiing that doesn't support your claim doesn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> help your position.
Note, the following seems to be a new entry.
Visible Spectrum: The colors we see are part of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> visible electromagnetic spectrum."
So, that defined VISIBLE spectrum, not physical color >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Pink is not part of the visible electromagnetic spectrum. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Which has nothing to do with physical color.
Another quote:
""Physical color" refers to the color of an object as an >>>>>>>>>>>>>> observable, inherent property that can be seen and measured >>>>>>>>>>>>>> without changing its chemical composition. This property is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> determined by how the object's material interacts with >>>>>>>>>>>>>> light,
specifically which parts of the visible spectrum it absorbs >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and reflects. For example,
a blue substance has a physical color because its material >>>>>>>>>>>>>> absorbs certain wavelengths of light and reflects blue >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wavelengths, which then reach our eyes."
Again: pink is not part of the visible spectrum. You are >>>>>>>>>>>>>> proven wrong yet again, mate. Lrn2science.
/Flibble
Nothing says we are looking at mono-chromatic light. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Sorry, the fact you just fail to provide sources shows you >>>>>>>>>>>>> likely have something to hide.
"If color is solely the way physics describes it, the visible >>>>>>>>>>>> spectrum of light waves, then black and white are outcasts >>>>>>>>>>>> and donrCOt count as true, physical colors." --
https://www.britannica.com/story/are-black-and-white-
colors
There, a real credible quote from a credible source. Now shut >>>>>>>>>>>> the f--k up and f--k off.
/Flibble
If you include in the definition of color, however, all of the >>>>>>>>>>> ways in which human eyes process light and the lack of it, >>>>>>>>>>> then black and white,
as well as pink, earn their places in the crayon box.
Even the section you are quoting qualifies its statement with: >>>>>>>>>>>
It depends on how you want to define color. If color is solely >>>>>>>>>>> the way physics describes it, the visible spectrum of light >>>>>>>>>>> waves, then black and white are outcasts and donrCOt count as >>>>>>>>>>> true, physical colors.
So, only *IF* you are defining color spectrally (the way >>>>>>>>>>> physics describes it) do you get your results.
So, your source is admitting it isn't giving a diffinative >>>>>>>>>>> definition.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same was I >>>>>>>>>> used it.
I told you to f--k off -- you lost the argument and all you >>>>>>>>>> have now is just noise.
/Flibble
niche version of it.
Maybe you should learn to follow your own advice and admit you >>>>>>>>> were wrong.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am >>>>>>>> you lying c-nt.
/Flibble
Sorry, you are just misreading your test.
You don't seem to understand the rules of linguistics.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am
using it you lying c-nt.
/Flibble
odd usage of it, and isn't the primary meaning of it.
Sorry, when your source disclaims it being definitive, you lost your >>>>> case.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am
using it you lying c-nt.
/Flibble
saying the other defintion is also valid, and thus can't be excluded.
You just don't understand the linguistics.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am you
lying c-nt.
/Flibble
the other defintion is also valid, and thus can't be excluded.
On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 13:24:19 -0700, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 8/23/2025 2:56 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
Just as pink isn't a physical colour, Olcott's Halting Problem proof
refutations are equally imaginary.
What about a pink flower? ;^)
There are no pink photons; only spectral colours physically exist.
On 2025-08-24 20:37:05 +0000, Mr Flibble said:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 13:24:19 -0700, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 8/23/2025 2:56 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
Just as pink isn't a physical colour, Olcott's Halting Problem proof
refutations are equally imaginary.
What about a pink flower? ;^)
There are no pink photons; only spectral colours physically exist.
Nonsense. Sunlight is as physical as laser light. A pink flower is
phyiscal and its reflection spectrum is as physical as the flower.
On Tue, 26 Aug 2025 22:01:48 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/26/25 9:57 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:en.wikipedia.org/
On Tue, 26 Aug 2025 21:54:19 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/26/25 9:28 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Tue, 26 Aug 2025 21:23:35 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/26/25 1:23 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Mon, 25 Aug 2025 19:40:34 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/25/25 1:11 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Mon, 25 Aug 2025 07:10:35 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/24/25 10:03 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 21:55:37 -0400, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>
On 8/24/25 9:51 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 21:49:37 -0400, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 8/24/25 9:44 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 21:39:39 -0400, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 8/24/25 9:30 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 21:19:42 -0400, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 8/24/25 9:15 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 21:11:52 -0400, Richard Damon >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 8/24/25 9:07 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 25 Aug 2025 09:02:19 +0800, wij wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On Mon, 2025-08-25 at 00:56 +0000, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 25 Aug 2025 08:45:10 +0800, wij wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On Mon, 2025-08-25 at 00:38 +0000, Mr Flibble >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On Mon, 25 Aug 2025 08:14:41 +0800, wij wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On Sun, 2025-08-24 at 23:13 +0000, Mr Flibble >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 19:04:47 -0400, Richard >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Damon wrote:
On 8/24/25 7:00 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 18:56:35 -0400, Richard >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Damon wrote:
On 8/24/25 6:33 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 18:26:20 -0400, Richard >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Damon wrote:
On 8/24/25 6:18 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 18:15:38 -0400, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 8/24/25 6:09 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 18:06:55 -0400, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 8/24/25 6:02 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 17:51:50 -0400, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
But NO colors exist on it, only >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> frequencies. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On 8/24/25 5:03 PM, Mr Flibble >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 16:56:25 -0400, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/24/25 4:37 PM, Mr Flibble >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 13:24:19 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -0700, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chris M. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thomasson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/23/2025 2:56 PM, Mr Flibble >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just as pink isn't a physical >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> colour, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Olcott's Halting Problem proof >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> refutations are equally >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> imaginary. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What about a pink flower? ;^) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are no pink photons; only >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spectral colours physically >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exist. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But "Color" is a perception, not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just a wavelength of light. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are "Purples" that don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correspond to a single wavelength >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> either. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There ARE spectrums that are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "pink", >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a bit more Red than other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> frequencies, but most other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> frequencies present. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I repeat: there is only ONE >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> electromagnetic spectrum and pink >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does NOT exist on it. There are NO >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pink photons. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There is only ONE electromagnetic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spectrum. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>But a "Spectrum" is also the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intensity of the signal at each >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wavelength. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
/Flibble >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The problem here is the word has >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> multiple meanings, and you need to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use the one that relates to the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> words being used. It can be both the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> range of values something can span >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> over, or the collection of amounts >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you have at each of those. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Note, "Colors" are a perception >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> based term, and while single >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> frequency light has a perceived >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> color (if visible) that color is NOT >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defined by that frequency (and is in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fact, to a degree subjective, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as each person has a slightly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different response characteristics). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus, when you talk about colors, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you are NOT talking about >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mono-chromatic light, but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perception. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That is why "Infra-Red" isn't a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> color, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but a frequency band as part of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spectrum, but "Red" is a color, but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't limit the frequency of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lights that can be present (some >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Reds" have bits all the way to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "blue"). There is a "Red Band" which >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as mono-chromatic like looks Red, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but Red can have frequencies in it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> outside that band (but will normally >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be dominated with that band) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Think about how it is used for the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spectrum of the sound of a violin >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> string being played. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This is just one of Olcott's errors >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> again, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> insisting that a word has the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning you want it to mean, even if >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not appropriate in the context. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
/Flibble >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Each of those frequencies has a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perceived color, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but the frequence does not define the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> color. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
-a-a-a-a From >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -a-a-a-a https://
wiki/And says that this isn't the only possible defintion of it, thus saying
And says that this isn't the only possible defintion of it, thusColorAnd admits it isn;t the only meaning for it, and that is in fact an >>>>>> odd usage of it, and isn't the primary meaning of it.
And points out that it also can have the other meaning.No, your source is pointing out that there are multiple ways to >>>>>>>>>> define the term, and you only match the more restricted and >>>>>>>>>> niche version of it.And that article ends in:But you do get pink with a slight absortion in the non-red >>>>>>>>>>>>>> part of the specturm.I can quote things too, mate:Then why does the page I have quoted "define" it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>But it doesn't. If you meant spectral, you should have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> used the word.Damon is but Damon is an idiot.I never said spectral colour and perceived colour >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are the same thing.You are a f--king idiot, mate. My monitor only >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has monochromatic red, green and blue LEDs (or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> red, green and blue filters) so can only emit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> red, green or blue photons. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And so you will say you monitor can;t show you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> orange?But "Color" isn't from ONE cone, but a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> processing of several cones with different >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sensitivity bands in close proximity. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You are arguing with the science as well as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me:Of course not. And since NO beams is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truely MONO-CHROMATIC, it could be argued >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that spectral colors don't actually >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "exists" but are only definitions. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Only spectral colours physically exist, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any other colours are quite literally >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> figments of your imagination based on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> electrical signals (or lack thereof) the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cones in your retinas are sending. This >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is science, mate, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CONVENTIONAL science. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>No, White is a color, it isn't a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spectral color. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are many physical things with the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> color of white, so it is a "Physical >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Color",Correct, white is not a PHYSICAL colour >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and black is absence of light. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Color (or colour in Commonwealth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> English) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is the visual perception produced by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the activation of the different types >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of cone cells in the eye caused by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> light. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There is a DIFFERENT (compond) term >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Spectral Color" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that relates to what you are talking >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about, but it isn't "Color". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
By your definition White and Black >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aren't colors either. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
/Flibble >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
which is generally defined as the color >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something appears to be, again, not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> limited to mono-chromatic colors. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Black is also a "Color" as it is a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perception. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You are just showing the same it must be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> my way or the highway of PO, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even when the conventional definitions >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that apply to that context disagree. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
/Flibble
And other colors are not "figments", but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the result of the beam of light containing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> multiple wavelengths at once. The relative >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> density of each frequency is what is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> called the "spectrum" for that light, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> our perception of it, the "Color". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Your problem is, again, you aren't using >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the words as conventionally defined, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thus showing the same stupidity of Olcott, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> insisting that he gets to redefine >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anything he wants, which is just proof >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that he doesn't care about communication. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If you want to prove yourself to be back >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into that same bin, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> continue in your obtuseness. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
a retinal cone signal is the result of just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> four to seven photons hitting the cone >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulataneously; for rods it is an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> individual photon. THERE ARE NO PINK >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PHOTONS.
/Flibble
We DON'T see the individual signals, we see >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the perceived combination of the signals. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Doesn't matter that there are no "pink >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> photons" there are light spectra that can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hit a region of the eye to produce a signal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that says "pink light". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Or, do you think that you monitor can't show >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you orange?
as there is no "orange photons" emitted by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your screen, only combinations of the Red, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Green, and Blue pixels that make up the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> screen that reach your eyes to close for you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eye to perceive them as from different >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spots.
THERE ARE NO PINK PHOTONS. Correct, whilst >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there are orange photons my monitor only >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emits red, green and blue photons at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different intensities. You can get >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> monitors/TVs with a fourth yellow sub-pixel, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would be interested in seeing what that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> looks like.
/Flibble
THen what color does it show you for a orange? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There isn't even a Reg-Green Photon that is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> used to display orange. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
As I said, the problem is color is not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> restricted to mono-chromatism, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but is a perceptive function. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
All you are doing is showing you have the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cognative error as Peter, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinking that you have the power to redefine >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what words mean in normal context. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I never said that COLOUR isn't a perceptive >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> function,
I said pink isn't a PHYSICAL COLOUR because >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there are no PINK PHOTONS because there is no >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wavelength corresponding to the colour pink. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
/Flibble
Spectral color and perceived color are different >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> things.
Richard Damon is correct, you are wrong. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You are also an idiot.
/Flibble
Then, who suggests pink is a physical colour? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
/Flibble
'color' is actually not easy to understand and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ambiguous.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color You might not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand English?
You are worse than olcott, read something about >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> color before arguing it.
I understand English better than you, mate. I repeat: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you are an idiot,
like Damon and Olcott.
Yes "colour" is ambiguous which is why I QUALIFIED it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with the word "physical" which obviously referred to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it being spectral.
/Flibble
The problem is that "Physical Color" is actualy a term >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of art with meaning.
No it isn't.
/Flibble
Source?
"Key Aspects of Physical Color Physical Property: Color >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is considered a physical property because it can be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> observed without causing a chemical change in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> substance.
Which doesn't say it is spectral.
Quoting somethiing that doesn't support your claim doesn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> help your position.
Note, the following seems to be a new entry.
Visible Spectrum: The colors we see are part of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> visible electromagnetic spectrum."
So, that defined VISIBLE spectrum, not physical color >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Pink is not part of the visible electromagnetic spectrum. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Which has nothing to do with physical color.
Another quote:
""Physical color" refers to the color of an object as an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> observable, inherent property that can be seen and measured >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without changing its chemical composition. This property is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> determined by how the object's material interacts with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> light,
specifically which parts of the visible spectrum it absorbs >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and reflects. For example,
a blue substance has a physical color because its material >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> absorbs certain wavelengths of light and reflects blue >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wavelengths, which then reach our eyes."
Again: pink is not part of the visible spectrum. You are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proven wrong yet again, mate. Lrn2science.
/Flibble
Nothing says we are looking at mono-chromatic light. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Sorry, the fact you just fail to provide sources shows you >>>>>>>>>>>>>> likely have something to hide.
"If color is solely the way physics describes it, the visible >>>>>>>>>>>>> spectrum of light waves, then black and white are outcasts >>>>>>>>>>>>> and donrCOt count as true, physical colors." --
https://www.britannica.com/story/are-black-and-white- >>>>>>>>>>>>> colors
There, a real credible quote from a credible source. Now shut >>>>>>>>>>>>> the f--k up and f--k off.
/Flibble
If you include in the definition of color, however, all of the >>>>>>>>>>>> ways in which human eyes process light and the lack of it, >>>>>>>>>>>> then black and white,
as well as pink, earn their places in the crayon box.
Even the section you are quoting qualifies its statement with: >>>>>>>>>>>>
It depends on how you want to define color. If color is solely >>>>>>>>>>>> the way physics describes it, the visible spectrum of light >>>>>>>>>>>> waves, then black and white are outcasts and donrCOt count as >>>>>>>>>>>> true, physical colors.
So, only *IF* you are defining color spectrally (the way >>>>>>>>>>>> physics describes it) do you get your results.
So, your source is admitting it isn't giving a diffinative >>>>>>>>>>>> definition.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same was I >>>>>>>>>>> used it.
I told you to f--k off -- you lost the argument and all you >>>>>>>>>>> have now is just noise.
/Flibble
Maybe you should learn to follow your own advice and admit you >>>>>>>>>> were wrong.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am >>>>>>>>> you lying c-nt.
/Flibble
Sorry, you are just misreading your test.
You don't seem to understand the rules of linguistics.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am >>>>>>> using it you lying c-nt.
/Flibble
Sorry, when your source disclaims it being definitive, you lost your >>>>>> case.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am
using it you lying c-nt.
/Flibble
saying the other defintion is also valid, and thus can't be excluded.
You just don't understand the linguistics.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am you
lying c-nt.
/Flibble
the other defintion is also valid, and thus can't be excluded.
Lie. Search for the term "physical color" in my source and you will only
find ONE match; so I repeat yet again (and will continue to repeat until
it sinks in):
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am you
lying c-nt.
/Flibble
On Wed, 27 Aug 2025 10:49:06 +0300, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-08-24 20:37:05 +0000, Mr Flibble said:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 13:24:19 -0700, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 8/23/2025 2:56 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
Just as pink isn't a physical colour, Olcott's Halting Problem proof >>>>> refutations are equally imaginary.
What about a pink flower? ;^)
There are no pink photons; only spectral colours physically exist.
Nonsense. Sunlight is as physical as laser light. A pink flower is
phyiscal and its reflection spectrum is as physical as the flower.
Wrong.
/Flibble
On 8/27/25 2:41 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Wed, 27 Aug 2025 10:49:06 +0300, Mikko wrote:Seems you are just admitting to not having a connection to reality.
On 2025-08-24 20:37:05 +0000, Mr Flibble said:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 13:24:19 -0700, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 8/23/2025 2:56 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
Just as pink isn't a physical colour, Olcott's Halting Problem
proof refutations are equally imaginary.
What about a pink flower? ;^)
There are no pink photons; only spectral colours physically exist.
Nonsense. Sunlight is as physical as laser light. A pink flower is
phyiscal and its reflection spectrum is as physical as the flower.
Wrong.
/Flibble
Sunlight is most certainly a "physical phenomenon".
On 8/26/25 10:04 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Tue, 26 Aug 2025 22:01:48 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:But is a section that specifically says that this is a speciallized definition that isn't necessarily the normal one.
On 8/26/25 9:57 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:en.wikipedia.org/
On Tue, 26 Aug 2025 21:54:19 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/26/25 9:28 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Tue, 26 Aug 2025 21:23:35 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/26/25 1:23 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Mon, 25 Aug 2025 19:40:34 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/25/25 1:11 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Mon, 25 Aug 2025 07:10:35 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/24/25 10:03 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 21:55:37 -0400, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>
On 8/24/25 9:51 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 21:49:37 -0400, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 8/24/25 9:44 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 21:39:39 -0400, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 8/24/25 9:30 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 21:19:42 -0400, Richard Damon >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 8/24/25 9:15 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 21:11:52 -0400, Richard Damon >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 8/24/25 9:07 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 25 Aug 2025 09:02:19 +0800, wij wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On Mon, 2025-08-25 at 00:56 +0000, Mr Flibble >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On Mon, 25 Aug 2025 08:45:10 +0800, wij wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On Mon, 2025-08-25 at 00:38 +0000, Mr Flibble >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On Mon, 25 Aug 2025 08:14:41 +0800, wij wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On Sun, 2025-08-24 at 23:13 +0000, Mr Flibble >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 19:04:47 -0400, Richard >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Damon wrote:
On 8/24/25 7:00 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 18:56:35 -0400, Richard >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Damon wrote:
On 8/24/25 6:33 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 18:26:20 -0400, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 8/24/25 6:18 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 18:15:38 -0400, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 8/24/25 6:09 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 18:06:55 -0400, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 8/24/25 6:02 PM, Mr Flibble >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 17:51:50 -0400, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
But NO colors exist on it, only >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> frequencies. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On 8/24/25 5:03 PM, Mr Flibble >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 16:56:25 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -0400, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/24/25 4:37 PM, Mr Flibble >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 13:24:19 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -0700, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chris M. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thomasson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/23/2025 2:56 PM, Mr >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flibble wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just as pink isn't a physical >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> colour, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Olcott's Halting Problem >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proof refutations are equally >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> imaginary. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What about a pink flower? ;^) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are no pink photons; only >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spectral colours physically >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exist. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But "Color" is a perception, not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just a wavelength of light. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are "Purples" that don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correspond to a single >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wavelength either. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There ARE spectrums that are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "pink", >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a bit more Red than other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> frequencies, but most other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> frequencies present. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is only ONE electromagnetic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spectrum. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But a "Spectrum" is also the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intensity of the signal at each >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wavelength. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I repeat: there is only ONE >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> electromagnetic spectrum and pink >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does NOT exist on it. There are NO >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pink photons. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The problem here is the word has >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> multiple meanings, and you need to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use the one that relates to the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> words being used. It can be both >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the range of values something can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> span over, or the collection of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> amounts you have at each of those. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Note, "Colors" are a perception >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> based term, and while single >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> frequency light has a perceived >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> color (if visible) that color is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NOT defined by that frequency (and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is in fact, to a degree >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subjective, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as each person has a slightly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different response >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> characteristics). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus, when you talk about colors, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you are NOT talking about >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mono-chromatic light, but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perception. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That is why "Infra-Red" isn't a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> color, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but a frequency band as part of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the spectrum, but "Red" is a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> color, but doesn't limit the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> frequency of lights that can be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> present (some "Reds" have bits all >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the way to "blue"). There is a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Red Band" which as mono-chromatic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like looks Red, but Red can have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> frequencies in it outside that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> band (but will normally be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dominated with that band) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Think about how it is used for the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spectrum of the sound of a violin >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> string being played. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This is just one of Olcott's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> errors again, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> insisting that a word has the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning you want it to mean, even >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if not appropriate in the context. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
/Flibble >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Each of those frequencies has a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perceived color, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but the frequence does not define >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the color. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
-a-a-a-a From https://
wiki/And says that this isn't the only possible defintion of it, thus
And says that this isn't the only possible defintion of it, thusColorAnd admits it isn;t the only meaning for it, and that is in fact >>>>>>> an odd usage of it, and isn't the primary meaning of it.
And points out that it also can have the other meaning.No, your source is pointing out that there are multiple ways >>>>>>>>>>> to define the term, and you only match the more restricted and >>>>>>>>>>> niche version of it.And that article ends in:But you do get pink with a slight absortion in the non-red >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> part of the specturm.I can quote things too, mate:Then why does the page I have quoted "define" it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>But it doesn't. If you meant spectral, you should >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have used the word.Damon is but Damon is an idiot. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I never said spectral colour and perceived >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> colour are the same thing. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are also an idiot.You are a f--king idiot, mate. My monitor >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only has monochromatic red, green and blue >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LEDs (or red, green and blue filters) so can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only emit red, green or blue photons. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And so you will say you monitor can;t show >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you orange?But "Color" isn't from ONE cone, but a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> processing of several cones with different >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sensitivity bands in close proximity. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You are arguing with the science as well >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as me:Of course not. And since NO beams is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truely MONO-CHROMATIC, it could be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> argued that spectral colors don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actually "exists" but are only >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definitions. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Only spectral colours physically exist, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any other colours are quite literally >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> figments of your imagination based on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> electrical signals (or lack thereof) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the cones in your retinas are sending. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is science, mate, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CONVENTIONAL science. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>No, White is a color, it isn't a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spectral color. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are many physical things with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the color of white, so it is a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Physical Color", >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which is generally defined as the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> color something appears to be, again, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not limited to mono-chromatic colors. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Correct, white is not a PHYSICAL >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> colour and black is absence of light. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Color (or colour in Commonwealth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> English) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is the visual perception produced by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the activation of the different >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> types of cone cells in the eye >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> caused by light. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There is a DIFFERENT (compond) term >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Spectral Color" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that relates to what you are talking >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about, but it isn't "Color". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
By your definition White and Black >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aren't colors either. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
/Flibble >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Black is also a "Color" as it is a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perception. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You are just showing the same it must >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be my way or the highway of PO, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even when the conventional definitions >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that apply to that context disagree. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
/Flibble
And other colors are not "figments", but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the result of the beam of light >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> containing multiple wavelengths at once. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The relative density of each frequency >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is what is called the "spectrum" for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that light, and our perception of it, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the "Color". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Your problem is, again, you aren't using >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the words as conventionally defined, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thus showing the same stupidity of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Olcott,
insisting that he gets to redefine >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anything he wants, which is just proof >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that he doesn't care about >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> communication. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If you want to prove yourself to be back >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into that same bin, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> continue in your obtuseness. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
a retinal cone signal is the result of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just four to seven photons hitting the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cone simulataneously; for rods it is an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> individual photon. THERE ARE NO PINK >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PHOTONS.
/Flibble
We DON'T see the individual signals, we >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see the perceived combination of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> signals.
Doesn't matter that there are no "pink >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> photons" there are light spectra that can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hit a region of the eye to produce a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> signal that says "pink light". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Or, do you think that you monitor can't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> show you orange? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as there is no "orange photons" emitted by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your screen, only combinations of the Red, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Green, and Blue pixels that make up the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> screen that reach your eyes to close for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you eye to perceive them as from different >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spots.
THERE ARE NO PINK PHOTONS. Correct, whilst >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there are orange photons my monitor only >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emits red, green and blue photons at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different intensities. You can get >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> monitors/TVs with a fourth yellow >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sub-pixel,
I would be interested in seeing what that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> looks like.
/Flibble
THen what color does it show you for a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> orange?
There isn't even a Reg-Green Photon that is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> used to display orange. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
As I said, the problem is color is not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> restricted to mono-chromatism, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but is a perceptive function. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
All you are doing is showing you have the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same cognative error as Peter, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinking that you have the power to redefine >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what words mean in normal context. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I never said that COLOUR isn't a perceptive >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> function,
I said pink isn't a PHYSICAL COLOUR because >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there are no PINK PHOTONS because there is no >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wavelength corresponding to the colour pink. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
/Flibble
Spectral color and perceived color are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different things.
Richard Damon is correct, you are wrong. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
/Flibble
Then, who suggests pink is a physical colour? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
/Flibble
'color' is actually not easy to understand and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ambiguous.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color You might not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand English?
You are worse than olcott, read something about >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> color before arguing it.
I understand English better than you, mate. I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> repeat:
you are an idiot,
like Damon and Olcott.
Yes "colour" is ambiguous which is why I QUALIFIED >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it with the word "physical" which obviously >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> referred to it being spectral.
/Flibble
The problem is that "Physical Color" is actualy a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> term of art with meaning.
No it isn't.
/Flibble
Source?
"Key Aspects of Physical Color Physical Property: Color >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is considered a physical property because it can be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> observed without causing a chemical change in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> substance.
Which doesn't say it is spectral.
Quoting somethiing that doesn't support your claim >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't help your position.
Note, the following seems to be a new entry. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Visible Spectrum: The colors we see are part of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> visible electromagnetic spectrum."
So, that defined VISIBLE spectrum, not physical color >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Pink is not part of the visible electromagnetic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spectrum.
Which has nothing to do with physical color.
Another quote:
""Physical color" refers to the color of an object as an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> observable, inherent property that can be seen and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> measured without changing its chemical composition. This >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> property is determined by how the object's material >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interacts with light,
specifically which parts of the visible spectrum it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> absorbs and reflects. For example,
a blue substance has a physical color because its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> material absorbs certain wavelengths of light and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reflects blue wavelengths, which then reach our eyes." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Again: pink is not part of the visible spectrum. You are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proven wrong yet again, mate. Lrn2science.
/Flibble
Nothing says we are looking at mono-chromatic light. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Sorry, the fact you just fail to provide sources shows you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> likely have something to hide.
"If color is solely the way physics describes it, the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> visible spectrum of light waves, then black and white are >>>>>>>>>>>>>> outcasts and donrCOt count as true, physical colors." -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.britannica.com/story/are-black-and-white- >>>>>>>>>>>>>> colors
There, a real credible quote from a credible source. Now >>>>>>>>>>>>>> shut the f--k up and f--k off.
/Flibble
If you include in the definition of color, however, all of >>>>>>>>>>>>> the ways in which human eyes process light and the lack of >>>>>>>>>>>>> it, then black and white,
as well as pink, earn their places in the crayon box. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Even the section you are quoting qualifies its statement >>>>>>>>>>>>> with:
It depends on how you want to define color. If color is >>>>>>>>>>>>> solely the way physics describes it, the visible spectrum of >>>>>>>>>>>>> light waves, then black and white are outcasts and donrCOt >>>>>>>>>>>>> count as true, physical colors.
So, only *IF* you are defining color spectrally (the way >>>>>>>>>>>>> physics describes it) do you get your results.
So, your source is admitting it isn't giving a diffinative >>>>>>>>>>>>> definition.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same was >>>>>>>>>>>> I used it.
I told you to f--k off -- you lost the argument and all you >>>>>>>>>>>> have now is just noise.
/Flibble
Maybe you should learn to follow your own advice and admit you >>>>>>>>>>> were wrong.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I >>>>>>>>>> am you lying c-nt.
/Flibble
Sorry, you are just misreading your test.
You don't seem to understand the rules of linguistics.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am >>>>>>>> using it you lying c-nt.
/Flibble
Sorry, when your source disclaims it being definitive, you lost
your case.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am
using it you lying c-nt.
/Flibble
saying the other defintion is also valid, and thus can't be
excluded.
You just don't understand the linguistics.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am you
lying c-nt.
/Flibble
saying the other defintion is also valid, and thus can't be excluded.
Lie. Search for the term "physical color" in my source and you will
only find ONE match; so I repeat yet again (and will continue to repeat
until it sinks in):
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am you
lying c-nt.
/Flibble
In other words, if someone things that "Physical" means "As used in one branch of Physics", which is NOT the standard meaning.
Sorry, but results that can only be supported by a minority of sources
are not reliable and dependence on them shows a lack of understanding of
how things are defined.
At a minimm, you need to repeat the restriction on when that meaning
applies, which you did not.
On 8/26/25 4:02 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 8/24/2025 6:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/24/25 9:12 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 21:09:07 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/24/25 8:56 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Mon, 25 Aug 2025 08:45:10 +0800, wij wrote:It seems you sense of reality is off, look who started the thread
On Mon, 2025-08-25 at 00:38 +0000, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Mon, 25 Aug 2025 08:14:41 +0800, wij wrote:
On Sun, 2025-08-24 at 23:13 +0000, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 19:04:47 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/24/25 7:00 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 18:56:35 -0400, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>And so you will say you monitor can;t show you orange?
On 8/24/25 6:33 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 18:26:20 -0400, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>But "Color" isn't from ONE cone, but a processing of several >>>>>>>>>>>>> cones with different sensitivity bands in close proximity. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 8/24/25 6:18 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 18:15:38 -0400, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Of course not. And since NO beams is truely MONO- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CHROMATIC, it
On 8/24/25 6:09 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 18:06:55 -0400, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>No, White is a color, it isn't a spectral color. There are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> many physical things with the color of white, so it is a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Physical Color",
On 8/24/25 6:02 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:Correct, white is not a PHYSICAL colour and black is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> absence of light.
On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 17:51:50 -0400, Richard Damon >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:But NO colors exist on it, only frequencies. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 8/24/25 5:03 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 16:56:25 -0400, Richard Damon >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
But a "Spectrum" is also the intensity of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> signal at
On 8/24/25 4:37 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 13:24:19 -0700, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
But "Color" is a perception, not just a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wavelength of
On 8/23/2025 2:56 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just as pink isn't a physical colour, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Olcott's Halting Problem proof refutations are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> equally imaginary.There are no pink photons; only spectral colours >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> physically exist.
What about a pink flower? ;^) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
/Flibble
light.
There are "Purples" that don't correspond to a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> single
wavelength either.
There ARE spectrums that are "pink", a bit more Red >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than other frequencies, but most other frequencies >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> present.
There is only ONE electromagnetic spectrum. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
/Flibble
each wavelength.
The problem here is the word has multiple meanings, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
you need to use the one that relates to the words >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being
used. It can be both the range of values something can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> span over, or the collection of amounts you have at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> each
of those.
Note, "Colors" are a perception based term, and while >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> single frequency light has a perceived color (if >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> visible) that color is NOT defined by that frequency >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (and is in fact, to a degree subjective, as each >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> person
has a slightly different response characteristics). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus, when you talk about colors, you are NOT talking >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about mono-chromatic light, but perception. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That is why "Infra-Red" isn't a color, but a frequency >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> band as part of the spectrum, but "Red" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a color, but doesn't limit the frequency of lights >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that can be present (some "Reds" have bits all the way >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to "blue"). There is a "Red Band" which as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mono-chromatic like looks Red,
but Red can have frequencies in it outside that band >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (but will normally be dominated with that band) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Think about how it is used for the spectrum of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sound
of a violin string being played.
This is just one of Olcott's errors again, insisting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that a word has the meaning you want it to mean, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even if
not appropriate in the context.
I repeat: there is only ONE electromagnetic spectrum >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
pink does NOT exist on it.-a There are NO pink photons. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
/Flibble
Each of those frequencies has a perceived color, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but the frequence does not define the color. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
-a -a-a-a-a From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Color (or colour in Commonwealth English) is the visual >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perception produced by the activation of the different >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> types of cone cells in the eye caused by light. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There is a DIFFERENT (compond) term "Spectral Color" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that relates to what you are talking about, but it isn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Color".
By your definition White and Black aren't colors either. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
/Flibble
which is generally defined as the color something >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> appears to
be, again, not limited to mono-chromatic colors. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Black is also a "Color" as it is a perception. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You are just showing the same it must be my way or the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> highway of PO,
even when the conventional definitions that apply to that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> context disagree.
Only spectral colours physically exist, any other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> colours are
quite literally figments of your imagination based on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> electrical signals (or lack thereof) the cones in your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> retinas are sending. This is science, mate, CONVENTIONAL >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> science.
/Flibble
could be argued that spectral colors don't actually "exists" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but are only definitions.
And other colors are not "figments", but the result of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> beam of light containing multiple wavelengths at once. The >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relative density of each frequency is what is called the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "spectrum" for that light, and our perception of it, the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Color".
Your problem is, again, you aren't using the words as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conventionally defined, and thus showing the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stupidity of
Olcott, insisting that he gets to redefine anything he >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wants,
which is just proof that he doesn't care about
communication.
If you want to prove yourself to be back into that same bin, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> continue in your obtuseness.
You are arguing with the science as well as me: a retinal >>>>>>>>>>>>>> cone
signal is the result of just four to seven photons hitting >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
cone simulataneously;
for rods it is an individual photon. THERE ARE NO PINK >>>>>>>>>>>>>> PHOTONS.
/Flibble
We DON'T see the individual signals, we see the perceived >>>>>>>>>>>>> combination of the signals.
Doesn't matter that there are no "pink photons" there are >>>>>>>>>>>>> light
spectra that can hit a region of the eye to produce a signal >>>>>>>>>>>>> that says "pink light".
Or, do you think that you monitor can't show you orange? as >>>>>>>>>>>>> there is no "orange photons" emitted by your screen, only >>>>>>>>>>>>> combinations of the Red, Green, and Blue pixels that make >>>>>>>>>>>>> up the
screen that reach your eyes to close for you eye to perceive >>>>>>>>>>>>> them as from different spots.
THERE ARE NO PINK PHOTONS. Correct, whilst there are orange >>>>>>>>>>>> photons my monitor only emits red, green and blue photons at >>>>>>>>>>>> different intensities.
You can get monitors/TVs with a fourth yellow sub-pixel, I >>>>>>>>>>>> would
be interested in seeing what that looks like.
/Flibble
THen what color does it show you for a orange?
There isn't even a Reg-Green Photon that is used to display >>>>>>>>>>> orange.
As I said, the problem is color is not restricted to
mono-chromatism,
but is a perceptive function.
All you are doing is showing you have the same cognative >>>>>>>>>>> error as
Peter,
thinking that you have the power to redefine what words mean in >>>>>>>>>>> normal context.
You are a f--king idiot, mate. My monitor only has monochromatic >>>>>>>>>> red, green and blue LEDs (or red, green and blue filters) so can >>>>>>>>>> only emit red,
green or blue photons.
I never said that COLOUR isn't a perceptive function, I said pink >>>>>>>>>> isn't a PHYSICAL COLOUR because there are no PINK PHOTONS because >>>>>>>>>> there is no wavelength corresponding to the colour pink.
/Flibble
Spectral color and perceived color are different things.
Richard Damon is correct, you are wrong.
I never said spectral colour and perceived colour are the same >>>>>>>> thing.
You are also an idiot.
/Flibble
Then, who suggests pink is a physical colour?
Damon is but Damon is an idiot.
/Flibble
calling Pink not a physical color.
A guess you are just admitting you don't know what you are talking
about.
That would be a case psychological projection mate as reality is that I >>>> said pink is NOT a physical colour whilst you said it is. Take your
f--king medication.
/Flibble
Maybe you should, as I am using the word as it is typically used:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color
The physical color of an object depends on how it absorbs and
scatters light.
Kind of sounds like you are describing a "material" and how it acts in
a ray tracer/marcher or something. Are you saying that a photon should
be white, aka all colors. So it can "hit" a material and give off the
"infinite" spectrum of colors? Some of which are pink?
No, but "Physical Color" describes how it deals with all different frequencies of photons. After all, photon do come in all different frequencies, so appear to be different colors, and the physical
properties affect all of them, possibly differently.
Thus, physical color is NOT about individual photon frequency, and
thus NOT spectral color.
On Wed, 27 Aug 2025 22:07:20 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/26/25 10:04 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Tue, 26 Aug 2025 22:01:48 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:But is a section that specifically says that this is a speciallized
On 8/26/25 9:57 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:en.wikipedia.org/
On Tue, 26 Aug 2025 21:54:19 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/26/25 9:28 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Tue, 26 Aug 2025 21:23:35 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/26/25 1:23 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Mon, 25 Aug 2025 19:40:34 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/25/25 1:11 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Mon, 25 Aug 2025 07:10:35 -0400, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>
On 8/24/25 10:03 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 21:55:37 -0400, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 8/24/25 9:51 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 21:49:37 -0400, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 8/24/25 9:44 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 21:39:39 -0400, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 8/24/25 9:30 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 21:19:42 -0400, Richard Damon >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 8/24/25 9:15 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 21:11:52 -0400, Richard Damon >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 8/24/25 9:07 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 25 Aug 2025 09:02:19 +0800, wij wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On Mon, 2025-08-25 at 00:56 +0000, Mr Flibble >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On Mon, 25 Aug 2025 08:45:10 +0800, wij wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On Mon, 2025-08-25 at 00:38 +0000, Mr Flibble >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On Mon, 25 Aug 2025 08:14:41 +0800, wij wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On Sun, 2025-08-24 at 23:13 +0000, Mr Flibble >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 19:04:47 -0400, Richard >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Damon wrote:
On 8/24/25 7:00 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 18:56:35 -0400, Richard >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Damon wrote:
On 8/24/25 6:33 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 18:26:20 -0400, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 8/24/25 6:18 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 18:15:38 -0400, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 8/24/25 6:09 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 18:06:55 -0400, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 8/24/25 6:02 PM, Mr Flibble >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 17:51:50 -0400, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/24/25 5:03 PM, Mr Flibble >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 16:56:25 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -0400, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/24/25 4:37 PM, Mr Flibble >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 13:24:19 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -0700, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chris M. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thomasson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/23/2025 2:56 PM, Mr >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Flibble wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just as pink isn't a physical >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> colour, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Olcott's Halting Problem >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proof refutations are equally >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> imaginary. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What about a pink flower? ;^) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are no pink photons; only >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spectral colours physically >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exist. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But "Color" is a perception, not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just a wavelength of light. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are "Purples" that don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correspond to a single >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wavelength either. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There ARE spectrums that are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "pink", >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a bit more Red than other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> frequencies, but most other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> frequencies present. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is only ONE electromagnetic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spectrum. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But a "Spectrum" is also the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intensity of the signal at each >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wavelength. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem here is the word has >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> multiple meanings, and you need to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use the one that relates to the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> words being used. It can be both >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the range of values something can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> span over, or the collection of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> amounts you have at each of those. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Note, "Colors" are a perception >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> based term, and while single >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> frequency light has a perceived >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> color (if visible) that color is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NOT defined by that frequency (and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is in fact, to a degree >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subjective, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as each person has a slightly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different response >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> characteristics). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus, when you talk about colors, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you are NOT talking about >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mono-chromatic light, but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perception. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is why "Infra-Red" isn't a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> color, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but a frequency band as part of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the spectrum, but "Red" is a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> color, but doesn't limit the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> frequency of lights that can be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> present (some "Reds" have bits all >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the way to "blue"). There is a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Red Band" which as mono-chromatic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like looks Red, but Red can have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> frequencies in it outside that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> band (but will normally be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dominated with that band) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Think about how it is used for the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spectrum of the sound of a violin >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> string being played. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is just one of Olcott's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> errors again, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> insisting that a word has the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning you want it to mean, even >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if not appropriate in the context. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I repeat: there is only ONE >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> electromagnetic spectrum and pink >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does NOT exist on it. There are NO >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pink photons. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>But NO colors exist on it, only >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> frequencies. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
/Flibble >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Each of those frequencies has a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perceived color, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but the frequence does not define >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the color. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
-a-a-a-a From https://
wiki/And says that this isn't the only possible defintion of it, thus
And says that this isn't the only possible defintion of it, thusColorAnd admits it isn;t the only meaning for it, and that is in fact >>>>>>>> an odd usage of it, and isn't the primary meaning of it.
And points out that it also can have the other meaning.No, your source is pointing out that there are multiple ways >>>>>>>>>>>> to define the term, and you only match the more restricted and >>>>>>>>>>>> niche version of it.And that article ends in:But you do get pink with a slight absortion in the non-red >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> part of the specturm.Another quote:I can quote things too, mate:Then why does the page I have quoted "define" it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>But it doesn't. If you meant spectral, you should >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have used the word.Damon is but Damon is an idiot. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I never said spectral colour and perceived >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> colour are the same thing. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are also an idiot.You are a f--king idiot, mate. My monitor >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only has monochromatic red, green and blue >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LEDs (or red, green and blue filters) so can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only emit red, green or blue photons. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And so you will say you monitor can;t show >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you orange?But "Color" isn't from ONE cone, but a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> processing of several cones with different >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sensitivity bands in close proximity. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You are arguing with the science as well >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as me:Of course not. And since NO beams is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truely MONO-CHROMATIC, it could be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> argued that spectral colors don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actually "exists" but are only >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definitions. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Only spectral colours physically exist, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any other colours are quite literally >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> figments of your imagination based on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> electrical signals (or lack thereof) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the cones in your retinas are sending. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is science, mate, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CONVENTIONAL science. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>No, White is a color, it isn't a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spectral color. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are many physical things with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the color of white, so it is a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Physical Color", >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which is generally defined as the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> color something appears to be, again, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not limited to mono-chromatic colors. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Correct, white is not a PHYSICAL >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> colour and black is absence of light. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Color (or colour in Commonwealth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> English) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is the visual perception produced by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the activation of the different >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> types of cone cells in the eye >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> caused by light. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There is a DIFFERENT (compond) term >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Spectral Color" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that relates to what you are talking >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about, but it isn't "Color". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
By your definition White and Black >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aren't colors either. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
/Flibble >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Black is also a "Color" as it is a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perception. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You are just showing the same it must >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be my way or the highway of PO, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even when the conventional definitions >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that apply to that context disagree. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
/Flibble >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And other colors are not "figments", but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the result of the beam of light >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> containing multiple wavelengths at once. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The relative density of each frequency >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is what is called the "spectrum" for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that light, and our perception of it, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the "Color". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Your problem is, again, you aren't using >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the words as conventionally defined, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thus showing the same stupidity of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Olcott,
insisting that he gets to redefine >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anything he wants, which is just proof >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that he doesn't care about >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> communication. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If you want to prove yourself to be back >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into that same bin, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> continue in your obtuseness. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
a retinal cone signal is the result of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just four to seven photons hitting the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cone simulataneously; for rods it is an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> individual photon. THERE ARE NO PINK >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PHOTONS.
/Flibble
We DON'T see the individual signals, we >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see the perceived combination of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> signals.
Doesn't matter that there are no "pink >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> photons" there are light spectra that can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hit a region of the eye to produce a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> signal that says "pink light". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Or, do you think that you monitor can't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> show you orange? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as there is no "orange photons" emitted by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your screen, only combinations of the Red, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Green, and Blue pixels that make up the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> screen that reach your eyes to close for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you eye to perceive them as from different >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spots.
THERE ARE NO PINK PHOTONS. Correct, whilst >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there are orange photons my monitor only >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emits red, green and blue photons at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different intensities. You can get >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> monitors/TVs with a fourth yellow >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sub-pixel,
I would be interested in seeing what that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> looks like.
/Flibble
THen what color does it show you for a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> orange?
There isn't even a Reg-Green Photon that is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> used to display orange. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
As I said, the problem is color is not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> restricted to mono-chromatism, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but is a perceptive function. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
All you are doing is showing you have the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same cognative error as Peter, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinking that you have the power to redefine >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what words mean in normal context. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I never said that COLOUR isn't a perceptive >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> function,
I said pink isn't a PHYSICAL COLOUR because >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there are no PINK PHOTONS because there is no >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wavelength corresponding to the colour pink. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
/Flibble
Spectral color and perceived color are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different things.
Richard Damon is correct, you are wrong. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
/Flibble
Then, who suggests pink is a physical colour? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
/Flibble
'color' is actually not easy to understand and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ambiguous.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color You might not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand English?
You are worse than olcott, read something about >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> color before arguing it.
I understand English better than you, mate. I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> repeat:
you are an idiot,
like Damon and Olcott.
Yes "colour" is ambiguous which is why I QUALIFIED >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it with the word "physical" which obviously >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> referred to it being spectral.
/Flibble
The problem is that "Physical Color" is actualy a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> term of art with meaning.
No it isn't.
/Flibble
Source?
"Key Aspects of Physical Color Physical Property: Color >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is considered a physical property because it can be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> observed without causing a chemical change in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> substance.
Which doesn't say it is spectral.
Quoting somethiing that doesn't support your claim >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't help your position.
Note, the following seems to be a new entry. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Visible Spectrum: The colors we see are part of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> visible electromagnetic spectrum."
So, that defined VISIBLE spectrum, not physical color >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Pink is not part of the visible electromagnetic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spectrum.
Which has nothing to do with physical color. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
""Physical color" refers to the color of an object as an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> observable, inherent property that can be seen and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> measured without changing its chemical composition. This >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> property is determined by how the object's material >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interacts with light,
specifically which parts of the visible spectrum it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> absorbs and reflects. For example,
a blue substance has a physical color because its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> material absorbs certain wavelengths of light and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reflects blue wavelengths, which then reach our eyes." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Again: pink is not part of the visible spectrum. You are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proven wrong yet again, mate. Lrn2science.
/Flibble
Nothing says we are looking at mono-chromatic light. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Sorry, the fact you just fail to provide sources shows you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> likely have something to hide.
"If color is solely the way physics describes it, the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> visible spectrum of light waves, then black and white are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> outcasts and donrCOt count as true, physical colors." -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.britannica.com/story/are-black-and-white- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> colors
There, a real credible quote from a credible source. Now >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shut the f--k up and f--k off.
/Flibble
If you include in the definition of color, however, all of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the ways in which human eyes process light and the lack of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> it, then black and white,
as well as pink, earn their places in the crayon box. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Even the section you are quoting qualifies its statement >>>>>>>>>>>>>> with:
It depends on how you want to define color. If color is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> solely the way physics describes it, the visible spectrum of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> light waves, then black and white are outcasts and donrCOt >>>>>>>>>>>>>> count as true, physical colors.
So, only *IF* you are defining color spectrally (the way >>>>>>>>>>>>>> physics describes it) do you get your results.
So, your source is admitting it isn't giving a diffinative >>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same was >>>>>>>>>>>>> I used it.
I told you to f--k off -- you lost the argument and all you >>>>>>>>>>>>> have now is just noise.
/Flibble
Maybe you should learn to follow your own advice and admit you >>>>>>>>>>>> were wrong.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I >>>>>>>>>>> am you lying c-nt.
/Flibble
Sorry, you are just misreading your test.
You don't seem to understand the rules of linguistics.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am >>>>>>>>> using it you lying c-nt.
/Flibble
Sorry, when your source disclaims it being definitive, you lost >>>>>>>> your case.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am >>>>>>> using it you lying c-nt.
/Flibble
saying the other defintion is also valid, and thus can't be
excluded.
You just don't understand the linguistics.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am you >>>>> lying c-nt.
/Flibble
saying the other defintion is also valid, and thus can't be excluded.
Lie. Search for the term "physical color" in my source and you will
only find ONE match; so I repeat yet again (and will continue to repeat
until it sinks in):
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am you
lying c-nt.
/Flibble
definition that isn't necessarily the normal one.
In other words, if someone things that "Physical" means "As used in one
branch of Physics", which is NOT the standard meaning.
Sorry, but results that can only be supported by a minority of sources
are not reliable and dependence on them shows a lack of understanding of
how things are defined.
But that is exactly what you are doing with your source (Wikipedia).
At a minimm, you need to repeat the restriction on when that meaning
applies, which you did not.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am you
lying c-nt.
On Wed, 27 Aug 2025 22:08:36 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/27/25 2:41 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Wed, 27 Aug 2025 10:49:06 +0300, Mikko wrote:Seems you are just admitting to not having a connection to reality.
On 2025-08-24 20:37:05 +0000, Mr Flibble said:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 13:24:19 -0700, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 8/23/2025 2:56 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
Just as pink isn't a physical colour, Olcott's Halting Problem
proof refutations are equally imaginary.
What about a pink flower? ;^)
There are no pink photons; only spectral colours physically exist.
Nonsense. Sunlight is as physical as laser light. A pink flower is
phyiscal and its reflection spectrum is as physical as the flower.
Wrong.
/Flibble
Sunlight is most certainly a "physical phenomenon".
It doesn't mean it is a spectral colour, AKA "physical colour".
/Flibble
On 8/26/2025 6:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/26/25 4:02 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 8/24/2025 6:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/24/25 9:12 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 21:09:07 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/24/25 8:56 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Mon, 25 Aug 2025 08:45:10 +0800, wij wrote:It seems you sense of reality is off, look who started the thread
On Mon, 2025-08-25 at 00:38 +0000, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Mon, 25 Aug 2025 08:14:41 +0800, wij wrote:
On Sun, 2025-08-24 at 23:13 +0000, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 19:04:47 -0400, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>
On 8/24/25 7:00 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 18:56:35 -0400, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>And so you will say you monitor can;t show you orange? >>>>>>>>>>>>
On 8/24/25 6:33 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 18:26:20 -0400, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>But "Color" isn't from ONE cone, but a processing of several >>>>>>>>>>>>>> cones with different sensitivity bands in close proximity. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 8/24/25 6:18 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 18:15:38 -0400, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Of course not. And since NO beams is truely MONO- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CHROMATIC, it
On 8/24/25 6:09 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 18:06:55 -0400, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>No, White is a color, it isn't a spectral color. There >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
On 8/24/25 6:02 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 17:51:50 -0400, Richard Damon >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
But NO colors exist on it, only frequencies. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 8/24/25 5:03 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 16:56:25 -0400, Richard Damon >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
But a "Spectrum" is also the intensity of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> signal at
On 8/24/25 4:37 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 13:24:19 -0700, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
But "Color" is a perception, not just a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wavelength of
On 8/23/2025 2:56 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just as pink isn't a physical colour, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Olcott's Halting Problem proof refutations are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> equally imaginary.There are no pink photons; only spectral colours >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> physically exist.
What about a pink flower? ;^) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
/Flibble
light.
There are "Purples" that don't correspond to a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> single
wavelength either.
There ARE spectrums that are "pink", a bit more Red >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than other frequencies, but most other frequencies >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> present.
There is only ONE electromagnetic spectrum. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
/Flibble
each wavelength.
The problem here is the word has multiple >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meanings, and
you need to use the one that relates to the words >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being
used. It can be both the range of values something >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
span over, or the collection of amounts you have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at each
of those.
Note, "Colors" are a perception based term, and while >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> single frequency light has a perceived color (if >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> visible) that color is NOT defined by that frequency >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (and is in fact, to a degree subjective, as each >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> person
has a slightly different response characteristics). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus, when you talk about colors, you are NOT talking >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about mono-chromatic light, but perception. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That is why "Infra-Red" isn't a color, but a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> frequency
band as part of the spectrum, but "Red" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a color, but doesn't limit the frequency of lights >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that can be present (some "Reds" have bits all the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way
to "blue"). There is a "Red Band" which as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mono-chromatic like looks Red,
but Red can have frequencies in it outside that band >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (but will normally be dominated with that band) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Think about how it is used for the spectrum of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sound
of a violin string being played.
This is just one of Olcott's errors again, insisting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that a word has the meaning you want it to mean, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even if
not appropriate in the context.
I repeat: there is only ONE electromagnetic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spectrum and
pink does NOT exist on it.-a There are NO pink photons. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
/Flibble
Each of those frequencies has a perceived color, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but the frequence does not define the color. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
-a -a-a-a-a From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Color (or colour in Commonwealth English) is the visual >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perception produced by the activation of the different >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> types of cone cells in the eye caused by light. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There is a DIFFERENT (compond) term "Spectral Color" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that relates to what you are talking about, but it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isn't
"Color".
By your definition White and Black aren't colors >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> either.
Correct, white is not a PHYSICAL colour and black is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> absence of light.
/Flibble
many physical things with the color of white, so it is a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Physical Color",
which is generally defined as the color something >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> appears to
be, again, not limited to mono-chromatic colors. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Black is also a "Color" as it is a perception. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You are just showing the same it must be my way or the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> highway of PO,
even when the conventional definitions that apply to that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> context disagree.
Only spectral colours physically exist, any other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> colours are
quite literally figments of your imagination based on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> electrical signals (or lack thereof) the cones in your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> retinas are sending. This is science, mate, CONVENTIONAL >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> science.
/Flibble
could be argued that spectral colors don't actually >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "exists"
but are only definitions.
And other colors are not "figments", but the result of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> beam of light containing multiple wavelengths at once. The >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relative density of each frequency is what is called the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "spectrum" for that light, and our perception of it, the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Color".
Your problem is, again, you aren't using the words as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conventionally defined, and thus showing the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stupidity of
Olcott, insisting that he gets to redefine anything he >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wants,
which is just proof that he doesn't care about >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> communication.
If you want to prove yourself to be back into that same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bin,
continue in your obtuseness.
You are arguing with the science as well as me: a retinal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cone
signal is the result of just four to seven photons >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hitting the
cone simulataneously;
for rods it is an individual photon. THERE ARE NO PINK >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PHOTONS.
/Flibble
We DON'T see the individual signals, we see the perceived >>>>>>>>>>>>>> combination of the signals.
Doesn't matter that there are no "pink photons" there are >>>>>>>>>>>>>> light
spectra that can hit a region of the eye to produce a signal >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that says "pink light".
Or, do you think that you monitor can't show you orange? as >>>>>>>>>>>>>> there is no "orange photons" emitted by your screen, only >>>>>>>>>>>>>> combinations of the Red, Green, and Blue pixels that make >>>>>>>>>>>>>> up the
screen that reach your eyes to close for you eye to perceive >>>>>>>>>>>>>> them as from different spots.
THERE ARE NO PINK PHOTONS. Correct, whilst there are orange >>>>>>>>>>>>> photons my monitor only emits red, green and blue photons at >>>>>>>>>>>>> different intensities.
You can get monitors/TVs with a fourth yellow sub-pixel, I >>>>>>>>>>>>> would
be interested in seeing what that looks like.
/Flibble
THen what color does it show you for a orange?
There isn't even a Reg-Green Photon that is used to display >>>>>>>>>>>> orange.
As I said, the problem is color is not restricted to
mono-chromatism,
but is a perceptive function.
All you are doing is showing you have the same cognative >>>>>>>>>>>> error as
Peter,
thinking that you have the power to redefine what words mean in >>>>>>>>>>>> normal context.
You are a f--king idiot, mate. My monitor only has monochromatic >>>>>>>>>>> red, green and blue LEDs (or red, green and blue filters) so can >>>>>>>>>>> only emit red,
green or blue photons.
I never said that COLOUR isn't a perceptive function, I said >>>>>>>>>>> pink
isn't a PHYSICAL COLOUR because there are no PINK PHOTONS >>>>>>>>>>> because
there is no wavelength corresponding to the colour pink. >>>>>>>>>>>
/Flibble
Spectral color and perceived color are different things.
Richard Damon is correct, you are wrong.
I never said spectral colour and perceived colour are the same >>>>>>>>> thing.
You are also an idiot.
/Flibble
Then, who suggests pink is a physical colour?
Damon is but Damon is an idiot.
/Flibble
calling Pink not a physical color.
A guess you are just admitting you don't know what you are talking >>>>>> about.
That would be a case psychological projection mate as reality is
that I
said pink is NOT a physical colour whilst you said it is. Take your
f--king medication.
/Flibble
Maybe you should, as I am using the word as it is typically used:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color
The physical color of an object depends on how it absorbs and
scatters light.
Kind of sounds like you are describing a "material" and how it acts
in a ray tracer/marcher or something. Are you saying that a photon
should be white, aka all colors. So it can "hit" a material and give
off the "infinite" spectrum of colors? Some of which are pink?
No, but "Physical Color" describes how it deals with all different
frequencies of photons. After all, photon do come in all different
frequencies, so appear to be different colors, and the physical
properties affect all of them, possibly differently.
Sounds good. Still, for some reason I still want to ponder on a
"Physical Color" as a sort of "material". Humm...
Thus, physical color is NOT about individual photon frequency, and
thus NOT spectral color.
Think of a white sheet of paper being illuminated by a white light
covered in a pink semi transparent film. The paper might look pink? It's physical color is altered?
On 8/28/25 2:18 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Wed, 27 Aug 2025 22:07:20 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:And saying this is a niche meaning, and not the only one.
At a minimm, you need to repeat the restriction on when that meaning
applies, which you did not.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am you
lying c-nt.
When you source admits it isn't defining THE meaning of a term, you
can't use it to claim that it is THE meaning of the term.
And even your source talks about photons having color, not color having
a single photon.
So, your usage is definitely a minority view, and thus needed to have
been clearly specified when you made you claim, and you should have used
the proper word in the first place.
On Fri, 29 Aug 2025 10:21:26 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/28/25 2:18 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Wed, 27 Aug 2025 22:07:20 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:And saying this is a niche meaning, and not the only one.
At a minimm, you need to repeat the restriction on when that meaning
applies, which you did not.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am you
lying c-nt.
When you source admits it isn't defining THE meaning of a term, you
can't use it to claim that it is THE meaning of the term.
And even your source talks about photons having color, not color having
a single photon.
So, your usage is definitely a minority view, and thus needed to have
been clearly specified when you made you claim, and you should have used
the proper word in the first place.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am you
lying c-nt.
/Flibble
On 8/29/25 1:35 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Fri, 29 Aug 2025 10:21:26 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:Clearly you don't understand what you are reading.
On 8/28/25 2:18 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Wed, 27 Aug 2025 22:07:20 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:And saying this is a niche meaning, and not the only one.
At a minimm, you need to repeat the restriction on when that meaning >>>>> applies, which you did not.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am you
lying c-nt.
When you source admits it isn't defining THE meaning of a term, you
can't use it to claim that it is THE meaning of the term.
And even your source talks about photons having color, not color
having a single photon.
So, your usage is definitely a minority view, and thus needed to have
been clearly specified when you made you claim, and you should have
used the proper word in the first place.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am you
lying c-nt.
/Flibble
A statement taken out of context is just a pretext.
Which is just a form of lying.
On Fri, 29 Aug 2025 22:16:23 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/29/25 1:35 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Fri, 29 Aug 2025 10:21:26 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:Clearly you don't understand what you are reading.
On 8/28/25 2:18 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Wed, 27 Aug 2025 22:07:20 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:And saying this is a niche meaning, and not the only one.
At a minimm, you need to repeat the restriction on when that meaning >>>>>> applies, which you did not.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am you >>>>> lying c-nt.
When you source admits it isn't defining THE meaning of a term, you
can't use it to claim that it is THE meaning of the term.
And even your source talks about photons having color, not color
having a single photon.
So, your usage is definitely a minority view, and thus needed to have
been clearly specified when you made you claim, and you should have
used the proper word in the first place.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am you
lying c-nt.
/Flibble
A statement taken out of context is just a pretext.
Which is just a form of lying.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am you
lying c-nt.
/Flibble
On 8/30/25 8:38 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Fri, 29 Aug 2025 22:16:23 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:No, you are using the term "physical color" in the way that your source
On 8/29/25 1:35 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Fri, 29 Aug 2025 10:21:26 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:Clearly you don't understand what you are reading.
On 8/28/25 2:18 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Wed, 27 Aug 2025 22:07:20 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:And saying this is a niche meaning, and not the only one.
At a minimm, you need to repeat the restriction on when that
meaning applies, which you did not.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am
you lying c-nt.
When you source admits it isn't defining THE meaning of a term, you
can't use it to claim that it is THE meaning of the term.
And even your source talks about photons having color, not color
having a single photon.
So, your usage is definitely a minority view, and thus needed to
have been clearly specified when you made you claim, and you should
have used the proper word in the first place.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am you
lying c-nt.
/Flibble
A statement taken out of context is just a pretext.
Which is just a form of lying.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am you
lying c-nt.
/Flibble
says is a specialized meaning of the word, used in only a specifiic
case.
That fact that even in that case, it isn't the word normally used, just
shows that your usage isn't actually its normal definition and your
trying to insist it is just is a lie.
It seems you don't understand the concept of context.
On Sat, 30 Aug 2025 09:10:17 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/30/25 8:38 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Fri, 29 Aug 2025 22:16:23 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:No, you are using the term "physical color" in the way that your source
On 8/29/25 1:35 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Fri, 29 Aug 2025 10:21:26 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:Clearly you don't understand what you are reading.
On 8/28/25 2:18 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Wed, 27 Aug 2025 22:07:20 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:And saying this is a niche meaning, and not the only one.
At a minimm, you need to repeat the restriction on when that
meaning applies, which you did not.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am >>>>>>> you lying c-nt.
When you source admits it isn't defining THE meaning of a term, you >>>>>> can't use it to claim that it is THE meaning of the term.
And even your source talks about photons having color, not color
having a single photon.
So, your usage is definitely a minority view, and thus needed to
have been clearly specified when you made you claim, and you should >>>>>> have used the proper word in the first place.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am you >>>>> lying c-nt.
/Flibble
A statement taken out of context is just a pretext.
Which is just a form of lying.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am you
lying c-nt.
/Flibble
says is a specialized meaning of the word, used in only a specifiic
case.
That fact that even in that case, it isn't the word normally used, just
shows that your usage isn't actually its normal definition and your
trying to insist it is just is a lie.
It seems you don't understand the concept of context.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am you
lying c-nt.
/Flibble
On 8/30/25 9:55 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sat, 30 Aug 2025 09:10:17 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:No, it isn't, as it explicitly labled that paragraph as in a specific technical context, begining
On 8/30/25 8:38 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Fri, 29 Aug 2025 22:16:23 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:No, you are using the term "physical color" in the way that your
On 8/29/25 1:35 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Fri, 29 Aug 2025 10:21:26 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:Clearly you don't understand what you are reading.
On 8/28/25 2:18 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Wed, 27 Aug 2025 22:07:20 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:And saying this is a niche meaning, and not the only one.
At a minimm, you need to repeat the restriction on when that >>>>>>>>> meaning applies, which you did not.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am >>>>>>>> you lying c-nt.
When you source admits it isn't defining THE meaning of a term,
you can't use it to claim that it is THE meaning of the term.
And even your source talks about photons having color, not color >>>>>>> having a single photon.
So, your usage is definitely a minority view, and thus needed to >>>>>>> have been clearly specified when you made you claim, and you
should have used the proper word in the first place.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am
you lying c-nt.
/Flibble
A statement taken out of context is just a pretext.
Which is just a form of lying.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am you
lying c-nt.
/Flibble
source says is a specialized meaning of the word, used in only a
specifiic case.
That fact that even in that case, it isn't the word normally used,
just shows that your usage isn't actually its normal definition and
your trying to insist it is just is a lie.
It seems you don't understand the concept of context.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am you
lying c-nt.
/Flibble
"If color is solely the way physics describes it, the visible spectrum
of light waves,"
But the common use of the term color isn't that way, and physics
actually doesn't normally try to "define" color that way, but described frequency bands in the visible spectrum has having a color.
Part of your problem is that Encyclopedias are not a source of the
definition of a word, but are a recording of knowledge about topics.
Note, even pysicist WILL talk about "white light", so dispite that
paragraph, consider white to be a color.
There is even the concept of "Pink Noise" using a color label for sounds
that is used in some physics descriptions. (Pink noise has more lowers
then highs, but isn't too tightly limited in spectrum).
So, you are trying to foist your FALSE idea (per general meaning of the
word) by using a non-difinitive resource to claim your support.
By that logic, you have to agree that Olcott is correct, as by quoting
others who have misused terminology, he can justify his false claims.
Sorry, that isn't how language works.
Without that very specific qualifier (which as far as I know, isn't even common in that specific field) your meaning is just wrong.
On Sat, 30 Aug 2025 13:04:28 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/30/25 9:55 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sat, 30 Aug 2025 09:10:17 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:No, it isn't, as it explicitly labled that paragraph as in a specific
On 8/30/25 8:38 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Fri, 29 Aug 2025 22:16:23 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:No, you are using the term "physical color" in the way that your
On 8/29/25 1:35 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Fri, 29 Aug 2025 10:21:26 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:Clearly you don't understand what you are reading.
On 8/28/25 2:18 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Wed, 27 Aug 2025 22:07:20 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:And saying this is a niche meaning, and not the only one.
At a minimm, you need to repeat the restriction on when that >>>>>>>>>> meaning applies, which you did not.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am >>>>>>>>> you lying c-nt.
When you source admits it isn't defining THE meaning of a term, >>>>>>>> you can't use it to claim that it is THE meaning of the term.
And even your source talks about photons having color, not color >>>>>>>> having a single photon.
So, your usage is definitely a minority view, and thus needed to >>>>>>>> have been clearly specified when you made you claim, and you
should have used the proper word in the first place.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am >>>>>>> you lying c-nt.
/Flibble
A statement taken out of context is just a pretext.
Which is just a form of lying.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am you >>>>> lying c-nt.
/Flibble
source says is a specialized meaning of the word, used in only a
specifiic case.
That fact that even in that case, it isn't the word normally used,
just shows that your usage isn't actually its normal definition and
your trying to insist it is just is a lie.
It seems you don't understand the concept of context.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am you
lying c-nt.
/Flibble
technical context, begining
"If color is solely the way physics describes it, the visible spectrum
of light waves,"
But the common use of the term color isn't that way, and physics
actually doesn't normally try to "define" color that way, but described
frequency bands in the visible spectrum has having a color.
Part of your problem is that Encyclopedias are not a source of the
definition of a word, but are a recording of knowledge about topics.
Note, even pysicist WILL talk about "white light", so dispite that
paragraph, consider white to be a color.
There is even the concept of "Pink Noise" using a color label for sounds
that is used in some physics descriptions. (Pink noise has more lowers
then highs, but isn't too tightly limited in spectrum).
So, you are trying to foist your FALSE idea (per general meaning of the
word) by using a non-difinitive resource to claim your support.
By that logic, you have to agree that Olcott is correct, as by quoting
others who have misused terminology, he can justify his false claims.
Sorry, that isn't how language works.
Without that very specific qualifier (which as far as I know, isn't even
common in that specific field) your meaning is just wrong.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am you
lying c-nt.
/Flibble
On 8/28/25 3:10 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 8/26/2025 6:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/26/25 4:02 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 8/24/2025 6:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/24/25 9:12 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 21:09:07 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/24/25 8:56 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Mon, 25 Aug 2025 08:45:10 +0800, wij wrote:It seems you sense of reality is off, look who started the thread >>>>>>> calling Pink not a physical color.
On Mon, 2025-08-25 at 00:38 +0000, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Mon, 25 Aug 2025 08:14:41 +0800, wij wrote:
On Sun, 2025-08-24 at 23:13 +0000, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 19:04:47 -0400, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>
On 8/24/25 7:00 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 18:56:35 -0400, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>And so you will say you monitor can;t show you orange? >>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 8/24/25 6:33 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 18:26:20 -0400, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>But "Color" isn't from ONE cone, but a processing of several >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cones with different sensitivity bands in close proximity. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 8/24/25 6:18 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 18:15:38 -0400, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Of course not. And since NO beams is truely MONO- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CHROMATIC, it
On 8/24/25 6:09 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 18:06:55 -0400, Richard Damon >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:No, White is a color, it isn't a spectral color. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are
On 8/24/25 6:02 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 17:51:50 -0400, Richard Damon >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
But NO colors exist on it, only frequencies. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 8/24/25 5:03 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 16:56:25 -0400, Richard Damon >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
But a "Spectrum" is also the intensity of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> signal at
On 8/24/25 4:37 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 13:24:19 -0700, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
But "Color" is a perception, not just a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wavelength of
On 8/23/2025 2:56 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just as pink isn't a physical colour, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Olcott's Halting Problem proof refutations are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> equally imaginary.There are no pink photons; only spectral colours >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> physically exist.
What about a pink flower? ;^) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
/Flibble
light.
There are "Purples" that don't correspond to a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> single
wavelength either.
There ARE spectrums that are "pink", a bit more >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Red
than other frequencies, but most other frequencies >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> present.
There is only ONE electromagnetic spectrum. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
/Flibble
each wavelength.
The problem here is the word has multiple >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meanings, and
you need to use the one that relates to the words >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being
used. It can be both the range of values >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something can
span over, or the collection of amounts you have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at each
of those.
Note, "Colors" are a perception based term, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> while
single frequency light has a perceived color (if >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> visible) that color is NOT defined by that frequency >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (and is in fact, to a degree subjective, as each >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> person
has a slightly different response characteristics). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus, when you talk about colors, you are NOT >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking
about mono-chromatic light, but perception. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That is why "Infra-Red" isn't a color, but a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> frequency
band as part of the spectrum, but "Red" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a color, but doesn't limit the frequency of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lights
that can be present (some "Reds" have bits all >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the way
to "blue"). There is a "Red Band" which as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mono-chromatic like looks Red,
but Red can have frequencies in it outside that band >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (but will normally be dominated with that band) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Think about how it is used for the spectrum of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the sound
of a violin string being played. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This is just one of Olcott's errors again, insisting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that a word has the meaning you want it to mean, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even if
not appropriate in the context.
I repeat: there is only ONE electromagnetic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spectrum and
pink does NOT exist on it.-a There are NO pink >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> photons.
/Flibble
Each of those frequencies has a perceived color, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but the frequence does not define the color. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
-a -a-a-a-a From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Color (or colour in Commonwealth English) is the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> visual
perception produced by the activation of the different >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> types of cone cells in the eye caused by light. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There is a DIFFERENT (compond) term "Spectral Color" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that relates to what you are talking about, but it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isn't
"Color".
By your definition White and Black aren't colors >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> either.
Correct, white is not a PHYSICAL colour and black is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> absence of light.
/Flibble
many physical things with the color of white, so it is a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Physical Color",
which is generally defined as the color something >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> appears to
be, again, not limited to mono-chromatic colors. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Black is also a "Color" as it is a perception. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You are just showing the same it must be my way or the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> highway of PO,
even when the conventional definitions that apply to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
context disagree.
Only spectral colours physically exist, any other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> colours are
quite literally figments of your imagination based on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> electrical signals (or lack thereof) the cones in your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> retinas are sending. This is science, mate, CONVENTIONAL >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> science.
/Flibble
could be argued that spectral colors don't actually >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "exists"
but are only definitions.
And other colors are not "figments", but the result of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> beam of light containing multiple wavelengths at once. The >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relative density of each frequency is what is called the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "spectrum" for that light, and our perception of it, the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Color".
Your problem is, again, you aren't using the words as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conventionally defined, and thus showing the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stupidity of
Olcott, insisting that he gets to redefine anything he >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wants,
which is just proof that he doesn't care about >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> communication.
If you want to prove yourself to be back into that same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bin,
continue in your obtuseness.
You are arguing with the science as well as me: a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> retinal cone
signal is the result of just four to seven photons >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hitting the
cone simulataneously;
for rods it is an individual photon. THERE ARE NO PINK >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PHOTONS.
/Flibble
We DON'T see the individual signals, we see the perceived >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> combination of the signals.
Doesn't matter that there are no "pink photons" there are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> light
spectra that can hit a region of the eye to produce a signal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that says "pink light".
Or, do you think that you monitor can't show you orange? as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there is no "orange photons" emitted by your screen, only >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> combinations of the Red, Green, and Blue pixels that make >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> up the
screen that reach your eyes to close for you eye to perceive >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them as from different spots.
THERE ARE NO PINK PHOTONS. Correct, whilst there are orange >>>>>>>>>>>>>> photons my monitor only emits red, green and blue photons at >>>>>>>>>>>>>> different intensities.
You can get monitors/TVs with a fourth yellow sub-pixel, I >>>>>>>>>>>>>> would
be interested in seeing what that looks like.
/Flibble
THen what color does it show you for a orange?
There isn't even a Reg-Green Photon that is used to display >>>>>>>>>>>>> orange.
As I said, the problem is color is not restricted to >>>>>>>>>>>>> mono-chromatism,
but is a perceptive function.
All you are doing is showing you have the same cognative >>>>>>>>>>>>> error as
Peter,
thinking that you have the power to redefine what words >>>>>>>>>>>>> mean in
normal context.
You are a f--king idiot, mate. My monitor only has
monochromatic
red, green and blue LEDs (or red, green and blue filters) so >>>>>>>>>>>> can
only emit red,
green or blue photons.
I never said that COLOUR isn't a perceptive function, I said >>>>>>>>>>>> pink
isn't a PHYSICAL COLOUR because there are no PINK PHOTONS >>>>>>>>>>>> because
there is no wavelength corresponding to the colour pink. >>>>>>>>>>>>
/Flibble
Spectral color and perceived color are different things. >>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon is correct, you are wrong.
I never said spectral colour and perceived colour are the same >>>>>>>>>> thing.
You are also an idiot.
/Flibble
Then, who suggests pink is a physical colour?
Damon is but Damon is an idiot.
/Flibble
A guess you are just admitting you don't know what you are talking >>>>>>> about.
That would be a case psychological projection mate as reality is
that I
said pink is NOT a physical colour whilst you said it is. Take your >>>>>> f--king medication.
/Flibble
Maybe you should, as I am using the word as it is typically used:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color
The physical color of an object depends on how it absorbs and
scatters light.
Kind of sounds like you are describing a "material" and how it acts
in a ray tracer/marcher or something. Are you saying that a photon
should be white, aka all colors. So it can "hit" a material and give
off the "infinite" spectrum of colors? Some of which are pink?
No, but "Physical Color" describes how it deals with all different
frequencies of photons. After all, photon do come in all different
frequencies, so appear to be different colors, and the physical
properties affect all of them, possibly differently.
Sounds good. Still, for some reason I still want to ponder on a
"Physical Color" as a sort of "material". Humm...
Thus, physical color is NOT about individual photon frequency, and
thus NOT spectral color.
Think of a white sheet of paper being illuminated by a white light
covered in a pink semi transparent film. The paper might look pink?
It's physical color is altered?
There you are looking at the physical color of a white sheet of paper covered with a pink film. Not the paper itself.
Put the pink film on the light source, and observe, and the paper will
still look mostly white, as the vision system tries to correct for the
color of the light it detects being present.
On 8/30/25 2:54 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sat, 30 Aug 2025 13:04:28 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:You are Olcotting, by just repeating your claim and ignoring the errors pointed out.
On 8/30/25 9:55 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sat, 30 Aug 2025 09:10:17 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:No, it isn't, as it explicitly labled that paragraph as in a specific
On 8/30/25 8:38 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Fri, 29 Aug 2025 22:16:23 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:No, you are using the term "physical color" in the way that your
On 8/29/25 1:35 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Fri, 29 Aug 2025 10:21:26 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:Clearly you don't understand what you are reading.
On 8/28/25 2:18 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Wed, 27 Aug 2025 22:07:20 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:And saying this is a niche meaning, and not the only one.
At a minimm, you need to repeat the restriction on when that >>>>>>>>>>> meaning applies, which you did not.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I >>>>>>>>>> am you lying c-nt.
When you source admits it isn't defining THE meaning of a term, >>>>>>>>> you can't use it to claim that it is THE meaning of the term. >>>>>>>>>
And even your source talks about photons having color, not color >>>>>>>>> having a single photon.
So, your usage is definitely a minority view, and thus needed to >>>>>>>>> have been clearly specified when you made you claim, and you >>>>>>>>> should have used the proper word in the first place.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am >>>>>>>> you lying c-nt.
/Flibble
A statement taken out of context is just a pretext.
Which is just a form of lying.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am
you lying c-nt.
/Flibble
source says is a specialized meaning of the word, used in only a
specifiic case.
That fact that even in that case, it isn't the word normally used,
just shows that your usage isn't actually its normal definition and
your trying to insist it is just is a lie.
It seems you don't understand the concept of context.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am you
lying c-nt.
/Flibble
technical context, begining
"If color is solely the way physics describes it, the visible spectrum
of light waves,"
But the common use of the term color isn't that way, and physics
actually doesn't normally try to "define" color that way, but
described frequency bands in the visible spectrum has having a color.
Part of your problem is that Encyclopedias are not a source of the
definition of a word, but are a recording of knowledge about topics.
Note, even pysicist WILL talk about "white light", so dispite that
paragraph, consider white to be a color.
There is even the concept of "Pink Noise" using a color label for
sounds that is used in some physics descriptions. (Pink noise has more
lowers then highs, but isn't too tightly limited in spectrum).
So, you are trying to foist your FALSE idea (per general meaning of
the word) by using a non-difinitive resource to claim your support.
By that logic, you have to agree that Olcott is correct, as by quoting
others who have misused terminology, he can justify his false claims.
Sorry, that isn't how language works.
Without that very specific qualifier (which as far as I know, isn't
even common in that specific field) your meaning is just wrong.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am you
lying c-nt.
/Flibble
Welcome to that club.
As I have pointed out, you are using a bad source for the definition of
a word, and one that explicitly limited its usage to a minority case.
All you are doing is proving you don't understand what you are talking
about.
On Sat, 30 Aug 2025 20:00:35 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/30/25 2:54 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sat, 30 Aug 2025 13:04:28 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:You are Olcotting, by just repeating your claim and ignoring the errors
On 8/30/25 9:55 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sat, 30 Aug 2025 09:10:17 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:No, it isn't, as it explicitly labled that paragraph as in a specific
On 8/30/25 8:38 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Fri, 29 Aug 2025 22:16:23 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:No, you are using the term "physical color" in the way that your
On 8/29/25 1:35 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Fri, 29 Aug 2025 10:21:26 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:Clearly you don't understand what you are reading.
On 8/28/25 2:18 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Wed, 27 Aug 2025 22:07:20 -0400, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> At a minimm, you need to repeat the restriction on when that >>>>>>>>>>>> meaning applies, which you did not.And saying this is a niche meaning, and not the only one.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I >>>>>>>>>>> am you lying c-nt.
When you source admits it isn't defining THE meaning of a term, >>>>>>>>>> you can't use it to claim that it is THE meaning of the term. >>>>>>>>>>
And even your source talks about photons having color, not color >>>>>>>>>> having a single photon.
So, your usage is definitely a minority view, and thus needed to >>>>>>>>>> have been clearly specified when you made you claim, and you >>>>>>>>>> should have used the proper word in the first place.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am >>>>>>>>> you lying c-nt.
/Flibble
A statement taken out of context is just a pretext.
Which is just a form of lying.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am >>>>>>> you lying c-nt.
/Flibble
source says is a specialized meaning of the word, used in only a
specifiic case.
That fact that even in that case, it isn't the word normally used, >>>>>> just shows that your usage isn't actually its normal definition and >>>>>> your trying to insist it is just is a lie.
It seems you don't understand the concept of context.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am you >>>>> lying c-nt.
/Flibble
technical context, begining
"If color is solely the way physics describes it, the visible spectrum >>>> of light waves,"
But the common use of the term color isn't that way, and physics
actually doesn't normally try to "define" color that way, but
described frequency bands in the visible spectrum has having a color.
Part of your problem is that Encyclopedias are not a source of the
definition of a word, but are a recording of knowledge about topics.
Note, even pysicist WILL talk about "white light", so dispite that
paragraph, consider white to be a color.
There is even the concept of "Pink Noise" using a color label for
sounds that is used in some physics descriptions. (Pink noise has more >>>> lowers then highs, but isn't too tightly limited in spectrum).
So, you are trying to foist your FALSE idea (per general meaning of
the word) by using a non-difinitive resource to claim your support.
By that logic, you have to agree that Olcott is correct, as by quoting >>>> others who have misused terminology, he can justify his false claims.
Sorry, that isn't how language works.
Without that very specific qualifier (which as far as I know, isn't
even common in that specific field) your meaning is just wrong.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am you
lying c-nt.
/Flibble
pointed out.
Welcome to that club.
As I have pointed out, you are using a bad source for the definition of
a word, and one that explicitly limited its usage to a minority case.
All you are doing is proving you don't understand what you are talking
about.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am you
lying c-nt.
/Flibble
On 8/29/2025 7:21 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/28/25 3:10 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 8/26/2025 6:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/26/25 4:02 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 8/24/2025 6:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/24/25 9:12 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 21:09:07 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/24/25 8:56 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Mon, 25 Aug 2025 08:45:10 +0800, wij wrote:It seems you sense of reality is off, look who started the thread >>>>>>>> calling Pink not a physical color.
On Mon, 2025-08-25 at 00:38 +0000, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Mon, 25 Aug 2025 08:14:41 +0800, wij wrote:
On Sun, 2025-08-24 at 23:13 +0000, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 19:04:47 -0400, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 8/24/25 7:00 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 18:56:35 -0400, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And so you will say you monitor can;t show you orange? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 8/24/25 6:33 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 18:26:20 -0400, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>But "Color" isn't from ONE cone, but a processing of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> several
On 8/24/25 6:18 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 18:15:38 -0400, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Of course not. And since NO beams is truely MONO- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CHROMATIC, it
On 8/24/25 6:09 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 18:06:55 -0400, Richard Damon >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
No, White is a color, it isn't a spectral color. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are
On 8/24/25 6:02 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 17:51:50 -0400, Richard Damon >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
But NO colors exist on it, only frequencies. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 8/24/25 5:03 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 16:56:25 -0400, Richard Damon >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:I repeat: there is only ONE electromagnetic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spectrum and
But a "Spectrum" is also the intensity of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> signal at
On 8/24/25 4:37 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 24 Aug 2025 13:24:19 -0700, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
But "Color" is a perception, not just a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wavelength ofOn 8/23/2025 2:56 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just as pink isn't a physical colour, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Olcott's Halting Problem proof refutations are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> equally imaginary.There are no pink photons; only spectral colours >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> physically exist.
What about a pink flower? ;^) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
/Flibble
light.
There are "Purples" that don't correspond to a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> single
wavelength either.
There ARE spectrums that are "pink", a bit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more Red
than other frequencies, but most other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> frequencies
present.
There is only ONE electromagnetic spectrum. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
/Flibble
each wavelength.
The problem here is the word has multiple >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meanings, and
you need to use the one that relates to the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> words being
used. It can be both the range of values >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something can
span over, or the collection of amounts you have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at each
of those.
Note, "Colors" are a perception based term, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> while
single frequency light has a perceived color (if >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> visible) that color is NOT defined by that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> frequency
(and is in fact, to a degree subjective, as each >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> person
has a slightly different response characteristics). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus, when you talk about colors, you are NOT >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking
about mono-chromatic light, but perception. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That is why "Infra-Red" isn't a color, but a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> frequency
band as part of the spectrum, but "Red" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a color, but doesn't limit the frequency of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lights
that can be present (some "Reds" have bits all >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the way
to "blue"). There is a "Red Band" which as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mono-chromatic like looks Red, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but Red can have frequencies in it outside that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> band
(but will normally be dominated with that band) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Think about how it is used for the spectrum of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the sound
of a violin string being played. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This is just one of Olcott's errors again, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> insisting
that a word has the meaning you want it to mean, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even if
not appropriate in the context. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
pink does NOT exist on it.-a There are NO pink >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> photons.
/Flibble
Each of those frequencies has a perceived color, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but the frequence does not define the color. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
-a -a-a-a-a From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Color (or colour in Commonwealth English) is the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> visual
perception produced by the activation of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different
types of cone cells in the eye caused by light. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There is a DIFFERENT (compond) term "Spectral Color" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that relates to what you are talking about, but it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isn't
"Color".
By your definition White and Black aren't colors >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> either.
Correct, white is not a PHYSICAL colour and black is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> absence of light.
/Flibble
many physical things with the color of white, so it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a
"Physical Color",
which is generally defined as the color something >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> appears to
be, again, not limited to mono-chromatic colors. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Black is also a "Color" as it is a perception. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You are just showing the same it must be my way or the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> highway of PO,
even when the conventional definitions that apply to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
context disagree.
Only spectral colours physically exist, any other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> colours are
quite literally figments of your imagination based on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> electrical signals (or lack thereof) the cones in your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> retinas are sending. This is science, mate, CONVENTIONAL >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> science.
/Flibble
could be argued that spectral colors don't actually >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "exists"
but are only definitions.
And other colors are not "figments", but the result of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
beam of light containing multiple wavelengths at once. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The
relative density of each frequency is what is called the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "spectrum" for that light, and our perception of it, the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Color".
Your problem is, again, you aren't using the words as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conventionally defined, and thus showing the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stupidity of
Olcott, insisting that he gets to redefine anything he >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wants,
which is just proof that he doesn't care about >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> communication.
If you want to prove yourself to be back into that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same bin,
continue in your obtuseness.
You are arguing with the science as well as me: a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> retinal cone
signal is the result of just four to seven photons >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hitting the
cone simulataneously;
for rods it is an individual photon. THERE ARE NO PINK >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PHOTONS.
/Flibble
cones with different sensitivity bands in close proximity. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
We DON'T see the individual signals, we see the perceived >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> combination of the signals.
Doesn't matter that there are no "pink photons" there >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are light
spectra that can hit a region of the eye to produce a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> signal
that says "pink light".
Or, do you think that you monitor can't show you orange? as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there is no "orange photons" emitted by your screen, only >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> combinations of the Red, Green, and Blue pixels that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make up the
screen that reach your eyes to close for you eye to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perceive
them as from different spots.
THERE ARE NO PINK PHOTONS. Correct, whilst there are orange >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> photons my monitor only emits red, green and blue photons at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different intensities.
You can get monitors/TVs with a fourth yellow sub-pixel, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would
be interested in seeing what that looks like.
/Flibble
THen what color does it show you for a orange?
There isn't even a Reg-Green Photon that is used to display >>>>>>>>>>>>>> orange.
As I said, the problem is color is not restricted to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> mono-chromatism,
but is a perceptive function.
All you are doing is showing you have the same cognative >>>>>>>>>>>>>> error as
Peter,
thinking that you have the power to redefine what words >>>>>>>>>>>>>> mean in
normal context.
You are a f--king idiot, mate. My monitor only has
monochromatic
red, green and blue LEDs (or red, green and blue filters) >>>>>>>>>>>>> so can
only emit red,
green or blue photons.
I never said that COLOUR isn't a perceptive function, I >>>>>>>>>>>>> said pink
isn't a PHYSICAL COLOUR because there are no PINK PHOTONS >>>>>>>>>>>>> because
there is no wavelength corresponding to the colour pink. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
/Flibble
Spectral color and perceived color are different things. >>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon is correct, you are wrong.
I never said spectral colour and perceived colour are the >>>>>>>>>>> same thing.
You are also an idiot.
/Flibble
Then, who suggests pink is a physical colour?
Damon is but Damon is an idiot.
/Flibble
A guess you are just admitting you don't know what you are talking >>>>>>>> about.
That would be a case psychological projection mate as reality is >>>>>>> that I
said pink is NOT a physical colour whilst you said it is. Take your >>>>>>> f--king medication.
/Flibble
Maybe you should, as I am using the word as it is typically used:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color
The physical color of an object depends on how it absorbs and
scatters light.
Kind of sounds like you are describing a "material" and how it acts >>>>> in a ray tracer/marcher or something. Are you saying that a photon
should be white, aka all colors. So it can "hit" a material and
give off the "infinite" spectrum of colors? Some of which are pink?
No, but "Physical Color" describes how it deals with all different
frequencies of photons. After all, photon do come in all different
frequencies, so appear to be different colors, and the physical
properties affect all of them, possibly differently.
Sounds good. Still, for some reason I still want to ponder on a
"Physical Color" as a sort of "material". Humm...
Thus, physical color is NOT about individual photon frequency, and >>>>>> thus NOT spectral color.
Think of a white sheet of paper being illuminated by a white light
covered in a pink semi transparent film. The paper might look pink?
It's physical color is altered?
There you are looking at the physical color of a white sheet of paper
covered with a pink film. Not the paper itself.
Put the pink film on the light source, and observe, and the paper will
still look mostly white, as the vision system tries to correct for the
color of the light it detects being present.
Mostly white, but it should be altered by the introduction of the pink
film. Actually, for some reason, it kind of reminds me of wearing those
red and blue anaglyph glasses.
On 8/31/25 1:06 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sat, 30 Aug 2025 20:00:35 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:In other words, you can't understand English, and are just trying to be
On 8/30/25 2:54 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sat, 30 Aug 2025 13:04:28 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:You are Olcotting, by just repeating your claim and ignoring the
On 8/30/25 9:55 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sat, 30 Aug 2025 09:10:17 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:No, it isn't, as it explicitly labled that paragraph as in a
On 8/30/25 8:38 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Fri, 29 Aug 2025 22:16:23 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:No, you are using the term "physical color" in the way that your >>>>>>> source says is a specialized meaning of the word, used in only a >>>>>>> specifiic case.
On 8/29/25 1:35 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Fri, 29 Aug 2025 10:21:26 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:Clearly you don't understand what you are reading.
On 8/28/25 2:18 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Wed, 27 Aug 2025 22:07:20 -0400, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> At a minimm, you need to repeat the restriction on when that >>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning applies, which you did not.And saying this is a niche meaning, and not the only one. >>>>>>>>>>>
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way >>>>>>>>>>>> I am you lying c-nt.
When you source admits it isn't defining THE meaning of a >>>>>>>>>>> term, you can't use it to claim that it is THE meaning of the >>>>>>>>>>> term.
And even your source talks about photons having color, not >>>>>>>>>>> color having a single photon.
So, your usage is definitely a minority view, and thus needed >>>>>>>>>>> to have been clearly specified when you made you claim, and >>>>>>>>>>> you should have used the proper word in the first place.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I >>>>>>>>>> am you lying c-nt.
/Flibble
A statement taken out of context is just a pretext.
Which is just a form of lying.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am >>>>>>>> you lying c-nt.
/Flibble
That fact that even in that case, it isn't the word normally used, >>>>>>> just shows that your usage isn't actually its normal definition
and your trying to insist it is just is a lie.
It seems you don't understand the concept of context.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am
you lying c-nt.
/Flibble
specific technical context, begining
"If color is solely the way physics describes it, the visible
spectrum of light waves,"
But the common use of the term color isn't that way, and physics
actually doesn't normally try to "define" color that way, but
described frequency bands in the visible spectrum has having a
color.
Part of your problem is that Encyclopedias are not a source of the
definition of a word, but are a recording of knowledge about topics. >>>>>
Note, even pysicist WILL talk about "white light", so dispite that
paragraph, consider white to be a color.
There is even the concept of "Pink Noise" using a color label for
sounds that is used in some physics descriptions. (Pink noise has
more lowers then highs, but isn't too tightly limited in spectrum).
So, you are trying to foist your FALSE idea (per general meaning of
the word) by using a non-difinitive resource to claim your support.
By that logic, you have to agree that Olcott is correct, as by
quoting others who have misused terminology, he can justify his
false claims.
Sorry, that isn't how language works.
Without that very specific qualifier (which as far as I know, isn't
even common in that specific field) your meaning is just wrong.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am you
lying c-nt.
/Flibble
errors pointed out.
Welcome to that club.
As I have pointed out, you are using a bad source for the definition
of a word, and one that explicitly limited its usage to a minority
case.
All you are doing is proving you don't understand what you are talking
about.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am you
lying c-nt.
/Flibble
a Olcott and ignore your errors.
Sorry, you are just proving your stupidity.
On Sun, 31 Aug 2025 07:12:57 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/31/25 1:06 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sat, 30 Aug 2025 20:00:35 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:In other words, you can't understand English, and are just trying to be
On 8/30/25 2:54 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sat, 30 Aug 2025 13:04:28 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:You are Olcotting, by just repeating your claim and ignoring the
On 8/30/25 9:55 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sat, 30 Aug 2025 09:10:17 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:No, it isn't, as it explicitly labled that paragraph as in a
On 8/30/25 8:38 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Fri, 29 Aug 2025 22:16:23 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:No, you are using the term "physical color" in the way that your >>>>>>>> source says is a specialized meaning of the word, used in only a >>>>>>>> specifiic case.
On 8/29/25 1:35 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Fri, 29 Aug 2025 10:21:26 -0400, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>Clearly you don't understand what you are reading.
On 8/28/25 2:18 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I >>>>>>>>>>> am you lying c-nt.
On Wed, 27 Aug 2025 22:07:20 -0400, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> At a minimm, you need to repeat the restriction on when that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning applies, which you did not.And saying this is a niche meaning, and not the only one. >>>>>>>>>>>>
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way >>>>>>>>>>>>> I am you lying c-nt.
When you source admits it isn't defining THE meaning of a >>>>>>>>>>>> term, you can't use it to claim that it is THE meaning of the >>>>>>>>>>>> term.
And even your source talks about photons having color, not >>>>>>>>>>>> color having a single photon.
So, your usage is definitely a minority view, and thus needed >>>>>>>>>>>> to have been clearly specified when you made you claim, and >>>>>>>>>>>> you should have used the proper word in the first place. >>>>>>>>>>>
/Flibble
A statement taken out of context is just a pretext.
Which is just a form of lying.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am >>>>>>>>> you lying c-nt.
/Flibble
That fact that even in that case, it isn't the word normally used, >>>>>>>> just shows that your usage isn't actually its normal definition >>>>>>>> and your trying to insist it is just is a lie.
It seems you don't understand the concept of context.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am >>>>>>> you lying c-nt.
/Flibble
specific technical context, begining
"If color is solely the way physics describes it, the visible
spectrum of light waves,"
But the common use of the term color isn't that way, and physics
actually doesn't normally try to "define" color that way, but
described frequency bands in the visible spectrum has having a
color.
Part of your problem is that Encyclopedias are not a source of the >>>>>> definition of a word, but are a recording of knowledge about topics. >>>>>>
Note, even pysicist WILL talk about "white light", so dispite that >>>>>> paragraph, consider white to be a color.
There is even the concept of "Pink Noise" using a color label for
sounds that is used in some physics descriptions. (Pink noise has
more lowers then highs, but isn't too tightly limited in spectrum). >>>>>>
So, you are trying to foist your FALSE idea (per general meaning of >>>>>> the word) by using a non-difinitive resource to claim your support. >>>>>>
By that logic, you have to agree that Olcott is correct, as by
quoting others who have misused terminology, he can justify his
false claims.
Sorry, that isn't how language works.
Without that very specific qualifier (which as far as I know, isn't >>>>>> even common in that specific field) your meaning is just wrong.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am you >>>>> lying c-nt.
/Flibble
errors pointed out.
Welcome to that club.
As I have pointed out, you are using a bad source for the definition
of a word, and one that explicitly limited its usage to a minority
case.
All you are doing is proving you don't understand what you are talking >>>> about.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am you
lying c-nt.
/Flibble
a Olcott and ignore your errors.
Sorry, you are just proving your stupidity.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am you
lying c-nt.
/Flibble
On 8/31/25 8:26 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sun, 31 Aug 2025 07:12:57 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:And so you prove you are just a Peter Olcott, because you refuse to
On 8/31/25 1:06 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sat, 30 Aug 2025 20:00:35 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:In other words, you can't understand English, and are just trying to
On 8/30/25 2:54 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sat, 30 Aug 2025 13:04:28 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:You are Olcotting, by just repeating your claim and ignoring the
On 8/30/25 9:55 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sat, 30 Aug 2025 09:10:17 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:No, it isn't, as it explicitly labled that paragraph as in a
On 8/30/25 8:38 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Fri, 29 Aug 2025 22:16:23 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:No, you are using the term "physical color" in the way that your >>>>>>>>> source says is a specialized meaning of the word, used in only a >>>>>>>>> specifiic case.
On 8/29/25 1:35 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Fri, 29 Aug 2025 10:21:26 -0400, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>Clearly you don't understand what you are reading.
On 8/28/25 2:18 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Wed, 27 Aug 2025 22:07:20 -0400, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At a minimm, you need to repeat the restriction on when >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that meaning applies, which you did not.And saying this is a niche meaning, and not the only one. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>> way I am you lying c-nt.
When you source admits it isn't defining THE meaning of a >>>>>>>>>>>>> term, you can't use it to claim that it is THE meaning of >>>>>>>>>>>>> the term.
And even your source talks about photons having color, not >>>>>>>>>>>>> color having a single photon.
So, your usage is definitely a minority view, and thus >>>>>>>>>>>>> needed to have been clearly specified when you made you >>>>>>>>>>>>> claim, and you should have used the proper word in the first >>>>>>>>>>>>> place.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way >>>>>>>>>>>> I am you lying c-nt.
/Flibble
A statement taken out of context is just a pretext.
Which is just a form of lying.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I >>>>>>>>>> am you lying c-nt.
/Flibble
That fact that even in that case, it isn't the word normally >>>>>>>>> used,
just shows that your usage isn't actually its normal definition >>>>>>>>> and your trying to insist it is just is a lie.
It seems you don't understand the concept of context.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am >>>>>>>> you lying c-nt.
/Flibble
specific technical context, begining
"If color is solely the way physics describes it, the visible
spectrum of light waves,"
But the common use of the term color isn't that way, and physics >>>>>>> actually doesn't normally try to "define" color that way, but
described frequency bands in the visible spectrum has having a
color.
Part of your problem is that Encyclopedias are not a source of the >>>>>>> definition of a word, but are a recording of knowledge about
topics.
Note, even pysicist WILL talk about "white light", so dispite that >>>>>>> paragraph, consider white to be a color.
There is even the concept of "Pink Noise" using a color label for >>>>>>> sounds that is used in some physics descriptions. (Pink noise has >>>>>>> more lowers then highs, but isn't too tightly limited in
spectrum).
So, you are trying to foist your FALSE idea (per general meaning >>>>>>> of the word) by using a non-difinitive resource to claim your
support.
By that logic, you have to agree that Olcott is correct, as by
quoting others who have misused terminology, he can justify his
false claims.
Sorry, that isn't how language works.
Without that very specific qualifier (which as far as I know,
isn't even common in that specific field) your meaning is just
wrong.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am
you lying c-nt.
/Flibble
errors pointed out.
Welcome to that club.
As I have pointed out, you are using a bad source for the definition >>>>> of a word, and one that explicitly limited its usage to a minority
case.
All you are doing is proving you don't understand what you are
talking about.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am you
lying c-nt.
/Flibble
be a Olcott and ignore your errors.
Sorry, you are just proving your stupidity.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am you
lying c-nt.
/Flibble
actually answer about the problem pointed out.
If you like that comparison, just keep it up.
On Sun, 31 Aug 2025 13:21:50 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/31/25 8:26 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sun, 31 Aug 2025 07:12:57 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:And so you prove you are just a Peter Olcott, because you refuse to
On 8/31/25 1:06 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sat, 30 Aug 2025 20:00:35 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:In other words, you can't understand English, and are just trying to
On 8/30/25 2:54 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sat, 30 Aug 2025 13:04:28 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:You are Olcotting, by just repeating your claim and ignoring the
On 8/30/25 9:55 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sat, 30 Aug 2025 09:10:17 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:No, it isn't, as it explicitly labled that paragraph as in a
On 8/30/25 8:38 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Fri, 29 Aug 2025 22:16:23 -0400, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>No, you are using the term "physical color" in the way that your >>>>>>>>>> source says is a specialized meaning of the word, used in only a >>>>>>>>>> specifiic case.
On 8/29/25 1:35 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Fri, 29 Aug 2025 10:21:26 -0400, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>Clearly you don't understand what you are reading.
On 8/28/25 2:18 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Wed, 27 Aug 2025 22:07:20 -0400, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At a minimm, you need to repeat the restriction on when >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that meaning applies, which you did not.And saying this is a niche meaning, and not the only one. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way I am you lying c-nt.
When you source admits it isn't defining THE meaning of a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> term, you can't use it to claim that it is THE meaning of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the term.
And even your source talks about photons having color, not >>>>>>>>>>>>>> color having a single photon.
So, your usage is definitely a minority view, and thus >>>>>>>>>>>>>> needed to have been clearly specified when you made you >>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim, and you should have used the proper word in the first >>>>>>>>>>>>>> place.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way >>>>>>>>>>>>> I am you lying c-nt.
/Flibble
A statement taken out of context is just a pretext.
Which is just a form of lying.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I >>>>>>>>>>> am you lying c-nt.
/Flibble
That fact that even in that case, it isn't the word normally >>>>>>>>>> used,
just shows that your usage isn't actually its normal definition >>>>>>>>>> and your trying to insist it is just is a lie.
It seems you don't understand the concept of context.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am >>>>>>>>> you lying c-nt.
/Flibble
specific technical context, begining
"If color is solely the way physics describes it, the visible
spectrum of light waves,"
But the common use of the term color isn't that way, and physics >>>>>>>> actually doesn't normally try to "define" color that way, but
described frequency bands in the visible spectrum has having a >>>>>>>> color.
Part of your problem is that Encyclopedias are not a source of the >>>>>>>> definition of a word, but are a recording of knowledge about
topics.
Note, even pysicist WILL talk about "white light", so dispite that >>>>>>>> paragraph, consider white to be a color.
There is even the concept of "Pink Noise" using a color label for >>>>>>>> sounds that is used in some physics descriptions. (Pink noise has >>>>>>>> more lowers then highs, but isn't too tightly limited in
spectrum).
So, you are trying to foist your FALSE idea (per general meaning >>>>>>>> of the word) by using a non-difinitive resource to claim your
support.
By that logic, you have to agree that Olcott is correct, as by >>>>>>>> quoting others who have misused terminology, he can justify his >>>>>>>> false claims.
Sorry, that isn't how language works.
Without that very specific qualifier (which as far as I know,
isn't even common in that specific field) your meaning is just >>>>>>>> wrong.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am >>>>>>> you lying c-nt.
/Flibble
errors pointed out.
Welcome to that club.
As I have pointed out, you are using a bad source for the definition >>>>>> of a word, and one that explicitly limited its usage to a minority >>>>>> case.
All you are doing is proving you don't understand what you are
talking about.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am you >>>>> lying c-nt.
/Flibble
be a Olcott and ignore your errors.
Sorry, you are just proving your stupidity.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am you
lying c-nt.
/Flibble
actually answer about the problem pointed out.
If you like that comparison, just keep it up.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am you
lying c-nt.
/Flibble
On 8/31/25 3:01 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sun, 31 Aug 2025 13:21:50 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:And you qre just being Peter Olcott.
On 8/31/25 8:26 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sun, 31 Aug 2025 07:12:57 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:And so you prove you are just a Peter Olcott, because you refuse to
On 8/31/25 1:06 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sat, 30 Aug 2025 20:00:35 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:In other words, you can't understand English, and are just trying to >>>>> be a Olcott and ignore your errors.
On 8/30/25 2:54 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sat, 30 Aug 2025 13:04:28 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:You are Olcotting, by just repeating your claim and ignoring the >>>>>>> errors pointed out.
On 8/30/25 9:55 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sat, 30 Aug 2025 09:10:17 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:No, it isn't, as it explicitly labled that paragraph as in a >>>>>>>>> specific technical context, begining
On 8/30/25 8:38 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Fri, 29 Aug 2025 22:16:23 -0400, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>No, you are using the term "physical color" in the way that >>>>>>>>>>> your source says is a specialized meaning of the word, used in >>>>>>>>>>> only a specifiic case.
On 8/29/25 1:35 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Fri, 29 Aug 2025 10:21:26 -0400, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Clearly you don't understand what you are reading.
On 8/28/25 2:18 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Wed, 27 Aug 2025 22:07:20 -0400, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At a minimm, you need to repeat the restriction on when >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that meaning applies, which you did not.And saying this is a niche meaning, and not the only one. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way I am you lying c-nt.
When you source admits it isn't defining THE meaning of a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> term, you can't use it to claim that it is THE meaning of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the term.
And even your source talks about photons having color, not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> color having a single photon.
So, your usage is definitely a minority view, and thus >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> needed to have been clearly specified when you made you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim, and you should have used the proper word in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> first place.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>> way I am you lying c-nt.
/Flibble
A statement taken out of context is just a pretext.
Which is just a form of lying.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way >>>>>>>>>>>> I am you lying c-nt.
/Flibble
That fact that even in that case, it isn't the word normally >>>>>>>>>>> used,
just shows that your usage isn't actually its normal
definition and your trying to insist it is just is a lie. >>>>>>>>>>>
It seems you don't understand the concept of context.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I >>>>>>>>>> am you lying c-nt.
/Flibble
"If color is solely the way physics describes it, the visible >>>>>>>>> spectrum of light waves,"
But the common use of the term color isn't that way, and physics >>>>>>>>> actually doesn't normally try to "define" color that way, but >>>>>>>>> described frequency bands in the visible spectrum has having a >>>>>>>>> color.
Part of your problem is that Encyclopedias are not a source of >>>>>>>>> the definition of a word, but are a recording of knowledge about >>>>>>>>> topics.
Note, even pysicist WILL talk about "white light", so dispite >>>>>>>>> that paragraph, consider white to be a color.
There is even the concept of "Pink Noise" using a color label >>>>>>>>> for sounds that is used in some physics descriptions. (Pink
noise has more lowers then highs, but isn't too tightly limited >>>>>>>>> in spectrum).
So, you are trying to foist your FALSE idea (per general meaning >>>>>>>>> of the word) by using a non-difinitive resource to claim your >>>>>>>>> support.
By that logic, you have to agree that Olcott is correct, as by >>>>>>>>> quoting others who have misused terminology, he can justify his >>>>>>>>> false claims.
Sorry, that isn't how language works.
Without that very specific qualifier (which as far as I know, >>>>>>>>> isn't even common in that specific field) your meaning is just >>>>>>>>> wrong.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am >>>>>>>> you lying c-nt.
/Flibble
Welcome to that club.
As I have pointed out, you are using a bad source for the
definition of a word, and one that explicitly limited its usage to >>>>>>> a minority case.
All you are doing is proving you don't understand what you are
talking about.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am
you lying c-nt.
/Flibble
Sorry, you are just proving your stupidity.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am you
lying c-nt.
/Flibble
actually answer about the problem pointed out.
If you like that comparison, just keep it up.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am you
lying c-nt.
/Flibble
Your source said this usage was in a very special condition, whicn isn't
the normal.
Thus, you are admitting that you are using the word in an special
condition, and not as generally used.
Refusing to adddress this just proves you are just the second coming of
Peter Olcott.
On Sun, 31 Aug 2025 16:05:13 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/31/25 3:01 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sun, 31 Aug 2025 13:21:50 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:And you qre just being Peter Olcott.
On 8/31/25 8:26 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sun, 31 Aug 2025 07:12:57 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:And so you prove you are just a Peter Olcott, because you refuse to
On 8/31/25 1:06 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sat, 30 Aug 2025 20:00:35 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:In other words, you can't understand English, and are just trying to >>>>>> be a Olcott and ignore your errors.
On 8/30/25 2:54 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sat, 30 Aug 2025 13:04:28 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:You are Olcotting, by just repeating your claim and ignoring the >>>>>>>> errors pointed out.
On 8/30/25 9:55 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sat, 30 Aug 2025 09:10:17 -0400, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>No, it isn't, as it explicitly labled that paragraph as in a >>>>>>>>>> specific technical context, begining
On 8/30/25 8:38 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Fri, 29 Aug 2025 22:16:23 -0400, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>No, you are using the term "physical color" in the way that >>>>>>>>>>>> your source says is a specialized meaning of the word, used in >>>>>>>>>>>> only a specifiic case.
On 8/29/25 1:35 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Fri, 29 Aug 2025 10:21:26 -0400, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Clearly you don't understand what you are reading. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 8/28/25 2:18 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Wed, 27 Aug 2025 22:07:20 -0400, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At a minimm, you need to repeat the restriction on when >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that meaning applies, which you did not.And saying this is a niche meaning, and not the only one. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way I am you lying c-nt.
When you source admits it isn't defining THE meaning of a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> term, you can't use it to claim that it is THE meaning of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the term.
And even your source talks about photons having color, not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> color having a single photon.
So, your usage is definitely a minority view, and thus >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> needed to have been clearly specified when you made you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim, and you should have used the proper word in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> first place.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way I am you lying c-nt.
/Flibble
A statement taken out of context is just a pretext. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Which is just a form of lying.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way >>>>>>>>>>>>> I am you lying c-nt.
/Flibble
That fact that even in that case, it isn't the word normally >>>>>>>>>>>> used,
just shows that your usage isn't actually its normal
definition and your trying to insist it is just is a lie. >>>>>>>>>>>>
It seems you don't understand the concept of context.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I >>>>>>>>>>> am you lying c-nt.
/Flibble
"If color is solely the way physics describes it, the visible >>>>>>>>>> spectrum of light waves,"
But the common use of the term color isn't that way, and physics >>>>>>>>>> actually doesn't normally try to "define" color that way, but >>>>>>>>>> described frequency bands in the visible spectrum has having a >>>>>>>>>> color.
Part of your problem is that Encyclopedias are not a source of >>>>>>>>>> the definition of a word, but are a recording of knowledge about >>>>>>>>>> topics.
Note, even pysicist WILL talk about "white light", so dispite >>>>>>>>>> that paragraph, consider white to be a color.
There is even the concept of "Pink Noise" using a color label >>>>>>>>>> for sounds that is used in some physics descriptions. (Pink >>>>>>>>>> noise has more lowers then highs, but isn't too tightly limited >>>>>>>>>> in spectrum).
So, you are trying to foist your FALSE idea (per general meaning >>>>>>>>>> of the word) by using a non-difinitive resource to claim your >>>>>>>>>> support.
By that logic, you have to agree that Olcott is correct, as by >>>>>>>>>> quoting others who have misused terminology, he can justify his >>>>>>>>>> false claims.
Sorry, that isn't how language works.
Without that very specific qualifier (which as far as I know, >>>>>>>>>> isn't even common in that specific field) your meaning is just >>>>>>>>>> wrong.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am >>>>>>>>> you lying c-nt.
/Flibble
Welcome to that club.
As I have pointed out, you are using a bad source for the
definition of a word, and one that explicitly limited its usage to >>>>>>>> a minority case.
All you are doing is proving you don't understand what you are >>>>>>>> talking about.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am >>>>>>> you lying c-nt.
/Flibble
Sorry, you are just proving your stupidity.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am you >>>>> lying c-nt.
/Flibble
actually answer about the problem pointed out.
If you like that comparison, just keep it up.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am you
lying c-nt.
/Flibble
Your source said this usage was in a very special condition, whicn isn't
the normal.
Thus, you are admitting that you are using the word in an special
condition, and not as generally used.
Refusing to adddress this just proves you are just the second coming of
Peter Olcott.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am you
lying c-nt.
/Flibble
On 8/31/25 4:46 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sun, 31 Aug 2025 16:05:13 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:But, as it seems you are too stupid to understand, conditions it with a qualifier that points out that this is an unusual usage.
On 8/31/25 3:01 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sun, 31 Aug 2025 13:21:50 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:And you qre just being Peter Olcott.
On 8/31/25 8:26 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sun, 31 Aug 2025 07:12:57 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:And so you prove you are just a Peter Olcott, because you refuse to
On 8/31/25 1:06 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sat, 30 Aug 2025 20:00:35 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:In other words, you can't understand English, and are just trying >>>>>>> to be a Olcott and ignore your errors.
On 8/30/25 2:54 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sat, 30 Aug 2025 13:04:28 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:You are Olcotting, by just repeating your claim and ignoring the >>>>>>>>> errors pointed out.
On 8/30/25 9:55 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sat, 30 Aug 2025 09:10:17 -0400, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>No, it isn't, as it explicitly labled that paragraph as in a >>>>>>>>>>> specific technical context, begining
On 8/30/25 8:38 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way >>>>>>>>>>>> I am you lying c-nt.
On Fri, 29 Aug 2025 22:16:23 -0400, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>No, you are using the term "physical color" in the way that >>>>>>>>>>>>> your source says is a specialized meaning of the word, used >>>>>>>>>>>>> in only a specifiic case.
On 8/29/25 1:35 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Fri, 29 Aug 2025 10:21:26 -0400, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Clearly you don't understand what you are reading. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 8/28/25 2:18 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Wed, 27 Aug 2025 22:07:20 -0400, Richard Damon >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:And saying this is a niche meaning, and not the only >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one.
At a minimm, you need to repeat the restriction on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when that meaning applies, which you did not. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>My source is using the term "physical color" in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same way I am you lying c-nt.
When you source admits it isn't defining THE meaning of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a term, you can't use it to claim that it is THE meaning >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the term.
And even your source talks about photons having color, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not color having a single photon.
So, your usage is definitely a minority view, and thus >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> needed to have been clearly specified when you made you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim, and you should have used the proper word in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> first place.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way I am you lying c-nt.
/Flibble
A statement taken out of context is just a pretext. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Which is just a form of lying.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>> way I am you lying c-nt.
/Flibble
That fact that even in that case, it isn't the word normally >>>>>>>>>>>>> used,
just shows that your usage isn't actually its normal >>>>>>>>>>>>> definition and your trying to insist it is just is a lie. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
It seems you don't understand the concept of context. >>>>>>>>>>>>
/Flibble
"If color is solely the way physics describes it, the visible >>>>>>>>>>> spectrum of light waves,"
But the common use of the term color isn't that way, and >>>>>>>>>>> physics actually doesn't normally try to "define" color that >>>>>>>>>>> way, but described frequency bands in the visible spectrum has >>>>>>>>>>> having a color.
Part of your problem is that Encyclopedias are not a source of >>>>>>>>>>> the definition of a word, but are a recording of knowledge >>>>>>>>>>> about topics.
Note, even pysicist WILL talk about "white light", so dispite >>>>>>>>>>> that paragraph, consider white to be a color.
There is even the concept of "Pink Noise" using a color label >>>>>>>>>>> for sounds that is used in some physics descriptions. (Pink >>>>>>>>>>> noise has more lowers then highs, but isn't too tightly
limited in spectrum).
So, you are trying to foist your FALSE idea (per general >>>>>>>>>>> meaning of the word) by using a non-difinitive resource to >>>>>>>>>>> claim your support.
By that logic, you have to agree that Olcott is correct, as by >>>>>>>>>>> quoting others who have misused terminology, he can justify >>>>>>>>>>> his false claims.
Sorry, that isn't how language works.
Without that very specific qualifier (which as far as I know, >>>>>>>>>>> isn't even common in that specific field) your meaning is just >>>>>>>>>>> wrong.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I >>>>>>>>>> am you lying c-nt.
/Flibble
Welcome to that club.
As I have pointed out, you are using a bad source for the
definition of a word, and one that explicitly limited its usage >>>>>>>>> to a minority case.
All you are doing is proving you don't understand what you are >>>>>>>>> talking about.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am >>>>>>>> you lying c-nt.
/Flibble
Sorry, you are just proving your stupidity.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am
you lying c-nt.
/Flibble
actually answer about the problem pointed out.
If you like that comparison, just keep it up.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am you
lying c-nt.
/Flibble
Your source said this usage was in a very special condition, whicn
isn't the normal.
Thus, you are admitting that you are using the word in an special
condition, and not as generally used.
Refusing to adddress this just proves you are just the second coming
of Peter Olcott.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am you
lying c-nt.
/Flibble
In other words, your "support' actually shows that you are misusing the
word without the similar qualifier.
Just proving you are a second Peter Olcott, just a much of a
pathological liar.
THe fact that you just repeat your statement PROVES your stupidity, and
lack of a basis.
On Sun, 31 Aug 2025 17:09:09 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/31/25 4:46 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sun, 31 Aug 2025 16:05:13 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:But, as it seems you are too stupid to understand, conditions it with a
On 8/31/25 3:01 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sun, 31 Aug 2025 13:21:50 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:And you qre just being Peter Olcott.
On 8/31/25 8:26 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sun, 31 Aug 2025 07:12:57 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:And so you prove you are just a Peter Olcott, because you refuse to >>>>>> actually answer about the problem pointed out.
On 8/31/25 1:06 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sat, 30 Aug 2025 20:00:35 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:In other words, you can't understand English, and are just trying >>>>>>>> to be a Olcott and ignore your errors.
On 8/30/25 2:54 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sat, 30 Aug 2025 13:04:28 -0400, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>You are Olcotting, by just repeating your claim and ignoring the >>>>>>>>>> errors pointed out.
On 8/30/25 9:55 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sat, 30 Aug 2025 09:10:17 -0400, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>No, it isn't, as it explicitly labled that paragraph as in a >>>>>>>>>>>> specific technical context, begining
On 8/30/25 8:38 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way >>>>>>>>>>>>> I am you lying c-nt.
On Fri, 29 Aug 2025 22:16:23 -0400, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>No, you are using the term "physical color" in the way that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> your source says is a specialized meaning of the word, used >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in only a specifiic case.
On 8/29/25 1:35 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Fri, 29 Aug 2025 10:21:26 -0400, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Clearly you don't understand what you are reading. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 8/28/25 2:18 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Wed, 27 Aug 2025 22:07:20 -0400, Richard Damon >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:And saying this is a niche meaning, and not the only >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one.
At a minimm, you need to repeat the restriction on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when that meaning applies, which you did not. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>My source is using the term "physical color" in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same way I am you lying c-nt.
When you source admits it isn't defining THE meaning of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a term, you can't use it to claim that it is THE meaning >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the term.
And even your source talks about photons having color, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not color having a single photon.
So, your usage is definitely a minority view, and thus >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> needed to have been clearly specified when you made you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim, and you should have used the proper word in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> first place.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way I am you lying c-nt.
/Flibble
A statement taken out of context is just a pretext. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Which is just a form of lying.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way I am you lying c-nt.
/Flibble
That fact that even in that case, it isn't the word normally >>>>>>>>>>>>>> used,
just shows that your usage isn't actually its normal >>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition and your trying to insist it is just is a lie. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It seems you don't understand the concept of context. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
/Flibble
"If color is solely the way physics describes it, the visible >>>>>>>>>>>> spectrum of light waves,"
But the common use of the term color isn't that way, and >>>>>>>>>>>> physics actually doesn't normally try to "define" color that >>>>>>>>>>>> way, but described frequency bands in the visible spectrum has >>>>>>>>>>>> having a color.
Part of your problem is that Encyclopedias are not a source of >>>>>>>>>>>> the definition of a word, but are a recording of knowledge >>>>>>>>>>>> about topics.
Note, even pysicist WILL talk about "white light", so dispite >>>>>>>>>>>> that paragraph, consider white to be a color.
There is even the concept of "Pink Noise" using a color label >>>>>>>>>>>> for sounds that is used in some physics descriptions. (Pink >>>>>>>>>>>> noise has more lowers then highs, but isn't too tightly >>>>>>>>>>>> limited in spectrum).
So, you are trying to foist your FALSE idea (per general >>>>>>>>>>>> meaning of the word) by using a non-difinitive resource to >>>>>>>>>>>> claim your support.
By that logic, you have to agree that Olcott is correct, as by >>>>>>>>>>>> quoting others who have misused terminology, he can justify >>>>>>>>>>>> his false claims.
Sorry, that isn't how language works.
Without that very specific qualifier (which as far as I know, >>>>>>>>>>>> isn't even common in that specific field) your meaning is just >>>>>>>>>>>> wrong.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I >>>>>>>>>>> am you lying c-nt.
/Flibble
Welcome to that club.
As I have pointed out, you are using a bad source for the
definition of a word, and one that explicitly limited its usage >>>>>>>>>> to a minority case.
All you are doing is proving you don't understand what you are >>>>>>>>>> talking about.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am >>>>>>>>> you lying c-nt.
/Flibble
Sorry, you are just proving your stupidity.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am >>>>>>> you lying c-nt.
/Flibble
If you like that comparison, just keep it up.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am you >>>>> lying c-nt.
/Flibble
Your source said this usage was in a very special condition, whicn
isn't the normal.
Thus, you are admitting that you are using the word in an special
condition, and not as generally used.
Refusing to adddress this just proves you are just the second coming
of Peter Olcott.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am you
lying c-nt.
/Flibble
qualifier that points out that this is an unusual usage.
In other words, your "support' actually shows that you are misusing the
word without the similar qualifier.
Just proving you are a second Peter Olcott, just a much of a
pathological liar.
THe fact that you just repeat your statement PROVES your stupidity, and
lack of a basis.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am you
lying c-nt.
/Flibble
On 8/31/25 5:25 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am you
lying c-nt.
/Flibble
But, as it seems you are too stupid to understand, conditions it with a qualifier that points out that this is an unusual usage.
In other words, your "support' actually shows that you are misusing the
word without the similar qualifier.
Just proving you are a second Peter Olcott, just a much of a
pathological liar.
THe fact that you just repeat your statement PROVES your stupidity, and
lack of a basis. It seems you are out to utterly prove it.
On 8/31/25 5:25 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sun, 31 Aug 2025 17:09:09 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/31/25 4:46 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sun, 31 Aug 2025 16:05:13 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:But, as it seems you are too stupid to understand, conditions it with
On 8/31/25 3:01 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sun, 31 Aug 2025 13:21:50 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:And you qre just being Peter Olcott.
On 8/31/25 8:26 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sun, 31 Aug 2025 07:12:57 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:And so you prove you are just a Peter Olcott, because you refuse >>>>>>> to actually answer about the problem pointed out.
On 8/31/25 1:06 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sat, 30 Aug 2025 20:00:35 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:In other words, you can't understand English, and are just
On 8/30/25 2:54 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sat, 30 Aug 2025 13:04:28 -0400, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>You are Olcotting, by just repeating your claim and ignoring >>>>>>>>>>> the errors pointed out.
On 8/30/25 9:55 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sat, 30 Aug 2025 09:10:17 -0400, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>No, it isn't, as it explicitly labled that paragraph as in a >>>>>>>>>>>>> specific technical context, begining
On 8/30/25 8:38 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:My source is using the term "physical color" in the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>> way I am you lying c-nt.
On Fri, 29 Aug 2025 22:16:23 -0400, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>No, you are using the term "physical color" in the way >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that your source says is a specialized meaning of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> word, used in only a specifiic case.
On 8/29/25 1:35 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Fri, 29 Aug 2025 10:21:26 -0400, Richard Damon >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:Clearly you don't understand what you are reading. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 8/28/25 2:18 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Wed, 27 Aug 2025 22:07:20 -0400, Richard Damon >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:And saying this is a niche meaning, and not the only >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one.
At a minimm, you need to repeat the restriction on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when that meaning applies, which you did not. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>My source is using the term "physical color" in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same way I am you lying c-nt.
When you source admits it isn't defining THE meaning >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of a term, you can't use it to claim that it is THE >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning of the term.
And even your source talks about photons having color, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not color having a single photon.
So, your usage is definitely a minority view, and thus >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> needed to have been clearly specified when you made >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you claim, and you should have used the proper word in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the first place.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same way I am you lying c-nt.
/Flibble
A statement taken out of context is just a pretext. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Which is just a form of lying.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way I am you lying c-nt.
/Flibble
That fact that even in that case, it isn't the word >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> normally used,
just shows that your usage isn't actually its normal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition and your trying to insist it is just is a lie. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It seems you don't understand the concept of context. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
/Flibble
"If color is solely the way physics describes it, the >>>>>>>>>>>>> visible spectrum of light waves,"
But the common use of the term color isn't that way, and >>>>>>>>>>>>> physics actually doesn't normally try to "define" color that >>>>>>>>>>>>> way, but described frequency bands in the visible spectrum >>>>>>>>>>>>> has having a color.
Part of your problem is that Encyclopedias are not a source >>>>>>>>>>>>> of the definition of a word, but are a recording of
knowledge about topics.
Note, even pysicist WILL talk about "white light", so >>>>>>>>>>>>> dispite that paragraph, consider white to be a color. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
There is even the concept of "Pink Noise" using a color >>>>>>>>>>>>> label for sounds that is used in some physics descriptions. >>>>>>>>>>>>> (Pink noise has more lowers then highs, but isn't too >>>>>>>>>>>>> tightly limited in spectrum).
So, you are trying to foist your FALSE idea (per general >>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning of the word) by using a non-difinitive resource to >>>>>>>>>>>>> claim your support.
By that logic, you have to agree that Olcott is correct, as >>>>>>>>>>>>> by quoting others who have misused terminology, he can >>>>>>>>>>>>> justify his false claims.
Sorry, that isn't how language works.
Without that very specific qualifier (which as far as I >>>>>>>>>>>>> know, isn't even common in that specific field) your meaning >>>>>>>>>>>>> is just wrong.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way >>>>>>>>>>>> I am you lying c-nt.
/Flibble
Welcome to that club.
As I have pointed out, you are using a bad source for the >>>>>>>>>>> definition of a word, and one that explicitly limited its >>>>>>>>>>> usage to a minority case.
All you are doing is proving you don't understand what you are >>>>>>>>>>> talking about.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I >>>>>>>>>> am you lying c-nt.
/Flibble
trying to be a Olcott and ignore your errors.
Sorry, you are just proving your stupidity.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am >>>>>>>> you lying c-nt.
/Flibble
If you like that comparison, just keep it up.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am
you lying c-nt.
/Flibble
Your source said this usage was in a very special condition, whicn
isn't the normal.
Thus, you are admitting that you are using the word in an special
condition, and not as generally used.
Refusing to adddress this just proves you are just the second coming >>>>> of Peter Olcott.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am you
lying c-nt.
/Flibble
a qualifier that points out that this is an unusual usage.
In other words, your "support' actually shows that you are misusing
the word without the similar qualifier.
Just proving you are a second Peter Olcott, just a much of a
pathological liar.
THe fact that you just repeat your statement PROVES your stupidity,
and lack of a basis.
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am you
lying c-nt.
/Flibble
But, as it seems you are too stupid to understand, conditions it with a qualifier that points out that this is an unusual usage.
In other words, your "support' actually shows that you are misusing the
word without the similar qualifier.
Just proving you are a second Peter Olcott, just a much of a
pathological liar.
THe fact that you just repeat your statement PROVES your stupidity, and
lack of a basis. It seems you are out to utterly prove it.
Richard Damon <Richard@damon-family.org> wrote:
On 8/31/25 5:25 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
[ .... ]
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am you
lying c-nt.
/Flibble
But, as it seems you are too stupid to understand, conditions it with a
qualifier that points out that this is an unusual usage.
In other words, your "support' actually shows that you are misusing the
word without the similar qualifier.
Just proving you are a second Peter Olcott, just a much of a
pathological liar.
THe fact that you just repeat your statement PROVES your stupidity, and
lack of a basis. It seems you are out to utterly prove it.
Hey, both of you! This is not one of the better threads on this
newsgroup (hint).
On Sun, 31 Aug 2025 21:50:03 +0000, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Richard Damon <Richard@damon-family.org> wrote:
On 8/31/25 5:25 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
[ .... ]
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am you
lying c-nt.
/Flibble
But, as it seems you are too stupid to understand, conditions it with a
qualifier that points out that this is an unusual usage.
In other words, your "support' actually shows that you are misusing the
word without the similar qualifier.
Just proving you are a second Peter Olcott, just a much of a
pathological liar.
THe fact that you just repeat your statement PROVES your stupidity, and
lack of a basis. It seems you are out to utterly prove it.
Hey, both of you! This is not one of the better threads on this
newsgroup (hint).
Damon is determined to get the final word, but that is not going to happen this time. I am thinking of writing an auto-responder.
/Flibble
On 8/31/25 5:59 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sun, 31 Aug 2025 21:50:03 +0000, Alan Mackenzie wrote:I.E, you are admitting that you just want to get the final word, even if
Richard Damon <Richard@damon-family.org> wrote:
On 8/31/25 5:25 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
[ .... ]
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am
you lying c-nt.
/Flibble
But, as it seems you are too stupid to understand, conditions it with
a qualifier that points out that this is an unusual usage.
In other words, your "support' actually shows that you are misusing
the word without the similar qualifier.
Just proving you are a second Peter Olcott, just a much of a
pathological liar.
THe fact that you just repeat your statement PROVES your stupidity,
and lack of a basis. It seems you are out to utterly prove it.
Hey, both of you! This is not one of the better threads on this
newsgroup (hint).
Damon is determined to get the final word, but that is not going to
happen this time. I am thinking of writing an auto-responder.
/Flibble
you prove by just repeating your last statement that you don't have
anything to show that you are right.
In other words, you just admitted you are likely wrong.
On Sun, 31 Aug 2025 21:50:03 +0000, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Richard Damon <Richard@damon-family.org> wrote:
On 8/31/25 5:25 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
[ .... ]
My source is using the term "physical color" in the same way I am you
lying c-nt.
/Flibble
But, as it seems you are too stupid to understand, conditions it with a
qualifier that points out that this is an unusual usage.
In other words, your "support' actually shows that you are misusing the
word without the similar qualifier.
Just proving you are a second Peter Olcott, just a much of a
pathological liar.
THe fact that you just repeat your statement PROVES your stupidity, and
lack of a basis. It seems you are out to utterly prove it.
Hey, both of you! This is not one of the better threads on this
newsgroup (hint).
Damon is determined to get the final word, but that is not going to happen this time. I am thinking of writing an auto-responder.
/Flibble
----
meet ever shorter deadlines, known as "beat the clock"