Well if we want to get technical, both of us are right/wrong. One theory states that black is the absence of color and white is all the colors combined. Another theory states the complete opposite. Black is the absence of light and therefor, not a color. That's what I've always believed.
3
·
Edited 10 years ago
deleted
· 10 years ago
Dark is the absence of light, Black isn't.
If you don't use any colours on something, the light reflected would be pure white, not black.
But, if you combine all colours in one, what you get is black.
Okay I agree darkness isn't the same as black, but that wasn't what we were talking about so I didn't care to go into it. Anyway, if you want to talk about the visible spectrum, white reflects light and is a presence of all colors, but black absorbs light and is an absence of color. Black can be defined as the visual impression experienced when no visible light reaches the eye.
1
deleted
· 10 years ago
I think you are not getting my point there. When lights reflects on something with "no color" (or as close as it can get), the result of it, what you see it's white light.
Also, grab all your colours or whatever and paint with them, one ok top of each other. You will see the result gets closer and closer to black.
The light thing was an argument where i can state the white colour as "something", since you can't combine colours to obtain white.
Well doesn't it depend in what way you're looking at color? Like if you mix all kinda of paint of course it's going to go towards black. But if you talk about light. Like in movies and things they make white light by mixing colors.
First off black is technically not a color if you speak of light, but is your talking as in art. Color really is much like time in a way. It technically exist, but only because we say it does. For example if we were color blind to green (not a creative color) their would technically be no color green. So the concept of color itself is pretty much a fallacy.
Were you talking to me mrrsparklez? That was meant as a rhetorical question. This one has no innocence but I appreciate you being gentle for my perceived first time.
In the fourth picture, the original poster didn't know that there is no such thing as "non-GMO" corn. Corn was originally a wheat-like grass native to the Americas until it was domesticated by the pre-Columbian Native Americans, after countless generations it changed from a wheat to the corn we know today, this explains why corn is almost completely unable to reproduce on it's own and is only found near human settlements. What also made this post funny was the commenter who assumed squirrels could read due to the taller, more appealing, husked corn that was further consumed than the other because it was "non GMO".
If you don't use any colours on something, the light reflected would be pure white, not black.
But, if you combine all colours in one, what you get is black.
Also, grab all your colours or whatever and paint with them, one ok top of each other. You will see the result gets closer and closer to black.
The light thing was an argument where i can state the white colour as "something", since you can't combine colours to obtain white.
I guess it's natural selection
The grandpa in the hospital one, while sad, is hilarious lol