Is clear a color?

Post Reply New Topic

okay, I understand, but my point was that the light wavelengths that we percive as color are not coming from the sorce of what is clear, or the mirror or whatever, those wavelengths are from there sorce, just being reflected, in this case light boncing off the paper, in the wavelength most people would perceve as red, bouncing off the mirrored surface and into our eyes where they interpret the wavelength, phew, I am sure we are on the same page, but I will try to be way more scientific the next time and use all the words I cant spell or maybe I should write a book for my next post, as there is way more to it then that, and I dont want to confuse anyone by not making it all technicle. People would really understand me then

roadracer: Note that all colors of objects are the perception of light coming from said objects. A red paper is merely reflecting the red wavelengths of light that originated elsewhere. Just as the image of the paper in the mirror is the reflection of the light that came from the paper and that again came from some light source containing the red wavelengths somewhere else. Color is not technically a property of any object, but the mere interpretation of the lightwaves that eventually entered your eyes.

ugh, your doing it again, no offense, but this happens everytime I join in on a topic like this, the next poster feels the need to one up the previous poster, maybe they feel the need to try to look like they are the smartest person on the subject by trying to make everyone else look stupid, I dont know, but it always turns into this, it just keeps getting more technicle till there is nothing left to explain on the subject and there is a clear winner. I know I started it by replying to the other poster, but this is one reason why I really dont post in the Tech forum here anymore, as every single thing you post has to go under review, and you better use all the correct terms and every bit of science you can to explain it in the most tech form possible, or the next person will make you out to look like you are a idoit and dont know what your talking about. So the bunch of usual posters will be along shortly I am sure to see who is the supreme genius on the subject, trying to make the people who did not explain it in the most technicle of term look like a fool.
Okay, I am done with my rant now
Kenjuudo, that was not atack directed towards you or anyone, and I am not trying to be a a$$, but I am not sure people know they are doing this

Well, you did enter a debate on what color actually is or is defined. One can only explain that properly by being technical. I'm sorry if I stepped on any toes.

I never view myself as being a genius, but rather quite the opposite. I just have had this topic interest me for a good portion of my life because I'm colorblind...

In the same way, I never thought of you as being less intelligent or anything. Friends?

no problem then, sorry for being harsh

That's a interesting point -- like with colored filters/gels. People typically say those are 'clear,' but they don't transmit the color that's behind them. And also, diffuse screens -- people don't consider those clear even though they do transmit the color behind them. (I guess I just killed my own theory.) So maybe it's less about how much color and more about how much crud/diffusion is on the glass/whatever?

Maybe clear is more about being able to resolve images through something; "see-through." Or maybe that's "transparent." Erg I'm getting myself confused now.


What about a screen door? I guess it's debatable as to whether that's commonly considered "clear," but if it is, then it's clear but not refracting. Or a vacuum -- wouldn't that be clear but not refracting? (ok maybe that one is getting out there a bit)

Apple_in_my_Eye: If light is passing through the boundaries of two media, the light is said to refract. Even if the refraction doesn't alter the direction of the light. You just have a close to perfect refraction.

Clear isn't a color no more than opaque is a color.

When an object is clear it means that the light is passing through it largely unaffected. Such object will reflect a little and refract a little, sure, but most of the light will make it through.

Glass is 'clear'. It is not a color.

It's already been posted: a color is merely different wavelength of light within the visible spectrum: from red to blue.

An object is hit by "white light" from a light source (light with a jumble of all different wavelengths present in it), the object absorbs photons of some wavelengths and reflects photons of other wavelengths. The reflected ones are perceived as color.

So a "clear" object would merely reveal the color of objects located behind it!

A mirror isn't clear. Mirror reflects most of the light hitting its surface so the light returns back and we see that as a reflection.

Edit: holy bad spelling Batman. I'm at work and had to type fast. I'm a terrible typist.

I dunno, that's not my understanding of what refraction means. It's normally about how the permitivity and permiability of the medium affect the speed of light such that the shortest-time path through an interface (of dissimilar (epsilon & mu) materials) is not a straight line. Wikipedia actually has good definition:


The problem is the word "medium;" it would be better called "optical medium" for light since there are 'media' that do not effect the speed of light and thus don't cause refraction. I was having some fun with how the colloquial understanding of 'medium' doesn't always correspond with the meaning of "optical medium," with my screen door example.

Apple_in_my_Eye: Yes, you are right. Refraction is technically the change in direction, but when light doesn't change direction you still don't have to change the formula. The change just happens to yield 0. That was what I meant.

EDIT: You'll have no refraction, or the equivalent: 0 refraction.

"clear" means free of distortion and so it can not be conceived as a color unless it is impure.
"clarity" is an absence of any interference of transmission of energetic data, and allows for an unaltered transmission of raw stimulus from source to sense.

so it is a viewing characteristic and not an objective tangible thing.

perfect clarity is in a vacuum of influence.

a pressure vacuum still contains particles that are in transit through it like cosmic radiation and neutrino's (which are part of the cosmic shower).
perfect clarity is in a universal vacuum and that does not exist.

so i define "clarity" as the state of a medium of transmission that introduces no distortion that interferes with my sensory input.

therefore "clear" (being the adjective of the noun "clarity") has no objective entity and so is not a "color" (in my "baboonlian" logic).

I think that's cheating - either you define any wavelength as a colour, and then ultraviolet and infrared are colours too, or else you define colour as a type of sensory impression, and then pink and red are two different colours, even though they are the same wavelength. I'd wager that's the definition most people think of when they use the word "colour".

I think of colours more from the perspective of a fashion designer - thus gold or silver or fawn (which is really a mixture of different wavelengths, just like white or grey) is a colour. And who's to say that clear/transparent couldn't be the next fashionable colour for coats and ties and handbags? I've already seen spectacles with clear frames.

Ok sure, though this does get down to interpretation; "a screen door isn't a refractive interface, so no refraction," and "it is, but results in a null (so to speak) refraction."

Colour is a property of what light waves are absorbed/reflected. Also there are different things going on like radiousity and luminosity. Transparency means there isn't much diffuse reflection and light can pass through. It will reflect some colour from the surface and internally, and there is direct reflection that will be visible a certain angles. This is very much determined by the material. So you can't divorce colour from the object. Of course light that the object around it makes a difference.

I think an argument can be made for "clear" being a property of any given colour; a spectrum with simple peaks and troughs could be called "clear" (say, pure white light, or a sodium lamp), a spectrum with peaks and troughs all over the place could be called "unclear".

Sure, that sounds reasonable. I think I was arguing based on the linguistic definition of "color". Ie. that "clear" isn't a part of the set "colors".