Is 'Clear' a color?

[Duddy]

Just curious...

 

[Nik]

No, it's a lack of color.

 

[imported_Ned Flanders]

Is red a colour?....think about it.

 

[UnatcoAgent]

ugh, no it's not

nor is it a lack of colour

more to the point it's the lacking of a substance that causes the refraction of light

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Only a complete idiot would vote yes.

 

[Quasmo]

are we talking addative color or subtractive color?

 

[eits]

it's not a color unless specified.... for example, "clear blue" or "clear yellow."

clear by itself is not a color... it's the lack of opacity (as opposed to the lack of color).

 

[Duddy]

Think about it.

You starring at 3 cars. 1 has a black tint, 1 has a silver tint, and the other does not have tint.

In your head, you would say; the colors are black, silver and clear.

You wouldn't say; black, silver and lacking substance to reflect light. 😛

 

[Quasmo]

Originally posted by: Duddy
Think about it.

You starring at 3 cars. 1 has a black tint, 1 has a silver tent, and the other does not have tent.

In your head, you would say; the colors are black, silver and clear.

You wouldn't say; black, silver and lacking substance to reflect light. 😛

tint.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Originally posted by: Duddy
Think about it.

You starring at 3 cars. 1 has a black tint, 1 has a silver tent, and the other does not have tent.

In your head, you would say; the colors are black, silver and clear.

You wouldn't say; black, silver and lacking substance to reflect light. 😛

Is the third car made out of glass or something? 😕

 

[Nik]

Originally posted by: Sabot
it's the lacking of a substance that causes the refraction of light

Right. We call that substance "color" in which case clear would be the lack of color.

 

[Duddy]

Originally posted by: HamburgerBoy

Originally posted by: Duddy
Think about it.

You starring at 3 cars. 1 has a black tint, 1 has a silver tent, and the other does not have tent.

In your head, you would say; the colors are black, silver and clear.

You wouldn't say; black, silver and lacking substance to reflect light. 😛

Is the third car made out of glass or something? 😕

I'm talking about the glass on the cars. Not the paint.

 

[Nik]

Originally posted by: Duddy
Think about it.

You starring at 3 cars. 1 has a black tint, 1 has a silver tint, and the other does not have tint.

In your head, you would say; the colors are black, silver and clear.

You wouldn't say; black, silver and lacking substance to reflect light. 😛

A clear car would be, like, glass or something. 😕 I've never seen a "clear" car before -and don't give me that crap about clearcoats. What you SEE is the color reflecting through the clear coats so you're not actually seeing the clear coat 😛

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: Duddy
Think about it.

You starring at 3 cars. 1 has a black tint, 1 has a silver tint, and the other does not have tint.

In your head, you would say; the colors are black, silver and clear.

You wouldn't say; black, silver and lacking substance to reflect light. 😛

wtf are you talking about? clear tint? are you talking about windows? cuz, if so, "clear tint" to the non-moron is called "no tint."

 

[Nik]

Originally posted by: eits
"clear tint" to the non-moron is called "no tint."

lmfao

 

[neutralizer]

Clear = colorless

 

[Duddy]

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: Duddy
Think about it.

You starring at 3 cars. 1 has a black tint, 1 has a silver tint, and the other does not have tint.

In your head, you would say; the colors are black, silver and clear.

You wouldn't say; black, silver and lacking substance to reflect light. 😛

wtf are you talking about? clear tint? are you talking about windows? cuz, if so, "clear tint" to the non-moron is called "no tint."

Basically, I'm trying to see if people ever consider (in their own heads) that clear is a color.

Like, someone asks, "What color is that glass?"

I usually say clear. That would mean that I called clear a color.


I'm bored.

 

[DainBramaged]

Originally posted by: HamburgerBoy
Only a complete idiot would vote yes.

😱



j/k

 

[UnatcoAgent]

Originally posted by: GuideBot

Originally posted by: Sabot
it's the lacking of a substance that causes the refraction of light

Right. We call that substance "color" in which case clear would be the lack of color.

Wrong. We don't call that substance "colour" the substance is called by whatever it's name is. Colour is the wavelength of light that is reflected / refracted by a substance, such as a leaf which reflects green light. If the leaf was clear, it wouldn't be lacking "green" it would be lacking the substance within the leaf that reflects colour.

 

[Nik]

Originally posted by: Duddy

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: Duddy
Think about it.

You starring at 3 cars. 1 has a black tint, 1 has a silver tint, and the other does not have tint.

In your head, you would say; the colors are black, silver and clear.

You wouldn't say; black, silver and lacking substance to reflect light. 😛

wtf are you talking about? clear tint? are you talking about windows? cuz, if so, "clear tint" to the non-moron is called "no tint."

Basically, I'm trying to see if people ever consider (in their own heads) that clear is a color.

Like, someone asks, "What color is that glass?"

I usually say clear. That would mean that I called clear a color.


I'm bored.

What peabrain asks what color glass is? If it's stained glass or something, then how dumb do you have to be not to know what color it's been stained? If it's just regular clear glass, who in their right mind would ask what color it is?? 😕 😛

 

[Duddy]

Originally posted by: Sabot

Originally posted by: GuideBot

Originally posted by: Sabot
it's the lacking of a substance that causes the refraction of light

Right. We call that substance "color" in which case clear would be the lack of color.

Wrong. We don't call that substance "colour" the substance is called by whatever it's name is. Colour is the wavelength of light that is reflected / refracted by a substance, such as a leaf which reflects green light. If the leaf was clear, it wouldn't be lacking "green" it would be lacking the substance within the leaf that reflects colour.

Sweet!

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: Duddy

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: Duddy
Think about it.

You starring at 3 cars. 1 has a black tint, 1 has a silver tint, and the other does not have tint.

In your head, you would say; the colors are black, silver and clear.

You wouldn't say; black, silver and lacking substance to reflect light. 😛

wtf are you talking about? clear tint? are you talking about windows? cuz, if so, "clear tint" to the non-moron is called "no tint."

Basically, I'm trying to see if people ever consider (in their own heads) that clear is a color.

Like, someone asks, "What color is that glass?"

I usually say clear. That would mean that I called clear a color.


I'm bored.

who in the fvck asks "what color is that glass" unless there's a color in the glass?

if there was blue glass and someone asked something dumb like "what color is that glass," i'd say "the glass is blue."


if there was yellow glass and someone asked something dumb like "what color is that glass," i'd say "the glass is yellow."


if there was just regular glass and someone asked something dumb like "what color is that glass," i'd say "there's no color, you fvcking idiot... quit asking dumb questions."

 

[So]

No.

What color is (outside of L.A. 😛) air?

 

[Nik]

Originally posted by: Sabot

Originally posted by: GuideBot

Originally posted by: Sabot
it's the lacking of a substance that causes the refraction of light

Right. We call that substance "color" in which case clear would be the lack of color.

Wrong. We don't call that substance "colour" the substance is called by whatever it's name is. Colour is the wavelength of light that is reflected / refracted by a substance, such as a leaf which reflects green light. If the leaf was clear, it wouldn't be lacking "green" it would be lacking the substance within the leaf that reflects colour.

Sigh. You're splitting hairs.

Clear is simply a lack of color. Saying "it's clear" is much easier than saying "that item lacks all substances that reflect colors of light within the spectrum that are visible to the human eye."

You simply say it's "clear" because it has a lack of color. It's not that complicated, really.

 

[UnatcoAgent]

Originally posted by: GuideBot

Originally posted by: Sabot

Originally posted by: GuideBot

Originally posted by: Sabot
it's the lacking of a substance that causes the refraction of light

Right. We call that substance "color" in which case clear would be the lack of color.

Wrong. We don't call that substance "colour" the substance is called by whatever it's name is. Colour is the wavelength of light that is reflected / refracted by a substance, such as a leaf which reflects green light. If the leaf was clear, it wouldn't be lacking "green" it would be lacking the substance within the leaf that reflects colour.

Sigh. You're splitting hairs.

Clear is simply a lack of color. Saying "it's clear" is much easier than saying "that item lacks all substances that reflect colors of light within the spectrum that are visible to the human eye."

You simply say it's "clear" because it has a lack of color. It's not that complicated, really.

I'm not splitting hairs, I made the correct statement and you screwed it up. So I corrected you.

edit - I wouldn't even say it's clear because of a lack of colour, I would simply say it's transparent.