Is 'Clear' a color?

[Chiboy]

No.

 

[Nik]

Originally posted by: Sabot
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.

For the love of...

Here, I'll make it easy on you.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/transparent

"Capable of transmitting light so that objects or images can be seen as if there were no intervening material. See Synonyms at clear."

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/clear

 

[DainBramaged]

Originally posted by: GuideBot

Originally posted by: Sabot
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.

For the love of...

Here, I'll make it easy on you.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/transparent

"Capable of transmitting light so that objects or images can be seen as if there were no intervening material. [/b]See Synonyms at clear.[/b]"

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/clear

JESUS H CHRIST...WHY DON'T YOU JUST SHUT YOUR PIE HOLE YOU STUPID N00B!!!

 

[MrDudeMan]

Originally posted by: Sabot

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 to visible light.

[nitpick]

it is easily "clear" to cosmic rays, gamma rays, hard and soft xrays, or anything else depending on the substance while it may be completely opaque to visible light, or vice versa.

[/nitpick]

 

[Nik]

Originally posted by: DainBramaged
JESUS H CHRIST...WHY DON'T YOU JUST SHUT YOUR PIE HOLE YOU STUPID N00B!!!

:laugh:

Hi Dain... :heart:

 

[ActuaryTm]

It's becoming clear that this thread is lacking color.

Wherefore art thou, AfricanAmericanSpammerAvatar?

 

[AbAbber2k]

I feel my IQ has dropped from simply clicking a thread titled "Is 'Clear' a color?"... let alone reading the whole first page.

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: Sabot
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

Glass is clear and it refracts light...

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: silverpig

Originally posted by: Sabot
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

Glass is clear and it refracts light...

heat is invisible and it refracts light

 

[VanTheMan]

Let's start a thread where we just come up with petty things to argue about that don't really matter. Oh wait, that's most of the Off Topic and P&N forums. I voted "No".