Colo(u)r sense

[argus.]

> 
> There's lots of red herrings flying about, so let me attempt to clarify 
> the 'artificial colour' thing as I see it.
> 
> The patented 'mauve' is not a colour. It's a substance, an artificial
> dyestuff.  
> As with most things, when illuminated with white light it reflects more than 
> one wavelength.
> 
> The eye/brain perceives this particular combination of wavelengths as a 
> single purplish colour.  Of course, this resultant colour 'mauve' does have 
> an equivalent single-wavelength which exists in the normal visible spectrum.  

ACK!  I really disagree with this.  Folks, tell me the wavelength of
a mauve-ish color, please, cuz it sure as hell hasnt been in any
rainbows I know.  I dont mean purple/violet.  I mean that color that
is pinky-purple that some women paint their nails.

Wavelengths of visible light go from about 400 nanometers to 700 nanometers,
with red being at the 700 side.  

i guess i should take this off list.  im getting that weird intensity
of posting that means im obcessed.  :>

take care
susanargus



> The argument seems to be whether this equivalent colour is
> *naturally-occurring* 
> (other than as part of the solar rainbow),  eg in a plant, or mineral, or
> could 
> simply never have been perceived before the invention of 'mauve'.  I can't 
> see how this can be proved either way. 
> 
> If you want to get down the quantum level you can, no doubt, argue that 
> the electromagnetic spectrum is not continuous.  In other words, there are 
> only a finite number of possible Wavelengths in Nature (just as there are 
> a finite number of possible Velocities, or Masses).  That you or I might 
> somehow be able to 'fill in the gaps' with some interprative interpolation 
> is a slightly spooky thought.  And utter tosh, I know.
> 
> JL
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>  what's the frequency, kenneth?    [ - r.e.m. ]
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>