It's not an absence of colour
it's the colour that absorbs all incoming light as opposed to white things, which reflect all incoming light.

And anyway, you're so totally wrong, purple is massively overrated it's just cunts that read the observer colour magazine that like purple.
(Bazongaloid, Thu 8 Oct 2009, 14:30, 2 replies, latest was 16 years ago)

You may be right about the black thing

( Davros' Granddad a voice of calm reason in a world of spastics., Thu 8 Oct 2009, 14:33, Reply)

I resisting the urge to be pedantic here.

(PsychoChomp, Thu 8 Oct 2009, 14:43, Reply)

you forgot the 'm then

(Bazongaloid, Thu 8 Oct 2009, 14:46, Reply)

+ am

(wellgroomedwookiee is a filthy-minded hobgoblin, Thu 8 Oct 2009, 14:48, Reply)

Shit it.
Once again, being forced to do some work mid-reply makes me look like a mong.
(wellgroomedwookiee is a filthy-minded hobgoblin, Thu 8 Oct 2009, 14:49, Reply)

but I can't
IT'S NOT ALL LIGHT ITS VISIBLE LIGHT AND THE PERCEPTION OF COLOUR IS NOT JUST BASED ON THE SENSATION OF DIFFERENT WAVELENGTHS AND INTENSITY OF LIGHT IT HAS A PSYCHOLOGICAL COMPONENT AS CAN BE PROVEN WHEN LOOKING AT COAL IN BRIGHT SUNLIGHT AND CHALK IN LOW LIGHT, THE COAL WILL REFLECT MORE LIGHT THAN THE CHALK BUT YOU STILL SEE IT AS BLACKER BECAUSE ITS A MIXTURE OF A LEARNED RESPONSE AND CONTRAST.
(PsychoChomp, Thu 8 Oct 2009, 14:48, Reply)

I***********'m***********
such a dick sometimes.
(PsychoChomp, Thu 8 Oct 2009, 14:49, Reply)

Well,
the mechanisms for lightness and colour constancy aren't fully understood so they aren't necessarily a learned response.
Retinal ganglion cells, y'all.
( crackhouseceilidhband Fuck off back to Mumsnet, Thu 8 Oct 2009, 15:07, Reply)

Hmmmm.
I am dubious about this. It sounds a lot like one of those "how do you scientists explain THAT then, eh?" arguments that are clearly wrong but that require a lot of tedious physics to refute properly. I'm sure that black shiny things are still black and matt white things are still white, and your ability to use them as a mirror (or not) is unrelated to their actual colour.
(wellgroomedwookiee is a filthy-minded hobgoblin, Thu 8 Oct 2009, 15:20, Reply)

No, it's true
in that our visual system is able to somehow discount changes in light levels so that we perceive lightness and colour as remaining pretty stable and constant despite regular fluctuations in illumination (e.g. the sun coming out from behind a cloud).

This is a good thing - it allows us to see objects as objects rather than continually reassess them if we have to judge changes in their appearance. It's not straightforward adaptation - there's more to it than that - but the jury's still out on how it all works.
( crackhouseceilidhband Fuck off back to Mumsnet, Thu 8 Oct 2009, 15:26, Reply)

man
you talking like that gets me hot
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Thu 8 Oct 2009, 15:33, Reply)

I used my best conference presentation voice for that.

( crackhouseceilidhband Fuck off back to Mumsnet, Thu 8 Oct 2009, 15:35, Reply)

saucy

( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Thu 8 Oct 2009, 15:37, Reply)

I reckon, right,
that the absorption spectra will remain constant regardless of the level of light, and this is what gives us our perception of colour. And also, I still think colour and reflectivity are different - shape plays an important role, in that things that aren't perfectly flat won't seem as reflective even though the substance they are made of is exactly the same.
(wellgroomedwookiee is a filthy-minded hobgoblin, Thu 8 Oct 2009, 15:41, Reply)

I reckon
a shiny sphere that's as shiny as a shiny flat thing will look just as shiny.

Tell you what, let's set up an experiment. One that involves the risk of potential blindness, though we'll hide that from the ethics commitee. We can probably get away with a relatively small sample size since its a low level visual study but we can use a non-parametric test in addition to means analysis. I recommend a two-alternative forced choice procedure in conjunction with a staircase method to give us a threshold estimate of shininess. I also recommend poking particpants in the eye with a stick if they don't give me the results I want.
( crackhouseceilidhband Fuck off back to Mumsnet, Thu 8 Oct 2009, 15:51, Reply)

steady on
I'm not going to be able to get out from under my desk!
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Thu 8 Oct 2009, 15:53, Reply)

I have you down for the 9am slot.
Bring goggles.
( crackhouseceilidhband Fuck off back to Mumsnet, Thu 8 Oct 2009, 15:53, Reply)

*swoons*

( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Thu 8 Oct 2009, 15:54, Reply)

Hmmm, perhaps "smooth" instead of "flat".
One eye at a time, or should we make the study double-blind?

*ashames*
(wellgroomedwookiee is a filthy-minded hobgoblin, Thu 8 Oct 2009, 16:01, Reply)

BOOM BOOM!
I didn't see that coming.
( crackhouseceilidhband Fuck off back to Mumsnet, Thu 8 Oct 2009, 16:14, Reply)

Oh hush.
If I hadn't said it Vipros would have, and then he'd have been all smug about it.
(wellgroomedwookiee is a filthy-minded hobgoblin, Thu 8 Oct 2009, 16:32, Reply)

I wouldn't
I'm not a scientist, I'm an engineer. I don't know about experiments.
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Thu 8 Oct 2009, 16:47, Reply)