Sorry girls, but the colour pink doesn't exist

• Froglord wrote on 2012-03-15 05:38
  This is dumb.
  
  If light is reflected through a spectrum then if a second light were to be reciprocated onto the first spectrum, then pink would be possible.
• whocares8128 wrote on 2012-03-16 16:44

  Quote from Froglord;808582:

  This is dumb.
  
  If light is reflected through a spectrum then if a second light were to be reciprocated onto the first spectrum, then pink would be possible.

  
  
  Wow! You just made what the article itself described as a "theoretical impossibility" a possibility (in theory).
  :cheer:
  
  P.S. I agree on the dumb remark.
  
  P.P.S. I'm not clicking on that article link again, no matter what responses may follow in this thread!
  
  P.P.P.S. I must find a way to unclick links, to force web hosts to pay for the advertisements on their pages.
  :fail2:
• Joker wrote on 2012-03-16 17:08
  PFFFFfffffff LIES
  
  Do you know what pink is?
  [SPOILER="Spoiler"]Red 27, white 65.
  65 plus 27-- 92.
  Pink has four letters.
  92 divided by four.
  Twenty-Fucking-Three![/SPOILER]
  DERP lol
• TLCBonaparte wrote on 2012-03-20 15:28

  Quote from RicochetOrange;805419:

  No. It doesn't exist physically. It only exists mentally.

  
  
  
  What he's saying is that, our perception define our physical reality. What if what we touch, smell, see, hear actually are all wrong? So really all we have to go on is our own senses regardless of how true they are.
• Xemnas wrote on 2012-03-20 15:31

  Quote from TLCBonaparte;813526:

  What he's saying is that, our perception define our physical reality. What if what we touch, smell, see, hear actually are all wrong? So really all we have to go on is our own senses regardless of how true they are.

  
  That makes almost everything on earth 'fake' by that logic.
• whocares8128 wrote on 2012-03-20 16:18
  This just in...
  
  Reality, and consequently all existence, does not exist! Apparently, we only think they do (in our heads).
• Zeo wrote on 2012-03-20 16:39
  No offense but this is one of the biggest bullshits I've ever read... lol.
  
  Pink does exist. :l
  
  Pretty much every colors do. I can't believe they're wasting times on pointless stuffs when they could be using their time for more useful informations.
• Hannah's Lover wrote on 2012-03-20 20:12

  Quote from Zeo;813623:

  No offense but this is one of the biggest bullshits I've ever read... lol.
  
  Pink does exist. :l
  
  Pretty much every colors do. I can't believe they're wasting times on pointless stuffs when they could be using their time for more useful informations.

  
  /Technically/ it doesn't.
  But I agree
• Hannah's Lover wrote on 2012-03-20 20:13

  Quote from Zeo;813623:

  No offense but this is one of the biggest bullshits I've ever read... lol.
  
  Pink does exist. :l
  
  Pretty much every colors do. I can't believe they're wasting times on pointless stuffs when they could be using their time for more useful informations.

  
  /Technically/ it doesn't.
  But I agree
• Kueh wrote on 2012-03-20 20:34
  Wow, whoever wrote that should just quit science for the rest of their life.
  
  You most certainly CAN mix the wavelengths of purple and red.
  
  Here, I'll do it for you. To scale, this is what a pink wavelength would look like if you were to represent light as a wave.
  

  [Image: http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g206/whyrainfalls/pink.png]

  
  
  I'm not joking, if they don't even understand the additive property of waves, they should quit talking about science.
• whocares8128 wrote on 2012-03-20 21:17
  To put it simply...
  
  I believe all perceivable colors do exist. They are all made up of light from the visible spectrum (in varying amounts of each wavelength).
  
  Almost all colors are a blend of various wavelengths of light, e.g. sky blue is a mix of blue and white (which itself is a blend of the entire visible spectrum). Very few colors in nature exist as a single wavelength.
• Kueh wrote on 2012-03-20 21:21

  Quote from whocares8128;813993:

  Very few colors in nature exist as a single wavelength.

  
  
  You'd be surprised. It's not like sound, where pure waves have to be artificially generated.
  
  With things like filtering, fluorescence, and emission, pure wavelengths of light are pretty common.
• Rin wrote on 2012-03-20 21:26
  Did anybody read the rest of the article?
  
  

  It only appears pink because certain wavelengths of light are reflected while others are absorbed, quenched, by the pigments.
  
  Therefore Pink is a reflective colour, not a transmissive colour - you can see it because the brain translates light bouncing off objects.
  
  Robert Krulwich presenter of the scientific radio show Radiolab pointed out the conundrum this week describing it as a 'made-up colour'.
  
  However Jill Morton, professor at the University of Hawaii who has consulted for Xerox, Kodak and others to whom colour matters disagrees.
  
  She told popsci.com: 'Of course pink is a colour. But with that said, pink is indeed not part of the light spectrum. It’s an extra-spectral coluor, and it has to be mixed to generate it.
  
  'If you take a tube of red paint and add white to it, you’ll get pink. If you work with watercolours, take red paint and add a lot of water to it and put it on watercolour paper, that would be pink.
  
  'Technically it’s right that you can’t generate pink in the rainbow colours. But you can mix other colours in light to get pink. ... This is about interpreting the visual world.'
  
  [video=youtube;S9dqJRyk0YM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9dqJRyk0YM[/video]

  
  
  Then again, it's the Daily Mail.