Black is not a colour but a shade.Snowflake Royal wrote:I didn't realise, because I'm colour blind.leon wrote:Blacks not a colour Ian and you know it.Snowflake Royal wrote: I'm colour blind.
Black is not a colour but a shade.Snowflake Royal wrote:I didn't realise, because I'm colour blind.leon wrote:Blacks not a colour Ian and you know it.Snowflake Royal wrote: I'm colour blind.
I think, technically, black is all colours.The Enfield Royal71 wrote:Black is not a colour but a shade.Snowflake Royal wrote:I didn't realise, because I'm colour blind.leon wrote: Blacks not a colour Ian and you know it.
Can't believe I have to do this. Black is the absence of colour, where all wavelengths are absorbed. White is all wavelengths reflected, so all colours.NotARacist wrote:I think, technically, black is all colours.The Enfield Royal71 wrote:Black is not a colour but a shade.Snowflake Royal wrote: I didn't realise, because I'm colour blind.
Wait. You sure? I thought black absorbs all colours without reflecting them back. Hence it is all colours. Whereas white reflects all colours making it the absence of colour.Snowflake Royal wrote:Can't believe I have to do this. Black is the absence of colour, where all wavelengths are absorbed. White is all wavelengths reflected, so all colours.NotARacist wrote:I think, technically, black is all colours.The Enfield Royal71 wrote:
Black is not a colour but a shade.
Black is a shade.... oxf*rd me.
Right description, wrong conclusion. Googling 'dark side of the moon album cover' may help.NotARacist wrote:Wait. You sure? I thought black absorbs all colours without reflecting them back. Hence it is all colours. Whereas white reflects all colours making it the absence of colour.Snowflake Royal wrote:Can't believe I have to do this. Black is the absence of colour, where all wavelengths are absorbed. White is all wavelengths reflected, so all colours.NotARacist wrote: I think, technically, black is all colours.
Black is a shade.... oxf*rd me.
Snowflake Royal wrote:Can't believe I have to do this. Black is the absence of colour, where all wavelengths are absorbed. White is all wavelengths reflected, so all colours.NotARacist wrote:I think, technically, black is all colours.The Enfield Royal71 wrote:
Black is not a colour but a shade.
Black is a shade.... oxf*rd me.
Darn. Never was good at physics. I assume this is physics. Somehow.Snowflake Royal wrote:Right description, wrong conclusion. Googling 'dark side of the moon album cover' may help.NotARacist wrote:Wait. You sure? I thought black absorbs all colours without reflecting them back. Hence it is all colours. Whereas white reflects all colours making it the absence of colour.Snowflake Royal wrote: Can't believe I have to do this. Black is the absence of colour, where all wavelengths are absorbed. White is all wavelengths reflected, so all colours.
Black is a shade.... oxf*rd me.
Yep. I won't embarrass myself by trying to explain what makes red or blue etc in physics of light absorption terms.NotARacist wrote:Darn. Never was good at physics. I assume this is physics. Somehow.Snowflake Royal wrote:Right description, wrong conclusion. Googling 'dark side of the moon album cover' may help.NotARacist wrote: Wait. You sure? I thought black absorbs all colours without reflecting them back. Hence it is all colours. Whereas white reflects all colours making it the absence of colour.
Snowflake Royal wrote:Right description, wrong conclusion. Googling 'dark side of the moon album cover' may help.NotARacist wrote:Wait. You sure? I thought black absorbs all colours without reflecting them back. Hence it is all colours. Whereas white reflects all colours making it the absence of colour.Snowflake Royal wrote: Can't believe I have to do this. Black is the absence of colour, where all wavelengths are absorbed. White is all wavelengths reflected, so all colours.
Black is a shade.... oxf*rd me.
Honestly that just confuses me more. Like I have a small understanding of light refraction but I was thinking more along the lines of mixing paint. You cant mix all the colours together and get white.Sutekh wrote:Snowflake Royal wrote:Right description, wrong conclusion. Googling 'dark side of the moon album cover' may help.NotARacist wrote: Wait. You sure? I thought black absorbs all colours without reflecting them back. Hence it is all colours. Whereas white reflects all colours making it the absence of colour.
Phew.Snowflake Royal wrote:At least one person got that you were taking the piss.2 world wars, 1 world cup wrote:Argh...
I'm not going to take this groundhog day 'joke' too far or I'll end up ruining the thread, which to be I do even when I'm trying to be serious (!).
Someone a few pages back mentioned groundhog day so I copied an pasted. I've never heard of the guy, have no idea what the original poster meant by Aluko 2.0 either. No-one can be as big a flop as Aluko was surely.
Yes.2 world wars, 1 world cup wrote:Will everyone stop being so damned racist. Apart from notaracist, because he can't be.
I had to recheck, but this is the Joao who scored in a 10 man team against us. Clearly can't be shit.
Now we've signed him, do you think we are able to appeal and have that goal awarded to us retrospectively now that he's a Reading player?
Thanks.WoodleyRoyal wrote:Yes.2 world wars, 1 world cup wrote:Will everyone stop being so damned racist. Apart from notaracist, because he can't be.
I had to recheck, but this is the Joao who scored in a 10 man team against us. Clearly can't be shit.
Now we've signed him, do you think we are able to appeal and have that goal awarded to us retrospectively now that he's a Reading player?
Thank you.2 world wars, 1 world cup wrote:Will everyone stop being so damned racist. Apart from notaracist, because he can't be.
I had to recheck, but this is the Joao who scored in a 10 man team against us. Clearly can't be shit.
Now we've signed him, do you think we are able to appeal and have that goal awarded to us retrospectively now that he's a Reading player?
Maybe I deserve a whoosh for that one then. No offence intended to 2WW,1WC.Snowflake Royal wrote:At least one person got that you were taking the piss.2 world wars, 1 world cup wrote:Argh...
I'm not going to take this groundhog day 'joke' too far or I'll end up ruining the thread, which to be I do even when I'm trying to be serious (!).
Someone a few pages back mentioned groundhog day so I copied an pasted. I've never heard of the guy, have no idea what the original poster meant by Aluko 2.0 either. No-one can be as big a flop as Aluko was surely.
He will figure in the league goal scorer charts level with Meite, both listed as Reading players, despite never having scored for us and all his goals this season being against us2 world wars, 1 world cup wrote:Will everyone stop being so damned racist. Apart from notaracist, because he can't be.
I had to recheck, but this is the Joao who scored in a 10 man team against us. Clearly can't be shit.
Now we've signed him, do you think we are able to appeal and have that goal awarded to us retrospectively now that he's a Reading player?
You must have a terrible memory - everyone knew this2 world wars, 1 world cup wrote: I had to recheck, but this is the Joao who scored in a 10 man team against us.
Users browsing this forum: Amazon [Bot], Baidu [Spider], Bing [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], Royality creeps In, tidus_mi2 and 85 guests