No colour. It's transparent.
Really? Thibault says it's blue.
He's probably right and I'm probably wrong then.
Transparent, yet at the same time iridescent, mostly the color of getting your brain smashed with a lemon, that has been wrapped around a brick. I'm ready to start an argument with myself, if that is your requirement, milady.
Sophia and Zonkey say it's transparent. Bird says it's clear.
It's iridescent, not blue.
It merely seems blue, since the light scatters from the oxygen molecules against the white background. The water itself has no color properties as such.
I admit, that for the fourth time in my entire life, I have been wrong.
I am changing my answer here. Pure water is blue.
Is there such a thing as colorless? Is there such a thing that has no color?
Acetone here is pinkish.
I understand colorless, clear and transparent as synonyms.
Well I guess it fools me since it lets light pass trough it from a smooth surface both a yes on clear and transparent but you're right, transparent doesnt need to be clear.
There are unobserved quantum events, where the field hasn't collapsed yet, but that's the part of the truth I was referring to and Thibault's explanation is about the observed truth, which I accept. So, it's actually a bit like Schrödinger's cat.
We already have 4 different answers. I should have included the "other" option for good measure..
Heck, I might as well add my 2 cents worth. Water is red, white and blue....lol Of course that's when someone is drunker than a skunk. Good luck with your post. lol I'm calling it a night, had enough of this crazy place. lol
Crazy is right. Everyone wants to be so "smart". lol Goodnight
Smart? Nope. Everybody wants to dance like it was 1991.
CMYK, not RGB, love.
lol You're gonna have to spell it out, I'm not familiar with those letters. lol
Everything that zonk said.
Color is just an illusion, light waves in a certain length of the wave are picked up as a color by our eyes some materials capture a certain light wave making them appear the way they do.
Well, it's the same issue than in any quantum event. Something needs to be observed for it to exist. It's called "wavefront". Now, I do accept Thibault's point of view as a subjective truth. However, I still do maintain, that without observation, the color itself does not exist.
It seems like something that wasn't observed and studied doesnt need to exist because its existence means nothing until it's understood.
Sure, perceiving it is there and we dont choose whether to do so or not, understanding how it works however is a differnt story.
It definitely makes it more complicated, the more you learn the more you realize how much you have no clue about
And along with the sound of one hand clapping and what does water taste like...it's an old post.
More or less she proved her point, there was an argument even about something as simple as this.
My point was that this is an old question...it has been in the world for years...there is no point in arguing about a question like that...it's unsolvable.
Yes, but I'm new, and the point of the post is the "argument" part, which is true.
I don't have the time to monitor every post for the past 8 years as you obviously have, nor do I care to. But I'm sorry I've upset you so. with this "old post". Can you ever forgive me?
It depend on the type of light that illuminates it and the angle your eye catches it at.
That's what I've been saying, the term being "iridescent". The reason it appears blue against Thibault's white bucket is the same scattering of light that happens in our Atmosphere and makes the "clear sky" to appear blue. In reality, Sol (our sun) is white - not yellow. Although I wouldn't recommend any empiric experiments involving one's own eyes.
Fluorescent green with purple swirls..
Seems like a very silly thing to argue about but sadly you are right, I have seen it happen often.