For that matter, I enjoy thinking about the reality of what we see -- a general flow of electromagnetism in all directions, waves/particles traveling so many light years, that do not become a representation of anything until eyes perceive them. It's a strange thought. On the other hand, that certain combinations of wavelengths create certain colors as we perceive them. To deny that would be to say that the sky isn't really blue. The objects in space send electromagnetic vibrations off that do coincide to our conventions about color, and they are objectively measurable wavelengths. By the way, I deeply respect all those posting on this discussion and I think it's wonderful to explore our ideas about color. Thanks for a nice, civil talk -- Joe --- On Wed, 12/2/09, Chuck Hards <chuck.hards@gmail.com> wrote: From: Chuck Hards <chuck.hards@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] M51 reprocessed To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Date: Wednesday, December 2, 2009, 6:35 PM I actually agree with David. Cameras do record what the general population sees. This doesn't affect the scientific assertation (I didn't invent this, folks, it's accepted fact) that the concept of "color" as we are discussing here, exists only in the human mind. We haven't been going back and forth at all. We actually are not really discussing the same thing. I am seeing a lot of resistance to the idea of color perception as a psychological phenomenon. I detect a desire by some to connect the colors we perceive in nature to some kind of absolute. It's not so. I have nothing more to add, really, if you choose not to believe it, it's no skin off my nose. I just offered an admittedly esoteric scientific tidbit that isn't often talked about. _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.slas.us/gallery2/main.php Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com