There's no purple light 

It does exist outside your brain. It exists in my brain, which I know for a fact isn’t inside your brain.

@@felipevasconcelos6736 🤯

Whatever purple is ugly color anyways so happy 😁 hahahahnanababan

Purple has also changed throughout history as far as the hues included in that color range; nowadays, when people say “purple”, they usually mean violet or indigo. Purple, classically speaking, is akin to the color of congealed blood, or of porphyry stone. To the average person today, they’d think that’s maroon or burgundy.

@@felipevasconcelos6736 Assuming that we aren't all just part of CyberianFaux's brain. No way she can know for sure. ;)

Rainmaker519 red is in your profile picture, did you notice this

are you sure it's not a lack of green?

Fishotic yea it's protanism, red is there but it's weaker. I can see strong red but no purple really.

F

4head

volkerswille I asked my bio teacher this back in high school, my question was never really answered until now lol

In my language purple and violet means the same, so I'm still confused.

Seedzification in this video, violet is considered to be bluer than purple

@@gonzalezm244 But it still doesn't explain why violet looks purplish

@@DANGJOS Your long wavelength (red) receptor has a small peak in the shortest visible wavelengths and your medium wavelength (green) receptor has a dip: techmind.org/colour/spectra.html

Totally. So clearly shown.

The sound effects were lit

Friend #2: He didn't ask you to pass the purple light...

@@42mateos what we see as we look to a crayon is the light coming from it

Yeah, he still asked for the purple crayon and that has meaning. Language is by consensus. Moreover, the concept of purple was explained in the video. It is a real color despite not having a single corresponding wavelength.

@@42mateos Right. Just as there is no brown (single-frequency) light. They are both "composites".

just pass me the blue and red please .. and gtfo

it just never came up.

I have a feeling he played lots of pinball, actually

I have extra sharp cones and I see purple in a rainbow in the sky..

Now I want a purple laser

@@bapanada9446 Doable if you're willing to have two lasers outputting together (not dissimilar to how LCD monitors produce purple using blue and red).

@@bapanada9446 You could, in theory, have a violet LASER.

@@buddyclem7328 I saw a violet laser once. It was really weird cuz you couldn't focus on the beam; kinda like staring at a black light.

@@NightHawk71000 That sounds even stranger than I imagined! I want to see one.

it's not really about light in itself though, it's about how our brain perceives light, it's pretty understandable that you were never tought it in 6 years of physics, this is biology.

Maybe it's because they didn't teach about light waves for 6 years?

+RonuPlays 6 years of physics, you say? Sorry to break it to you, bro, but 5 years of elementary school science classes and 1 year of middle school science doesn't count.

I learned about all this in an astronomy class

Probably should have taken 6 years of optics.

o0Avalon0o its expensive software probly

marshall branin k thanks for that

I was confused why this only has 6 likes until I saw it was posted 13 hours ago lol This is really cool

@@TheOtherOne7isBlueMaid glad you enjoyed it :)

That's awesome to know! How about if you put on a pair of 3D glasses? Aren't they polarized in different directions?

@@bobcarn yes! Those should work too

The receptor for light and dark is not a colour receptor. There are rod cells and cone cells. Cone cells detect light. Rods tell us if it's dark or bright. Colours on the colour wheel are all the same brightness. They're just different hues.

Evolution or design?

It's not more diverse, than it really is. You got one extra color: a purple. What you've lost? Ability to see a real yellow and many other colors. I mean you can't tell the difference between yellow and mixture of red and green. What you see is a mixture of red and green, and you have never seen a yellow! You have never seen many more colors.

@@jarlfenrir how can you know if you can't see it?

@@Zellonous W can't see many things, but we know about them because of science.

@@jarlfenrir certainly, but we're talking about "real yellow". What makes real yellow even yellow if you can't see it? I can see yellow. If I can't see real yellow how is that more real than the yellow I can see? Even if we made something that could see it. How would it show it to us?

O.O

Yes, in fact, they are. That is why they have different names.

Yes

It also depends on the atmosphere of the planet you view the star from.

i think he was trying to showing yellow in the middle.

@@themexis there was no yellow

@@flamixflame2685 There was, but he said that his flashlights were shitty so they didn't work as well as they should. If you look closely where the two lights cross each other you can see a faint greenish-yellow light.

Because black is a lack of light. For that matter, there is no "cold" either. It's just a lack of warmth. Same thing applies almost everywhere.

Cham But we defined „cold“ to be the lack of heat.

@@MelvinGundlach EXACTLY LMAO. Saying that "cold is not cold, but lack of heat" is the same of saying "cold is not cold but it is cold"

There's no heavy light, because heavy is not light, but lack of heaviness, but it's light

There's no lettuce light.

them: makes actually very accurate and well argued point you: cant admit being wrong about something

@@lt3880 Them: Decides to nonsensically decide that indigo & violet aren't shades of purple, even though they're both called purple by literally every person on the planet

@@lt3880 The title is definitely clickbait. Or demonstrates ignorance of what color actually is. Color is by definition a perception, *not* a physical property of light. Technically, neither objects *nor* light have color. Even Sir Isaac Newton already knew this and wrote "Indeed rays [of light], properly expressed, are not coloured. In them there is nothing else than a certain power or disposition to stir up a sensation of this or that colour." On the physical side, you have reflection or emission spectra, but not color. Colors are a perception, created by the brain in response to those spectra hitting the retinas, and therefore are subjective and depend on context. Meaning that physically identical spectra can be perceived as different colors. There are many optical "illusions" that demonstrate this, such as the checker shadow illusion, or that infamous black/blue white/gold dress. And conversely, different physical spectra can be perceived as the same color. Yellow is a simple example for that (spectral i.e. single wavelength yellow vs. yellow made from red + green - physically different, but perceptually identical, and therefore the same color). To say that "there is no purple light" is technically correct, but makes it sound extraordinary, although it isn't, because "there is no red light" either. Because technically, light is colorless. Colloquially, it's of course fine to talk about materials and light as if color were an inherent property of them, because that makes life simpler. A more accurate way to rephrase the video title would be "purple (magenta) isn't a spectral color (i.e. cannot be evoked with a single wavelength of light)".

Colorblindness is just like having two types of photoreceptor cells rather than three. In the case of red-green colorblindness (deuteranopia) there would be one that is most sensitive around yellow and one that is most sensitive around blue.

Why are you sad? You never saw purple in the first place so you don't even know what your missing.

Agreed. Purple is just a reddish shade of blue, not worth getting excited over.

No matter how you look at it, everyone is colorblind. The electromagnetic spectrum is very big and visible light is only a tiny sliver of it.

Point out a missinformation pls

Do you know where I can find a scientific source for this subject?

You mean violet? It is not purple

@@svankensen And yet, violet is purple in color, and purple is violet in color, and both are found at 380 - 420 nm wavelength of the spectrum... Of course pedantically semantic videos like this one try to insert the limitations of pigments into the visual spectrum, and they are not the same, and that is where the video and you are wrong.

@@nobodyuknow2490 More information about the difference between violet and purple: jakubmarian.com/difference-between-violet-and-purple/

Yeah, he's wrong. There is no PINK light. (magenta)

@@ntdscherer From your own link: "Purple and violet look similar only to humans To us, humans, purple looks like a more saturated shade of violet[...]" Ok, show me the species that isn't human but can conceptualize and discuss the finer points of purple vs. violet, and we will then divest Purple from Violet... Until then, it's semantics and 380-420nm wave length light is PURPLE, the video is wrong, and it's nothing but splitting hairs of semantics to try and suggest that "der iz no such thing!" when it is empirically evident that there is.

the yellow is the light mixing in the middle you may have red green color blindness legit

@@thunderborn3231 It's faint though. Noticeable, but barely.

thank God I am not the only one - and I am not colourblind!

You guys just aren't used to isolating what you see. The yellow is there. Here, let me help you isolate your vision --> gfycat.com/fluidunlawfulatlasmoth

your eyes are probably ok (but don't quote me on that). he was talking about the mix of green and red where cones intersect. it's hard to call that "yellow", it's more like greenish-redish blob of something

Yes and no... it's complicated. A color-blind person usually has a deficiency where one cone is weaker than it should be making the other two receptors pick up their signals stronger. But it really depends on the type of color-blindness and can even differ on the individual. Take for instance a Red-Green color-blind person... if their "red" cone is deficient then the blue and green cones will be more pronounced. To that individual the colors in the purple/magenta range will seem more blue and less red and the violet range can look totally like blue (think of it like a shift or squish towards blue). This is because the red cone isn't as strong as it should be. Likewise on the red-green side of things colors in the yellow range might look more green and be confusing. One of the common tests for Red-Green colorblindness is red-on-brown or brown-on-red pattern detection. But like I said there are many different types of color-blindness and even differences between each category so it is just how I see the world being red-green colorblind (most common type among men).

I'd give a simpler answer than Darkmethods: yes. That's exactly why colorblind people see two colors the same. Eg when a person is hit with a yellow light, a red and green cones are giving a signal. But when the red cone is not working, one gets output only from green one - exactly the same situation as he'd be hit with a green light. So a person blind for red, wouldn't be able to tell a difference between green and yellow.

Probably.

Oh gee oh man I wanted to be first

Ah jeez, oh no, I'm sorry bro/brozette .. But It's ok. I've been watching RU-vid since 2006 and I ain't never got 1st on a good, new video like this .. It feels like Leo winning that Oscar for the Revenant though. Wasn't even worth the wait. Appreciate the video though my RU-vidr homie though. I love the electromagnetic spectrum and quantum subatomic particles.