[Matticus_Rex]

This is a misconception I see pop up frequently online. In terms of the color spectrum, there are plenty of things—even things that have qualities in common with color—that aren't on the color spectrum. And while there are colors outside of what humans can see, we generally use it not to refer to the entire electromagnetic spectrum, but only to the subset that makes up light visible to human eyes.

Likewise, when we talk about the "autism spectrum," we're not including every exhibition of traits associated with autism. You can have some traits associated with autism without being "on the spectrum."

Also, perhaps as importantly, "spectrum" isn't a term that generally applies only to color, or even electromagnetism.

[__MatrixMan__]

> there are plenty of things—even things that have qualities in common with color—that aren't on the color spectrum.

I'm not so sure about this one. Whatever it is, you can point a camera at it and you'll get colors. That places it on the color spectrum, even if its color isn't the most important thing about it.

Sure, you'll get weird readings for transparent things, and you can't do this for "justice" or "pain", but everything that is remotely similar to something that has color, also has color.

[Matticus_Rex]

I think you're missing what I'm saying.The overall point is that the existence of a spectrum does not in any way imply that everything exists somewhere on that spectrum.

In the example of the color spectrum, I don't mean that things necessarily don't (or do) have color. Take fundamental particles, as an extreme example. They don't themselves have any color at all, though they have 1ualities in common with color. And depending on what you do to them, they can exhibit qualities of color (or not).

But the fact that something has a color doesn't mean that thing itself is on the color spectrum — color is not a necessary quality of that thing, and can change depending on other factors — for energy that could be level of excitement, or for other things it might be the level and color of light in the room. Also, the physical things you point a camera at often do not themselves have color! They show up as being a color in the picture not because of their inherent qualities, but because of what wavelengths of light they do or do not absorb. And you can, by using different types of cameras or adjusting their settings, take in more of some wavelengths, less of others, or none of some, regardless of what things look like IRL (which is based in the wavelengths of light being reflected/not reflected from those things to your eyes, and which wavelengths the cones in your eyes can take in, and then how those are processed by your brain, etc).

[Hard_Space]

I would argue that for the average person, therefore, 'spectrum' is an unfortunate choice of analogy, since most people believe that it encompasses every possible color. One should not need specialist knowledge to discuss an issue of this kind in common terms.

[Matticus_Rex]

The idea that the word "spectrum" doesn't automatically imply "color" is hardly specialist knowledge, though.

"There's a spectrum between..." is not an uncommon way to describe something where there's a range of possible things.