I finally stuck my neck out with my very first theory. I think I have the puzzle solved. Well, maybe. We’ll see.
I got back in touch with the original guy that sparked my curiosity over ten years ago by presenting three challenges. We got along for a wee bit, but then he proceeded to tell me how stupid I was, and that I’m not a thinker, blah-blah-blah!
I decided to write to David Briggs and asked him the question regarding the green and black line. He has a Ph.D. in Science from the University of Queensland and teaches art and the colour theory at Sydney's Julian Ashton Art School and the University of Technology, Sydney. He was nice and extremely helpful. He runs this website. He basically thought the same thing as the Bruce guy, that the blue contained some green.
Here’s his response...
Thanks very much for your question, I must admit I was stumped for a while by that green colour! But if you look at my images through your prism you might see as I do that whereas the red dot is refracted cleanly, the blue dot appears doubled, with a green partner that is less strongly refracted. I had a look on fluxometer.com (fantastic site!) and sure enough on many (though not all) modern screens the blue phosphor has a more or less distinct second peak in green. (You can choose other devices on the right and then just click on the "B" to the right of 1200K). I was able to make a reasonable simulation of what I see through my prism by shifting the Green and Blue components of your image to the left and then adding a duplicate of the blue channel in dull green and aligned with the green image.
Thanks once again for your intriguing question! If you haven't already seen it, you might like to take a look at my new site of online resources on colour at https://sites.google.com/site/djcbriggs/colour-online.
For anyone else who might want to ask questions, I sometimes get too busy to answer emails so if they're on Facebook they might have a better chance of getting an answer if they ask on my Dimensions of Colour Facebook page. https://www.facebook.com/DimensionsOfColour/
But…I checked out his link and found a few devices that showed no peaks in the green and I was still seeing green.
So, I wrote to him again.
I looked at the link that you provided regarding the mysterious green color showing up. I checked a few of the devices that showed no green peaks at all and I’m still seeing green. If you have one of those devices handy, would you mind taking a look for yourself? I also checked my colors on my laptop with a color checker. I have my color set RGB (0, 0, 255). It’s shows up as RGB (0, 0, 254). No green detected.
This occurs with all of the colors that contain blue. They all shift in the same direction, towards the apex. As you know, the blue fades into the white and vanishes, only to show up with a dark background or when mixed with another color. The same is true of the colors that contain red. They fade into the black and are only visible on a white background or when they’re mixed with another color.
Look at the images titled (Green Edge). I think the green might be created in the same fashion. As you probably know, the same thing can be seen with objects or pigments.
Either way, though, I think there’s good reason to believe that when looking through a prism, what we’re seeing is the science behind colored filters. The primaries are subtractive when viewed on a white background and additive when viewed on a black background, right? See (Through Prism) image below.
Do me a favor, will you? Make a few diagrams like the ones below. Keep the different colored blocks movable. Slowly move them back and forth to the edges.
There’s no problem in saying that when the red line is thin enough, the blue crosses over making the black line blue, right? From what I’m seeing, it looks as though, when the red is placed and viewed through the thickest portion (base), it also crosses over the blue in the same manner creating a black line.
Look at the image with a white square, red frame and blue line through a prism. On a white background the blue becomes yellow and the green becomes a cyan and magenta. As you move the blue line towards the red edge, underneath the yellow area created from the red edge, the cyan becomes green and the magenta becomes red. As it reaches the red area, the cyan becomes black and the magenta area is now a brighter orangish red. The original blue is now visible in the yellow area making it white. A red filter only allows red through, making the cyan area black while allowing the red from the magenta to come through, giving it a brighter reddish orange look.
If you play around with the yellow and white image, you can see that the yellow overlaps the cyan creating green, and when it overlaps the blue, it blocks the blue light. I think that’s why we’re seeing the blue separated from the green.
I think that the prism it’s acting like colored filters.
I Wrote:Let me show you just one more tiny thing before you decide to just dismiss me.
Take a blue block and move it slowly towards a black block. Notice that the blue block is turning green and when they finally touch that the black is extended over the red and cyan area.
(Sep 10, 2020 11:58 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: I finally stuck my neck out with my very first theory. I think I have the puzzle solved. Well, maybe. We’ll see.
I got back in touch with the original guy that sparked my curiosity over ten years ago by presenting three challenges. We got along for a wee bit, but then he proceeded to tell me how stupid I was, and that I’m not a thinker, blah-blah-blah!
Has he ever offered an explanation himself for whatever "Behold: A conundrum for physics!" that was in those 12-year-old videos? Or is he purely deriving his hauteur in the form of a critic nitpicking from an illusory mountaintop?
Probably delved into that before, but toxic mold exposure has muddled my recollections of the scenic tour stops on the road to Emerald City, before standing here waiting for one of the guardians at the gate to finally give us those green-tinted spectacles that protect us from the "brightness and the glory", so we can enter.
(Sep 11, 2020 06:19 PM)C C Wrote: Has he ever offered an explanation himself for whatever "Behold: A conundrum for physics!" that was in those 12-year-old videos? Or is he purely deriving his hauteur in the form of a critic nitpicking from an illusory mountaintop?
He offered the same explanation for the green as I did. That part we agree on, but as for the black line, he thinks that the red and blue are refracted in opposite directions. He posted this video and then I emailed him a rebuttal.
His setup was a black piece of paper on a white wall. The room was lit up with a dimmable studio light fitted with a green filter. I know that red objects will look black under a green light. So, I replicated his experiment. You can see the red edge coming from the black paper but the red laser didn’t refract on top of the black paper like in his first video. When I lit up my area with green light, the red edge turned black and gave it the same appearance.
David Briggs, Bruce MacEvoy, and the members at physicsforums believe that we’re seeing a black gap because there’s no green. What we’re seeing is the difference in refraction. In other words, a colorless black gap, which doesn’t make much sense to me since we are seeing green,as well. The explanation for that is that the blue contains some green, which still doesn’t make much sense to me. Green is green, right?
The issue of the black line (gap) or whatever, only appears when you place the colors in the order that they’re viewed through the prism. We know that the red exits at the thinner apex and the blue at the thicker base but when we look through the prism, they’re reversed. If we place them side by side in the order that we see them through the prism then the red never even touches the green.
But now, the blue isn’t moving away from the green and red like it is supposed according to all the diagrams. It’s moving into it. Instead of the red overlapping the green creating yellow. The green is overlapping the red and the blue is overlapping the green creating cyan. The bottom portion is showing what's supposed to be occurring. *shrug
C CSep 12, 2020 05:55 PM (This post was last modified: Sep 12, 2020 05:55 PM by C C.)
Thanks for the details of both your perspectives, SS.
- - -
"...someone from that past came back into my life somehow and brought the same kind of impossible arguments. And that was enough to spur me back onto the old topic..."
(Sep 12, 2020 05:55 PM)C C Wrote: Thanks for the details of both your perspectives, SS.
- - -
"...someone from that past came back into my life somehow and brought the same kind of impossible arguments. And that was enough to spur me back onto the old topic..."
Yeah, Romania will always be stuck with the Dracula legend, I suppose, but Remus’ story just keeps getting better and better as it plays out in real time.
This morning I was looking into the magenta and green that we see with the red and blue. All of the colors of light have complementary colors that exist in the visible spectrum, except for green. Its complement is magenta.
During my search, I ran across a newly published paper. It mentioned the green and black line.
With the arrangement of the prismatic spectrum, the regular Newtonian spectrum displays red, yellow, green, cyan and blue (also called dark blue or violet), while the inverse spectrum highlighted by Goethe, displays cyan, blue, magenta, red and yellow. In addition to the symmetries examined with this system through prior experiments (Holtsmark 1970; Rang and Grebe-Ellis 2018), there is one other feature regarding the spectrum colour sequences that is worth studying further. It must be noted that in case of the cadmium arc lamp, in the further extension when the screen is moved farther away, the colour sequence for the Newtonian spectrum undergoes two further transitions (See Fig. 3b in Rang and Grebe-Ellis 2009):
red−green−blue → red−black−green−black−blue
A darkening appears between red and green, and between green and blue. Similarly, for the inverse spectrum:
What is the source of this darkening or brightening? In the Newtonian spectrum, cyan and yellow overlap to give green, and at a greater distance, cyan overlaps with red and yellow overlaps with blue. Since this is the behaviour in a dark background—as seen in the subtractive darkening towards green—these form complements that give black (subtractive colours). This is also indicated in Plate V of Zur Farbenlehre. 1 Similarly, in the inverse spectrum, blue and red are initially adjacent to magenta. On extension, blue mingles with yellow and red overlaps with cyan, which form additive complements that give white. Therefore, the important point to be noted is that the disappearance through darkening in the Newtonian spectrum, and the corresponding brightening in the inverse spectrum, are also due to colour overlaps. The black and white match the respective backgrounds in which the spectrum is created. Once again, the symmetric polarity is consistently displayed, and the polarities complement one another in generating the full range of colours.
I was excited to see that someone else noticed the same observations, but then I looked at the author’s name. It was Gopi Krishna Vijaya. I knew that name.
In October of 2018, Remus said that he got a message a few years ago from this guy named Gopi Krishna Vijaya, who said that he had been reading his stuff for quite some time. Remus said that he was employed by a fringe society of physicists who are aggressively calling for the resignation of the Newtonian theories of motion and gravity.
"The author would like to thank Bruce Peret (late), Remus Poradin, Troy Vine and Doug Marsh for their comments and discussion."
In our last discussion...well, argument about the green and black, Remus never even mentioned this paper. I don't know why. I emailed him this morning to ask if he'd seen it but I doubt that he'll respond. When he called me stupid, I said, "See you around, you cranky ole curmudgeon."
I couldn't help myself. It wasn't the stupid comment that got to me. He said, "Unlike you, I believe in God. Not in the gods of humanity, in the epitome of how I would expect the God to be."
Boy oh boy! MR's tagline is sure fitting.
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro."--- Hunter S. Thompson
(Sep 13, 2020 04:01 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [...] It was Gopi Krishna Vijaya. I knew that name.
In October of 2018, Remus said that he got a message a few years ago from this guy named Gopi Krishna Vijaya, who said that he had been reading his stuff for quite some time. Remus said that he was employed by a fringe society of physicists who are aggressively calling for the resignation of the Newtonian theories of motion and gravity.
[...] In his paper he acknowledge Remus.
"The author would like to thank Bruce Peret (late), Remus Poradin, Troy Vine and Doug Marsh for their comments and discussion."
In our last discussion...well, argument about the green and black, Remus never even mentioned this paper. I don't know why. I emailed him this morning to ask if he'd seen it but I doubt that he'll respond. When he called me stupid, I said, "See you around, you cranky ole curmudgeon."
I couldn't help myself. It wasn't the stupid comment that got to me. He said, "Unlike you, I believe in God. Not in the gods of humanity, in the epitome of how I would expect the God to be."
Boy oh boy! MR's tagline is sure fitting.
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro."--- Hunter S. Thompson
Rudolf Steiner is Vijaya's other muse, who unsurprisingly was likewise influenced by Goethe. Vijaya was a speaker at MysTech Conference 2020, but I don't know if there is any deeper affiliation with the organization or their overall philosophical outlook. Such as: Is he part of their "faculty"? Well, he has been published in MysTech's journal. I suppose his very expertise itself in Steiner's school of thought kind of guarantees collaboration, if not outright membership. (The latter is apparently clinched by references to MysTech members and becoming one on that page -- who knows, maybe he's even a co-founder.)
I'm baffled by the anthroposophy connection with computers and technology, but Vijaya supposedly elaborates on it here: (PDF)Technology and the Laws of Thought
"Editor’s note: Some months ago we received a very clear and readable document which traces how the logic used in and essential to today’s computers and mechanization branched off from the fuller logic of human experience. Though it offers only a restricted subset of human capacities, machine logic has become the measure even for human development. Dr. Vijaya’s sixty-page book is too long for us to publish, so we asked him to share a summary of his research and insights. A PDF document of the full text is attached to this online copy of his article."
Rudolf Steiner is Vijaya's other muse, who unsurprisingly was likewise influenced by Goethe. Vijaya was a speaker at MysTech Conference 2020, but I don't know if there is any deeper affiliation with the organization or their overall philosophical outlook. Such as: Is he part of their "faculty"? Well, he has been published in MysTech's journal. I suppose his very expertise itself in Steiner's school of thought kind of guarantees collaboration, if not outright membership. (The latter is apparently clinched by references to MysTech members and becoming one on that page -- who knows, maybe he's even a co-founder.)
I'm baffled by the anthroposophy connection with computers and technology, but Vijaya supposedly elaborates on it here: (PDF)Technology and the Laws of Thought
"Editor’s note: Some months ago we received a very clear and readable document which traces how the logic used in and essential to today’s computers and mechanization branched off from the fuller logic of human experience. Though it offers only a restricted subset of human capacities, machine logic has become the measure even for human development. Dr. Vijaya’s sixty-page book is too long for us to publish, so we asked him to share a summary of his research and insights. A PDF document of the full text is attached to this online copy of his article."
That is so weird. He’s all over the place. Another strange one is the Reciprocal System. He's on the research team. According to RationalWiki, it’s a society set up to worship its inventor, Dewey Larson.
This is the Romanian Greek, whom until now you have all enjoyed hitting and ridiculing in whatever manner you desired. Let's see how you'll manage to do from this moment on. Hello SS. Remember when you said that you wanted to have a debate with me in a forum of your choice? Well, today I'm giving you that opportunity. Soon we'll see how much you'll have enjoyed that decision of yours. So, then, without any further ado, let us begin the proceedings.
Before anything else, you might want to correct what you said about "...he proceeded to tell me how stupid I was..." with what I really said, which was that the number of stupidities you had been telling me is staggering. You might argue that that is the same thing, but I would disagree with that. In any event, let me show you how many stupidities you have said on this page only.
Quote:As far I know, the conventional theory is that the red is just refracted less than the blue, as can you see in this diagram below.
Now, let me tell you that only in that diagram you have depicted so many things wrong that I couldn't be bothered to count. What I will do, instead, is show you another diagram, depicting correctly everything that is involved in the matter, and then I will explain a few other things you are obviously completely unaware of. See first my diagram below.
In the left image above there is a white rectangle cast against a black background. According to the reigning theory that rectangle is white because the three primary colours of light are superposed onto each other as shown. In the image on the right I have depicted the distribution of the spectral colours that an observer will see when will look through a prism oriented with the apex pointing to the left. A number of things in this image are quintessential to the entire matter. The most important of those is the fact that R and B are always refracted by the prism upon the black background. That is the reason for my extending the two black rectangles higher than the YR and CB combinations, just to show you what you (and apparently everyone else who has viewed this thread) have clearly been, until now, blissfully ignorant of. Note that I have left the RGB trio in the same place, and before being ready to scream "Hey, the white rectangle should not contain the C and Y bands, then!" let me tell you why I did that. I did it for a two-fold reason: One, because I wanted to show you where exactly the borders between the white rectangle and the black background are; Two, because I wanted to show you from what position are the R, G and B colours refracted by the prism to eventually form the spectral display depicted above them. Lastly, I should mention the widths of the spectral bands, with B and Y being more than twice as wide as the C and R (which are approx. of the same size).
Now, you should all watch the videos I made on this topic, before embarking on all sorts of futile arguments. Learn the subject well, and then come and argue with me.
Quote:This is the Romanian Greek, whom until now you have all enjoyed hitting and ridiculing in whatever manner you desired.
But perhaps such needling did eventually entice you to participate. Which is to say, beware of ulterior motives and manipulative facades in this place! They're rampant in all sorts of guises and varied purposes.
I've admittedly been serving as a voluntary, piss-poor dialogue nudger{*} or surrogate for those who feel a genuine passion for this subject as you and SS do. Hallelujah that there's finally a rival connoisseur here to provide stimulation, competition, etc. What SS has probably wanted the topic to brim with all along.
(Sep 19, 2020 06:51 PM)paparigoo papadoo Wrote: Before anything else, you might want to correct what you said about "...he proceeded to tell me how stupid I was..." with what I really said, which was that the number of stupidities you had been telling me is staggering. You might argue that that is the same thing, but I would disagree with that. In any event, let me show you how many stupidities you have said on this page only.
Some people can't manage to separate ad hominems from criticisms of specific arguments. And SS is known for this, usually using this conflation to justify her own, actual ad hominems.
Sep 10, 2020 11:58 PM
(This post was last modified: Sep 11, 2020 12:07 AM by Secular Sanity.)
![[Image: 50327590398_1618218ea1_c.jpg]](https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50327590398_1618218ea1_c.jpg)
![[Image: 50328269066_6e08891fc5_w.jpg]](https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50328269066_6e08891fc5_w.jpg)
![[Image: 50328273521_6aeff30e83_w.jpg]](https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50328273521_6aeff30e83_w.jpg)
![[Image: 50327579473_58903fe799_c.jpg]](https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50327579473_58903fe799_c.jpg)
![[Image: 50330534396_af8723176b.jpg]](https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50330534396_af8723176b.jpg)
![[Image: 50330535201_9c1a2c4be4.jpg]](https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50330535201_9c1a2c4be4.jpg)
![[Image: 50331740661_c709e5829b.jpg]](https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50331740661_c709e5829b.jpg)
![[Image: 50331686842_dc01b1fc54_w.jpg]](https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50331686842_dc01b1fc54_w.jpg)
![[Image: 50331523491_2b39925ed7_w.jpg]](https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50331523491_2b39925ed7_w.jpg)
![[Image: 50331847517_426ff2dd76_w.jpg]](https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50331847517_426ff2dd76_w.jpg)
![[Image: 50330541356_01024967f8.jpg]](https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50330541356_01024967f8.jpg)
![[Image: 50330542286_5ffe39e724.jpg]](https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50330542286_5ffe39e724.jpg)
![[Image: 50330770006_cafe9a04e2.jpg]](https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50330770006_cafe9a04e2.jpg)
![[Image: Untitled-1.png]](https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-pExS7hPV1Os/X2Yrqv6R2eI/AAAAAAAAGWs/pB_rI6UpGzQEoTmVV3KJ8qQD-u_YzB3hQCLcBGAsYHQ/s600/Untitled-1.png)
