Post by Pincho Paxton on Dec 4, 2013 11:45:10 GMT
Plus Colour theory by Pincho Paxton...
Link...
Physics Solves Centuries-Old Mystery of Red Paint Darkening
Very clever. I would put a small argument that this is still quantum physics. Red is a negative colour, and negative colours in my theory contain the most spacial holes. The spacial holes are the most prone to be converted into other materials, so it is quantum physics of the future. Currently this is just a theory by me, and I don't really call it 100% theory. It is what I might call a 50% theory of a possibility. I use nature like this...
Take a rainbow, and look where the colours appear. My theory includes negative mass 1 + -1 = 0. Flat colour is destructive interference close to zero, and that would be the central colour green. So green would be neutral, red would be negative, and blue would be positive. Then you take a look in nature where colours are used. Green is destructive interference which is the flattening out of forces pressed between two objects 1 + -1 = 0. So for example grass is squashed flat, leaves are squashed flat, apple skin is squashed flat... destructive interference. Tomatoes would be a negative product, and not all that many positive products that we eat.
Interesting as well is the Earth itself... Blue sky (positive), Green grass in the centre (neutral), red sand to magma(negative)
My theory is very fractal, and all of these colours work well in my fractal landscape. Sometimes you find a colour that doesn't seem to work, but it may just need examining more closely. Anyway that's why it's just a 50% theory.
Pincho Paxton
Link...
Physics Solves Centuries-Old Mystery of Red Paint Darkening
Very clever. I would put a small argument that this is still quantum physics. Red is a negative colour, and negative colours in my theory contain the most spacial holes. The spacial holes are the most prone to be converted into other materials, so it is quantum physics of the future. Currently this is just a theory by me, and I don't really call it 100% theory. It is what I might call a 50% theory of a possibility. I use nature like this...
Take a rainbow, and look where the colours appear. My theory includes negative mass 1 + -1 = 0. Flat colour is destructive interference close to zero, and that would be the central colour green. So green would be neutral, red would be negative, and blue would be positive. Then you take a look in nature where colours are used. Green is destructive interference which is the flattening out of forces pressed between two objects 1 + -1 = 0. So for example grass is squashed flat, leaves are squashed flat, apple skin is squashed flat... destructive interference. Tomatoes would be a negative product, and not all that many positive products that we eat.
Interesting as well is the Earth itself... Blue sky (positive), Green grass in the centre (neutral), red sand to magma(negative)
My theory is very fractal, and all of these colours work well in my fractal landscape. Sometimes you find a colour that doesn't seem to work, but it may just need examining more closely. Anyway that's why it's just a 50% theory.
Pincho Paxton