Bill wrote:
On Feb 27, 5:39 pm, Art Unwin wrote:
we have three types of Leptons each able to produce one of the
primary colours, red, green or yellow. Thus we have three types of
Leptons each able to produce one of the primary colours, red, green or
yellow.
And so on...
xxxxxxxxx
Thanks for printing it again tho full completion of the article would
be much more rewarding

Do you really think green is a primary color, you great braying
jackass?

That he may be, but Green is one of the three primary colors. At least
in additive color mode Red Blue Green. If you are talking about
subtractive color, it is Cyan Magenta Yellow. Add black and it becomes
the standard printing system.

- Mike -

In article ,
Michael Coslo wrote:


Do you really think green is a primary color, you great braying
jackass?

That he may be, but Green is one of the three primary colors. At least
in additive color mode Red Blue Green. If you are talking about
subtractive color, it is Cyan Magenta Yellow. Add black and it becomes
the standard printing system.

True, but the "primariness" of the colors in these various color
systems are far from universal. These colors are "primary" only with
regard to the visual systems of human beings (and some other primates)
which have a particular type of three-pigment visual receptor system.

Animals which have significantly different visual pigments in their
optic receptors (and there are many!) would tend to have a different
response than humans to various mixtures of red, green, and blue
light... e.g. the "red light plus green light equals a yellow color"
mixing trick would not necessarily work for them, as this is a
perceptual "trick" of the human visual system. Although human eyes
may not be able to distinguish between a red/green mix, and a true
narrow-band yellow, a spectrograph (or a simple prism!) will
demonstrate that they're very different!

If Art is actually claiming that there's some sort of binding or
correspondence between the three families of leptons, and the "three
primary colors" as seen by humans, then the only such correspondence
I'm aware of is that both have the number "three" associated with
them. There's no physical correspondence deeper than that, to the
best of my knowledge.

--
Dave Platt AE6EO
Friends of Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!

On Mar 1, 2:45*pm, (Dave Platt) wrote:
In article ,
Michael Coslo wrote:

Do you really think green is a primary color, you great braying
jackass?

That he may be, but Green is one of the three primary colors. At least
in additive color mode Red Blue Green. If you are talking about
subtractive color, it is Cyan Magenta Yellow. Add black and it becomes
the standard printing system.

True, but the "primariness" of the colors in these various color
systems are far from universal. *These colors are "primary" only with
regard to the visual systems of human beings (and some other primates)
which have a particular type of three-pigment visual receptor system.

Animals which have significantly different visual pigments in their
optic receptors (and there are many!) would tend to have a different
response than humans to various mixtures of red, green, and blue
light... e.g. the "red light plus green light equals a yellow color"
mixing trick would not necessarily work for them, as this is a
perceptual "trick" of the human visual system. *Although human eyes
may not be able to distinguish between a red/green mix, and a true
narrow-band yellow, a spectrograph (or a simple prism!) will
demonstrate that they're very different!

If Art is actually claiming that there's some sort of binding or
correspondence between the three families of leptons, and the "three
primary colors" as seen by humans, then the only such correspondence
I'm aware of is that both have the number "three" associated with
them. *There's no physical correspondence deeper than that, to the
best of my knowledge.

--
Dave Platt * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * AE6EO
Friends of Jade Warrior home page: *http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
* I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
* * *boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!

David I am not ruling it out since I cannot personally state there is
a lepton for every color or hue. What I am deducing that particles
arrive on earth in the millions per cubic metre serching for a place
to rest on earth recognising at the same time the connection between
light(colour and particles) W#e see evidence of this every day where
they seek a diamagnetic surface one of which is water where they form
a skin on the surface and where this surface can be transformed by the
addition of soap. The whole discussion is really about the standard
model which became visual to me when I added a time vary field to a
boundary containing static particles. I was unaware at that point of
the huge disagreements in physics about the errors of maxwell. Either
way the only avenue I had to pursue my thinking was to assume that
programmers had kept faithfully to Maxwells equations alone. When I
got hold of an optimizer I operated it with toally disconnected
figures so that I could not be accused of propelling an answer that I
would like., The results are on my page showing clearly the
requirement of equilibrium. I am not considered a skilled programmer
and I am unable to fathom the truth of my program. As always I went to
an academic out of state who was familiar with antennas and physics
for verification by using other alternative programs where he
confirmed my findings. Whether my attempt at the standard model may be
worthless the arrays that I was lead to were new ,correct and probably
of some use. They in no way represent an effort to disprove the
duallity theorem
because that doesn"t state that the particle in question doesn't
change form ,only that they have similar properties. Yes there are
spammers attacking me but as yet nobody has proved that my deductions
are not correct. I don't listen to spammers but I do listen to those
who have a modicom of interest into how radiation works since the true
answers are not in any of the books.On the subject of the word "soot"
being rediculled it becomes obvious that the spammer is quite old,
possibly a redneck who lived in his early days where coal supplied the
heat. The word "soot" is certainly not confined to coal burning which
can be affirmed in many places.
Finally I am amazed that billions are still being spent at Cern when
there is so much division on the question of particles and waves and
where the divisions between physicists
that have been unable to open discussion, where the physics leadership
has declared it to be frozen to further discussion. Again a error in a
check book does not correct itself overtime! An error stays an error
until it is recognised and action taken.
If a formula is correct when using CGS units there is absolutely no
good reason that formulas derived using standard units should not
amount to the same conclusions thus forcing professors to take their
heads out of the sand.
Best regards
Art Unwin KB9MZ.......xg

On Mar 1, 3:38*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On Mar 1, 2:45*pm, (Dave Platt) wrote:



In article ,
Michael Coslo wrote:

Do you really think green is a primary color, you great braying
jackass?

That he may be, but Green is one of the three primary colors. At least
in additive color mode Red Blue Green. If you are talking about
subtractive color, it is Cyan Magenta Yellow. Add black and it becomes
the standard printing system.

True, but the "primariness" of the colors in these various color
systems are far from universal. *These colors are "primary" only with
regard to the visual systems of human beings (and some other primates)
delete

David Platt made a comment on the subject of colour with reference to
who defines colour.
Animal eyes are different to human eyes in many ways including
physical distance apart.
angles of eyeball placement etc.
It doesn't hurt to think about what an eyeball is and its function.
A eyeball to my mind is nothing but a small FaradyCage that is
impinged upon by charge carrying particles where the impact is
transformed into a electric current so it may traverse the brain.
Their is really no way to descriminate the amount of filtering, prisms
and oils that is around with the species , or in the differences of
different brain abilities to decipher the character of different
colors. So I would imagine that some species can not identify the
color as humans see it and may not even discern color from black and
white. So nobody should take the step of assumption and making it a
fact.
Thanks to all you made the correscting comments
Art

Dave Platt wrote in part:

If Art is actually claiming that there's some sort of binding or
correspondence between the three families of leptons, and the "three
primary colors" as seen by humans, then the only such correspondence
I'm aware of is that both have the number "three" associated with
them. There's no physical correspondence deeper than that, to the
best of my knowledge.

That may be so, but my point is that if a person says that green is a
primary color, it is not incorrect.

It isn't even a mmatter of wht other animals see, they can come up with
their own color theory.

I use the different systems every day, from when I worked in a darkroom
and used Cyan MAgenta yellow, to present day RGB for television and
computer work, and CMYK for print. They work.

As for Art's theory, people assign colors, or funny names as a tool of
understanding. The greenness or redness is only that, an electromagnetic
oscillation at a frequency our eyes see as green.

Side note: there is no magenta in the spectrum, so there are some who
are loathe to call it a primary color.

- Mike -

On Mar 2, 8:34*am, Michael Coslo wrote:
Dave Platt wrote in part:

If Art is actually claiming that there's some sort of binding or
correspondence between the three families of leptons, and the "three
primary colors" as seen by humans, then the only such correspondence
I'm aware of is that both have the number "three" associated with
them. *There's no physical correspondence deeper than that, to the
best of my knowledge.

That may be so, but my point is that if a person says that green is a
primary color, it is not incorrect.

It isn't even a mmatter of wht other animals see, they can come up with
their own color theory.

I use the different systems every day, from when I worked in a darkroom
and used Cyan MAgenta yellow, to present day RGB for television and
computer work, and CMYK for print. They work.

As for Art's theory, people assign colors, or funny names as a tool of
understanding. The greenness or redness is only that, an electromagnetic
oscillation at a frequency our eyes see as green.

Side note: there is no magenta in the spectrum, so there are some who
are loathe to call it a primary color.

* * * * - Mike -

Were you aware that Maxwell gave a lecture to the Royal Society in
England on this very subject of primary colours? Presumably he was
persueing a connection with waves and particles or something like
that. As for electromagnetic oscillation at a given frequency, that is
beyond my pay grade, but I do have difficulty with discerning
differences between blue and green the same as the 10% of the
population!

On Tue, 2 Mar 2010 07:24:05 -0800 (PST), Art Unwin
wrote:

Were you aware that Maxwell gave a lecture to the Royal Society in
England on this very subject of primary colours?

Yep. See:
http://www.greatreality.com/color/ColorMaxwell.htm
He created the first color photograph using his idea of 3 primary
colors (red, blue, yellow) but without sensitivity to red or green.
Maxwell left a few unanswered questions about his method of color
photogrpahy:
http://www.greatreality.com/color/ColorDidMKnow.htm
Maxwell had a good start, but not the whole answer:
http://www.greatreality.com/ColorPrimary.htm

--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558
# http://802.11junk.com
# http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS

Were you aware that Maxwell gave a lecture to the Royal Society in
England on this very subject of primary colours?

This has been beaten by an Englishman, Claude Friese-Greene, in 1927
with an additive system of only two colors: red and green. Note,
there is no blue, no yellow. I will quote a fuller description below.

For those who believe their eyes and the yellow of blond hair, and the
blue of the sky check out 5 seconds into:
Helmsdale, Scotland (1926) at youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVy5gMTps3Q
There are also natural skin tones and reds too.

One can consider the blue of the Thames river in
The Thames opposite the Tower of London, London (1926)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BCfx651YQY

Then there is the classic
The Open Road London (1927)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwahIQz0o-M

Taken from Claude Friese-Greene's Colour Process
By BBC History:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/program...ocess_03.shtml
The film he used was panchromatic and so able to record colour in tones of black and white. He also used a revolving colour filter wheel on the lens with one red filter, one orange and the other clear.

The processed film was then stained with red and green using a mechanical process on alternate frames. It was then meant to be down to the viewer to effectively do the rest - when projected at a fast enough speed, the eye plays a trick on the brain and creates the illusion of a broader colour spectrum.

So, the primary colors your eye would believe come from
red/orange/green - something more suitable to Halloween than a colour
travelogue.

The original Technicolor (1916) was similar with an identical color
process (red and green) which had two separate color frames with
overlapping projection. Needless to say, the Technicolor we are used
to abandoned the first three versions of the two color methods to give
us the three color "The Adventures of Robin Hood."

I will repeat the cogent point about colour:
the eye plays a trick on the brain and creates the illusion of a broader colour spectrum.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On Mar 1, 2:03*pm, Michael Coslo wrote:
Bill wrote:
On Feb 27, 5:39 pm, Art Unwin wrote:
we have three types of Leptons each able to produce one of the
primary colours, red, green or yellow. Thus we have three types of
Leptons each able to produce one of the primary colours, red, green or
yellow.
And so on...
xxxxxxxxx
Thanks for printing it again tho full completion of the article would
be much more rewarding

Do you really think green is a primary color, you great braying
jackass?

That he may be, but Green is one of the three primary colors. At least
in additive color mode Red Blue Green. If you are talking about
subtractive color, it is Cyan Magenta Yellow. Add black and it becomes
the standard printing system.

* * * * - Mike -

Thank you