It's been more than eight months since I have written anything in this blog. Eight months of an incredible amalgam of different and contrasting events, which until today have done a good job to keep me away from communicating with anyone, beside the collaborator I had mentioned in the last post I had written all those months ago. That is not to say that I have been in any way negatively affected, or idle, in the course of this time. Quite the contrary. In fact the last eight months of my life have been busy, rich and rewarding. But now, with a young new year walking amongst us, the time has come to return to these pages recharged and renewed for the beginning of yet another chapter in my vaudevillian struggle with the conventional contemporary performers. Finally, in this impromptu introduction, let me thank God, for my life continues to be an absolute blast (and I hope yours is too, by the way).
I want to begin by firstly confessing that in the relatively recent past I have made two rather puerile mistakes, for which I have naturally had to bear some cross for a while. The first, and older of those two, consisted in my stubborn belief that the primary colours of light had to be formed by the Red, Yellow and Blue combination. Fortunately, in one of my recent interactions with my new friend and collaborator from the good U. S. of A. we came to discuss some of the more salient aspects of the conventional understanding on colour theory and I found myself forced to earnestly reassess my hitherto stance on light's primary combination of colours.
Now, since we have already gotten to the point that just a little earlier today I was feeling rather reluctant to spend any time on, with the apparent benefit of some 'wings' put on me by a couple of icy-cold Red Bulls I seem to have somewhat changed my feelings a fraction. Thus I decided just a brief moment ago that, reluctantly or not, I nonetheless had to mention at least a couple of the things that have been most relevant in the change of my former position on the issue at stake.
So, the first thing that convinced me that there was indeed a genuine need on my part to reconsider my view on the primary colours of light was Michael's first hand experience he'd acquired many years ago, when as a young, enthusiastic and gifted conventional student he was employed by Motorola, where his job was to align chroma panels for their range of colour TVs. That first job as a young freshman combined with his continuing academic evolution, eventually enabled him to develop an extensive experience in the intricacies of mixing the conventional primary colours (RGB) to produce the entire gamut of the spectral colours, which in the end had undoubtedly provided him with a formidable stronghold on the entire subject.
Now, being well aware of my inherent propensity for stubbornness has certainly proven to also be the source of a significant number of additional traits, side-effects and concerns in my private universe over the years. But there has just as certainly existed a genuine upshot to all those things that helped me all along in my physical and mental struggle as a human: That is that I was never in any real danger of becoming a chronic fool-buffoon.
So, following immediately the unfolding of the events mentioned above I wrote Michael a short email asking him to allow me a day or two before I'll be able to definitely decide whether I could accept, or not, that the primary colours of light ought to be RGB rather than RYB. Then I retired in my favourite corner, to think.
In the end though it hardly took me an hour, if that, to arrive at a definite and final conclusion in the matter. In fact, to be absolutely fair to what really happened in that hour of private deliberation, the truth is that most of that time I had spent in lamenting and cursing the indulgence with which I had treated an old and most familiar prismatic observation in the past. So it had been nobody's fault but mine all along (as yet another old and most familiar track, this time, is busting the inner drums of my ears).
I wrote the above when 2018 was just a handful of days old, but then I did nothing about it since. That was, by and large, due to my foremostly concentrating on the subject of rainbow formation, which for a few weeks now I was going to discuss on these pages any newly emerging day, I believed. So for a couple of months what I had written then remained a draft saved for some uncertain time in the future. This morning, however, I suddenly decided that today was a good time to finish it, as quickly as possible, and then to, even quicker, post it at once. I made that sudden decision for reasons I don't wish to disclose. Anyway, but then a most relevant question remained: How could I complete all that beautiful train of thought in just the very short time I had left until that very important meeting I agreed to only a few hours ago?
In the end I am pleased to say that I have managed to achieve all of the above. And I did it this way.
First I extracted the best part of an email I had sent Michael when I came to my foregoing realisation (that happened quite a while ago now, on July 31, 2017). See below.
Dear Michael,
Please rejoice with me, for what I've just seen less than five minutes ago I'm sure that will please your mind and soul as much as it pleased mine!
You know, ever since you persuaded me that it is RGB the trio of the primary colours and CMY the secondary ones I have not stopped learning and thinking about them. Then, last night it so happened that I found myself in front of the computer experimenting with different combinations those colours and trying--rather chaotically, I must say--to see what unknown but possible implications they might have in the big picture we're trying to unravel. Anyway, to cut a long story short, after hours of fruitless toil I sent you the last email I did and went away to some appointments I had. Finally, just before 6 pm I arrived back home and in a matter of minutes I managed to find not what I was looking for (for after all I had no idea about what I was looking for) but something that was insanely unexpected and equally satisfying!
OK, thank you for bearing with my rumbling. Now straight to the point.
So we knew that R and B shift in opposite directions and G doesn't shift at all in those so-called subjective prismatic observations, when they are displayed on a black background. We also knew--from you, my dear friend--that neither does M shift when projected on a white background. These thoughts led to my first realisation--which was that R and B behave exactly the same when they are observed against a white background too. Now to me that was a new fact, although to you I have a feeling that it is not--even though we've never specifically talked about that, have we? Finally, these things led me to drawing a pattern that revealed in an instant that just like in the case where R and B deflect in opposite directions while G stays put, when it comes to the CMY combination observed against a white background C and Y also deflect in opposite directions while M stays put. More exactly, Y deflects toward the apex of the prism and C toward the base. This is a beautiful and reassuring state of affairs, for Y emulates what its primary partner B does and C does likewise relative to its counterpart R. And that's not all. From the simple pattern I'd drawn it becomes readily apparent that not only do Y and C mimic their respective counterparts qualitatively but quantitatively as well. This makes it all even more beautiful, doesn't it? And, of course, it is not a trivial fact either that R+C=W, G+M=W and B+Y=W.
Next I will drop below copies of the two pictures (in the email called patterns) I had attached to my email. Observe carefully both of them directly with the naked eye through a triangular prism from a distance of approx. 0.5 m-1 m. Look first at both pictures with your prism oriented with its apex pointing to your left, then change its orientation with the apex pointing to your right, next.
Next there is another picture, which in effect contains both the above pictures in relevant combination. Observe this picture in the same manner as before. This picture depicts the entire set of what we have discovered in addition--and in contrast, at the same time--to what the conventional understanding stipulates. That particular set of differences we have rightfully and respectfully called The Poradin-Heffron Law.
Finally you will find below picture meant to be observed in the same manner as the others contained in this post. This final picture will reveal to the careful observer the rich array of colour interconnections in those so-called prismatic subjective observations. Look at this picture, through your prism, from a few different distances--from as close as possible to the as far as possible--for if a picture does indeed tell 1000 words, this one is telling 1000 times that. Enjoy.
And that is all, for the time being. My next post will be concerned with the very thorny issue of the rainbow phenomena. Take care, be wise and be happy.
Now, since we have already gotten to the point that just a little earlier today I was feeling rather reluctant to spend any time on, with the apparent benefit of some 'wings' put on me by a couple of icy-cold Red Bulls I seem to have somewhat changed my feelings a fraction. Thus I decided just a brief moment ago that, reluctantly or not, I nonetheless had to mention at least a couple of the things that have been most relevant in the change of my former position on the issue at stake.
So, the first thing that convinced me that there was indeed a genuine need on my part to reconsider my view on the primary colours of light was Michael's first hand experience he'd acquired many years ago, when as a young, enthusiastic and gifted conventional student he was employed by Motorola, where his job was to align chroma panels for their range of colour TVs. That first job as a young freshman combined with his continuing academic evolution, eventually enabled him to develop an extensive experience in the intricacies of mixing the conventional primary colours (RGB) to produce the entire gamut of the spectral colours, which in the end had undoubtedly provided him with a formidable stronghold on the entire subject.
Now, being well aware of my inherent propensity for stubbornness has certainly proven to also be the source of a significant number of additional traits, side-effects and concerns in my private universe over the years. But there has just as certainly existed a genuine upshot to all those things that helped me all along in my physical and mental struggle as a human: That is that I was never in any real danger of becoming a chronic fool-buffoon.
So, following immediately the unfolding of the events mentioned above I wrote Michael a short email asking him to allow me a day or two before I'll be able to definitely decide whether I could accept, or not, that the primary colours of light ought to be RGB rather than RYB. Then I retired in my favourite corner, to think.
In the end though it hardly took me an hour, if that, to arrive at a definite and final conclusion in the matter. In fact, to be absolutely fair to what really happened in that hour of private deliberation, the truth is that most of that time I had spent in lamenting and cursing the indulgence with which I had treated an old and most familiar prismatic observation in the past. So it had been nobody's fault but mine all along (as yet another old and most familiar track, this time, is busting the inner drums of my ears).
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I wrote the above when 2018 was just a handful of days old, but then I did nothing about it since. That was, by and large, due to my foremostly concentrating on the subject of rainbow formation, which for a few weeks now I was going to discuss on these pages any newly emerging day, I believed. So for a couple of months what I had written then remained a draft saved for some uncertain time in the future. This morning, however, I suddenly decided that today was a good time to finish it, as quickly as possible, and then to, even quicker, post it at once. I made that sudden decision for reasons I don't wish to disclose. Anyway, but then a most relevant question remained: How could I complete all that beautiful train of thought in just the very short time I had left until that very important meeting I agreed to only a few hours ago?
In the end I am pleased to say that I have managed to achieve all of the above. And I did it this way.
First I extracted the best part of an email I had sent Michael when I came to my foregoing realisation (that happened quite a while ago now, on July 31, 2017). See below.
Dear Michael,
Please rejoice with me, for what I've just seen less than five minutes ago I'm sure that will please your mind and soul as much as it pleased mine!
You know, ever since you persuaded me that it is RGB the trio of the primary colours and CMY the secondary ones I have not stopped learning and thinking about them. Then, last night it so happened that I found myself in front of the computer experimenting with different combinations those colours and trying--rather chaotically, I must say--to see what unknown but possible implications they might have in the big picture we're trying to unravel. Anyway, to cut a long story short, after hours of fruitless toil I sent you the last email I did and went away to some appointments I had. Finally, just before 6 pm I arrived back home and in a matter of minutes I managed to find not what I was looking for (for after all I had no idea about what I was looking for) but something that was insanely unexpected and equally satisfying!
OK, thank you for bearing with my rumbling. Now straight to the point.
So we knew that R and B shift in opposite directions and G doesn't shift at all in those so-called subjective prismatic observations, when they are displayed on a black background. We also knew--from you, my dear friend--that neither does M shift when projected on a white background. These thoughts led to my first realisation--which was that R and B behave exactly the same when they are observed against a white background too. Now to me that was a new fact, although to you I have a feeling that it is not--even though we've never specifically talked about that, have we? Finally, these things led me to drawing a pattern that revealed in an instant that just like in the case where R and B deflect in opposite directions while G stays put, when it comes to the CMY combination observed against a white background C and Y also deflect in opposite directions while M stays put. More exactly, Y deflects toward the apex of the prism and C toward the base. This is a beautiful and reassuring state of affairs, for Y emulates what its primary partner B does and C does likewise relative to its counterpart R. And that's not all. From the simple pattern I'd drawn it becomes readily apparent that not only do Y and C mimic their respective counterparts qualitatively but quantitatively as well. This makes it all even more beautiful, doesn't it? And, of course, it is not a trivial fact either that R+C=W, G+M=W and B+Y=W.
Next I will drop below copies of the two pictures (in the email called patterns) I had attached to my email. Observe carefully both of them directly with the naked eye through a triangular prism from a distance of approx. 0.5 m-1 m. Look first at both pictures with your prism oriented with its apex pointing to your left, then change its orientation with the apex pointing to your right, next.
Next there is another picture, which in effect contains both the above pictures in relevant combination. Observe this picture in the same manner as before. This picture depicts the entire set of what we have discovered in addition--and in contrast, at the same time--to what the conventional understanding stipulates. That particular set of differences we have rightfully and respectfully called The Poradin-Heffron Law.
Finally you will find below picture meant to be observed in the same manner as the others contained in this post. This final picture will reveal to the careful observer the rich array of colour interconnections in those so-called prismatic subjective observations. Look at this picture, through your prism, from a few different distances--from as close as possible to the as far as possible--for if a picture does indeed tell 1000 words, this one is telling 1000 times that. Enjoy.
And that is all, for the time being. My next post will be concerned with the very thorny issue of the rainbow phenomena. Take care, be wise and be happy.
Can you help? If I am Newton, and someone shows me the edge-spectra from a widened aperture, there is no green. It should be there, no, since the colours ought to fan out according to their different "refrangibility". But there is no green. Why, if the prism fans out the colours which are in some sense "in" the light already? Help needed!
ReplyDeleteHello and thanks for your question. Now, the reality is that there IS a quite distinct green component in the spectra of any white (or most other lightly coloured) sources of light, as you will be able to prove for yourself in a minute.There is however one most salient condition attached to that--namely the distance from where the observation is conducted in every individual case. To make everything clearer without elaborating too much I'll ask you to take a prism an to look through it first at the large white rectangle in my figure above from a distance of about 1 m. If you hold your prism with the vertex pointing to the left you will see the rectangle displaying a blue-cyan edge-spectra on the left and a yellow-red combination on the right. (If, on the other hand, you hold your prism with the vertex pointing to the right the two edge-spectra will change places.) In either case, nonetheless, there will be no green colour displayed at all, as you certainly have noticed and pointed out. However, if you increase your distance to perhaps 7-8 m next and conduct your observation from there you will invariably see the green component of the spectrum emerging. And there is another way to see that green appearing in the display. This time all you have to do is hold your palm, for example, over most of the rectangle's area, letting only a small part visible and look again through your prism. The green component will appear again in this case too. Now the truth is that even in those cases I mentioned one may still feel unsatisfied with the results because the green will seemingly only become visible due to the apparent overlapping mixture of the yellow and cyan spectral components. However, after a deep and careful further analysis one should realise that ultimately the apparent absence of green is simply due to the fact that in the middle of a wide aperture the three primary colours (RGB) are uniformly superimposed onto each other, making thus the middle of such aperture white. At the two extremes of the aperture, however, the primary colours are no longer uniformly superimposed, and that's why we see the two combinations (BC and YR) displayed. Specifically, the cyan component is a consequence of the mixture of G and B, while the yellow is the result of the overlapping of only the G and the R. In any case, one thing should become evident for anyone involved in the colour theory--that the subject looks deceivingly simple but that in reality it actually is devilishly subtle and complicated. Incidentally, it is largely for all those little reasons I mentioned here (plus a few others I haven't) that for many years I myself believed (erroneously) that the three primary colours of light should be RYB, rather than RGB. As a last concrete illustrations of the things we have discussed here I'll ask you to take your prism once again an to look through it this time at the three vertical white bars in the same figure from different distances. Thus, first place your prism right on the screen of your monitor and look at the bars from wherever you are sitting on your chair. Next start pulling the prism towards you and further and further away from the screen, looking through it all the time at the evolving spectral display. See now a little better what I tried to say? Thank you for listening and please read some of my earlier pages on this site, for there are many other similar situations I discussed in the past. Take care and all the best.
Delete