tar

Tony Lang, And how did the fruitfly thing go for you? Where is this master life ID cell, in a fruit fly? The experiment contradicts your own premise. If the cell is the only living thing, then each cell should have its own ID. The theory is just goofy. How can you state that an ID can get instantiated on any planet, anywhere? What if the planet does not have the proper gravity and pressure and heat and surface or ocean and chemicals to support life? How did life get supported prior elements heavier than hydrogen? How did life get supported prior space and time? Either you need the whole complex (the Earth, the Sun, carbon molecules, water, something to eat, parents and such) or you do not need it. I say you need it. You say you don't. I don't think you have anything to hook your entanglement principle to, without the complex and history you need for life. I am not a ghost in the machine type thinker. I am the exact opposite. Your premises and conclusions are nonsense to me. Regards, TAR

Lagoon Island Pearls, Yes there are a large amount of species, but probably a smaller amount of pigments or particular molecules or proteins that absorb certain wavelengths of light, and a particular finite number of mineral combines, that produce certain characteristic colors, when put under white light. Since Whatever Theory has softened his original claim to allow that several colors evident on a normal male, or female of a species, taken under controlled lighting and equipment conditions might be required to positively ID a subject, the numbers swing back in Whatever Theories favor. While it is likely that the blue of a Stellar's Jay might be found elsewhere in nature, in another species for the same or similar reasons, it is probably less likely that a different species will have the same blue on its breast, the same black on the stripes on its wing, the same charcoal on its crest, the same tan on its claw and the same color on its beak. That is 16 million times 16 million times 16 milliion times 16 million times 16 milliion, if you take 5 agreed upon standard positions on an animal or on a plant or on a fungus, to come up with its 5 unique RGB values. Which is 1000000000000000000000000000000000000 possible combinations which could very well allow for 9,000,000 species to each have their own number. Regards, TAR But still we have not dealt with the albino and the grafted, and the different colored (white, red purple..)flowers of the Impatients, nor the carrots, nor the sick, nor the parasite infested nor the seasonal variations, nor the ... Unless of course if the everything theory is valid, one might be able to also color code the illness and the parasite, and the variety and the condition of the subject. for instance plants might have five different colors, one for the leaf, one for the stem one for the flower, one for the fruit, one for the root, one for the wood or core of the stem...for instance oh that is 6...oh well..multiply that previous number by another 16 million

tonylang, But that is exactly like saying "you will be sorry you were not kinder" when you reach the pearly gates. It has nothing to do with testable, sharable, usable or avoidable reality. It is all in your head. If there is an avenue of testable research one could proceed down to reach this improved knowledge you are claiming is forseeable, then suggest the tests. You can't because you are talking about imaginary things, that are testable only in terms of how consistent they are to the proposition. There is not a way to link these imaginary things, to real things that everybody can touch and feel and see and hear and smell, because they do not exist out here where things can be sensed. The whole complex exists only in Tony Lang's theory, and in those minds entertaining the same figurative notions. They are thus similar to pearly gate ideas, and reincarnation ideas, and to the ideas that are come upon by humans in caves or mountain tops, or while high on mushrooms or LSD. They work only in the imagination, they do not work out here in the public, waking world. Regards, TAR

Whatever Theory, I am not a math guru by any stretch of the imaginations, but I have taken statistic courses here and there and thought about numbers and distributions and the like and considered things like the likelihood of the price of a stock to retrace a move once it has varied over a standard deviation, from its average price in any given time period. To this, I offer a potential method to select a number, an RGB triplet, out of a population of RGB triplets, as you might have in a given sample of values on a screen, that might be considered "representative" of the whole group and that could be tested for its representative nature, by performing the same procedure on another area of similar looking color on the same animal in the same picture and seeing if the number came out the same, or within a certain very small range, away from the first number. My thought was to consider each color (R value, G value, Blue value) separately in terms of finding a mean value, and a median value. With the mean value of green, within a sample of say 36 randomly selected pixels (retaining the blue and red values from the same pixels, for calculating their variance in turn) you determine the the mean, and the variance from the mean and hence the standard deviation. Take only the values that are within 2 standard deviations of the mean which will be 95 percent of the values or around 34 numbers. This will amount to throwing out 2 numbers, maybe one low and one high, maybe two high, or two low, but you will be left with 34 numbers. You can not have a median value since you have an even number, but you have two numbers that are near the middle of the range. So you have two median type values. Take the average of these 34 remaining numbers and with this average, decide which of your median type numbers is closer to the mean and chose this number as your green value. Do the same with Red and Blue, and you have then, at least a number that has taken all the numbers in the 36 point sample, into consideration. My thought is to make a 6 x 6 matrix of the size of your sample and lay it over the sample and take the 36 pixels that lie under the dots. After performing the calculations and coming up with an RGB triplet, take the grid and move it or rotate it over the same area of the picture and repeat the calculation. See if you can come up with a process that will yield the same triplet in a repeatable manner. A process that you could then use on any sample square you choose to come up with a triplet or a small group of triplets that would be the same triplet, or small group of triplets that anybody performing the same method on the same sample would come up with. Maybe something like this would yield a number that would be representative enough to use to compare samples. Regards, TAR My guess is that the triplet you come up with, using this random sampling and figuring method will be a lighter shade of the same tint that you have chosen by eye. This because I think we are bias toward the bold deep rich colors, and away from the washed out colors. I notice on your leaf sample that there are many pixels on the pallet of lighter or weaker shades than the "color" you have selected. The enlargement of the leaf shows many "reflecting" points where there are lighter pixels. This is probably analogous to when you look at the leaf on a larger scale and stay away from sampling the glare areas or the shadow areas, but should not, on the close scale, make the same omissions, because the light and dark areas speak to the contours and reflective nature of the subject, and another subject of the same species would have exactly the same contours and reflective surface characteristics, which you absolutely want to capture in your number.

Lagoon Island Pearls, "These quotes factually support my assertion, that mineralization within a protien maxtrix is not constant among individuals of the same species. In shells and pearls, pigmentation occurs in protein. Combined with the fact prisms reflect light in different colors according to orientation thoroughly debunks the OP's assertion they can be identified in the manner suggested." Well wait. The fact that mineralization is not constant among individuals of the same species decreases the likelihood of telling a species by the color of the mineralization, but increases the likelihood of environmental factors, as in being located in a bay where a certain mineral is found in high concentrations, being the reason for the color difference. And if the pigmentation occurs in protein, there is a reasonable chance that a particular species will manufacture the same proteins as another member of its species, and any grafting from another species might introduce proteins, not extant in the original species, thus discounting the variable nature of the colors in a grafted pearl, as a Whatever Theory debunking argument. And it does not matter if you put a prism in a ray of light that contains no green wavelengths, the rainbow you produce will not have green in it. Your RGB value would be R256 G000 B256. If a pigment absorbed the green wavelengths of white light, it would not matter, afterward how you prismed the light, the green would still be identifyingly, missing. Regards, TAR

TonyLang, Yes I read it the first time. It made about the same amount of sense the second time. I still have the same objections that I had initially. You are talking about something existing as an intact ID before there was even time and space. What this has to do with this universe, is not evident to me. You provide no way for me to check your claims. You just make them, as if in making them they are fact. Your claims appear to me to be, if I can borrow a phrase I have heard around here a few times, "word salad". I have some objections to reincarnation, and I have some of the same, to your claims. If you can not know what your ID was "last time" nor remember this instantiation, when you are in the next, and the whole operation is occurring in some other place than this universe, what, if any meaning does this have, for me, here in this universe? None. Regards, TAR

Whatever Theory, Another aspect we have to consider again is the shade aspect. A former boyfriend of my daughter was color blind, I forget the particular kind of color-blindness, but he could tell the difference between two types of green trees, before my daughter, who was not color blind, could. I read that the army specifically selects snipers that ARE colorblind, because they can "see" the difference between a tree and a camouflaged enemy. I say this, because, like I mentioned before, there is more than one way, using cyan, magenta, yellow and black to get the same "color" (remember the under color reduction, UCR I talked about in color copier technology). Also when doing color balance, adding yellow, or taking away magenta and cyan, resulted in approximately the same color. Also there were creamy colors you can make with inks by adding white ink, that you can not achieve using CMYK because the only way to add white was to reduce the amount of toner. So there are likely triplets of RGB values that are numerically different, but visually similar. And likely triplets that are numerically similar, but are visually different. Consider for a moment the fact that color circles are often envisioned. Subtractive color and additive color circles, that complement each other in that the complementary colors oppose each other in the same circular fashion...but in terms of wavelengths, red does not "attach to" violet. Red is longest wavelength we see and Violet is the shortest. So what does green being the opposite of magenta mean? That magenta is a shorter wavelength than violet and a longer wavelength than Red?????...it is obviously NOT a circle we are talking about, when it comes to wavelengths. We are obviously talking about human perception of color. Regards, TAR

Whatever Theory, There is another problem here, that I have not fully wrapped my own head around, and it probably additionally relates to Klaynos' warning that you can not do what you are trying to do here, without normalized spectroscopy. When we see color, we take the firing of the three sets of cones, but this info is passed to the brain along only two channels. Thus the "way we see" colors is not necessarily in a straightforward "measure the wavelength" way. It has to do with comparisons and oppositions and such and we hence don't "see" colors like red-green or blue-yellow. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_vision So, the RGB scale is made to specifically mirror human color sensing abilities. Cameras are designed so, and monitors are designed so, and computers are designed so as to have us register the same color we would register, had we looked at the thing directly. This does not mean the camera is sensing and recording the actual wavelengths of light in a "normalized" fashion and reporting them without bias, or without engineered adjustments that "act like" a human's vision system. The RGB system does not register wavelengths in the ultraviolet spectrum as a bee's would, so color markings that a certain species of flower would have, that a bee could see clearly, and that would help in the identification of the species, are not even available to the RGB system, as such markers are not available to the human color seeing ability that the equipment that renders the RGB values are designed to mimic. So, maybe our color sensing ability is pretty much built around the world and the indications of purpose and kind that a species visually projects, since our vision evolved to allow us to internalize the outside world and plan actions and non-actions according to such internalizations, but shape and size and and number and motion and context are also internalized and considered, before an ID is made. Human color sense might not be enough. Normalized spectroscopy might be enough, to ID a particular set of molecules that is unique to a species, but I fear the RGB scale does not provide enough detail of the specific wavelengths absorbed by a particular molecule, to make a positive ID. Maybe 256 step RGB can tell us a lot. But maybe trying to ID a species from its RGB color is like trying to read a license plate from a hundred yards away. Can make some guesses, but just can not make out the letters and the numbers. Regards, TAR

Mordred, No I guess not. I will let Whatever Theory defend his theory, and make his own claims. I was just trying to leave open whatever possibilities there might be, to tell a species by its colors. Regards, TAR

Tony Lang, It makes me possible anywhere in existence? How? Do you have any mechanism in mind? Is a Sun an instantiation? An ant? A virus? Is there any cause and effect, any reason why you could consider a reinstantiation a promotion or a demotion, progress or regression? Any choice in the matter? I don't think you are being objective at all. I think its all in your head. You are making up the rules, not arriving at the rules by seeing how reality works. Regards, TAR

Lagoon Island Pearls, I thought the single number was dropped as a possibility. The adjustments in process, included, I thought, the requirement for a series of colors taken from particular well thought out and described locations on the animal. I fully agree that a species having a unique number is not likely, but having a particular combination of numbers might be possible, if a species has a particular unique collection of pigments, put together in a particular way, this could identify it, as that particular species. Don't you think? Regards, TAR

Whatever Theory, Strange is right. You have not yet told us how you are going to a identify a purple carrot as a carrot, nor have you told us how you are going to avoid identifying a clam as a carrot, when you find a purple carrot's RGB value, in the purple markings in its shell. Regards, TAR

Lagoon Island Pearls, The theory had problems from the get go and many members have shown, Whatever Theory, where and how the theory could be falsified. Like Strange, with the carrots and you with the cultured pearls. There are many limitations, adjustments, refinements and problems, involved with the theory. Debunked is a strong word, and if you want to consider the theory debunked, consider it debunked, but there is an underlying chemical reality of the world, that just might lend itself to color identification. Granted, Whatever Theory has not laid out a solid theory, and much of what was said in the OP was unsupported conjecture, cherry picking and unrigorous thinking...but there remains this underlying chemical reality of the world, that has electrons moving up a notch when hit by a photon, and dropping down a notch and releasing a photon, at a particular wavelength. Thus the atom announces itself to the world, by the frequencies of light that it emits. In organic beings, there are indeed chromophores, protein chains, that change their form when they absorb a photon. The absorption of a particular wavelength photon, gives the molecule away. You look at what frequencies have not been absorbed and you know which have. There are probably a finite set of these complex molecules, in all the varied species of animals and plants and fungi on the planet. And each of these finite set of molecules has its signature absorption profile, I would guess. It is not impossible to tell, by the RGB signature, what wavelengths have been absorbed, and not impossible to further predict that if a certain set of wavelengths have been absorbed, there might be a certain combination of particular proteins, doing the absorbing. If a species has a particular set of these proteins, in a particular physical pattern on their shell, hair, skin, flesh, eyes, claws, or whatever, this can be predicted by the RGB pattern Whatever Theory is experimenting with...possibly. I would not go so far as to say Whatever Theory's theory is debunked by the difficultly of determining species, by the color of a pearl, in a cultured pearl situation, where grafting and dying and such is part of the process. Regards, TAR

Lagoon Island Pearls, The below link suggests as you said, that the color of a pearl is mostly up to chance, but the species and the environment play a role. I felt when Whatever Theory was after identifying a species by the color of its pearl, that this was analogous to attempting to determine someone's nationality by the color of a gall stone. Might be possible, but I did not see the likelihood, or the reasons why the coatings (nacre) would be specific to a species as it seems to me the same mechanical process, using the same basic ingredients, are employed from one species to the next. I am not sure its a myth that pearls form around irritants, as that seems to be the primary reason for a pearl to form in a natural environment. You obviously know a great deal more about pearls than I ever will, but they are after all, not a functional part of an oyster, but a response to an environmental threat. Perhaps the inside of the shell would be a better thing to check for IDing a species, than the color of the pearl. When it comes to cultured pearls, and dyed pearls and the like, we are moving a step away from the natural colors that a species would be exhibiting due to genetic factors, like what pigments and proteins are encoded in its DNA and due to environmental factors, like what trace elements are likely to be found in the environment where the oyster lives. http://www.wisegeek.com/what-causes-pearls-to-be-different-colors.htm#didyouknowout “The factors that contribute to the color of a pearl include the type of oyster, the thickness and number of layers of nacre, and possibly trace elements in the oyster's aquatic environment. A pearl manufacturer may also influence the color of the pearl to some degree by introducing tissue from another oyster into the host oyster along with the shell nucleus. The color of a pearl is determined by a combination of factors: the base color, overtone, and iridescence. Cultured pearls are also sometimes dyed.” Regards, TAR

Lagoon Island Pearls, I did not have Stellar's Jay in my North American bird book, but searching on the internet, the pictures were varied enough so that the particular numbers you show, would not be the ones each picture would yield, so, somehow a correction factor, or a "bringing a picture to a standard state" has to be developed. Even if it is something like "take a picture of the male of the species in full sun with the sun behind you between 45 and 55 degrees elevated and have the bird facing away from you with the length of the body pointing between perpendicular to your line of site and parallel to you line of site, between this and that angle, and have the bird between this and that height higher than your position, and take the picture with this camera and this lens and these filters, and store the image in this manner and display it on this device in this manner, and select a pixel at this particular location on the bird and read its RGB value." That this particular RGB value can be found on a bird of another species would not be surprising, being that the same pigment or mix of pigments, would be chemically possible and historical connections between the lineage of the two species might make the presence of the same pigments, understandable. So for the identification of a species, you would probably need at least two if not more specific locations on the animal, that a reading of the RGB value is to be taken from. In this way you could identify the pigments in the claw and the beak and the three major colors on the wing feathers and the three major colors on the breast feathers, or whatever, and come up with a particular set of profiles, that would match pretty closely between members of the same species, that would not match, as a group of profiles, with the same readings, taken from those particular locations on a bird not of the species. But then we have other considerations like you pointed out with the pearls, where the trace minerals in the water will affect the colors on the inside of the shell, and on the coating an oyster will put around an abrasive thing to protect its inards. These colors might not be particularly pigments unique to the species, but might be influenced, by location, as the OP suggested. Or as Mike Smith Cosmos points out, there could be pigments bred in or out of the same species for various reasons, or you have your albino situations, or times where the bird has a wound or has been struck by a paint ball and such, where the general species identification by color process would not work. Regards, TAR

Whatever Theory, r33 g64 b27 was your color of the first set of leaves. My thought was to think of a line across the top of the cone chart, and make a yellow valley where blue was absorbed, a magenta valley where green was absorbed and a cyan valley where red light was absorbed. How the peaks between the valleys are to be drawn, is up for grabs, but the bottom of the valley in each case would be your plotted number, as I have done here, with B27, G64 and R33. This gives sort of a visual profile of the absorption of light taking place, to produce the perceived color. Regards, TAR Whatever Theory, I did not exactly follow your expectations with the fluorescent rocks. A particular area that shows a color under visible light, does not have to show that color under ultraviolet light. When visible light strikes a rock, it is either absorbed or reflected. When ultraviolet light hits a fluorescent mineral, certain wavelengths are absorbed, and then the energy is sent out, meaning light is emitted from the stone, at a different wavelength than what was absorbed. We know its different, because we can see it, and the wavelength that hit the stone was not within the visible spectrum. Perhaps your confusion is related to the fact that a computer screen emits light. Thus when you see a green thing on a monitor, there is actually green light being created and emitted from that area of the screen. The actual subject that the picture was of, does not create green light. The sun or a light bulb creates the white light, and the leaf absorbs the magenta wavelengths and reflects the green wavelengths. You have to keep the source of the wavelengths in mind, and what is happening in terms of the pigments absorbing such, in a living thing, to create its apparent color. This is crucial to understand, for your identification system to be structured in an understandable and falsifiable way. Whatever system you come up with, has to be able to be done by anyone following the same procedures. And anyone should get the same results when they follow the procedure you describe. If you say the profile of the dark part of the gabungo leaf is this and the profile of the light part is that, and somebody has a leaf and they follow your procedure to arrive at a profile for the dark part and a profile for the light part, the profiles should match pretty closely if they are testing a gabungo leaf, and they should match your profiles of a madingo leaf, if they are testing a madingo leaf. Regards, TAR

tonylang, So...no difference? Regards, TAR

Whatever Theory, Ogdensburg and Franklin and the Sterling Hills Zinc mines are about 20-25 minutes up the road from where I live. In my youth, we had a summer cabin at a lake about 10-15 minutes from Sterling hill and an old fisherman lived by himself in a cabin, where he had built a "black light" room to display his extensive collection of flourescent mineral samples from the area. The room was pitch black except for the fluorescent minerals. Really neat. http://www.galleries.com/minerals/fablocal/franklin.htm "Fluorescence is a very special trait to many of the minerals here. In fact the city of Franklin calls itself "The Fluorescent Mineral Capital of the World"! Not all the minerals fluoresce, but many do, especially willemite and calcite. It is hard to imagine a single fluorescent mineral display that exists without at least a specimen from Franklin or Sterling Hill. The most ordinary and even dull looking specimens from these localities can literally light up with beautiful reds (calcite) and greens (willemite) under short-wave and long-wave ultraviolet light. These specimens are made even more interesting with a sprinkling of nonfluorescent black franklinite peppering the fluorescent display with opaque black dots. Other fluorescent minerals from here include esporite (bright yellow-green), clinohedrite (orange-yellow), hardystonite (violet-blue), barite (white), manganaxinite (an intense red) and over 70 others." Regards, TAR

Whatever Theory, Woke up in the middle of the night (4 am) this morning thinking about the pigments that cause the colors in living things. Back in #60 you took 10 readings and averaged out the red, the green and the blue, to come up with three numbers. I subtracted each of the numbers from 256 and added up the results and not surprisingly came up with 23 for cyan and 183 for magenta. Your average numbers were red 232, green 73, and blue 27. I did not do the calculation but if I had I am thinking I would have arrived at 230 yellow (256-27). So my thinking is, in order to be thinking about the species, and not the light, it is better to think of what wavelengths the animal is absorbing, and get that info from what wavelengths are left over (what the camera sees.) So your red 232, green 73, blue 27, becomes, in terms of the wavelengths absorbed by the animal, cyan 24, magenta 183 and yellow 229. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cone_cell Shows that the S type cones (short wavelengths) are most sensitive around 420nm, the M type (medium) around 534nm, and the L (long) around 564 nm. If you take the chart with the three bell type curves and conceptually imagine the animal absorbing part of white light (a straight horizontal line across the top) you could "plot" your numbers, and imagine a particular absorption curve, as to what light sensitive pigments are present in the animal. Regards, TAR Whatever Theory, Not sure about the ultraviolet results. It would be better, for "figuring out" purposes, if you gave us the readings for particular spots on the rocks, and not try to match colors. The colors, after all, should not match. I think we misdirected you. We were talking about different lighting conditions, as to what light is bounced off the subject and what is absorbed, in terms of what light is left for the camera or eye to see. Ultraviolet light, is called black light, because it does not produce any wavelengths in the visible spectrum. All the wavelengths are shorter than what we can see. If a rock "appears" under black light it is because it contains flourescent minerals, that absorb light of one frequency and a moment later release light of another frequency. Thus, we misdirected you, because the color of the light released from the rock is a function of the flourescent characteristics of the mineral, in that it releases visible light, after absorbing ultraviolet. So forgive me for the error. An ultraviolet source is no help at all in providing a "different" mix of wavelengths. It is providing NO visible wavelengths. All your subjects should read Red 0, Green 0, Blue 0, when observed under black light, unless they are flourescent. Regards, TAR

Whatever Theory, Mordred makes some excellent points. Look at the structures holding the meat in your last pictures of pig and lamb. The mechanisms might be different, as in wood and metal or something, but the lighting in the one picture is obviously different than the lighting in the other. This has to affect your numbers, as in you can not assume the numbers belong to the meat when part of the numbers belong to the lighting. Another aspect of your investigation that occurred to me this morning, is that when you study pictures, the pictures have already been subject to digitalization and most probably some image processing. That is, the numbers that you see, have already been decided upon by some process that is at least one step removed from the actual wavelengths of light that are being reflected off the original subject. For instance, if the amount of red wavelengths coming from the original object was somewhere between 145 and 146 the camera already has decided to call it either 145 or 146, and you don't particularly know the process upon which it made the decision. The instruments themselves are capable of adjustments and calibrations. So consider the light source, the camera settings, specifications and internal processing rules and abilities, the computer programs and communication algorithms that are involved in transferring the data collected by the camera, to the monitor, and the specifications and abilities of the monitor. All in all, you need a few baseline standards against which to judge your numbers, so that you know what a set of numbers means, and so that you could reasonably compare one set of numbers with another set. The numbers by themselves are good. When you choose a color, and show the patch of that RGB value, it looks a whole lot, like the color of the thing. But consider Modred's suggestion of taking a picture of the same object, illuminated under ultraviolet light. If you were to take your samples and come up with an RGB patch that looked very much like the color the object was showing in the ultraviolet lit scene, it would NOT be the same RGB triplet of numbers that you would have come up with after showing us a patch that matched the sunlit object. Regards, TAR

Whatever Theory, Additional help in categorizing species by their colors might be had, by thinking about the molecular structure of amolecule, that produces a color, usually by absorbing the wavelengths of light that you don't see. Mineral colors, or colors characteristic of certain metals, can be seen by looking at the Wiki page on Borax bead testing (nice chart of the colors produced by certain metals in the oxidizing and reducing parts of the flame). My paste didn't work, but you can search "bead test". These mineral colors might be important when thinking about why certain shells and pearls and the like are certain colors, as the trace minerals in clear calcium might be responsible. On the organic side, chromophores are probably the key, as early on in the evolutionary trek, plants developed ways of getting energy from the Sun, by absorbing certain ultraviolet and visible light frequencies and thusly changing the electron bonds in the particular carbon chains that absorbed these wavelengths. Carbon based life, is based on carbon, after all, and animals eat and breath the carbon and carbon compounds that life before, fixed, so understanding pigments and dyes in terms of the wavelengths they absorb is important. That is why I talked about the complementary colors. If an object is absorbing primarily green wavelengths, its reflecting the magenta wavelengths and if you see green, that means the plant is using, or absorbing the red and blue wavelengths, so they probably have chromophores that absorb red and blue, and possibly some ultraviolet energy. that we are not built to notice is missing. Regards, TAR that species have developed reasons to show certain colors is probably an offshoot of chromophores that originally were purposed to get energy from the Sun. it is probably not an accident that hemoglobin is in red blood, and iron in the borax bead test shows red in the oxidizing part of the flame, and a heme is a molecule with an iron atom at its core.

Thread, Here is the second group of 256 numbers with the actual characters omitted but decimal numbers used in their place. The concept of the characters is retained however, and each position in the 16x16 grid has a unique shape and name, as described. The first diagram with the yellow circles around the primes, showed all the characters in the 256 to the 0 position, when the 256 to the 1 character was "nullzer". This 16x16 grid shows decimal 256 through decimal 511, or in BaseByte, when the 256 to the 1 character is "nullone". The reason for this diagram, is to show that there may be some value in working in base256, and its good to have 256 unique and identifiable characters, with names, to use so you don't have to use characters that already have other meanings. Regards, TAR

humm...just noticed that you cannot show an odd number, with any of the basebyte characters in a position other than the first position. Therefore, every prime number there is, when written in basebyte has to have in its least significant digit, a character that has an arm in the 2 to the 0 spot. In base 10 every prime number must end in 1,3,5,7, or 9. Since every number can be shown in basebyte and every number greater than 255 can be divided by 256 with a remainder between 0 and 255, then every prime number, must end with one of the 128 "odd" characters seen in every other column of the 16x16 chart. It might be interesting to chart the primes between 256 and 511, in the same manner, against this 16x16, least significant digit grid. Then increment the 256 to 1 character, and see where the primes fall, again. There might be a pattern that would emerge.

tonylang, 1. How does this ID you are talking about, differ from the Eastern idea of reincarnation? Regards, TAR

Whatever Theory, You asked: "What are all of the different factors that need to be considered" I think the primary consideration is the type of light (made up of what frequencies) you are shining on the subject. Being that very few of the species that you have shown so far actually emit visible light, ALL of the visible light, coming off the subject, is reflected sunlight, or if you take a picture in a box, the specifications of your flashbulb, or LED array, or whatever, would have to be taken into consideration. I am not sure how to best handle this, but probably, if you take the same species under different lighting conditions, with the same camera, you could get an idea of how the numbers would change or what patterns would become evident. But the way light is absorbed or reflected, refracted or passed through, changes, sometimes according to the surface characteristics of the subject. Maybe for instance, you would get a different number if the meat was cut with a very sharp knife, or pulled apart, or if the surface of the object was wet with morning dew, or dried out from a prolonged drought. Some baseline standards, should probably be set, to your satisfaction, around three or four reference items. Like a certain type of Cherry, a certain type of banana and a certain type of blueberry, that you could photograph in varied conditions, and see how the conditions affected the numbers. Also you could get a greyscale (a precisely printed grey reference made by Kodak for instance) that you could photograph under various lighting conditions, and see how the light affects your numbers. Regards, TAR Second type of issue you have not yet fully described: How are you going to handle it when a species has more than one color associated with it? For instance, with the crabs you sampled, one species had a blue on its legs that you did not sample.