The "Whatever Theory" Identifying The World...

[DrP]

 

Facts??? I posted this in the speculations. I am trying to explain a technique, but there are no facts. I have introduced this to the science world for them to figure out if it is fact or fiction.

Without being even given the opportunity to fully explain my techniques and with almost no suggestions of how to improve my technique or what ways to better anything, I am in no way any wiser for posting here.

Any way let this thread be a reminder to anyone that wants to post any new ideas in this forum, in the future.

I am going to find another place to post my ideas.

Thank you

Bye Bye

Why so guarded? If you can't take constructive criticism and challenging of you your idea, then what's the point of posting about it on a science forum? Are you looking for someone to just agree with you and tell you how brilliant you are? Or do you want honest help and critic?

Edited June 14, 2015 by DrP

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Hello welcome to the "Whatever Theory" thread.[/size]My theory is that same species, from same geographic locations, posses[/size]certain colors and color ranges that are unique to their particular[/size]species.[/size]I believe this to be true for everything in the natural world[/size]including, all sea life, animals and insects, people, fruit and[/size]vegetables, plants and flowers, bacteria and cancer cells and may even[/size]be true with things that do not have genetic genes such as gems and[/size]minerals. I have coined this term already as (Genetic Color Code) or[/size](GCC), but if any one here has a better idea of what it should be called,[/size]

or if a term for this already exists

.

 

You have asked.

. . " I have coined this term already as (Genetic Color Code) , but if any one here has a better idea of what it should be called,"

 

My suggestion for its name is simply .. " Colour Coding " . ... " Colour Coding Theory " . " CCT "

 

It's got a nice ring to it, rolls off the tongue well !

 

. Then it does not tie it in to ' genetic ' which is normally tied to living things, whereas you are including minerals .

 

We ( electronics engineers of yesteryear, ) used to colour code resistors with distinct , individual colours . Black 0 , Brown 1 , Red 2, orange 3 , Yellow 4 , Green 5 , Blue 6 , Purple 7 , Grey 8 , white 9

resistors were beautiful little things , first caught my eye as a 9 year old boy .

 

Mike

Edited June 14, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[ajb]

I do not understand what "error bars" are? Can you please explain? Thanks

To some extent you are doing this already as you match RGB numbers to some finite decimal place. To two sig fig I think. So to you the numbers 0.344 and 0.343 are the same, or example. You will need to think about how well you can match RGB colours in principal and also what systematic errors you expect.

 

Can you please explain the difference hCO2 and SiO2 and what you have observed about them? Thanx

One is a gas and one is solid at STP. This is despite them sharing the feature of having two oxygen atoms in their make-up.

 

How many people do you know that owns and know how to operate a spectroscopy machine. I do not know anyone that owns one.

How many people do you know that own and can operate a smart phone?

I think the basic idea of a smart phone app that allows you to identify things is great. I am note sure what already exists. But the problem is that colour alone will not be enough and maybe even misleading in poor lighting conditions for example.

[whatever theory]

Thank you for all of your comments

 

 

1) fish tended to be multi and brightly coloured the further you go south , or rather nearer the equator.

2 ) the darker human beings seem to be nearer the equator , the lighter the human beings seem to be the further north or nearer the Poles.

I have had color on my mind a lot lately and I have not realized what you said here until you said it.

I think that what may be obvious to some may be not be so obvious to others.

So good job and thank you for seeing the importance enough in your idea to post it.

Maybe once (if) we have all of the worlds data, your theory will be able to be proved. Once proved then maybe an answer for why this is will be able to be found based on the data.

We are the same Mike, we are both here just stating the obvious.

 

 

 

Why so guarded? If you can't take constructive criticism and challenging of you your idea, then what's the point of posting about it on a science forum? Are you looking for someone to just agree with you and tell you how brilliant you are? Or do you want honest help and critic?

I can take constructive criticism and that is why I joined this sight. I knew I was going to get some here, but there was a certain member that kept badgering me and making jokes at my expense. Like in the real world some one can only take so much before they snap. So sorry if I offended anyone here including the person that was badgering me. I hope that we can get past it and move on a bit more civilly.

 

 

 

My suggestion for its name is simply .. " Colour Coding " . ... " Colour Coding Theory " . " CCT "

I like it and your are right the word Genetic should possibly be removed.

We will let the rest have their say on the matter, but I like it. Thanks

 

 

 

To some extent you are doing this already as you match RGB numbers to some finite decimal place. To two sig fig I think. So to you the numbers 0.344 and 0.343 are the same, or example. You will need to think about how well you can match RGB colours in principal and also what systematic errors you expect.

My friend, for the life of me I can not figure out what this means. Can you please translate it to an easier way that I can understand it. Sorry but I just can not wrap my head around it.

 

 

 

One is a gas and one is solid at STP. This is despite them sharing the feature of having two oxygen atoms in their make-up.

Thanks for the info. Does the solid have color to it.

 

 

I think the basic idea of a smart phone app that allows you to identify things is great. I am note sure what already exists. But the problem is that colour alone will not be enough and maybe even misleading in poor lighting conditions for example.

I think you are right. Lighting conditions play a huge part in the colors that appear in pictures. I light meter could be built into this application which would help calculate light along with the other conditions to synchronize all of your photos. I think that no matter what, you would also have to hold up a grey/black/white card in front of the lens in each picture. This grey card would have to be the exact same color as all of the others that are participating in the research.

For instance when you buy this smart phone application it would come with one of these grey cards and all of them would be the same exact colors. Maybe one day the software programmers would find a way to eliminate the need of a balancing grey card, but I think that this will work until that day.

If the subject is small enough, then everyone can just make a cardboard "black box" and take there pictures at a certain distance form the object in the box. All of these pictures should be in the same conditions and after calculating your cameras flash intensity, you could easily then compare them to each other or with someone else without the need of a grey card present.

Ok thanks again

Edited June 14, 2015 by whatever theory

[ajb]

My friend, for the life of me I can not figure out what this means. Can you please translate it to an easier way that I can understand it. Sorry but I just can not wrap my head around it.

I am going to suggest you learn some basic experimental science and error analysis. You can start with

 

http://www.physics.umd.edu/courses/Phys276/Hill/Information/Notes/ErrorAnalysis.html

 

which should be enough to give you the basic idea.

 

 

Thanks for the info. Does the solid have color to it.

Google silicon dioxide.

[whatever theory]

Hello

Thank you for the link "ajb"

I have read it over several times and I am going to try to figure out how I can apply any of this to what I am doing. It may take me a little time because my mind does not think scientifically, but any suggestion that you have I would appreciate.

For a while the only thing in the world that I could think of that may be truly transparent was glass, but from what I new, glass was man made so I did not really consider glass to be a factor in my ideas. But what never popped into my mind was quartz (Si02).

Now that you have given me something that may actually be transparent, in nature, it has opened up many new problems for me to try to solve.

The first thing that I want to do is find out if quartz is actually transparent.

In these pictures below, I have found pictures that all have a true black back ground at red-0, green 0, blue 0.

I have compared the blackest color of each crystal to the color of there back ground.

On all of these crystals red was the most prevalent color. In the second picture there was no green or blue present, only red.

I did not realize until after I tested them that the 2 crystals that had similar colors were different then the one that had a r-7, g-0, b-0.

There may be 2 different types of crystals here, maybe one is smokey quartz.

I think that this would be a much better test if all of the pictures of the crystals were taken in a light box to defuse any direct light, but from this test it appears that quartz actually does have a little color and is not truly transparent.

Another thing that I wanted to explain a bit further on, which relates to some of your earlier questions, is that there are many species that may share a certain color with each other,say for instance, there may be a bird that shares a color of blue with a fish.

Even though the bird may share this same BLUE color range as the fish, the bird may have pink and yellow markings with green eyes and a purple legs. Where the fish has grey markings with white eyes. So even if there is a certain color that may overlap in 2 different animals the chances are that all of the colors from each species will not match with each other. This may sound confusing but the more different colors a species has the harder it would be to match all of those same colors to a different animal.

In the case were were an orange sweet potato may share a similar orange color to a carrot. The potato will have an additional, outside skin, color and the carrot will have an additional, stem color, so even though the oranges might match the other colors will not.

 

 

 

1) fish tended to be multi and brightly coloured the further you go south , or rather nearer the equator.

2 ) the darker human beings seem to be nearer the equator , the lighter the human beings seem to be the further north or nearer the Poles.

Mike

I wanted to share some observation that I have made that your comments reminded me of. I did not have much time to respond to you yesterday.

I know that these comments are taking this off topic, but I will get right back on the topic after.

I have observed that people get smaller the closer to the equator the live. There was even a recent discovery of some hobbit people that were only like 3 feet tall that lived in the equator and many giant skeletons have been found in I think Iceland which is at the top of the world. The only problem I have with this is the Inuit (Eskimo) people are very small. Maybe it is because not long ago they migrated there from Asia. I don't know.

 

The other observation that I have made is that there is a chain of islands in the Philippines, near the equator, where there population of woman being born is much higher then men, some cases 7 woman to every one man. There are many other islands at the same distance from the equator, in the Philippines and Asia, that have almost identical conditions but the woman to man ratios are normal. So what is it about these Visayan islands that produce so many females?

These islands are some of the most poorest islands in the Philippines and the local population live on a small amount of seafood, large amount of fruit and a huge amount of rice. When I say huge I really mean it. Even the rest of Asia jokes at how much rice Visayan people can eat.

Any way this unique diet is the only thing that I can see that is different from the people of the Visayas and the rest of the Philippines Islands and the rest Asia.

Ok Take Care

Edited June 15, 2015 by whatever theory

[Strange]

In these pictures below, I have found pictures that all have a true black back ground at red-0, green 0, blue 0.

I have compared the blackest color of each crystal to the color of there back ground.

 

As you don't know what the spectrum of the light source was (and what technology was used to capture the photographs, what the colour gamut of that technology was, what post processing has been done, etc) this is an utterly meaningless comparison.

 

Also, you cannot (by definition) use black as a colour reference.

 

Another thing that I wanted to explain a bit further on, which relates to some of your earlier questions, is that there are many species that may share a certain color with each other,say for instance, there may be a bird that shares a color of blue with a fish.

Even though the bird may share this same BLUE color range as the fish, the bird may have pink and yellow markings with green eyes and a purple legs. Where the fish has grey markings with white eyes. So even if there is a certain color that may overlap in 2 different animals the chances are that all of the colors from each species will not match with each other.

 

Again, colouring and markings are part of the characterization of a species. But it is obviously not enough by itself. (As your many examples show). There are near identical populations that are counted as separate species. There are species which have a huge range of colours and patterns.

 

I have observed that people get smaller the closer to the equator the live.

 

Citation needed. As this is claim almost certainly false, please provide some evidence to support it.

 

The other observation that I have made is that there is a chain of islands in the Philippines, near the equator, where there population of woman being born is much higher then men, some cases 7 woman to every one man.

 

Citation needed.

 

Neither the Wikipedia page on the Visya islands not the one on the people mention this remarkable "fact".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visayas

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visayans

[whatever theory]

 

 

As you don't know what the spectrum of the light source was (and what technology was used to capture the photographs, what the colour gamut of that technology was, what post processing has been done, etc) this is an utterly meaningless comparison.

I am not comparing the pictures to each other, I am only seeing if the color that appears on the surface of the crystal matches the color of the background to see if the crystal has color.

Are you providing any citation to what you are saying about this or have you provided any examples, facts, studies, etc. that support any of your comments?

I am trying to demonstrate and prove or disprove my ideas.

 

 

 

Again, colouring and markings are part of the characterization of a species. But it is obviously not enough by itself. (As your many examples show). There are near identical populations that are counted as separate species. There are species which have a huge range of colours and patterns.

Are you going to show any proof of what you are saying here?

Just because identifying species by color has not been done before does not mean it is not possible.

 

 

 

I have observed that people get smaller the closer to the equator the live.

The other observation that I have made is that there is a chain of islands in the Philippines, near the equator, where there population of woman being born is much higher then men, some cases 7 woman to every one man.

So it is OK if Mike or yourself expresses an opinion, about an observation that was made, but it is not OK for me to do it?

Any way like I said I went off topic, for one paragraph, but I am not going back there.

[Klaynos]

How do you normalise out white balance?

[whatever theory]

Thank you for your comment Klaynos.

If you were going to take photos in a Black Box, you would take many different pictures of the same white piece of paper and then you would perform the technique that I have been demonstrating on each different picture to make sure that the white paper appeared to be the exact same color in each photo. Once you have accomplished this you should be safe comparing any pictures that were taken in the box to each other, as long all the conditions where the same from pic to pic, distance to subject, angle of photo, etc.

If you wanted to compare pictures that you took in your box with someone else, the other person would have to do the same thing with the exact same white paper in their box. If the color that they get is different then yours then you need to calculate the difference when comparing pictures with each other.

For example. If the test you performed showed that the white paper is say red-250, green-252, blue 254 and your friend is showing that the same white paper is red-251, g-253, b-255 in their box. Because of the cameras or software, that you are both using, are different.

So since your friends data shows up 1 value higher in each of the red, green, and blue categories you need to take this into consideration when comparing pictures to your friend.

Although I think that a card with white, grey and black on it may give you a more accurate balance.

If you are not taking a picture inside a controlled environment like a black box, then you need to hold up a white/grey/black card in each picture.

Since you know the color of this white card you can use this white color to balance these photos once you have put them into your software.

Anyone else that wanted to compare there pictures with yours would have to perform the same process with the exact same color Balancing card that you used.

I will try to demonstrate all of this in future posts.

Hope this helped and was not too confusing.

[Klaynos]

You've just described what would need to be done for every photo that you want you're process to apply to. You're not doing that.

 

I've done color space experiments with biological samples. Adjusting out white balance/the illuminating spectrum is very difficult when using optical microscopes and known light sources so I cannot see how your system would ever work.

[Strange]

I am not comparing the pictures to each other, I am only seeing if the color that appears on the surface of the crystal matches the color of the background to see if the crystal has color.

 

Except you aren't because the background is black. If you want to attempt to do this, then you need a white background. At least then you have some (small) chance of correcting for the lighting conditions.

 

Are you providing any citation to what you are saying about this or have you provided any examples, facts, studies, etc. that support any of your comments?

 

Most of what I have said is background knowledge that I hope would be well understood by anyone commenting on colorimetry or species definitions. Also, you are the one claiming a new iea, so the burden is on you to provide supporting evidence.

 

But here is something on colour balance: http://www.digitalcameraworld.com/2014/01/31/white-balance-explained-how-your-camera-corrects-the-colour-of-different-kinds-of-lighting/

 

Are you going to show any proof of what you are saying here?

Just because identifying species by color has not been done before does not mean it is not possible.

 

Again, see above. This is well known. But...

Here are a few links which show how colour is used as (part of) the identification of species:

http://www.gardenswithwings.com/identify-butterflies.html

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/research-curation/research/projects/bombus/key_british_colour_info.html

http://www.petsnails.co.uk/documents/species/id-your-snail.html

 

As for species with a large variety of coloration: cats. And dogs.

And birds: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1420-9101.2002.00431.x/abstract

 

So it is OK if Mike or yourself expresses an opinion, about an observation that was made, but it is not OK for me to do it?

But this isn't about opinion. It is about evidence and, in this case, facts. It might be your opinion that 7 times more women than men being born on some island. But if your opinion is not supported by facts, then it is of no more value than my opinion that the local forests are inhabited by unicorns (of the invisible pink variety).

 

If you want to "do science" then you need to drop unsupported opinions and start presenting evidence.

[whatever theory]

Hello Strange and thank you for your comments.

I hope we can find away to come together to either prove or disprove these ideas.Yes, the burden is on me so if could please help me, I would appreciate it.

I will try not to go off topic again, even if I think it may relate to anyone else's comments and I was not sure if I should have, when I did it. I will also try not to make any statements about anything that I do not have a way to test any more, also.

I know you have a job to do and you have probably heard a lot of crazy ideas here, in the past, which has probably caused you to raise your guard, but please give me a chance before you dismiss all of my ideas.

There was no citation on these comments only my own observations. I see my errors in this.

You are right, all of my ideas are based on current technologies that already exist. I am just trying to tie them altogether in a way that can benefit us.

Thanks for the links. I do know that there are others out there using colors as one way of color coding a species, but if you look at the links you sent me, none of these people are doing or suggesting what I am.

Thanks again for your thoughtful comments

Edited June 15, 2015 by whatever theory

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Hi ' whatever ..theory '

 

Today I have been out into the environment .

 

I went to a stream and found and took 3 colour images , together with white reference paper.

 

1 grey stone in stream and ref white paper

 

2 red stone under water and ref white paper

 

3 green , yellow and orange leaves with white reference paper.

 

 

Mike

[Klaynos]

How white is the white paper?

 

White isn't necessarily white.

The white also looks over exposed which will void any normalisation based on the spectrum from the reference.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

How white is the white paper?

White isn't necessarily white. The white also looks over exposed which will void any normalisation based on the spectrum from the reference.

The white paper is ordinary printer paper , held awkwardly , as I tip toed into a freezing cold river/ stream near Totnes, Devon .

The stones were in the shallow water. The sun was shining .

 

I thought it might be a useful exercise for " whatever ...." To try out with his system of colour coding " .

 

Mike

[tar]

whatever theory,

 

I worked in the copier industry for years, and working with the Cyan, Magenta, Yellow and Black toner, put down onto "white" paper, and understanding the way people see color (red, yellow and blue cones) and the red yellow and blue pixels that glow on your monitor, and together this gives me a little background to make these suggestions, in regards, to your approach.

 

You said.

"I am not comparing the pictures to each other, I am only seeing if the color that appears on the surface of the crystal matches the color of the background to see if the crystal has color."

 

What I learned about pigments, is that the green grass absorbs all the frequencies of sunlight, EXCEPT the green. So saying the "grass is green" is just a matter of convention, as that is the color of white light (visible) that is NOT absorbed, the most.

 

Some species, bees for instance, "see" in infrared (or ultraviolet,I forget) bands that we do not. There are marking on flowers, different pigments that attract bees, and allow the bees to identify food, that we, and the RGB scale of your camera program, do not even take into consideration. The RGB is a 256 level for each color system designed to simulate a thing and reproduce it on a RGB monitor. It is not very precise, and the light that is illuminating the object is more of a factor, than the pigments in an object, absorbing the light. As others have mentioned here, in low light conditions, we, with the cone setup in our eyes, do not register color very well. To illustrate this, look at something colorful out of the corner of your eye (the light from the object is hitting an area on the back of your eye that is rich in rods, but not heavily populated with cones sensitive to red, green and blue light.) Another quick experiment you can do, to understand color, and how we perceive it, is to stare at one spot on an object, or picture for 30 seconds, without moving your eyes, forcing certain cones to slightly fatigue. Then, quickly stare at one spot on a white wall, or a white piece of paper. You will see the object you were staring at, in complementary colors. The red stuff will materialize as cyan stuff, the green stuff as magenta, and the blue stuff as yellow. And you are just staring at a spot on a white piece of paper.

 

So your work is interesting, but be careful of confirmation bias. You can, as many have suggested, find a matching RGB pixel, somewhere on a picture, or a pixel that is exactly half way between a pixel on the mother and one on the father. It doesn't tell us as much as you imagine.

 

Regards, TAR

One thing I have learned on this board is that it is more important to try and falsify your theory, than to find the two or three places where it may be true. For instance, for the sake of science, take a random, unselected pixel from the mother, and record the RGB values. Take a random, unselected pixel from the father and record the RGB values. Take a random, unselected pixel from the child and record the RGB values. My guess would be, that the values for the child's pixel, WILL NOT be such that the yellow value is half way between the yellow value of the parents, and that the green values will not be averaged and the blue values will not be averaged, as in your example. You worked at finding those particular three pixels, that came out that way. This is called confirmation bias. You have to consider the 10,000 sets of random samples that do not fit your scheme, not the one that does.

Consider the spectrometer. It "sees" the wavelengths of light put out by certain transitions of electrons, characteristic of certain elements. Certain minerals found in a "location" might contain contain certain elements. Living things tend to ingest stuff that comes from their surroundings. Certain "colors" are reflected, absorbed or radiated by an object, and what you can say about the object, because of its apparent color is dependent on why that color is apparent, not on the byte value of the RGB color, alone.

My profile picture includes my wife and two daughters, as well as my father and step-mother. Ignoring the fact that the pictures were taken under different lighting conditions by different camera and processes, I would be willing to bet that a random pixel from me and one from my wife and one from each of my daughters would not confirm your theory. And I would be willing to bet that you could find a pixel on my step-mom and a pixel on my dad, that would average to a pixel on my picture. And she is my step-mom, as in NOT my mother, and she is from Rhode Island, and my blood mother was from PA. Her ancestors were from France, and mine from Germany and Switzerland and Ireland. Can your RGB pixel information confirm these facts?

another drawback to your scheme being workable, is a mathematical one. A square inch of your monitor, figuring 200x200 pixels per inch has 4000 pixels. Many of those 4000 pixels do not have the same RGB value. A 32bit color system would have one byte for Red 256, 256 values that Blue could take and 256 values that Green could take. This puts a limit on your possible colors at 16777216. Considering the spacial complexity of multicolored species, and such, this does not give you much room to operate.

 

(sorry I multiplied wrong, 200x200 is 40000, but that makes your identifying a species by one specific pixel out of 40000 in a square inch, sort of a shaky excercise)

Edited June 16, 2015 by tar

[Klaynos]

The white paper is ordinary printer paper , held awkwardly

Which is not a good reference.

[whatever theory]

Sorry I missed your question yesterday Klaynos

 

 

You've just described what would need to be done for every photo that you want you're process to apply to. You're not doing that.

I've done color space experiments with biological samples. Adjusting out white balance/the illuminating spectrum is very difficult when using optical microscopes and known light sources so I cannot see how your system would ever work.

I am not comparing photos to each other yet. I am only collecting data from each picture itself.

Comparing pictures to each other represents soooooo many problems. I am still trying to solve all of these problems and I have not figured out every aspect so far. But in theory we already have all of the technology to do what I am suggesting, but those like yourself, that have a lot of experience in these fields should be able to do a better job figuring out everything, then me. So I will try to learn from your suggestions and point out problems that I am already having.

 

Thanks for the pictures Mike I hope you did not get too wet taking them.

I have tested the white from each of your pictures. In one photo the white balancing card matched exactly to true white r-255, g-255, b-255

The other 2 fluctuated in their values. If you will notice one was held at a severe angle from the camera lens and the other was put in the grass which may have distorted the color of light that was coming threw the grass.

I think that we would have to figure out how to try to be as controlled as possible with the balancing card. It should be at the same distance and the same angle in each photo. Also you are holding the paper facing up towards the sun, so you may be getting some reflection off of the sun. We also do not know exactly what color white paper you used. White paper can vary in color as Klaynos has politely pointed out.

Any way thank you for taking the time to do this and even though this did not answer all our questions it definitely helped in showing ways that could benefit or improve this technique.

Thank you very much Mike, good job!!!

 

 

Thank for your comments "Tar" and thank you for sharing the information you provided. I really like the color experiment that you explained. Pretty fun!!!

 

So your work is interesting, but be careful of confirmation bias. You can, as many have suggested, find a matching RGB pixel, somewhere on a picture, or a pixel that is exactly half way between a pixel on the mother and one on the father. It doesn't tell us as much as you imagine.

Regards, TAR

One thing I have learned on this board is that it is more important to try and falsify your theory, than to find the two or three places where it may be true. For instance, for the sake of science, take a random, unselected pixel from the mother, and record the RGB values. Take a random, unselected pixel from the father and record the RGB values. Take a random, unselected pixel from the child and record the RGB values. My guess would be, that the values for the child's pixel, WILL NOT be such that the yellow value is half way between the yellow value of the parents, and that the green values will not be averaged and the blue values will not be averaged, as in your example. You worked at finding those particular three pixels, that came out that way. This is called confirmation bias. You have to consider the 10,000 sets of random samples that do not fit your scheme, not the one that does.

 

In the picture, that you are mentioning, I only showed a quick way of testing colors. I have taken that same picture and I have tried to find the color range from each person. The color range being the lightest of one color to the darkest. This color range and the ratios, pattern, between the numbers should stay at a consistent pattern all threw out the range. The colors might bounce around a little bit if you were to just randomly pick any pixel, but they will bounce around in a certain pattern which will be consistent. For example you may get a color, from a subject that is r-123, g-123, b-123 in one area and next to it you may get a color that is r-128, g-128, b-128. So you might think that it is wildly bouncing, but if you look at the pattern of ratios between the red, green and blue they should stay consistent all across the range. If you test one species and say it has a range of red 123-153, green 123 to 153, blue 123 to 153 and a different species has a range of say red 113 to 133, green 113 to 133, blue 113 to 133 then these 2 different species will share the same color for a little while on the scale, but seeing that the range is different from both will help you identify what species it is. If the colors from the 2 different species match then you need to find a different color from each species to test. The more colors you can compare like this, the better you will be able to identify the species.

I hope this was not too confusing.

I have redone the mentioned picture where I have identified the color range of each person.

I used the original value for the lightest shade in the color ranges, which was directly in the center of the foreheads.

I have added a second dot the each person, on the right of there forehead, which represents the darkest area of each person.

You can see that even though the values have changed the ratios between the values has stayed the same and even on the darker end of the range the child still fits perfectly in between her parents.

Here is another example of finding the color range of a species. There are 2 different species of seashells here from the same family.

These species color range, to the naked eye, appears very much the same, but with this technique you can find the color range of each shell and then you can see what range each pearl falls into. I have added to the Nobilis dark black range, because it was covered up by the bicolor shell) based on the lightest and darkest black areas that I already had.

 

 

 

This puts a limit on your possible colors at 16777216

 

I have been trying to figure out a way to calculate all of the different possibilities of different colors on the RGB scale.

Is this amount? I am a little confused...

As for me trying this technique with a spectrometer. I do not have one and although this technique may very well work with these machines as well, I just do not see them being practical for the average person. Only those with one of these machines would be able to benefit from this. If we can not figure out ways of solving all of these problems with regular photos this research may have to be rethought with a different type of camera/spectrometer in mind. But can we give it a try with photos first?

Thank for your comments, any help would be greatly appreciated, you have already given me a lot to think about.

If you want to send my a picture of your family, all in one picture, I would be happy to try.

 

Thank you Strange for your suggestions on how to better improve on the crystal experiment.

After re reading my earlier post I feel I am to blame for the confusion.

If you google image search quartz crystals most of the photos come up with a black background, but a lot of them the black fluctuated in the photo so I was just trying to find pictures that had a solid black ground. I was not trying to suggest that a black back ground was important, only that I was trying to find a back ground with one solid color.

Until Ajb suggested quartz I had not been able to think of anything in nature that could be transparent so this new technique for testing something that is transparent is still new in my mind.

So I have found pictures that have a white background. The only test I am trying to do here is to see if any crystals surface colors match that of the back ground.

Because this new technique is very new to me and the fact the quart is very reflective and I can not find any pictures taken in a light box, to diffuse the direct light, these experiments show little but may help us figure out what needs to be changed in the future.

Thanks again Strange

 

Edited June 16, 2015 by whatever theory

[tar]

Whatever Theory,

 

Couple thoughts.

 

I got that number by multipying 256X256X256, figuring for each R you have 256 G and then you can have all those combinations for each of 256 Bs.

 

I once saw a makeup ad, that showed most everybody's complexion is a shade of coffee.

 

In your mention of "ratios" being the same, you are just saying the difference between r and g and the difference between g and b are the same. The ratios between the numbers are not really staying the same. What you are seeing, you can simulate with the custom colors selection in Word. Give R,G,B all 255 and you have white. Give them all 0 and you have black. Give R 255 G 0 and B 255 and you have magenta. R 0 and g,b 255 is cyan and B 0 with R and G 255 gives yellow. All the same number, any number, is a shade of gray. Start with any combination of numbers, and add or subtract the same number from each of the three and you get the same tint, in a different shade. Lighter if the number is higher. Darker if the number is lower. In the copier industry, mixing equal amounts of the three color toners gives you process black (sort of a real dark brown, or red grey.) We also have something called under color reduction which saves on the color toner by using black toner in place of equal parts of CMY. So a color (tint and shade) you could obtain with 200 C, 160M and 115Y, you could come very close to, by using 85 C,45 M, 0 Y and 115 B. Try out some numbers in Custom color in Word, remembering that CMYK is subtractive (pigments) color and RGB is additive (light) colors. In addition, remember the complimentary colors and if you have NO green wavelengths, but all the other two colors of light, it will look Magenta.

 

I am bothered by two things about the mother and child in your picture. One, there seems to be an orangish rectangle around the sample area above the left eye of both the mother and the child.

The other thing I am bothered by, is that the mother's middle of the forehead sample is not in the center of her forehead.

 

When giving a species a color, you should decide what you are using and stay consistent. Skin? Hair? Hoofs? Shells? Feathers? Scales? And remember sometimes males are more colorful than females in birds for instance. So you have to decide how you are going to handle that as well.

 

Regards, TAR

I did not want you to use a spectrometer, I was only pointing out that "species" (elements) are already recognized by their signature wavelengths.

Edited June 16, 2015 by tar

[Klaynos]

The same problems occur whether trying to do one photo or many. Else your results are meaningless.

 

Yes, all of the white in mike's photos will be #FFFFFF for 2 reasons. The white is over exposed. The camera has auto white balance.

 

Your results are meaningless.

[tar]

You might have a problem identifying a species of hermit crab by the color of its shell, for instance.

[whatever theory]

 

I am bothered by two things about the mother and child in your picture. One, there seems to be an orangish rectangle around the sample area above the left eye of both the mother and the child.

The other thing I am bothered by, is that the mother's middle of the forehead sample is not in the center of her forehead.

I have not altered this picture in any way other then adding the dots to it. I think it is just a low quality picture. Maybe not the best example.

I will try to find the link to where I got this pic from.

Finding the color range, the way I am doing, is very time consuming and identify anythings complete color range, testing every single pixel, could take forever, but I do believe the technology already exist for a software program to be built that could accomplish this instantly.

If we can figure out all of these issues it may help you and others that are having balancing issues else where.

 

 

 

The same problems occur whether trying to do one photo or many. Else your results are meaningless.

 

Yes, all of the white in mike's photos will be #FFFFFF for 2 reasons. The white is over exposed. The camera has auto white balance.

 

Your results are meaningless.

In my opinion, the first thing that needs to be done is to show that same species colors will match to each other, in the same photo. Once (if) we have given sufficient proof that a photo can accomplish this task, we would then have to figure out a way to synchronize everything so that we could compare these pictures

to each other. Then we could move forward into finding applications in life that these advances can benefit.

Maybe the meaning that can be found in Mike's photos is that :

"The white is over exposed. The camera has auto white balance."

Even the smallest pieces to the puzzle are still needed.

Thanks

Edited June 16, 2015 by whatever theory

[Strange]

You can see that even though the values have changed the ratios between the values has stayed the same and even on the darker end of the range the child still fits perfectly in between her parents.

 

This example highlights several of the flaws in your approach. Firstly, it is an example of cherry picking and confirmation bias. For example, I have known children of mixed race parentage who are darker than both their parents (and I'm sure there are examples who are lighter than their parents). There are plenty of examples of siblings, one of whom would be considered "black" and the other "white". So this "fits perfectly in between her parents" is nonsense.

 

You said earlier "I am trying to demonstrate and prove or disprove my ideas." If that were the case, you should be looking for data that contradicts your belief, not for occasional examples that confirm it.

In my opinion, the first thing that needs to be done is to show that same species colors will match to each other, in the same photo.

 

This still doesn't address the problem of how you distinguish a lion from a pumpkin. Previously your response has been, "but you need to compare objects of the same species". And it therefore becomes an example of yet another fallacy: begging the question.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

[whatever theory]

Thank you for your comments Strange.

The test was done and they results are there.

I have done no cherry picking and the results, I have, speak for themselves, right or wrong. I chose the same area from all the subjects to test which appear to be in the same lighting conditions.

Of course there is always going to be something in nature that is out of the normal and that is just part of nature. If I was to stop now just because there may be some problems down the road, I would not get any where.

Of course I am looking for contradicts but the idea of this is to match the numbers/colors. That is the whole point of this.

If you can match a color exactly from one species to the next then it should be safe to say that this color(s) is particular to its species, maybe another species shares it, but none the less it is still particular to its species.

Humans are a tricky species because of the large amount of differences and they are similar to breeds of dogs or horses and they may not generally follow as many of the same rules is that of species that have evolved naturally in the surroundings.

For instance a Mixed mutt dog may produce a white a black and a brown puppy all in the same liter.

Any way thanks for the advice I will try to be as objective as I can be.

As soon as I feel everybody has asked there questions I will list all of the problems that I am also having with these ideas. OK

Some of the questions I have had have already been answered by the community here.

 

Mike, I would love to test your pictures. Once everyone has asked there questions and I feel I can move on I will try to explain how you can take good controlled pictures of things in nature, around you, and we will start testing your pictures. OK Thanks again

Edited June 16, 2015 by whatever theory