Re: discussion on the various possible theories that may be applicable to LrL's
Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp said:
Mi Rudy buddy posted -->Wonder if DJ is going to now say that the frequencies of food
coloring agents are different from the frequencies on paint chips
**************
As a matter of fact I do. compare them, you will find that visually they ARE different.
Don Jose de La Mancha
Hi Mr. Don,
There are two serious problems with the method you gave to test for color sensors in your fingers, as detailed below:
Problem-1. The texture and other clues from feeling a sample paint chip can reveal which of the different chips are in your hand without any actual detecting the color.
I compared dyes with painted surfaces. The frequencies are not different when the colors are the same. What changes is the texture.
One example is where a blue shirt is used to clean blue paint that was spilled. The blue shirt is seen as blue because it has a frequency corresponding to blue in the color spectrum, and the blue paint also is seen as blue because it has a color frequency corresponding to blue in the color spectrum. These colors are determined by the light frequencies which are absorbed into the dyed shirt fibers and the paint pigments, and the remaining light frequencies which are reflected and can be seen by your eyes. If the color of the paint is tinted to be the exact same color as the shirt, then the frequencies of both will be the same.
But what is different between a painted surface and a dyed surface?
A painted surface color is determined by pigments, which are ground up minerals (rocks) that happen to absorb and reflect the light frequency corresponding to the color you mixed when using various colored pigments. The painted surface pigments are also bound in paint resins or oils which have a texture which can range from glossy to flat. When this texture is investigated further, it is found to be comprised of a degree of surface roughness with different sizes of hills and valleys, as viewed under a microscope. Under higher magnification, we see most paints also are pourous to some extent, with voids, cracks and tunnels left from gasses escaping as the resins dried. Then we see there can be a big variation in the surface texture due to the grind of the pigments, which can be larger or finer rock particles which protrude at the surface, and even other particles added to the paint, such as sand, sometimes used to create a non-skid surface, or other contaminants added for decorative effects. Finally we have classes of paints which do not have the usual tunnels and voids, such as epoxy resin paints, which are specially formulated to harden without allowing these to form. In the example of the blue shirt with blue paint on part of it, you can easily feel the difference between the painted textrue and the non-painted texture. You can even feel the difference between the painted textures at various locations of the shirt.
But dyes do not require the surface of the substrate is covered with a pigment and resin which obliterates the view of the substrate. We can still see the substrate, but the frequency it absorbs and reflects has been altered by the dye, which usually involves a chemical action rather than a deposition of a new colored material on top of the substrate. In some cases the dying process will involve applying a chemical to react to the surface of a metal, causing a colored salt to form, such as zinc chromate or lead oxides. Dyes can involve a large variation of chemical processes, while paints involve only applying pigments over a substrate. In the blue shirt example, we can still feel a texture to the dyed part of the shirt. But it is harder to tell the difference between different parts of the dyed shirt.
So what is the difference in light frequency between paints and dyes?
There is no difference, if they are formulated to be the exact same color.
One example which shows evidence they are the same frequency is zinc chromate, when formed from a dying process is chemically the same as zinc chromate which is ground into a powder to be used as a pigment. They both are the exact same material and exact same color, with the difference that the zinc chromate powder is suspended in a film of resins which is coated over the substrate for the painted surface.
If the colors are adjusted to be the same for a painted and a dyed surface, then the light frequencies will be the same. The only thing that does change is the texture, which can be seen as a visual difference as well as felt as a difference. There is strong evidence to show the texture of paint can vary from one sample to the next, where it is much more difficult to feel a difference in texture of dyed surfaces. In any case, feeling the surface texture of a sample should not be part of a test to determine a light frequency. We should only be feeling the the light frequency in this kind of test, not the surface texture.
Problem-2. This is a fatal flaw in the test method that requires you obliterate the color with the shadow of your fingers when you are touching it to try to detect the color.
Have you considered that while you are rubbing your finger tip over a paint chip, any light you are feeling from under your finger is covered and sealed out by your finger so there no longer is a color? Haven't we agreed that color requires that a light must first fall on the surface to be absorbed and reflected before the color can exist?
In your test method, the only colored light that can reach your skin from the sample is color which reflects from the color chip at the side of your fingers and strikes at the side of your fingers. The part of your finger that is feeling the texture of the sample has no light frequency or color contacting it at all. It is simply feeling the texture in order to determine which chip you have in your hand! This is what invalidates this test completely. Since the only color reaching your skin from the chip arrives through the air, no part of your skin which is in contact with the chip sample is detecting the color. The only way touching this sample could help determine the color is to feel variations in the texture of the chip, or variations in the stiffness, or thickness of coating etc... In other words, since your fingers don't have the ability to detect the color of light coming from the chip, you must touch it and rub it so you can distinguish it from the other chips by subtle differences in color stiffness, etc.
So how can we solve the problem of obliterating the same light color we are trying to feel when we place a finger on top the surface?
And how can we solve the problem of feeling the subtle differences in the surface texture to tell which color chip is in the hand of the proponent of alleged color sensors in his fingers?
I have two better tests to propose that will solve both these problems:
1. If our fingers can truly feel the difference in colors, then we will certainly be able to feel the difference between two differently colored paint chips through a glass which can allow light to strike the chips. I propose we can drop the paint color chip into a clear glass to feel the color of light that reflects from sunlight reflecting off it. However, there should be a second person observing to see if you can identify the correct colors. This person should drop different color chips into the glass and verify he can see the color while you are feeling this same color from the outside surface of the glass which contains the color chip.
2. A second, more precise test involves mounting a multicolor light emitting diode in the bottom of an opaque cup or pipe where you cannot see the colors from the outside when you turn on the LED. Then place a clear glass or plastic cover on top the cup or pipe and place your hand on this clear cover. Finally place several towels on top your hand and the cup/pipe so you cannot see any trace of the light from inside when an LED is turned on. You can use your finger or any part of your hand to feel what color LED is turned on. The LED should be placed at the bottom of the cup so you cannot feel any heat which could be given off if it was close to your hand. We will then have a narrow band light frequency reaching our fingers that will define an exact color. For example, a blue, red and green LED can have wavelengths of 468nm, 518nm and 632nm, which would give light frequencies of 640 petahertz, 579 petahertz, and 474 petahertz. (see a 3-color LED spec here
http://www.radioshack.com/graphics/uc/rsk/Support/ProductManuals/2760028_DS_EN.pdf ). An LED will allow us to feel pure color striking our skin, without a chance we could accidentally feel the texture of a paint chip to identify the different chips. This should be a fair test to to check only the color frequency instead of the surface texture. It will be easy for color-feeling proponents to prove they really can feel colors if a second person controls when the LEDs are turned on and off.
So what do you think?
Will it be ok to feel the color of which LED is turned on to prove whether we can feel colors?
Best wishes,
J_P
?
