
Stop Colour Theory - s0meone
https://partone.github.io/StopColourTheory/StopColourTheory.html
======
dathinab
> All colours are independent

Ahm in fact no. They are interdependent. Or else we would not have brown.
Brown is a color which can not exist by itself.

Also additive and subtractive color theory are not opposing but two
complementing part of a larger more complex color theory consulting of the
additivity of light mixing the substraction of light abortion and the way our
human mind further messed with how we see the work (e.g. brown).

A person saying that additive and substantive theory are two separate opposing
theories implies this person doesn't understand colors or physics. In the end
colors are the combination of the way light physically interacts with the
world and the human mind.

Through on sad truth is that many education systems teach a lot of wrong
things like wrong color circles. Or they more the fact that thinks like a
color circle are just a convenient partial representation of the truth...

------
oraknabo
This has to be a joke. If not, the writer seems to be confused by the
difference between additive & subtractive color systems.

I admit to not really having any idea what they are getting at in their
proposed replacement system and don't see any way it could be helpful in
predicting how colors mix in either paint or monitors.

~~~
georgeecollins
Right, you say additive and subtractive, I think of it as emmissive colors vs
reflective colors. That point seems to get ignored.

Some of this is interesting-- like every color is a frequency. But human
vision systems are probably not innately tuned to perceive every frequency
along a chunk of spectrum with an equal weight. Training and cognition
probably influence our acuity in certain parts of the range.

~~~
traverseda
> like every color is a frequency

Hot pink isn't a frequency. It does not appear in the visible light spectrum.
You can only produce it by combining multiple "impure" frequencies. You
generally produce it by combining a spike of low-frequency red with a spike of
high-frequency violet.

Human eyes try to "triangulate" a complex spectral analysis into an absolute
position in a colour space, that colour space is the surface of a sphere or
torus or something, and hot pink is "between" red and violet. Three-coordinate
colour space is very much an artifact of humans, and how human eyes/brains
work.

~~~
fmajid
A sub-manifold of the Real Projective Plane RP2

------
notriddle
> Violet occupies the highest frequency of the visible light spectrum with a
> whopping frequency of 668-789THz6. With such a tremendous frequency, you
> would expect violet to be everywhere - but in reality, it's not found in the
> natural world with great prevalence. Lavender, eggplant, grape flavoured
> NerdsTM, and amethysts are among the few naturally occuring violet things.

This is a parody, isn't it? Because "frequency of a wave" has nothing to do
with how common it is in nature. It's about how often a wave would switch
between high and low, if you measured its amplitude at a fixed point.

Also, grape flavoured NERDS don't occur in nature.

~~~
Jimbo3
Little purple crunchy fellas? Yeah I've seen them out hiking in Oregon

~~~
kevin_thibedeau
Bummed because his Pop Rocks buddy suicided in the rain.

------
happytoexplain
This is satire, but will only come off that way for readers with a knowledge
of color theory.

~~~
dathinab
I only have a very limited knowledge of color theory and while it was clear
that it's messed up it isn't clear to be satire.

Honestly it sounds a lot like something people also into alternative facts
would flock to and believe, especially if you mix in the conspiracy theory
that color theory was intentionally made to manipulate you.

------
pmiller2
I do want to seriously address one of the points on this page. Water is, in
fact, blue. It sometimes appears green because of algae and other organisms in
it. Here is a better explanation than I could have come up with:

> The water is in fact not colorless; even pure water is not colorless, but
> has a slight blue tint to it, best seen when looking through a long column
> of water. The blueness in water is not caused by the scattering of light,
> which is responsible for the sky being blue. Rather, water blueness comes
> from the water molecules absorbing the red end of the spectrum of visible
> light. To be even more detailed, the absorption of light in water is due to
> the way the atoms vibrate and absorb different wavelengths of light. [0]

Likewise, while nitrogen is colorless, oxygen is actually blue as well, which,
in turn, means that air is actually slightly blue (this is not the cause of
the blue sky -- see [1]).

\---

[0]: [https://www.usgs.gov/special-topic/water-science-
school/scie...](https://www.usgs.gov/special-topic/water-science-
school/science/water-color?qt-science_center_objects=0#qt-
science_center_objects)

[1]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayleigh_scattering](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayleigh_scattering)

------
cjhveal
I got about three paragraphs into an explanation of additive/subtractive
color, rayleigh scattering, pigments and iridescence, before I realized this
has to be satire.

------
scottlawson
> Furthermore, organisations such as the International Commission on
> Illumination have made it their goal to keep Colour Theory at the forefront
> of colour science.

The illuminati!

~~~
oraknabo
How did I read that sentence and 1) not question whether this was a real
organization and 2) not catch that reference?

Big thanks for pointing this out.

------
s9w
I'm about 70% certain that this is satire.

------
tempodox
I'm not convinced. Those “facts” the article speaks about seem to me a matter
of highly idiosyncratic belief. Or it's actually satire and I don't get it.

------
mesozoic
First fact. There is no 'u' in color.

~~~
ucosty
But there is in colour.

------
gilstroem
What is the goal? Will any of these make colours easier to use or understand?

~~~
uniqueid
I suspect the goal is to make fun of conspiracy theorists, since the issues
they discuss are non-issues to anyone who paid attention in grade-school
physics (or even art class). I imagine there are plenty of conspiracy
theorists who will fall for it, since they are deeply biased to give in to
their paranoia about figures of authority.

------
Sirnoodlehe
Loving this idea! I hope to see it implemented in monitors soon

------
streets_ahead
This society seems to be on to something.

~~~
elmo2you
There might be a "to" too many in your statement. The answer probably is
laughing gas, if not crack cocaine.

~~~
mrsMistofeluz
>a "to" too many ...seem be on to something?

~~~
elmo2you
funny one ... "seem to be on something"

------
axguti
I hope this gets traction!

