The "Whatever Theory" Identifying The World...

[whatever theory]

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

or if a term for this already exists then please let me know.
I am developing a technique using photography software, that allows
you to compare colors and which will give a mathematical answer.
I have developed this originally to help identify different pearl
species, but I am interested in the possibilities that this technique
may help humanity in many different ways and I am hoping that the
science community can please help me with the many aspects of this new
technique such as science, math, biology, computer software, etc.
I will do my best to prove this theory and to show the many different
ways that this technique may improve our lives and I will try to
explain the process and the advances that I have made so fare.
I am not sure if the following statement is already accepted by
science, but I am going to go ahead and make it, which will hopefully
help open the possibilities of the importance of color.
The statement I would like to make is that, in my opinion color may be one of

the only things that is consistent in the natural world and maybe the natural universe.

There is nothing that does not posses it,

even the most transparent creatures on earth, and
no matter how many times you cut threw this natural thing the one
thing that you will always find is color.
If you want to preview the research and advances that I have already
done on pearls please visit:
http://www.pearl-guide.com/forum/showthread.php?t=9566
I may re-post some of the research that I did there, but I am going
to try to go fare beyond just pearls in this thread and I will try to
dive into identifying everything in nature. Maybe with the advise of
the experts here, this technique will reach it's full potential and be
able to help me more in the pearl world.

Edited June 7, 2015 by whatever theory

[Strange]

My theory is that same species, from same geographic locations, posses

certain colors and color ranges that are unique to their particular

species.

 

It is very unclear what you mean. In general, organisms of a given species have the same colour (or colours). There are species where this is not true, and there is a huge variety in a single species: cultivated flowers for example, where there are hundreds of different coloured roses, or tulips, or ... There is no reason to think this is related to location, as far as I know.

 

Do you mean that one species will have different colours in different locations?

Or that all species in one location will have the same range of colours?

Or ... ?

 

Your random collection of pictures, with no explanation, doesn't help in understanding your point. (And some of those are not even living organisms.)

Edited June 7, 2015 by Strange

[Phi for All]

The statement I would like to make is that, in my opinion color may be one of

the only things that is consistent in the natural world and maybe the natural universe.

There is nothing that does not posses it,

even the most transparent creatures on earth, and

no matter how many times you cut threw this natural thing the one

thing that you will always find is color.

 

 

You've broadened the definition of color to include... everything, even things normally considered lacking in color (mostly because they lack the pigmentation we normally associate with color), and you're assigning importance to that.

 

I'm unclear on your name for this idea as well. It seems to be rigor-free, and that's never good in science.

[Unity+]

Hello welcome to the "Whatever Theory" thread.

My theory is that same species, from same geographic locations, posses

certain colors and color ranges that are unique to their particular

species.

Well, considering that a species succeed by surviving in particular environments and then having offspring that live on and animals have to acquire certain traits in order to survive in such environments, having similar traits in a geographic location can be common, if this is true.

[whatever theory]

Hello

Thank you Strange and Phi For All for your comments and participation. I am sorry for not posting any kind of evidence or giving any examples of my technique. I was merely trying to introduce myself and my theory. Because nature is so vast it may take many presentations for me to prove anything. Rather then doing a bunch of research before posting I feel like I would be putting myself at a disadvantage. I would rather show my research ,in real time, so that along the way the community here can help guide me in the right directions. I am no scientist and I have not spent one day in college and I just barley made it out of high school. I am willing to listen to anyone's advise. I am anonymous because I am not looking for any fame here, I am simply trying to share what I think may benefit my fellow man.

I will try to answer your questions the best I can.

"In general, organisms of a given species have the same colour (or colours). There are species where this is not true, and there is a huge variety in a single species: cultivated flowers for example, where there are hundreds of different coloured roses, or tulips, or ... There is no reason to think this is related to location, as far as I know.Do you mean that one species will have different colours in different locations?"

Yes same species may have different colors from different locations, although species from different locations may also share the same colors, but I think that climate and diet play a huge part in what the species colors will be. If the climate, diet and all other conditions are the same in 2 areas then maybe the species there will also share the exact same colors.

This theory however is directed more at the natural world. Cultivated flowers are created by man and therefor are not natural in origin. But like pearls these flowers may still share common colors with those that were bred to create them. These flowers also may share, among themselves, unique colors that are only found from the source that they were created. For instance one flower breeder may have a certain color tulip that only his farm is producing which may help identify what farm it came from.

​This technique can also be used to determine what species were chosen to produce any new species.

"Or that all species in one location will have the same range of colours?"

Species from the same geographic locations may have a wide range of colors that the species share, so when trying to catalog this color range it is best to get a wide variety of the same species,so that you can find the entire color range of that particular species.

"Your random collection of pictures, with no explanation, doesn't help in understanding your point. (And some of those are not even living organisms.)"

You are right some of these things are not living organisms so the term I have coined Genetic Color Code would not work for things like gems and minerals.

Although some things are not living I believe that they still follow these same rules as the livings ones.

If anyone can come up with what the term for Non-living things that follow this same color pattern please let me know. If your term works then we will start using it.

"You've broadened the definition of color to include... everything, even things normally considered lacking in color (mostly because they lack the pigmentation we normally associate with color), and you're assigning importance to that."

From what I have observed in nature this applies to everything in the natural world. I may be wrong and that is why I am here. If I am wrong or someone can show me my errors I would be happy to change my opinions. From what I can tell is that even natural things that lack in pigment still have some. If they were truly transparent then you would not be able to see them at all.

"I'm unclear on your name for this idea as well. It seems to be rigor-free, and that's never good in science."

I guess I am unclear on the name for this idea also, but as I said, I am not a scientist so maybe the community here can help with what the name should be also.

Thank you Unity for your comments and for being open minded about this topic.

Sometimes a little encouragement is just as good as a little advice.

 

I decided I would start my research here with the pictures that I already posted. I will try to do at least one set of pictures (animals, insects, birds, reptiles being the first set) every day until I am finished with these first 6 sets pictures.

In this technique, the same species should be taken in the same photograph, which helps ensure that the lighting, photography, etc. conditions are the same on your subjects. Once you have your picture your can use your dropper tool in your photo software to compare the colors from one object to the next.

In these pictures I have matched the exact same color to both subjects, from the same species, two different times.

For example there is a red dot on both of the lions, the area that this dot represents is the same color on each animal and below the picture you will notice a sample of this color along with its numeric value. There is also a blue dot on each lion which also represent the exact same color on both animals and again the colors sample and numeric values are below the pic. Each pictures was done the same way, just match the colors of the dots.

This is a fast way of doing this technique and you can also use the same technique to find the entire color range, which takes a bit more time.

Without making this post too long I will try to explain more about finding the entire color range in a future post.

Thanx again

Edited June 8, 2015 by whatever theory

[Strange]

Yes same species may have different colors from different locations, although species from different locations may also share the same colors, but I think that climate and diet play a huge part in what the species colors will be. If the climate, diet and all other conditions are the same in 2 areas then maybe the species there will also share the exact same colors.

 

I still have absolutely no idea what your theory is. You need to explain it more clearly. (Note that is not actually a "theory"; it is more like a hypothesis, or just an idea.)

 

Typically, a species will have the same colour(s) everywhere it occurs.

 

There are animals that vary in colour in different locations: for example, polar bears and arctic foxes are white, while European bears and foxes are brown. But these are different species.

 

In general, animals have evolved to suit their surroundings so many animals that live in cold places have light or white fur (and may change according to the time of year). Those that live in jungles have patterns to hide them. Those that live in desserts are sandy coloured. But, again, they are (generally) different species in each location.

 

 

I would rather show my research ,in real time, so that along the way the community here can help guide me in the right directions.

 

You need to do (at least) the following:

- Define an objective way of categorising the colour or colours of an individual organism

- Define an objective way of categorising the range of colours in a group of organisms (in a location or in a species)

- Define an objective way of defining the relevant characteristics of a location (whatever you think they are)

- Do a large scale survey (you might want to limit this, initially, to a single species that occurs in a range of different locations)

- Do a statistical analysis to show some sort of correlation between location and colour

 

 

I am simply trying to share what I think may benefit my fellow man.

 

What do you think the benefits of this idea are?

 

In this technique the same species should be taken in the same photograph, which helps ensure that the lighting, photography, etc. conditions are the same on your subjects.

 

No it doesn't. You are using random pictures taken with different cameras under different conditions and subsequently processed in unknown ways.

 

 

In these pictures I have matched the exact same color to both subjects, from the same species, two different times.

 

I have no idea what this means. You have generated two different colours from each picture. There seems to be no connection between the species and no connection between the colours.

 

What is this exercise intended to show? It seems completely meaningless.

 

 

I will try to do at least one every day until I am finished with these first 6 pictures.

 

I would wait until you have explained yourself before posting more random pictures.

[whatever theory]

Thank you for your comments Strange. I will try to do my best to answer them.

My theory (idea, Hypothesis) is that same species will share same colors and color ranges that are from the same geographic location. Same species from different geographic locations may share these same colors but they may share a completely different range of colors. For instance human beings,I will try to show that humans, that live in a particular region and have evolved in these locations over a long period of time, will share the same color ranges as the rest of the people from their region. Although these people share the same color as the rest in there area they may not share the same color ranges as people who have evolved in other parts of the world. Making there color unique to their area. Along with my theory I am trying to show a Photography software technique that I am using to prove this theory. Being that the world is so huge and I can not physically take pictures of every species I will do my best to show the pattern that is present in nature and let the science community here figure out if it is real or not.

You need to do (at least) the following:

- Define an objective way of categorising the colour or colours of an individual organism

- Define an objective way of categorising the range of colours in a group of organisms (in a location or in a species)

- Define an objective way of defining the relevant characteristics of a location (whatever you think they are)

- Do a large scale survey (you might want to limit this, initially, to a single species that occurs in a range of different locations)

- Do a statistical analysis to show some sort of correlation between location and colour

I am going to study your instructions here and try to figure out what exactly I should do, but I feel like I am planning on trying to do the above, but it will take me some time to post everything that I am trying to show.

"What do you think the benefits of this idea are?"

The benefits from this technique are huge. From identifying cancer and bacteria types to identifying rare medicinal plants in the depths of the amazon rain forest. Identifying a humans ethnic lineage or a new species of animal, bred from 2 existing animals. You can use this technique to identify where the food you are eating originated or to identify the many different types of natural pearls. It will enable you to do all of this and a lot more by only taking a picture.

"No it doesn't. You are using random pictures taken with different cameras under different conditions and subsequently processed in unknown ways."

No I am not using random pictures, I am using pictures that were each taken with 2 species of the same kind. Being that the 2 subjects are in the same photo at the same time, they are both in the same lighting conditions and photographed by the same camera etc. Although each picture is different from one another I am not comparing the pictures between each other I am only comparing the 2 subjects in each photo. For instance if you look below the picture of the lion you will notice that I have matched a color above the eye from both male and female, I put a red dot on each area I tested. Below the picture is a sample of this color along with its red, green, and blue numeric value. The blue dot, on the lions, represent the second color that I matched from one lion to the next and again the sample of the color and its values are below the pic.

This technique works good for subjects that are all in the same picture but it does not work if you compare one picture to another picture, because of the different conditions. I will try to show, in a future post, how many different people can all synchronize the pictures that they are taking with each other.

I believe some of the confusion is from my own wording of this sentence,"I will try to do at least one every day until I am finished with these first 6 pictures"

What I should have said was "I will try to do at least one SET OF PICTURES (Lion, birds, animals, insects being one set) every day until I am finished with these first SIX SETS of pictures.

I will go back and try to edit my previous post so they make more sense.

Again I am sorry if the information I have provided is confusing in any way. I will try to do my best to answer any questions.

 

 

Edited June 8, 2015 by whatever theory

[Strange]

My theory (idea, Hypothesis) is that same species will share same colors and color ranges that are from the same geographic location. Same species from different geographic locations may share these same colors but they may share a completely different range of colors. For instance human beings,I will try to show that humans, that live in a particular region and have evolved in these locations over a long period of time, will share the same color ranges as the rest of the people from their region.

 

OK. That is a bit clearer. It would seem that this is not a hypothesis or a theory, it is STBO: Stating The Bleeding Obvious.

 

For one thing, colour is part of the definition of a species. A horse with black and white stripes is not a horse but a zebra. If you had blue bears and green bears in the same location, then they would be considered different species. Therefore your idea is true by definition in most cases. And, of course, similar species in different locations may have different colours because of the environment.

 

I don't see anything new or interesting here, I'm afraid.

 

Humans are rather different from most other species as they show a much greater variation in phenotype. (Dogs show even more variation.) But, obviously, most people in Africa are dark skinned (and those in some areas are, typically, darker than others). While those in northern latitudes are generally light skinned. Those in between (e.g. around the Mediterranean) often have a skin colour somewhere between the two. Although this varies a lot because of migration, etc.

 

And when you look at something like hair colour, then the story become much more complicated. After all, there are blonds in northern Europe but not many blond Inuit. And there are blonds in southern Europe as well.

 

Although these people share the same color as the rest in there area they may not share the same color ranges as people who have evolved in other parts of the world. Making there color unique to their area.

 

But the colour isn't unique. Someone with pale skin could come from almost anywhere in the north (or south). Someone with dark skin could come from almost anywhere in Africa and many other parts of the world.

 

And, of course, polar bears are actually black like many other bears so I don't see how this helps at all.

 

The benefits from this technique are huge. From identifying cancer and bacteria types to identifying rare medicinal plants in the depths of the amazon rain forest. Identifying a humans ethnic lineage or a new species of animal, bred from 2 existing animals.

We already have much more accurate ways of determining these things than using something variable like skin colour. There are many other characteristics used to define a species. And, of course, we have DNA analysis.

No I am not using random pictures, I am using pictures that were each taken with 2 species of the same kind.

 

What does "2 species of the same kind" mean?

[Phi for All]

I think this is a case where a good science background would have helped. You've identified color as an important marker in pattern recognition, which is something humans do extremely well. However, color alone is insufficient to do the things you claim, such as identifying bacteria. But that's OK, because we don't want a single marker in science, that would be dangerous if we trusted it too much. It's better to identify things using multiple markers and tests, it gives us more detailed data than any single marker could.

 

I love that you're observing the natural world around you, and I think you need more structured education in science. You have a lot of little basic mistakes to clear up that are keeping you from understanding your idea (not theory; theory is the best you can get in science, and we only call them "theory" when mainstream scientists can't refute them). At this point, what you don't know that you don't know is holding you back.

 

Also, in discussions here, it's best if you don't go back and edit posts after people have responded to them. Explain it better in the next post, or use the quote function to answer a specific question in more detail. It looks weird when people mention things you later delete.

 

This technique works good for subjects that are all in the same picture but it does not work if you compare one picture to another picture, because of the different conditions. I will try to show, in a future post, how many different people can all synchronize the pictures that they are taking with each other.

 

This is a big problem, no? You're claiming your technique can differentiate between members of a species from differing environments, but you have to have the leopard from Senegal in the same picture with the leopard from Mozambique. How often is that practical?

[Strange]

I love that you're observing the natural world around you

 

Can I second that.

 

I'm sorry if my comments have come over as too negative - I wouldn't want to put you off exploring ideas like this...

[whatever theory]

 

 

Humans are rather different from most other species as they show a much greater variation in phenotype. (Dogs show even more variation.) But, obviously, most people in Africa are dark skinned (and those in some areas are, typically, darker than others). While those in northern latitudes are generally light skinned. Those in between (e.g. around the Mediterranean) often have a skin colour somewhere between the two. Although this varies a lot because of migration, etc.

Thank you for you comments.

This may be obvious to some but for many others that are searching for answers this may not be so obvious, or I think you would see it being used much more in the world to identify natural things. I know that dog and horse breeders are aware that, the animals that they breed, usually have a certain color coat, but I believe that they are using different methods to test these colors. For instance they will hold a particular color piece of paper up next to the animal to see if it's coat color matches a different animal of the same type, But the breeders are only using this on the coat of the animal. However in my idea, there is much more to an animal then just it's coat. The actual skin color, eye color, nose color, lip color, etc. are all part of the animal and can also be matched together from the same type of species.

.

Although this technique could be used to easily test a certain color of a animal that has been bred by man, both in person or simply by testing a picture, animals that are being bred are like cultured flowers or cultured pearls. They are not natural in origin and so when trying to find what colors where first, in natural dogs or horses, you must go to where the horses or dogs live wild and have evolved there over a long time. Once you have those colors of the first dogs or horses you can then use this technique to find out what natural dogs/horses were bred to create the new man made breeds, then you can use this technique to match the colors from breeds to each other and find each breeds exact color range.

Studying humans color is also been studied a

 

 

lot but I do not think that anyone has found an exact color that is unique to a certain lineage of people yet. Please correct me if I am wrong.

People are also some what cultured by man and to find the unique color found in a population of people you must also go to an area of native people that have evolved there, with no outside breeding. Same as with animals, once you have this unique color, from all of the different native people, you can use this technique to find out "all peoples" ethnic lineage. Once you have found the native people you want to test you could use DNA testing, at that point, to see if there was ever any interbreeding with other ethnic people. Once your DNA test shows that the person you are testing has indeed been bred from only people in there area you can photograph them. The color of this person you now know is natural and once you had pictures of all of the natural people, a Computer App could easily by made to calculate the ethnic lineage of all people with the simple click of your camera shutter. Sure there are other ways of testing someones ethnic lineage, but all of these way are expensive and time consuming and impractical for most people. But everyone has a smart phone these days and if you could simply take a picture of anything in the natural world and instantly be able to identify it, the benifits for this are huge.

 

 

What does "2 species of the same kind" mean?

I meant there are 2 lions, 2 lizards, 2 birds, and 2 insects

 

 

 

I think this is a case where a good science background would have helped. You've identified color as an important marker in pattern recognition, which is something humans do extremely well. However, color alone is insufficient to do the things you claim, such as identifying bacteria. But that's OK, because we don't want a single marker in science, that would be dangerous if we trusted it too much. It's better to identify things using multiple markers and tests, it gives us more detailed data than any single marker could.

Thank you for your advice I will try to learn from what you are saying, and thank you for helping me guide this large ship threw uncharted waters.

Yes you are right I should have not slept so much during science class and writing class... hehehe

I am sure you have all seen, in Star Trek, when the doctor points, what looks like a camera, at a patient and can tell immediately what is wrong with them. With this technique I think we will all be able to do the same things soon also. I may be wrong about different strains of bacteria, fungus, cancer etc. sharing same unique colors to themselves, but what I do know is that Chinese doctors have diagnosed there patients by the color of there eyes, skin, mouth, ears, saliva, blood, etc. for thousands of years. Maybe with this technique the Chinese medical world can now compare say all of the different shades of green mucus when before they only new that green mucus meant say bacteria infection. Now based on the exact color of green they maybe able to go a step further and identify exactly what strain of bacteria. Off course all traditional means of science should first identify anything in nature, but once you know what color this natural thing is you can then use my technique in the future, which is fast and cheap, to get the results you are looking for.

I will try to refer to my "idea" as such from now on. Should I change the title of this thread as well???

Also I am trying to figure out how to use quotes now and I will try not to go back and edit something that is being discussed already.

 

 

This is a big problem, no? You're claiming your technique can differentiate between members of a species from differing environments, but you have to have the leopard from Senegal in the same picture with the leopard from Mozambique. How often is that practical?

You are hitting on a problem that has cursed me from day one, and that is, how to compare different pictures to one another. Although this technique works great if there is 2 of the same species in the same photograph. Because of the different lighting, photography, software, etc. conditions pictures will be very different from one another unless you follow these rules.

 

If you physically have the objects, say 2 peanuts, you can photograph these peanuts inside a "Black Box". A black box is nothing but a card board box that you line with white paper(Example 1) Make sure that your camera is always the same distance from your subjects and use your timer and close the lid on the box before the shutter opens, so that no outside light is getting in. You are only using the flash from your camera to light the object when the photo is taken. This will ensure that all of the photos you take are taken in the exact same conditions and no outside light is distorting your photo. All the photos you take like this will be in the same conditions and you can now compare these photos to one another. If you wanted to compare your photos with mine all you would need is have an 8 megapixel Samsung smart camera and a black box and you would need to take the pictures at the same distance as me, but now many people from around the world can compare there pictures with each other. I have many tips on this technique I will be posting soon.

 

A second way (example 2) is that is your subject are too large to be put in a box, or you just want to take a picture on the go. For this you must have a white/grey/black card present in each one of your photos. This way you can later balance everything in your photography software and begin comparing these photos to each other. I also have many tips on this technique I will share soon.

 

A third way (example 3) of accomplishing this is to just take some pictures off of the internet. These pictures are going to be different because of the different conditions that they were taken in, so instead of comparing the actual colors (which may come close) what you need to compare is the ratios between the colors. These are 2 different pictures taken by different photographers at different times with different equipment, but the species of bird is the same in each picture and from the same geographic location.

Again this is the basic instructions and I will post more info soon on this too.

Thanks for your comments and your participation.

 

Edited June 9, 2015 by whatever theory

[whatever theory]

Below You will notice that there is a red dot on each of the native people in the first picture. This dot represents an area on each person that is the exact same color as the others from there tribe. Next to the picture you will notice the sample of this color along with its numeric value.

Each picture was done the same way and you can see that each of these different native tribes share a unique color among there tribe.

 

 

In this next picture I have taken a picture of a man and woman and there child. I set one of the parents sample color to 50% Opacity, which will combine the 2 colors of the parents equally into one new color which is the exact color of there child.

 

In these next pictures I have matched the same color from one animal, to the other, of the same species/breeds.

In this next picture I have done the same technique as above. The mother Donkey combined with the father Zebra gives the exact color of their baby Zonkey.

 

In these last pictures I have tried to show that there is more to matching species color then by only the skin or coat. In this picture I have matched the eye color, lip color, and nose color from the same species.

 

I hope this presentation helps answer some of the comments I have made in my previous posts. Please feel free to ask any questions.

Thanks

Edited June 12, 2015 by whatever theory

[ajb]

Are you sure you cannot find two individuals from different species and get the same match? As you are only trying to match small pieces to a finite degree of accuracy I would not be surprised if you can make a match.

 

Also, as I am sure others have already said, you have to be careful with colour when using any image. This is something I have discussed with amateur astronomers before in the context of image processing. In particular, if you are taking pictures from the internet then you cannot know what kind of processing has been used. Thus, although you maybe able to make the matches as you have the RGB value is probably meaningless.

 

Finally, is it really a surprise that animals from a given species in a specific geographical share similar colouring? I am not sure what the aim of your research is.

[whatever theory]

Hello "ajb" thanks for your comments. I will do my best to try to answer them.

 

 

Are you sure you cannot find two individuals from different species and get the same match? As you are only trying to match small pieces to a finite degree of accuracy I would not be surprised if you can make a match.

Different species may share the same colors or color ranges this is true. If you wanted to compare the different, unique colors of different strains of carrots, you would want to make sure that they are all indeed carrots before you tested them. For instance you would not want to compare a carrot with a sweet potato just because they appear to be the same color.

If colors do match closely to another strain/species then possibly they are already related or maybe it is the same strain that has not yet evolved its own particular color. If an animal recently migrated to a new area how long would it take before its color started to change?

I do not have all of the answers. The natural world is huge and I can never figure all of this out by myself. If you are interested in participating in the progress of this because you see some possible value, I will try to do as much as I can as well.

 

 

Also, as I am sure others have already said, you have to be careful with colour when using any image. This is something I have discussed with amateur astronomers before in the context of image processing. In particular, if you are taking pictures from the internet then you cannot know what kind of processing has been used. Thus, although you maybe able to make the matches as you have the RGB value is probably meaningless.

Yes I have been criticized for using photographs already, but I can not see any other way of doing this kind of research then with photos.

I can not physically take pictures of all things in nature, so I have to take pictures off of the internet to use. If one day science can see value in this, then a team of photographers could scourer the earth and take controlled photographs of everything in the natural world.

Sorry to disagree with you, but I do not think that matching RGB values is meaningless when matching colors of species that are all in the same picture, although you are right in that there may be some room for error in certain instances, such as shadows. That is why I try to pick pictures that both subjects appear to be in the same conditions inside the picture.

I do agree however, that with the techniques above that show how to compare pictures to one another, there is a chance of error.

That is why it would be important to take all of the photos for this research in a controlled environment if you were trying to compare photos to each other and build a data base of the natural world.

 

 

Finally, is it really a surprise that animals from a given species in a specific geographical share similar colouring? I am not sure what the aim of your research is.

You are right again it is no surprise, but seeing the similarities in animals should show that these similarities run threw the entire natural world even with things that are not living.

Figuring out the different ways that these similarities, in nature, can benefit man and figuring out ways of testing, proving and using these similarities may be what is surprising. I don't know....

I guess the ultimate aim for this is to have a smart phone computer app or computer software that can instantly identify anything in the natural world, from a picture.

 

Because I am not a scientist I can not pretend to be one. I am just a simple person that is here to try to learn and benefit from the science community.

If you have any suggestions, questions or any advice I would really appreciate it.

Thanks

Edited June 12, 2015 by whatever theory

[Strange]

Is this "colorology" - the visual equivalent of numerology?

 

Or maybe just yet another example of apophenia.

"whatever theory", you need to think about why species have particular colours.

And, as you mention carrots, you do know they used to be white?

I guess the ultimate aim for this is to have a smart phone computer app or computer software that can instantly identify anything in the natural world, from a picture.

 

Or maybe an app where you give it an RGB value and it tells you if you are facing a lion or a potato.

Edited June 12, 2015 by Strange

[whatever theory]

Wow "Strange" I do not really know how to respond to your last comments. I guess maybe I am presenting my ideas in the wrong place.

Maybe I will just keep my opinions to myself from now on.

Edited June 12, 2015 by whatever theory

[Strange]

Wow "Strange" I do not really know how to respond to your last comments. I guess maybe I am presenting my ideas in the wrong place.

 

I (and others) have explained in detail what appears to be wrong with your idea and the methodology. You have chosen to ignore that. <shrug>

[whatever theory]

 

 

I (and others) have explained in detail what appears to be wrong with your idea and the methodology. You have chosen to ignore that. <shrug>

You have explained nothing of the sort. I have yet to see anything that you wrote that was not rude and all of your posts here appear to me to be "word salad" which I thought was against the rules. And if I am wrong, I already said I will admit it, if anyone can show me my errors. There is no reason to attack people because you do not like there ideas.

If science can not have an open mind about new ideas then where is one to turn to, for help?

The others that have had legitimate concerns, I have tried to answer all of their questions and just because some here might think I am wrong, about certain things, does not make me wrong. Everybody has the right to their own opinions and I am trying to explain mine.

If you can not figure out any way in your life where this technique could help you then, I feel sorry for you, for not having an imagination. But it sounds like you know everything already, so you can probably take one glance at anything in nature and tell immediately what the exact species is. Right???

Edited June 13, 2015 by whatever theory

[ACG52]

 

 

Everybody has the right to their own opinions

You have a right to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

[whatever theory]

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

Edited June 13, 2015 by whatever theory

[ACG52]

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

Thank you

Bye Bye

There are plenty of uncritical crank sites. I'm sure you'll find one.

[ajb]

Different species may share the same colors or color ranges this is true. If you wanted to compare the different, unique colors of different strains of carrots, you would want to make sure that they are all indeed carrots before you tested them.

Okay, so we have a definition of a 'carrot' that is independent of the actual colour.

 

For instance you would not want to compare a carrot with a sweet potato just because they appear to be the same color.

My questions is what happens if you do? Maybe your method would also get a match.

 

If colors do match closely to another strain/species then possibly they are already related or maybe it is the same strain that has not yet evolved its own particular color. If an animal recently migrated to a new area how long would it take before its color started to change?

I am not quite sure what your point is here. I think you are placing too much emphasis on colour as a method of distinguishing species. Of course it can be an indicator, but generally it will not be enough and for sure it is not enough without further information. For example, parrots and tropical fish can have similar colouring.

 

I do not have all of the answers. The natural world is huge and I can never figure all of this out by myself. If you are interested in participating in the progress of this because you see some possible value, I will try to do as much as I can as well.

You have yet to convince anyone of the worth of this line of investigation.

 

Yes I have been criticized for using photographs already, but I can not see any other way of doing this kind of research then with photos. I can not physically take pictures of all things in nature, so I have to take pictures off of the internet to use.

It is not really that you are using photos, it is the fact that you do not know what equipment was used, the background lighting, any further image processing etc.

 

Sorry to disagree with you, but I do not think that matching RGB values is meaningless when matching colors of species that are all in the same picture, although you are right in that there may be some room for error in certain instances, such as shadows. That is why I try to pick pictures that both subjects appear to be in the same conditions inside the picture.

What I actually meant was that matching RGB colour in a given photograph that is uniformly lit is probably okay. However that actual RGB value will not have any real meaning. This value will depend on the problems listed earlier.

 

I do agree however, that with the techniques above that show how to compare pictures to one another, there is a chance of error.

Indeed, comparing different pictures may well be more problematic. The method would be to introduce some 'error bars' and match RGB numbers in some small ranges.

 

That is why it would be important to take all of the photos for this research in a controlled environment if you were trying to compare photos to each other and build a data base of the natural world.

I guess that would help, but it seems an impossible task. And for sure, an expensive one that would need great justification.

 

You are right again it is no surprise, but seeing the similarities in animals should show that these similarities run threw the entire natural world even with things that are not living.

What links do you expect between say minerals that have a similar colour? Knowing a little chemistry one might expect minerals that contain the same elements to have similar colourings, but this is not a universal thing. For example C02 is very different to Si02 in the lab.

 

Figuring out the different ways that these similarities, in nature, can benefit man and figuring out ways of testing, proving and using these similarities may be what is surprising. I don't know....

Colour is already used as part of species identification and identification of minerals. We also have spectroscopy which is taking this even further. Anyway, generally you need more than just the colour to identify animals and plants.

 

I guess the ultimate aim for this is to have a smart phone computer app or computer software that can instantly identify anything in the natural world, from a picture.

That is a good idea. However if you use just colour we may have no way of deciding if an object is a carrot, a sweet potato or an tiger!

 

Because I am not a scientist I can not pretend to be one. I am just a simple person that is here to try to learn and benefit from the science community.

I think you can learn from what people have said here. I am not sure how you could implement this though.

 

As a general comment, you cannot take what people say about your idea too personally. They are looking for holes in your arguments not in you.

[Phi for All]

I am just a simple person that is here to try to learn and benefit from the science community.

If you have any suggestions, questions or any advice I would really appreciate it.

Thanks

 

It may look like this from your perspective. What we see is someone who is trying to teach rather than learn. And what you're teaching is confusing, but when we ask questions, you get angry and think it's rude.

 

A simple person may have wanted to learn, but a very complicated teacher showed up instead, and used terminology he made up when the rest of us already know the terminology taught to us in school. He wanted to be wiser but he didn't listen to what was being asked.

 

I'm sorry you don't know what you don't know, and I'm sorry you haven't been able to see things from our perspective.

 

Whatever.

[whatever theory]

Hello again.

For the sake of science, I will try to continue. I really do not mind any questions or comments as long as they are worded politely.

If It seems like I am stating facts, then I am sorry. I am only stating my opinions and trying to show what I have already observed. If you challenge my opinion either with your opinion or with known facts, I will be happy to entertain these comments and will try to change my opinions if I am proved wrong.

I would like to make this a fun, happy place and if this idea is correct and we can all come together to solve it, then I think the benefits would be a good thing for everyone. If it is wrong then we have all still learned something and there is no harm done.

I will try to answer all of your questions "ajb" and thank you for posting them. Please keep in mind that I am only answering them the best that I can, I may be wrong and I am not trying to act like a "know it all".

 

 

My questions is what happens if you do? Maybe your method would also get a match.

I am not quite sure what your point is here. I think you are placing too much emphasis on colour as a method of distinguishing species. Of course it can be an indicator, but generally it will not be enough and for sure it is not enough without further information. For example, parrots and tropical fish can have similar colouring.

I am already using this technique to identify natural pearls, but before I try to identify it I try to perform a series of tests to make sure that it is indeed a pearl. If this was a rock or a plastic bead then trying to identify its species would be pointless. The same would be true if you wanted to identify say a species of carrot. You would want to make sure that your subjects were all carrots before you tried this test.

If you had a computer app that could determine the species, there would have to be categories for each type of thing in nature. For instance, Food then vegetables then carrots. So you would have to know a little about what you are trying to test and you would want to do any usual test that you would normally do to make sure that it was a carrot, smell, taste, etc.

 

 

 

 

You have yet to convince anyone of the worth of this line of investigation.

I know, but I am going to try my hardest to show this, with as many picture presentations and info, as it takes.

If it takes 100 full pages of picture presentations then that is the length that I will go to show it. I am my own biggest critic and I am always trying to disprove this to myself and trying to learn new ways to fix problems.

 

 

It is not really that you are using photos, it is the fact that you do not know what equipment was used, the background lighting, any further image processing etc.

What I actually meant was that matching RGB colour in a given photograph that is uniformly lit is probably okay. However that actual RGB value will not have any real meaning. This value will depend on the problems listed earlier.

 

 

I do try to take as many of my own pictures as I can, in a controlled environment, although I have not showed many of these yet.

The pictures that I do use from the net, I try to find pictures that the subjects appear to be in the same lighting conditions. Observing that the lighting conditions are the same, one can assume that all of the other conditions, camera, photographer, distance from subjects should be the same in each photo as well.

Even though you are taking data from many different pictures, but can not reliably test the pictures to one another, seeing that species share the exact same colors, in the same picture, should show that it does not matter what the conditions are, the species colors will still match.

 

 

Indeed, comparing different pictures may well be more problematic. The method would be to introduce some 'error bars' and match RGB numbers in some small ranges.

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

 

 

 

I guess that would help, but it seems an impossible task. And for sure, an expensive one that would need great justification.

I will try my best to prove (justify) or disprove these ideas. If the science community can one day see its potential then that should justify the further expansion of this project. The beautiful thing about it is that it should not cost any money to create. I will do my initial part to try to justify its further research.

Once (if) the science community wants to develop it, software could easily be designed and after all of the color balancing issues are worked out, you would have the first version of this, then the science community (from this site) could easily go around and photograph everything if their environment. It would not take too many people to start this, just a few. Maybe the first version is very basic and can not identify everything. But once you have a basic App then people will want to buy that App.

Now you have maybe millions of people all over the world that can take pictures of new things in their area. After a while you may have everything in the world identified on the one program. With the knowledge, from the folks in this site, we could build this for free.

 

 

What links do you expect between say minerals that have a similar colour? Knowing a little chemistry one might expect minerals that contain the same elements to have similar colourings, but this is not a universal thing. For example C02 is very different to Si02 in the lab.

Of course maybe the best examples of minerals sharing the same colors are gold and silver.

Unfortunately I think minerals maybe one of the most challenging things to find out if my idea applies to them.

Although we all own jewelry we do not usually know the origin or what other metals where mixed with it and what ratios they were mixed.

The only way, I can see, to compare the colors of minerals is to actually get a sample from different mines around the world and compare them.

Can you please explain the difference between CO2 and SiO2 and what you have observed about them? Thanx

 

 

 

 

Colour is already used as part of species identification and identification of minerals. We also have spectroscopy which is taking this even further. Anyway, generally you need more than just the colour to identify animals and plants.

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?

Although this technology exist it is impractical for the average human.

After all these spectroscopy machines are basing their information on a simple photograph as well. One of the problems with them is that you can not see the photo that these machines are taking. Also using this kind of technology would defiantly be very expensive to conduct all of these tests and you would have to get the elephants to sit still, inside the laboratory, while the scientist tried to get a good spectroscopy image. May be tricky...

 

 

I think you can learn from what people have said here. I am not sure how you could implement this though.

As a general comment, you cannot take what people say about your idea too personally. They are looking for holes in your arguments not in you.

Thanks for the advice I will try to remember it in the future.

I hope I have helped answer your questions, please feel free to disagree or to ask more questions.

I will try not to go much deeper, in this idea, until I feel like everybody is up to speed.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Hi. ( Whatever Theory )

 

I think ,observing a simple pattern in nature , is a good place to start in any research.

 

You appear to have noticed a pattern , that I have noticed simplistically , And wondered about, but have never progressed it very far.

 

Two things I noticed were

 

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.

 

So for what it is worth, I have a hunch , that you may be on to " something " here. Not sure , quite what you are on to? But I think you might be on to " something ".

 

Keep going ! It's a colourful subject to be in , anyway ! ( me here stating the bl.. g. Obvious as usual ! )

 

Mike

Edited June 14, 2015 by Mike Smith Cosmos