Optics and colors

I'm sorry, this is the only way I can communicate this thesis to you. It's on Optics, and how colors arrive at our sight and are used by objects.

Anthony David Pulse, Jr.
3017 Fenton Rd, Flint, MI 48507
1 810 336 1617 inland14@live.com
@agreaterpoint http://g0d.me/

In optic tracers, we see light paints running floorboards. It also splits the scene or color-washes certain areas for our vision. We've had no reason to undertake much of a vision repeal as it comes to the higher or lighter order.

Built on stagnation in science, having been aloft for all students of optics the traces of light had not been really explored to their very essence. We have assumed wrong of the permutations of light in objects.

In what we can confuse as a euphoria behind the nutshell, which has been an elucidation to our relevant sense of primed knowledge. This will certainly turn lasers and art on their ears.

The promulgation of certitude calls to poetic license along the frontier being revealed, to a new and promised end to any debate on which the euphoria of color emittance was originally glanced at but thought of quite wrong. Without reason and without firm responsiveness to let out to the true firth.***

To have an undermining of this, there is simply the idea of tracers. These must be connected to our brains. They are either memory or true color palettes where the current object is observed in all.

The signal we have placed it on says, we have sent pings to colors. This is certainly farcical. I'd bet my life on it. Lazarus had his chance at this it's such an old mistake. We do not ping people with our eyes. The light, constructively stated in the outlines of current-day theory, moves to the back of the eye, yes, to the back, and is upside down, yes. But the color is highly inebriated in rationalizing.

All the text in the world is using this newly debated concordance. The forge of a better picture of optical relevance to exist with is already on a plane. The pitch of the color is from the fruit, we'll say. Saying that a watermelon is green is that it is exactly NOT green actually, but of any and all other colors. They are permeating into the fruitish-gourd, and definitely help the orb to grow in size, feeding it via photosynthesis. But the only color not helping that is, green! That's because the other colors are optic goods to the plant. But green has the wrong rays to be fruitful for the watermelon.

I'm milking this a bit, I know. But I'm blowing away a lot of dust on a theory that should've been rocked to sleep a long time ago. Because it's like a comic story. We have eyes, and we dart our eyes at the object, and bring it back to us, like a gecko's tongue. Yes. That's about the rudiment of our understanding. So it's to a lull.

Now, the perfect way to convince you of that other way is to let you seize the idea of the fruit being like a light bulb, and opulent. The fruit emits only what it cannot use. That's the most important part of this revelation. The thesis states.


	As long as an object is struck with light, the light will spread along its spectral radiance leaving out colors that do not help it to:
	A. Digest
	B. Hide
	C. Be seen


The merit comes from this: black is warm. Yes, you know that. But why? Because it soaks in all colors. And why white does nothing but dismiss the colors back to the surrounding space. So it is, in essence, black. And in a fight to cease from allowing light to place upon hooks into it, in the common historical theory about colors.

Light goes in every direction. Yes, but the one and perhaps only thing we forget to get right, was what colors are arbitrary to the growth or fascination of the object.