Indeed there are formulas, or guidelines, for mixing colors, and if you do not do it properly, you will end up with what is called "mud."
First of all, as far as the color wheel goes, it's purpose is to show us that colors across from each other on the color wheel "complement" one another, give us colors that not only enhance each other, but have a great deal of contrast. Red and green are across from one another, yes, but if you mix complements you will get a shade of gray. In other words, complements will neutralize into gray. You will NOT get maroon. If you wish to learn more about the color wheel, a google search will bring up a considerable amount of information.
Secondly, you will want to use primary colors to mix, or again, you will chance to make "mud."
Now, do you want a warm shade of maroon, or do you want it to be cool—something to consider.
Cool: Start with a primary red color, of course. Add a small amount of primary blue (you can always add more later, but too much will make purple), and then add black until you achieve the tone or value of maroon that you desire.
Warm: Same as above, except instead of the blue you would use a small amount of primary yellow to achieve a warm maroon that will have a hint of a brown color as its base (you can not add brown itself to it, as it is not a primary color and will create mud).
You are applying mathematics to his example incorrectly.
If you were to apply it correctly you would achieve a neutral end result, like his example.
Like green = 1 and Red = -1.
Both in this situation stand out from the norm and are of equivalent value in each direction.
If you 'mix' these values, you get 0.
Why apply math to color wheels any way? are you on drugs? that's some pretty lateral thinking.
I think you just wanted to roast >>3 by trying to make it sound like they thought 2+2=5.
Nice try.
Name:
Anonymous2010-10-31 15:21
>>4 2 + 2 = 5
2 + 2 can = 5 if you're using a base number other than ten where 2 + 2 would = 5.
Name:
Anonymous2010-10-31 17:23
>>1 This video has been removed as a violation of YouTube's Community Guidelines.
Community Guidelines = YouTube Jew staff covering up of truth under the guise of "hate speech". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjbII5xqG8s
Obvious race mixing propaganda.
Name:
Anonymous2010-11-03 18:18
LOL at the hate for mixed race people. Average people of all races agree that mixed race people tend to be more fit and more attractive.
Sounds about right that inbred racists would find race mixing disgusting. They would rather be sleeping with their cousins and sisters out in the boondocks (or the american south).
Name:
Anonymous2010-11-04 2:15
>>8
There is no scientific proof that mixed race people are more "fit." There is however, proof that they are more likely to have anti-social behavioral problems.
Most people find both race mixing and incest to be repugnant. Quite to the contrary, many "racists" live far from the country, try to keep with the times. ;)
Name:
Anonymous 2010-11-04 8:11
There is plenty of scientific proof. Google the term. Anti-Social (the psychological instance of it) is a subjective term, hence cannot be measured in a "who has more" sense.
Apparently racists dont go to college.
Name:
Anonymous2010-11-04 11:25
>>racists dont go to college
Facing Facts: Racial Realities
MX Rienzi
Genetic studies can provide much knowledge, and some of the newer technologies are quite powerful and useful. However, some of the older and more basic studies are quite interesting as well, and some shed important light on racial and species differences. I'd like to talk about two here.
The more important of the two is Deka et al., Am. J. Human Genetics 56, pgs. 461-474, 1995. This study looks at some genetic markers and compares the genetic distances of eight human populations (Samoans, North Amerindians, South Amerindians, New Guineans, Kachari [Mongolids], Germans, more generalized Caucasians, and Sokoto Negroes from Nigeria [Nigerian sub-Saharan African Negroes]) to each other and to chimpanzees. The data were analyzed two ways - with Nei's standard genetic distance, and with modified Cavalli-Sforza distance.
Which group was genetically closest to chimpanzees? The answer for both methods was the Nigerian Negro group. Using Nei's method, the Nigerian-chimp distance was 1.334 +/- 0.375, by far the closest value (second closest was the Kachari value of 1.527 +/- 0.493). To be fair, and show we are not knee-jerk "Eurocentrics" hiding data, the group farthest from the chimps was the South Amerindians (1.901 +/- 0.529); however the Germans (1.865 +/- 0.506) and the more general Caucasians (1.860 +/- 0.497) were right behind them (and given the +/- values, virtually overlapping). Looking at the Cavalli-Sforza method, the Sokoto Nigerians were again the closest to chimps (0.539) by a large margin. The farthest were again the South Amerindians (0.712), with the Germans (0.680) and general Caucasians (0.667) being a very close third and fourth behind the South Amerindians as well as Samoans (0.711) and North Amerindians (0.697). So, while the two methods give slightly different orders, in both cases the Nigerians are by far the closest group to the chimps. Once again, given the first method, these sub-Saharan Africans were at 1.334 while all the other groups ranged from 1.527-1.901, and given the second method they were at 0.539 while the other groups ranged from 0.643 (Kachari again) to 0.712. Thus, based on these data, the sub-Saharan African group is genetically closest to chimps. The authors state the following about "neighbor-joining trees" based on these data, using the chimps as the "outgroup":
"...the SO [Sokoto Nigerian - my note] population is the furthest from all the other human populations."
Indeed, these genetic data are consistent with the work of J. Irish, reviewed here, demonstrating that sub-Saharan Africans are dentally more similar to extinct and extant apes, and to extinct hominids and australopithecines, than are any other human population. The genetic data and the dental phenotypic data match perfectly.
Some may find it unfortunate that all these data seem to correlate with certain racial stereotypes. However, we must view facts - however harsh - with honesty. And if that includes recognition that certain groups may be slightly more distant from chimps than are Whites, so be it. Of course, White groups have "on their side" the verdict of history as to their accomplishments compared to other groups; the European extended phenotype is second to none. However, we can imagine that other less accomplished groups may find these data very unsettling. That is unfortunate; nonetheless, it does not change the facts.
The data can be looked at in other ways as well. One can compare the relative genetic distance between two human groups to that between those human groups and chimps, and thus calculate the former as a percentage of the latter. According to the Nei method, the German-Nigerian distance (0.238) is a full 12.8% of the German-chimp difference, while using the Cavalli-Sforza method the German-Nigerian distance (0.168) is a full 24.7% of the German-chimp distance! And for Caucasians-Nigerians vs. Caucasians-chimps the numbers using these two methods are 13.9% and 24.9%, respectively!
These data - however you crunch the numbers, and however liberals may cry that it is all being "misinterpreted" - are quite fascinating and shed important light on questions of racial differences, racial realities, and the consequences of racial miscegenation. It also points out that determining sub-Saharan African admixture (as well as other admixture) via established technology (here, and here) is of significant importance to us.
The other paper that I would like to mention (briefly) is that of Kimmel et al., Genetics 143, pgs. 549-555, 1996. Here eight human populations - including Caucasians, Mongolids, and sub-Saharan Africans- were studied to determine their relative genetic distances. The only real surprise here (not a surprise is that Germans and Nigerians are again very distant, and that various Caucasian groups, including the Germans, are close together) is the (relatively large) genetic distance between the Chinese and Japanese, which some uninformed folks may view as virtually "identical." . The distance between those two East Asian groups (using relative measurements different than that of the Deka et al. work) was 0.029. That is a full 72.5% of the distance (0.040) between Germans and the Bhramins (Asian Indians) of Uttar Pradesh, and is even 8.5% of the German-Nigerian distance (0.342). Not all East Asians are identical, although other data (e.g., Nei and Roychoudhury's classic 1993 paper) do show a relatively close Japanese-Korean relationship. Different areas of China may show different distances to other Asian groups as well, of course. In any case, the stated intention of future ABD tests to distinguish between Chinese and Japanese origins may indeed be possible, given the Kimmel et al. data.
In summary, racial differences are quite real, and the implications of these differences must be considered, regardless of how startling these implications may be.
Addendum I
The following is a list of the [human] chromosome 13q (that which was studied in the Deka et al. paper) alleles which are found in both Nigerians and chimps and NOT found in any of the other population groups studied:
FLT1 - 156 and 176
D13S118 - 184
D13S121 - 160 and 180
D13S193 - 127 and 137
D13S124 - 179
And that is all from just a study of 13q alone!
One must carefully consider these data, indeed.