[Mitko Gorgiev (OP)]

These posts have been removed as they contravene both the rules on material published elsewhere and advertising.

[Bored chemist]

As we will see later, the yellow and the violet are the two fundamental plus/minus colors of the world. The red (including the orange) is nothing else but weakening of the yellow; the cyan (including the blue) is nothing other than weakening of the violet.

Tosh.

the leaves of the trees. In autumn they turn from green to yellow, then to orange, and even to red on some trees, but never to cyan, blue or violet.

The reasons for that are known to the real scientists. They are to do with chemistry, not some metaphysics hogwash about positive and negative.

From what has been said so far, we can conclude that the colors are born when the light encounters matter as an obstacle on its way of propagation; or, in other words, when it comes to friction between the light and the matter.

No, we can not conclude that at all.
Notably because, as you point out the top of a candle flame is a different colour from the bottom.
But, in both cases, the light has traveled through the same air, to the same eye.

Your hogwash isn't even self-consistent. Please stop fouling the site with it.

[Mitko Gorgiev (OP)]

Please stop fouling the site with it.

No, you should stop fouling the sound sense of the readers with your empty objections and with your arrogance.

[Bored chemist]

Please stop fouling the site with it.

No, you should stop fouling the sound sense of the readers with your empty objections and with your arrogance.

My observation that the top and bottom of a candle are different colours is not "empty"; it's pretty obviously true, and it shows that you are wrong.
You are saying that the whole of science in the fields of optics and spectroscopy since about 1800 is wrong.
And you are calling me arrogant.
That's a bit of a stretch.

As usual the best way to undermine your ideas is simple.
If you are right then "conventional" science is wrong.
If it is wrong then how come everything works?

Why do things like the internet- which is designed on the basis of conventional science- actually do the things that we designed them to?

Until you can answer that, you have nothing to say.

[Colin2B]

Please stop fouling the site with it.

No, you should stop fouling the sound sense of the readers with your empty objections and with your arrogance.

I’m sorry to say that it is your extreme arrogance.  What you are posting as ‘science’ is seriously misleading.
Colours are not as you describe them.

[Mitko Gorgiev (OP)]

Please stop fouling the site with it.

No, you should stop fouling the sound sense of the readers with your empty objections and with your arrogance.

I’m sorry to say that it is your extreme arrogance.  What you are posting as ‘science’ is seriously misleading.
Colours are not as you describe them.

I cannot understand wherein my "extreme arrogance" is. This section of the site is for posting new theories. What have I done other than that?
What is misleading in my post? Please find opalite stones (they are cheap) and see for yourself the same pattern as in the flame of a candle or a cigarette lighter? What can be wrong in that, when someone finds striking similarities?

[Bored chemist]

What have I done other than that?

You have said that everyone else is wrong.
But your own ideas don't make sense
You say " we can conclude that the colors are born when the light encounters matter as an obstacle on its way of propagation; or, in other words, when it comes to friction between the light and the matter."
But you also say "

the flame is blue-violet in the lower part and yellow-orange in the upper part.

But those cannot both be true.

[Bored chemist]

What is misleading in my post?

This lot, for a start.

All the aforementioned phenomena and experiments, but also others whose description will follow, come down to a single principle, that of plus and minus. In this particular case we can call it “principle of an arrow”. The front part of the arrow is plus, the rear minus. We call the front part ‘plus’ because it has a penetrating effect, the back part ‘minus’, because it has a suctioning effect (+ <−−−−< −) (the sign '<' appears both at the front and at the back of the arrow, so that already in it there are the plus and the minus (+<−).
Please read this post of mine about the Bernoulli's principle:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=17067.msg587651#msg587651.

In the flame of the candle and that of the lighter we recognize the same arrow pattern. In the front of this ‘fiery arrow’ appears the plus color (yellow), in the back the minus color (blue-violet). As we will see later, the yellow and the violet are the two fundamental plus/minus colors of the world. The red (including the orange) is nothing else but weakening of the yellow; the cyan (including the blue) is nothing other than weakening of the violet. When the strong plus (yellow) meets the weakened minus (cyan), their overlapping bears the green. In this color dominates of course the plus, which can be seen, among other things, on the leaves of the trees. In autumn they turn from green to yellow, then to orange, and even to red on some trees, but never to cyan, blue or violet.

If the strong minus (the violet) overlaps with the weakened plus (the red), this gives birth to magenta. From the mixing of the strong plus (the yellow) and strong minus (the violet) we get nothing, that is, we get their cancellation, which means more or less dark gray.

When we observed the small opalite with moderate concentration of additives against a dark background, it appeared blue. What does it actually mean, to observe the stone against a dark background? It means that we are positioned sideways to the stone considering the direction of the light, seeing the ‘tail’ of the light permeating through it. Therefore the stone appeared with a minus color. Since it is small and with moderate concentration of additives, it cannot hold up the light, that is, the light passes through it and makes a bright yellow spot on the opposite wall (of course, we couldn’t see that by diffused daylight, but we have perceived it with the help of the directional white light of the LED lamp. To see the yellow color by daylight, we hold the stone close to the eye looking through it in the direction where the light comes from). But when the stone was longish with moderate and uniform concentration of additives, then, illuminated along the longitudinal axis, it absorbs i.e. withholds the light to a great degree, thus the yellow and the red color project already in it on its far side. Therefore it gives the image of a candle or a lighter. When the concentration increases rapidly along the longitudinal axis, then the cyan catches up the yellow, thus the green color appears here as well.

is pretty much all wrong.

[Colin2B]

This section of the site is for posting new theories. What have I done other than that?

Please read our acceptable usage policy http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=8535.0, which you agreed to abide by. In there it states:
“It is not acceptable simply to post material onto this forum that you have posted elsewhere, except where the post is specifically pertinent to an ongoing thread.  If you start a thread with a post that is for all practical purposes the same as you have posted elsewhere, we will generally assume that you are evangelising, and will act accordingly.”

All the material you are posting has been posted elsewhere, by you.