3 ms·
There is no misshap. On the one hand, we (or perceptual psychology) deem red a warm color, probably by learned or ingrained association with fire. And the blue
by posterboy 7y ago
There is no misshap.
On the one hand, we (or perceptual psychology) deem red a warm color, probably by learned or ingrained association with fire. And the blue part of a flame is actually hotter, so OP has a point. The very word blue actually stems from a sense shiny, bright.
On the other hand, the watt/lumen ratio of red is higher than blues', I believe, and both are much higher than greens'. Simply put, if lower wavelengths pass less energy, then waves at the same energy but different frequency must have higher attenuation if closer to red. Alas, I'm not sure what velocity means in optics.
This is more illustrative with Music: A bass that you can hear and feel carrying the high tones must have a lot of energy.
- htfu 7y agoNot sure what you're trying to say. There's no inherent watt to lumen ratio for anything as far as I'm aware, but mainly, how would the other things you mention negate the fact that cool/warm colors are indeed flipped compared to temp? You're saying blue, having higher energy and matching red with fewer photons, makes sense to describe as cooler because it can put in less effort? Definitely haven't heard that one before. Edit: there's obviously a language barrier but that's what I took "no mishap" to mean, that you disagree with us.
- posterboy 7y agoYou have no idea how Lumen is defined, do you?