Mostly equator and not acrylics!

Not acrylics? It looks like acrylics. Is it acrylics? 

Well, yes. In a sense. I aquired this quite amazing piece of drawing software, called Corel Painter 12. How is it different from what im using, which is Opencanvas? First off, Painter has a really robust brush-engine. It can handle acrylics. On PC. The paint blends, leaves strokes of paint, has adjustable wetness, the brush will eventually run dry of colour, etc. etc...! 

And it really works! They pulled it off! Its smooth, too! Almost no lag when working with a 100p brush on a 3000x2000 canvas! And its not a normal digital picture, no, its really a canvas with a prespecified texture which affects the way all brushes work on it!

Acrylics is not the end of it, Corel Painter comes preloaded with like hundreds of different brushes, ranging from airbrushing tools to canvas knives, from soft 2b to wet simulated watercolour! Its quite fascinating. It does take some getting used to, though, and the stuff you draw in Painter will look very different from the stuff youre used to in Photoshop, GIMP or OpenCanvas.





OH, AND THE EQUATOR! I came to an amazing realization today, when, in art class, we were talking about how kids from India almost always depict the sky as being orange or pink when painting. It came to me that this must have something to do with Rayleigh scattering, so its a perfect continuation on subjects previously discussed! If you havent read my rather lengthy entry about Rayleigh scattering in the atmosphere, go do it now, or take the venture of reading on and probably not understanding what this has to do with anything.

So, Rayleigh scattering makes the sky red, right? Yeah. Is the sky different in India? Yeah. Is the atmosphere different in India? Uh... YES, thats what I realized. Its not groundbreaking, jesus, get off my back about it. The atmosphere is actually alot thicker around the equator! Why did I never think about that? Its for the same reason as the coriolis-effect occurs, or the reason why sattelites dont come crashing down on us, namely the centrifugal force.

Well, that last statement is not really true. Coriolis effect happens because of simple rotation of the earth, and thats a separate phenomenon. Sattelites dont come down because of inertia, not centrifugal force, and also have nothing to do with the rotation of the earth, but instead with the motion of the sattelite around the earth. In truth, theres really not much at all true about what I said. Not even the atmosphere is thicker at the equator because of centrifugal force (It may contain more dense particles, though, but thats not what matters here.).

It is infact the much less heard of Centripetal force that acts here. Not the entire story, but I promise to explain. Centripetal force is the force that draws something towards the centre of a circular path. It occurs in all circular movement, and is in fact what keeps that movement being circular, when the laws of inertia says the path wants to be straight.

So in the case of the atmosphere, the centripetal force would naturally be earths gravitational pull. If not for gravity, atmosphere would FLYYYY AWAY because of preservation of motion. One important thing to note about the momentous force of the atmosphere (The force that wants to be preserved, in short.), is that it is naturally larger at the equator, because as the air moves around earths circle of rotation along with the surface of the earth. It also moves faster the farther away it is from the axis of rotation, as does the surface of the earth, because it still needs to complete a full revolution in the same timeframe as the rest of the earth.

Inertia is in this case the force which in effect is applied upwards, away from the earth. Since its stronger at the equator, the particles of the atmosphere will flock to the equator. That has to do with the balance between our centripetal force and our reactive centrifugal force (Im introducing a new term, get used to it.), which is the same as the force exerted by our preservation of motion. That doesnt really make a whole lot of sense when you say it, but thats the way it is.

In other words, the balance is tipped in the favour of preservation of motion near the equator, relative to near the poles, where there isnt much circular movement, but the gravitational pull, centripetal force, stays the same, squatting the atmosphere up top, elongating it at the sides. YEP. Thats a lengthy explanation for a simple problem. I like to tell the whole story though, and no one seems to be complaing (Which would be totally ok, im shitballs mad at you people for not ever commenting on my entries).

Oh, lets not wander astray here. Since the atmosphere is thicker at the equator, more Rayleigh scattering will naturally occur the nearer you are to the equator, AND THUS, REDDER SKY. WOOP WOOP. So basically, because of preservation of motion, the indians get to have much redder and more beautiful skies than we do, and the indian kids in my art class will draw pinkish skies.


DAMNN RAYLEIGH, You make for long-ass entries. Im sorry guys, I just had to try to explain this.


I have an extra treat for you. Its a really ugly faux-acrylic painting of a blue guy. It doesnt really make much sense, and it doesnt really have artistic value, so im going to make the picture as small as blogger can make it. ANYWAY TOO MUCH TEXT TOO LITTLE PICTURE. I mean, some balance has to be had, right?

Okay, just to avoid confusion, Inertia, or preservation of motion as i weirdly enough decided to call it, or simply newtons first law combined with momentum, is actually not A FORCE being exerted, its rather FORCE which is contained, in motion... Damn, ill have to make another entry about that.