I grew up like any normal kid in a Communist country. I knew who I was, I knew where I stood, I knew how things worked in my little world. Life, I thought, was pretty good. School was easy, chores were symbolic (both in number and nature), people liked me, and my energy was boundless. Then, one fateful day, my first serious "pain of the soul" hit me with an impact I had never felt before. I had heard my parents lying for the first time. Until then, as far as I knew, my parents never lied. Sure, we kids lied, and all other people certainly lied, but my parents did not. Of course, the truth is that that's what I wanted to believe, for deep down I'd always been riddled with a pretty healthy amount of scepticism--especially about the human nature.
Close to half a century later I know the truth as well as I knew it back then, and as well as you know it yourself. I remember Jack Nicholson's riposte to Tom Cruise's demand for the truth in some flick: "You can't handle the truth!" If only the writer had found instead "No one can handle the truth!", I would have probably remembered the name of the flick.
No one can handle the truth--when the truth is the Truth. Neither when fronting others, nor when confronting one self. I know that. I'm aware of it. I live it.
Ponder this. For 350 years no one has seen the most blatant, gargantuan, gaffe in the modern history--that the two most important spectral colours in the conventional theory of light refract in opposite directions. This is a truth. And this is a truth of the Truth. Can anyone please handle that?
Or ponder on this. For 350 years the conventional physicists have pharisaically sung hosannas to Newton whilst casting everyone else into the forsaken land of reprobation--in spite of the preached doctrine being false all along. This is a truth. And this truth is part of the Truth.
Or think about this truth. Humanity, as a whole, has lost 350 years of evolution. Why? Because the Truth is determined neither by the beliefs, nor by the actions, of the majority. The majority cannot know the truth at any conceivable point in history, anyway. Think about it. Before any idea becomes common knowledge, it germinates and lives first in the mind of one. And then, when it becomes public knowledge, it is of course outdated. Evolve, or perish.
You know what bothers me the most in Newton's saga? The rather ominous realisation that he was either not as brilliant a thinker as we all have been led to believe (for otherwise he should have easily seen the flaws in his own theory), or--if that premise is false--that he didn't care about the truth one bit (for the manner in which he 'defended' his theory was abominable). In either event that leaves a bitterness in my mouth I cannot get rid of. After all I loved the man. For a long time I thought he was a Greek thinker after my own liking. But these days I can see that he lacked the most important quality needed for becoming that: unconditional love for the Truth. Newton might have been a great scientist, but there is no doubt that he was a poor philosopher. And a poor human being.
If you are driven by beauty and led by reason, you will become a seeker and lover of truth. But beauty is in the eye of the beholder, right? Not the universal beauty. Not the beauty sought by the physicist, as they say. The ability to be driven by the universal beauty is a gift. But the ability to be led by reason can be learned. This is good. It evens out the field.
The truth has never been openly spoken, or heard, in the world of man. Not at any point in the past, not at any point in the present, and very likely not at any point in the future. A long time ago I asked someone who'd certainly never agree with me on that issue what he believed to be the most important lesson that humanity should learn from the story of Jesus. The man replied firmly and with unshakeable conviction: "Love." I smiled with a full display of wryness on my face and left in a hurry. I had no time to waste on arguing against that. After all the man was your typical run-of-the-mill Christian, for whom "Love" has long been the universal catchword and substitute for any other term, including "Truth". For me, on the other hand, the story of Jesus is one that exemplifies in superlative fashion the entire gamut of essentials that accompany and define the discipleship evolution of "the truth".
Truth is a most troubling and troublesome commodity. How troubling, and troublesome? So troubling, and so troublesome, that the truth has never been openly spoken or heard in the world as we know it. I, for instance, have never heard the truth spoken aloud and openly in all fifty four years of my life. Neither in the first twenty four years I had lived behind the Iron Curtain, nor in the last thirty years that I've been living in the so-called "free world". In fact I could honestly say that in many ways my years under the Communists were 'truer' than the later ones. I can genuinely say that because at least in Communism we all knew and acknowledged that the truth was absolutely and equally non-existent and non-relevant in our life. No one preached the truth, and no one believed it existed. So true was that to the reality that even jokes like the one following this sentence did not disturb us at the time. (Two friends meet on the street. "Hey, mate, I haven't seen you for yonks! Where have you been?" "I've been in jail, mate. Ten years." "Really? What for?" "For nothing." "OMG! This is absolutely preposterous! Mate, in my city for nothing you only get five years!")
In the 'free world', on the other hand, the truth is widely preached and claimed from all pulpits and altars of the society, even though the reality is pretty much self-evidently different. From the highest echelons of the society to the lowest, the truth is the first expendable commodity, and thus indeed it is by and large treated by the overwhelming majority.
Truth is not only expendable. Truth is also dangerous, combative, inquisitive, disruptive, painful, contentious, direct, blunt, unceremonious, unfriendly, stern... The truth makes you no friends and it brings you no riches. The truth is a lonely voice muffled by the marching boots and the cries of war of the majority. When Jesus began speaking the truth, as he saw it, in a very short time he managed to enrage just about everyone living at the time--from the Jews to the Romans, from Pharisees to the pagans, from the tax-collectors to the rabbinate. Jesus, the truth-speaker, was an oddball for the whole world, even though everything he was saying was nothing but plain, genuine, common sense. Yet, no one in his time seems to have understood that what he was saying was simply the common wisdom that any thinker should arrive at by no other means than sound reasoning. In fact, even today, 2000 years later, millions of worshippers around the world continue to theatrically marvel in sermons and prayers about Jesus' unique and godly wisdom expressed in the parables he left for the world. To my mind, though, the only thing they ought to marvel at should be how on Earth they still cannot comprehend that Jesus' primordial message was that the only way to God is through the Truth! That when you speak the truth you are the Son of God--that indeed you are like God. This is the secret that Christians have never been able to understand, even though it's been all written down and exemplified in one parable after another for two millennia. Just think about the parable of the drunkard and the Pharisee who were praying at the same time in the temple. Or about the man who went one morning to employ people to work in his vineyard.
(One day, many years ago, I told a few Christian friends the following parable I had thought to be in perfect accordance to Jesus' teachings. A Christian dies and goes to face God for judgement. God asks him what he'd done in life, and the man proceeds to explain in detail how he had respected the Law and lived a pious life. God smiles approvingly and says: "Good. Go to heaven." A couple of minutes later a Muslim arrives, and after a short description of his life on Earth he too gets God's approval to go to Heaven. Five minutes later a Buddhist arrives, and in the same manner he is sent to the Heaven like those before him. Finally, an Atheist is treated exactly the same and is also sent to Heaven, before the Christian rushes back to God's throne. "Lord", he says in a voice choking with rage, "all my life I followed your teachings and observed all your commends, and now I am treated no better than a Muslim, a Buddhist, or even an Atheist. I ask you now, Lord, why have I done everything that I have on Earth?" God smiled and replied: "What did I promise you in return for all that? Eternal life with me here in Heaven, which you duly were granted as promised. I ask you, then, now: What do you care about what I do with the rest of the world, which does also belong to me?" The Christian fell silent, but he was not impressed.) [And neither were my friends, by the way.]
For the humanity at large, though, what is most interesting on this topic is not Chrisitians' failure to see the essence of Jesus' wisdom and philosophy. What is most interesting, from my point of view, is to see how easily they have also failed to notice Jesus' lack of wisdom, and the poor philosophical insights he showed a couple of times in his recorded ministry. For those of us whose sphere of interests goes beyond the boundaries that constrict the usual evolutionary potential of the most, I will one day talk about those episodes from Jesus' life, for those are eloquent examples of how vested interests cloud significantly one's desire and potential ability to seek for the truth. This is the healthiest and most nutritious food for thought of the genuine seeker of wisdom, for anyone should rest assured by the knowledge of the following truthfulness: that no amount of zealotry or faith will in any way determine the outcome and evolution of the Truth.
If you believe the slogans of physicists there is nothing more important for them than the truth. Even Newton himself made that claim, when he expressed in no uncertain terms the difference he supposedly held between Plato or Aristotle, and the truth. Alas, Newton's truth was incongruent with the reality--the Truth. But if Newton's truth was indeed warped as it was--by whatever factors--what chances do any ordinary mortals have to not fall into the same trap? Thus far, clearly no chance at all, even though the current situation is far more eloquent and clearer than what he faced 350 years ago. For instance, I hope some of you did not need any input from me to see that when it comes to the main aspect of my contention (namely, that the colours red and blue refract in opposite directions in all so-called subjective prismatic experiments) the experimental evidence is comprehensively conclusive and irrefutable. And, when I say that, I hope some of you have long understood on what basis I have made that assertion--even though I, deliberately and by choice, talked very little indeed thus far about that. Let us be absolutely clear, though, that when it comes to that there is no need to use of any of the experiments I have employed mostly thus far. What I am saying, of course, is that for a conventional physicist the experiment of my choice and design is that which I will illustrate below in a moment--and which I covered briefly in one of my emails to Mr. Dutch. Specifically, if you remember, I asked Mr. Dutch to make a print-out of the illustrations below (or to use his own artwork for the purpose, if he so desired), then to tag three pins as red, blue, and green, and finally to stick each tagged pin into its respective coloured line whilst looking through a prism from a distance of 0.5-1.0 m.
That experiment, if you remember, came to be my favourite choice for the conventional physicists after I realised that those of more conventional leanings have a particular liking for it. Nevertheless, as I was saying at the time, the experiment illustrated above is as good as all the other hundreds or thousands that it could be just as effectively substituted by. In short, then, let us assert again the inescapable and final conclusion that it is the matter of quintessence in the subject: that there's not one shadow of doubt in the issue--red and blue refract in opposite directions in all those so-called subject prismatic experiments.
And yet, in absolute spite of all the experimental evidence, the physicists of the 21st Century have conclusively shown that they suffer of the same afflictions as those of the 17th Century. Surprised? If not, we should all be. In fact we shouldn't be only surprised; we should be angry, and rightfully so. After all the evolution of humanity is not an exclusive endeavour controlled by the fortunes of a few. The 'free world' is in dire need of a socio-scientific revolution. A revolution for real evolution, no less. The world cannot afford any more of the century-long parasitism in physics. Humanity can no longer afford to invest its scarce resources, money, and time, in a quixotic, mindless, and meaningless delusionary pursuit. To give you a concrete example of the endemic parasitism that has been prevalent in the world of the conventional physics I invite you to research how much money is continuously being poured into the pockets of those who're already enjoying quite perky tenures in great universities around the world, in the same old and arid approach at furthering our understanding of the quantum phenomena, in spite of the continuing absence of any significant progress for many, many years now. In fact the entire process has become a farce worthy of the pen of a sadly absent Voltaire, or Moliere. Make no mistake, though, the times are ripe for modern versions of those, for I can see a not too distant future when there will be a universal recall for many Nobel Prizes that are currently tickling the urges and vanities of quite a few opportunistic recipients. In the meantime I shall nonetheless continue unabated both with my work and with my personal revolutionary struggle. And, to that end I would only like to add just one more thing at this point: that in contrast to all these bleak prospective appearances that are currently dominating the present state of affairs, my journey in both has been personally incredibly rich and rewarding. Moreover, I have good reasons to believe that it shall continue to remain so. After all I still have a million of ideas germinating in my brain today, as well as the reassurance and strength of knowing that I have no reason to fear tomorrow's truth.
Pathos? Love in Logos & Ethos!
Today it's been a great day. I'm happy. So happy that I have decided to put aside, for the time being, the page I was going to upload this morning. Today I want to talk with you about the Pathos of my understanding, first. Pathos is a word I understand much better than either Logos or Ethos. Not for some esoteric reason. For one most simple. Because there is a copy of the original Greek word in my mother tongue too, and, as I so intimately know it, because the words of your mother tongue always resonate in a much deeper and consonant voice to your mind, body and soul than any other words you might have learned to understand from other sources. Pathos I not only understand. Pathos I feel. Pathos I am. Indeed, that thus is the truth I couldn't possibly have any stronger proof than this sudden realisation that I have always had the same degree of understanding of the word, yet that I've never learned of, or about it. The Pathos of my understanding is not exactly Greek, it's definitely not American or British, and I'm not quite sure if it is Romanian either. Nevertheless, Pathos is a word I know best, out of all three.
Pathos is, in my own understanding of Greek and the Greek way, fundamentally Love. But it is much more than that also. Much broader, yet more precise, more characteristic. Pathos is the most miraculous aspect of the physical reality. Pathos is God's gift to the Universe--His physical manifestation. Yeah, Pathos is God's gift, and it is therefore free. But, and instead of alas I will say of course, if such a gift is so granted there is inevitably and immediately created a strong potential for eventual discord and dissonance between the grantor and grantee. This highly plausible scenario is, as far as I'm concerned, an even more eloquent--and a great deal subtler--parable about why one should be wary of Greek gifts than the anonymous one that has straddled from myth to reality into history for a couple of millennia. That's why, in my own understanding of Greek and the Greek way, Pathos must ultimately become an evolutionary extension of the originally fundamental principles of Logos and Ethos. Anything less than that (and at this point I'll say again of course instead of alas), can only lead to perishableness.
But the Truth is that there is one other reason for my understanding Pathos best of all, and there are good chances that this other reason I could be sharing with you. After all there should already exist pretty decent odds in favour of that in the first place, since both of us, humans, are exchanging now these thoughts. Pathos can be--rather easily--corrupted in the physical reality, by the physical reality. Shouldn't we have then this potential trait in common? Methinks so.
The Pathos of my understanding is, at its broadest, Love. At its most precise, though, my Pathos can become many another thing: desire; conviction; urge; obsession; call; habit; realisation; zeal; reaction; decision; need...
I have become a Greek by choice. For a number of good, strong reasons, but of which some carry within a special kind of readily acknowledged deformity on my part. That deformity is formed by the extent of the ideality with which I have been willingly shaping my own picture of the Greekness I'd be loving to learn from and continue. Thus, for example, in my personal Greek universe two thinkers will never have a problem finding out and acknowledging who's right or who is wrong in any matter. And this is of course a deformed picture of the reality that existed in the Greek Golden Era. But my friend, for a thinker, the distortedness I allowed does not in any way invalidate the possibility that even in the crude reality of this point in time two thinkers should still have little trouble establishing, and acknowledging, the truth in any matter. Ask me how could I be even sure whether I know, or believe that. Ask me on what basis a Greek thinker of my own liking could either prove that, or accept a proof of that. Ask me, and I will tell you that I don't believe that--I know that. Ask me if I can prove it, and I will tell you that I can. Ask me finally if I'd accept a proof of that, and I will tell you something even better then--that you will accept my proof, so that you will be rid of any doubt that might linger around (for one whatever reason, or another).
Look, truth is simple, and the Truth is even simpler. Listen to what I consider to be the decisive line of reasoning in this matter, and then try to refute it on whatever grounds you may choose, if you don't like it.
I know when I don't know. I understand when I don't understand. I realise when I don't realise. I am fully aware when I lie. In fact so aware I have always been about the truth in that matter that I have never-ever managed to lie to myself yet. In fact, my personal level of awareness in that field has always been so high that I could tell a thinker of my liking that I have also always been aware of all the things that shape and determine every single word that I have or will ever utter. You know the things I mean. Fears, urges, interests, circumstances, weaknesses, and many other traits and factors that make me ultimately not who I am, but indeed what I am.Think about all this, and then dare to suggest that I must be of a special breed, a total and unique aberration to the rest of the world. The truth in that matter in fact I know, and that truth is that I am very common. A pretty good specimen of human ordinariness. There is one other, even more important, truth in the grander picture nonetheless. Yes, I am a very common representative, an ordinary sample of homo sapiens. Thank God, however, I've become aware of it in time. And that remained, for a long (looong) time, my only asset, achievement and hope upon which I could build a life and eventually find a meaning for.
Years ago someone said about me that I had no right to be right in the Newtonian optical saga. I said nothing about that at the time, for reasons I just couldn't be bothered now to mention. Today I have decided to respond to that, not personally (for that has never managed to attract any interest in me, let alone become important), but publicly (because I have no vested interests and no hidden agendas, nor indeed anything else that I could fear, be embarrassed about, ashamed of, or perverse toward) to murky my waters, or impede my vision, or indeed dilute, influence or alter my Pathos for the truth of The Truth. And in that matter I can tell you that it is only I, on one side of reality, who know the truth, and just God--on the other side--who's aware of The Truth. The truth of The Truth, which I personally know, is that I had earned the right to become right in whatever aspect of reality I would choose one early morning in 1990. That event was witnessed... no, it was more than that--it was created, equally, by two entities who met each other, very briefly, twice in a short span of time--yet so sublimely comprehensive, so beautifully eloquent, with such an awesomeness in its materialisation, presentation and manifestation, that I have never since asked, desired, or needed any reconfirmation of the truth I had learned about that early morning 23 years ago.
As for the rest, there's all history--and all of it invariably has a connection to the event only I and God have witnessed (and, therefore, can bear testimony to, for, or on behalf of). There's only one other thing that you should be made aware of. That is the need for all concerned to know that the God I have acknowledged here is very much of the same nature as my Greekness, my universe, my wisdom, my understanding, my belief. My God is a god after my own liking. My God is personal, unique, unknown to anyone else. Humanity's gods I have consciously dismissed as bearing any real consequentiality, potential, or possibility of either existing or becoming at any conceivable physical or metaphysical point, level, or realm. All gods that have survived the past to be still somewhat relevant in the present have long ago failed to pass even the most basic tests I have subjected them to over the years. All mankind's gods smack of human characteristicness. They're primitive, cruel, unimaginative, illogical, irrational, capricious, insecure... Wholly uninteresting. And equally implausible.
Read less, think more. I'm saying this with good reasons. Think about it. Think no further than at the one immediate benefit of that advice. If you read less you will most likely learn little more than the basics (fundamentals) on any given subject. If you think more you are most likely to develop a better picture of the things you like thinking about. Now this is certainly a benefit, but it is not the benefit I had in mind. The real benefit is that as a direct consequence of all this you will most likely have ample opportunities to test both how good you are as a thinker, and how good your picture of the reality is. You know what I mean? You will, in a minute.
Now, I can testify that such being the case I had to think more about light behaviour in prismatic experiments than most people interested in the subject, and there is no doubt in my mind that that's why I've discovered what all others haven't. Most importantly though, the one immediate benefit of the story is that due to my limited knowledge of the subject as a whole over the years I have certainly had ample opportunity to test those things I mentioned a minute ago. Indeed that kind of opportunities have never failed to arise, and I'm sure they will continue to do so for quite a while yet. From my perspective I can tell you that I have good reasons to fear nothing that can or will be thrown at me. On the contrary, I am on a continuous look out for new and more challenging arguments. So far, alas, whatever has been thrown at me has hardly been any challenge at all. In fact, what has thus far been thrown at me has been either ridiculously stupid or ridiculously easy. In fact I want to give you the latest example of the kind that has been pointed out to me. I think you will enjoy it too.
The most salient part of the theory of light and colours according to Newton is the intimate relationship that exists (both in the conventional view and mine) between the two kinds of prismatic observations--the so-called subjective and objective. Even though we have talked about them in sufficient detail, one thing regarding the two has remained largely uncovered in our discussions. Whether you have noticed or not, when it comes to one type of prismatic experimentation I have not completely discounted the possible validity of Newton's proposed mechanism for spectral refraction. In other words, when it comes to the so-called objective prismatic experiments I am willing to accept Newton's "different degrees of refrangibility" mechanism as a candidate vying for the privilege to rule in the matter. That's why I said at some point in the recent past that, at best, Newton's theory may be half right. Nonetheless, the final word on that matter is yet to be spoken.
Until that time will come, though, the two types of prismatic experimentation shall continue to remain inextricably joined, just like they have been since 1672 for the conventionalists, and since the 1990s for me personally. Unfortunately, for the conventionalists, that state of affairs shall always remain a chronic and acutely painful affliction, completely beyond any possibility of a cure. Moreover, if that's not enough, any attempt to find arguments that might be chained together in some hopeful stratagem that could save the conventional empire will do nothing more than merely exacerbate the precariousness of the situation. To see what I mean let me add to those shown in the past one more conventional testimony proving my point.
According to the conventionalists in the matter...
A prism displaces, or bends, light passing through it towards the base of the prism. This is the thicker end of the prism. In the simplest case, a ray of light strikes the first surface at a normal (perpendicular) incidence, and remains undeviated. Upon reaching the second surface, the ray is refracted away from the normal to the surface, according to Snell's law of refraction, and towards the base of the prism. Although a prism displaces light towards its base, when the refracted light is projected backwards it makes the object appear as though it originated in the opposite direction of this displacement. Consequently, we say that the image created by a prism is displaced towards the apex of the prism. This point is extremely important and worth reiterating: A prism deviates light towards its base and images toward its apex.
Now, the first thing I should mention is that until a few days ago I had no idea about this "image displacement towards prism apex" conventional concoction which seems to form the official explanation for some rather dubious subjective prismatic observations. A direct testimony about my hitherto ignorance in the matter is the fact that I have conducted specific experiments that showed exactly the same result as the one depicted above on the right, if you remember. However, in my own view of the issue at stake, the "image displacement" observation had totally different causes to the ones stated and pictured above. The time then couldn't be better to prove that in spite of my mentioned ignorance about the conventional understanding, in the end that apparent handicap on my part turned out to be a definite advantage (which I have incidentally used and exploited from and on a number of different fronts). But at this point it suffices to say that one particular aspect of that advantage was my early realisation that there was no way to link in any plausible fashion the ray perspective from the so-called objective experiments to the image perspective from their subjective counterparts. For me that was the end of that particular story. Everything else was mere detail and presentation. And indeed thus it's been ever since.
The most important thing I ought to say, straight off the bat, is that the 'validity' of the cited arguments above can be comprehensively dispelled with one single and most direct swat. However, due to a number of other issues that are comparatively even more important than the 'swat' of my previous sentence I have decided that a little more time necessary to cover them is well worth the effort (for that should certainly benefit some, especially if they parade in the conventional colours). Additionally, I hope that some of those who've been keeping me company since the early times of this site shall finally be able to conclusively understand why there is no possibility whatsoever to save the conventional view of light and colours. Firstly, though, let me show you that 'swat' move.
The entire fallacy of the conventional arguments on our current topic is easily demonstrated by using only the illustration above on the right coupled with a memory recall of a number of photos I have shown in some past pages. First, observe how the two types of prismatic experimentation have been joined in a two-fold display by positioning the observer's eye on the same line with the supposedly refracted light ray, which is at the same time identical to the line of sight that connects the observer with the supposed displaced image. Next, ponder for a minute the following 'reason' offered: Although a prism displaces light towards its base, when the refracted light is projected backwards it makes the object appear as though it originated in the opposite direction of this displacement. Finally, remember my experiments concerned with this very issue, in which I had drawn a line on one side of a prism which I subsequently observed from a line of sight that was levelled on the same plane with the line drawn. Remember those? You can find them here, if you need to. Now, with all that being said, at this point I frankly expect you to see the 'swat' move I mentioned as clearly as I can. So, can you? If you cannot I will of course explain it in a moment. Nonetheless, I will also be a little disappointed.
The simple and direct swat that dispels the conventional 'explanation' into a non-existential fallacy is the fact that in order to see the apparent displacement of the image the observer's eye does not have to share its line of sight with the depicted one. Mate. Checkmate, that is. I'll give you a few moments to think about that.
So. Do you agree with me now? If not, I will show you an experimental proof next. Nonetheless, in the process I will become even more disappointed.
The experimental proof is just as simple and direct. Take a prism (preferably one with a shape like the wedge in the picture) and orient it with its apex pointing to your left. Position it next in front of your observing eye while looking through it at the picture under our scrutiny. Take your time, and insure that the whole picture is visible through the prism. (From a distance of 0.5-1.0 m you will also get a full display of the illustration on the right. Discount that. It bears no relevancy here.) With a full display of the named picture in your sight you will notice, incidentally this time, that the horizontal sides of the white rectangle are showing the usual spectral bands: blue-violet along the left side (the apex of your prism) and yellow-red along the right (prism base). Now, slowly begin turning the prism around its axis on the horizontal plane, keeping a close eye on how the perspective of the observed image is changing. In effect, as you turn the prism on that plane (as the apex of the prism changes its spatial orientation, from the original "left" of the observer towards "perpendicular" to his line of sight), you will see a gradual shrinkage of the image's width. Keep going until all you'll be left with is as narrow an image as possible. Then, when you reach that stage look carefully at the orientation of your prism relative to the image of observation. Finally, think if it could be at all possible for you to still get an image of the picture, however diminished it might be breadthwise, if the conventional understanding were correct. In fact the amount of required thinking in this matter should not exceed a handful of seconds, because by this time it should be absolutely clear that no Newtonian principle could allow any 'ray' of light to reach your eye under the circumstances. Mate, checkmate. Again.
Yet I, the naive perennial sceptic, still find incredibly hard to believe that a supposedly scientific theory, and one of some renownedness, has managed to reign absolutely for three and a half centuries on such incredibly flimsy basis that I could not even find the strength to label it 'evidence'! Take just the matter we're discussing at the moment, and one like me can find dozens of big, staring holes in the conventional dinghy. Look no further, for instance, than at the earlier 'reason' I mentioned: Although a prism displaces light towards its base, when the refracted light is projected backwards it makes the object appear as though it originated in the opposite direction of this displacement. Where the hell is the decisive justification for this 'projection backwards of the refracted light'? What is that decisive justification in the first place? How difficult is it to realise that any 'justification' of the kind solves no problem of any sort, anyway? On the contrary, it inevitably leads the mob into wilderness and confusion. How many more examples do you need to see in order to correct your sightlessness? Isn't three and a half centuries enough to make you at least wonder why Newton's theory has never managed to answer conclusively any significant question it had to face in this time? Can't you see the deplorable lameness of the arguments you've been using solely with the scope of continuing to enforce your otherwise unwarranted hegemony? Can't you see that there are not any arguments of substance, indeed no evidence of any credence that you could use, to have any chance at all in the eventuality of having to one day publicly defend your moribund theory? Are you really that thick, or that primitive, or perhaps that perverse, to continue to live in a denial that will enrage and disgust your future peers, the world of tomorrow, and the principles of the God-Truth you're supposedly striving to abide and be guided by?
But, in the end this is just another example of Pathos bereft of Logos & Ethos. A very common problem, as we should know.
At this point I remember the lamentations of some physicist (whose name I never cared to remember) about Goethe's vitriolic treatment of the conventionalists he had to face. Goethe, went the man's whinge, treated those who tried to convince him that he was wrong like Cossacks who could see no further than some simpletons from the Russian steppe. This apparent fact may have attracted the ireful attention of that physicist, and of many others, but in as far as I've been concerned that particular whine was secondary to the big issue, and hardly unjustified. After all Goethe himself had been subjected to the 'projection backwards of refracted light', and, pretty much like me, he harboured a complete dislike of the idea. Unfortunately Goethe did not have enough understanding of the issue to stand any real chance of victory in the war against the Cossacks. I, on the other hand, have an entire scientific arsenal ready for a fight with my own contemporaneous Cossacks. And, just like Goethe 200 years ago, I shall treat my Cossacks as I truthfully and befittingly see fit. After all most of us have understood that history is written by the victor, and a handful have seen even further--that it is also to the victor that eloquence is bestowed. (Until this chapter in the history shall be definitively written though I shall only remind those concerned that so far my own Cossacks are yet to win a single battle, let alone the war.)
Physicists inherently grow to believe that eloquence, par excellence, belongs superlatively to their own kind. A comprehensive testimony of this fact is reflecting from the greatly disproportionate amount of "pearls of wisdom" that have been left on us over the centuries by that particular belief of theirs. How many "pearls of wisdom" uttered by physicists do you know? I, for instance, have heard more such pearls coming from physicists than from any other breed of thinkers. Notwithstanding those genuine wisdom gems left to the world by physicists past and present though, there have been many other 'pearls' that are still sold and bought around the world, instead of rightfully being dispensed to the swine (whether proverbially, or not). I, for one, would have long dispensed in the manner mentioned, of two such 'pearls' especially. One of those is that regarding the apparent "unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics" in the description of reality. The other is the apparent truth of the common sense, which is that it isn't in fact very common at all. There aren't many things that annoy me more than this idiotic utterance of physicists. I remember, as a concrete example, how one such physicist 'justified' that conventional claim by giving this example. Common sense tells us that the sun revolves round the earth, since it obviously appears to rise from one side of the planet in the morning and it dips at dusk on exactly the opposite direction across. Oh, how I wish this particular 'pearl' could be thrown to real swine, in a publicly broadcast ceremonial! Dude, common sense does not tell us that at all! Common sense in fact tells us that exactly the opposite makes more sense. Is it that hard to see why, you poor deluded soul who think that eloquence has anything in common with either yesterday's beliefs or with today's wordplay trends? The real truth about common sense is that it does evolve along with us. The real truth about this issue is that yesterday's common sense is not today's, and that today's shan't be that of tomorrow. And so it should be.
Nevertheless, although common sense is an evolving entity, its basic framework shall forever remain the same, in kind and principle. Alas, the truth is that in that respect the common sense is not at all common amongst conventionally devised establishments. And so it should be. That is the price that must be paid for the fringe benefits collected by the beneficiaries of any conventional establishment. Think about it.
Think for a moment about would be the right answer to the following question: What is the issue of division that lies at the core of all Newtonian problems in the prismatic observations? The answer should be quite clear by now, at least to those with a reasonable grasp of the topic and with an average degree of common sense understanding: The irreconcilable differences between the observations seen in those so-called objective experiments and their subjective counterparts. To be even more precise, the central issue of division in the topic is the conventional belief that the image deviation (or displacement) that is seen when the observer looks directly through the prism is correlated and explained by the same process that is conventionally agreed to be responsible for the light deviation (i.e. the different degree of refraction of each individual spectral colour that is believed to obey Snell's law). But the truth, I say, couldn't be more different--and you have witnessed that truth first hand, and in many different circumstances. Now, if the conventional physicists had an understanding of the basic framework of the common sense, they would have needed just one experiment to see the monumental fallacy of their fundamentalistic belief once and for all. The common sense I am referring to (and which incidentally is much after my own liking, for it bears the trademarks of Greek reasoning and wisdom) is beautifully encapsulated in the simple experiment I will depict below.
According to the conventional understanding (which in this case just happens to be experimentally confirmed beyond any doubt too), if a so-called ray of light is sent from a so-called ray box into a 45° prism in the manner illustrated below on the left, it will be totally reflected internally. Now, since the total internal reflection depicted in my illustration is an absolute fact, and--furthermore--if the conventional belief described in the previous paragraph is also an absolute fact, then... But I better stop here, for I do not want to deprive anyone from this real opportunity to realise that common sense is, indeed, by definition common. Nevertheless, for physicists, to whom the common sense in question is,as I said, not common in the least, I will exclusively reveal the rest upon a personal request (or as a consequence of some stupid challenge). There's just one thing that I hope everyone will understand from the pictures below--that there is much, indeed so much that it is almost all there is to learn about that central issue that has transformed a long, long time ago, all physicists that have followed (conventionally, and therefore blindly) the prismatic Newtonian fairytale that has been heralded (by the Court, around the world), for three hundred and fifty years.
The subject of image displacement is going to become even more interesting with my next page, in which I will attack it with my personal Greek Offensive. I am also looking forward to the beginning of my Greek Defence against a potential Goethean Attack, which is a challenge I have recently accepted. I'll tell you all next time I'll see you.