.....Goodbye, Mr. Dutch, and take from all this the following lesson: There is a very fine line between a prophet and a buffoon.
Now, at this point I'd thought that my correspondence with Mr. Dutch would end there, but on the 23rd I received the following reply.
No, the colors red and blue are bent in opposite directions relative to green. All three colors are bent but red is bent most, then green, then blue. So if red is bent 3 degrees, green 2 and blue 1, then relative to green, red is bent one degree one way and blue is bent one degree the other way. But all three colors are bent.
But green light IS bent in a prism. You can demonstrate this easily. Get a green laser pointer, aim it through a prism, and see where the light emerges. It will not come out in the direction of the laser beam, as you can easily demonstrate by pulling the prism away and seeing where the laser beam strikes. Or if you don’t have a laser, take a small white light and put it on a sheet of foam board. Place a prism on end on the board. Place your eye where the green light emerges. Now, put a pin in the board in front of your eye, another in line with the light but directly in front of the prism, and a third directly in line with the light but behind the prism. Now draw a line from the light through each of the pins. That’s the path of the green light. Not a straight line.
Steven I. Dutch
Professor Emeritus, Natural and Applied Sciences
University of Wisconsin-Green Bay
Green Bay, WI 54311-7001
Fax 920-465-2376
When I received the above email I was more disappointed than furious. You see, the fact was that I knew perfectly well that Mr. Dutch's answer regarding the 3-2-1 refraction of the three lines in my figure was absolute crap--and that pushed me for a while on a swinging mood between bouts of hysterical laughter and raging fury. But when that finished I was nothing but greatly disappointed. For a good number of reasons.
Firstly, because Steven I. Dutch, a Professor Emeritus at an American University, was neither smart enough to see, nor wise enough to foresee, how and why the things I had said might just be correct. And that, I am truthfully telling you, as much as I wouldn't have liked to have to do it, I must now nonetheless do without question. So, that being said let me start on the right foot--with the beginning.
If Mr. Dutch were either smart enough, or wise enough, upon being confronted with a suggestion that red and blue are refracted in opposite directions (when a prismatic experiment like Newton's first in his Opticks is conducted) should have immediately realised that, when all relevant things are taken into consideration, that is--at its simplest and most direct basis--an absolute possibility. Need I explain why? Well, it seems that I have to--and that is very disappointing!
As soon as I'd become aware of Newton's first experiment in Opticks I had significant signals of suspicion and scepticism coming into my inherent radars. One such signal had to do with the fact that in that experiment the colour blue appears closer to the vertex of the prism than the red, in contrast to the basic Newtonian prismatic set-up. This signal, however, I knew that it could be (somewhat) plausibly dispelled by Newton's observation that "Prismaticall colours appeare in the eye in a contrary order to that in which they fall on the paper". (However, there is much more to this issue than that--hence my "somewhat".) But there was one other suspicious signal on my radar, in addition to the mentioned one, and this one could just not be brushed aside by any conceivable means. This particular signal suggested to me from the very beginning that one way in which the red and blue lines appeared to Newton's eye through the prism could very well be a consequence of opposite directions of refraction for each colour. Mr. Dutch should have seen that too. You should be able to see that. That's because the experiment in question, when conducted in Newtonian version, gives the observer no points of reference to insure that the possibility I saw could be either accounted for, or eliminated. You know what I mean? If you don't, have another--good--look at the picture below.
That's why I had changed the Newtonian version of the experiment to the one I'd sent Mr. Dutch (see my email). And this brings me to my second disappointment. Had Mr. Dutch been smart enough, and wise enough, he'd have realised that in spite of all his seemingly conclusive arguments against my assertion that the colour green does not refract in a prism the simple and demonstrable fact is that what I'd said is absolutely correct. Alas, Mr. Dutch (and all others with the same inclinations) are yet to learn and understand the subtler aspects of the truth in this matter--especially in regard to the differences that exist between those so-called objective prismatic experiments, and the ones branded (so wrongly, to my mind) subjective. (Much more on this issue a little later, as you'll see.)
A day later, on the 24th of April I sent Mr. Dutch the following message:
No, Mr. Dutch, as much as you'd like to believe that you're right, you are wrong. And that is easily demonstrable. Bring the picture in the middle of your screen and place the tip of your cursor right on the green line. Take a prism and look through it carefully. Put the prism down and place the tip of the arrow on the red line.Take the prism and look through it. Think. Put the prism down and place the tip of your cursor on the blue line. Look at it through your prism. Think. Repeat the exercise in your own way. Think.
See? Green is not bent in a subjective prismatic experiment. Neither is yellow. Easily demonstrable. All for good reasons, Mr. Dutch. That's why I asked you to visit my site.
For those who've been following the development of my work since the beginning the email above should require no additional explanations. After all pretty much everything that is needed to understand the above I discussed in an earlier page not long ago. What exactly I'm referring to, and what indeed forms the crux of the whole matter, is how to establish--beyond any shadow of doubt--that the green line in the middle is truly a reliable point of reference because--unlike the other two colours in the experiment--it is not refracted in the perspective of the observer looking through the prism. For Mr. Dutch, on the other hand, I thought it'd suffice to complement relevant information with thoughtful hints at the appropriate times, in order to convey successfully an accurate and correct message from one mind to another. After all Mr. Dutch was a Professor Emeritus at an American University. The email I received from him on the 25th of April though left me comprehensively giddy!
The problem with subjective is it’s not objective. You’re ignoring the real path the light takes. You could do the same experiment with blue or orange as your reference. Of course if you draw a continuous line of any color, it will still look like a continuous line when viewed through a prism.
Steven I. Dutch
Professor Emeritus, Natural and Applied Sciences
University of Wisconsin-Green Bay
Green Bay, WI 54311-7001
Fax 920-465-2376
What?! I thought for a few minutes what I should do and then I replied with the following:
))) OK. I'll remove the green line. Make a print out of the picture below. Stick it on a board. Tag two pins, one red and one blue. Look through your prism and stick each pin.into its respective line. Put the prism down and take a good look. Think. Earnestly.
Finally, I thought, Mr. Dutch will have the privilege to see that I was correct. (You see, the simple fact is that--typical to what physicists like to call 'good science'--one direct benefit of those things that are right is that in those--pretty rare--cases one can rather easily find many ways of demonstrating experimentally that truth. Just think about it, and it shouldn't take you more than a handful of seconds to see that what I'm saying is by definition valid.)
The next day, on the 26th of April, I got this beauty from Mr. Dutch:
Well, of course if I look at a figure through a prism and without, they will be in the same relative locations. Stick the pins in the red line and they'll be in the red line whether you use the prism or not, "proving" that red is not affected by a prism. Ditto the blue line.
Steve Dutch
(Nothing to say here.) On the 27th I replied
)))))) No, Mr. Dutch, stick the pins into the REFRACTED lines, while you are looking through the prism! After all our bone of contention is to prove whether or not red and blue are refracted in opposite directions. Think, Mr. Dutch! (Really, aren't you interested at all to find out if--by any extraordinary chance--things could be as I say? So, look through your prism at the image, stick the pins into the 2 lines--as they appear through the prism--then put the prism aside and analyse the result of the observation :-)
(Stay with me. We are approaching the climax.)
Five days later, on the 1st of May, I send Mr. Dutch this message:
Well, Professor? What kind of dilemma are you in? I can help. Earnestly.
Remus Poradin
A day later I receive this:
From: Dutch, Steve. Subject: This may answer your question
I read some of your pages and looked through a prism. The first thing I noticed was that when I looked directly at something through a prism, I couldn't see it. I had to change my line of sight by a pretty large angle. So all wavelengths bend when viewed through a prism.
On one of your pages you draw a parallel to quantum mechanics, saying we know what happens at the source and where the spectrum is projected, but not in between. That's flatly false. We can use a triangular tank full of water for a prism and put a drop or two of milk in it to scatter light, and we can use dry ice to create some fog in the air, and see the entire light path from start to finish. Or we can use more sophisticated analytical tools. But there is nothing unknown at any point on the light path.
Your problem seems to be, why does a projected spectrum have red on the top, but when viewed directly, red is on the bottom. Here's why.
Here's your eye viewing a spectrum. Your eye focuses the light on the retina. Note that the image is inverted. That's important.
Now, here's your eye viewing a spectrum directly. Your eye is still focusing an image, but an image of the distant slit (in my case, the gap between a windowshade and the sill). I could see the details of the shade and sill, but many overlapping colored images. Here the spectrum is created right in front of your eye. The originally single image of the slit is split into many colored images and projected directly onto your retina. Note that the order on your retina is opposite the order when viewing a projected spectrum. Your brain inverts the image so that red appears on the bottom.
If the prism is further from your eye, say sunlight passing through the beveled edges of a cut glass window pane, the whole spectrum won't fit onto your retina at once. You'll have to move your eye to get the full range of colors. It will be like sticking your eye between the prism and the screen in the top figure. You'll see red with your eye high and violet with it low.
Since a simple look through a prism shows that all wavelengths are bent, how to account for your claim that green and yellow are not deflected? If the slit is wider than the apparent width of the spectrum, there will be a band where the images created by all wavelengths overlap and the light is white. This will happen in the middle of the spectrum: that is, green and yellow. You still won't get a clear image of the slit because it will have red fringes on one side and violet on the other.
Steve Dutch
And this did it. What truly matters is that this last email from a Professor Emeritus at an American University has brought me to the reality. To the reality that for 350 years no one has realised that Newton's theory of light and colours is, at worst, fundamentally flawed and, at best, deficient on at least half of its battlefronts. To the reality that I, beyond the shadow of a doubt, have known for years now that I can prove that to the core requirements of the scientific protocol. And more than that--to the reality that I have found the answers that have been begging since the early times of the man called Isaac Newton.
As for the man called Steve I. Dutch, I shall say not another thing more on this page. The ones that matter will see everything I have, and haven't.
One last thing, for now. This latest journey of mine has merely begun. And this time I will not end it as I did with others in the past. This time the world will have to listen and respond. This is the duty of innerness that I must accept as a fair complement to what I have been given. This is my epiphanic truth.
The story of my latest journey (Part 2)
All rise--hooray! A Nobel Prize laureate declares his faith in Mr. Dutch!
This is the second leg of my latest journey, and it starts on the 7th day of May. A truly memorable day, indeed. First, just after midnight I received from Mr. Dutch an email to which he'd attached healthy copies of his two pictures, of which circa 1.66 you saw on the previous page. Then, immediately after that I sent the following email to two hundred physicists around the world.
Hello,
This is to advise you that due to well-defined and conclusive factors I have to tell you in one sentence the following: I, Remus Poradin, have the crucial experimental proof that Newton's theory of light and colours is flawed. And now, if you got to this point read one more sentence: In fact you can easily prove that to yourself by conducting a number of simple and straight forward experiments, of which one is shown below to prove that the colours red and blue in the first experiment listed by Newton in Opticks are refracted in opposite directions.
And now, if you have gotten to this point you are philosophically bound to keep reading to the point where you will become convinced that I am either right or wrong. I'll refer you thus to read this page http://jaccuse.info/From%20double%20Dutch%20to%20an%20epiphany.html, in which you will find within no more than ten minutes the answer.
Lastly, in seven days from now I will contact you one last time, to ask you one last question.
Just a few hours later I receive this:
From: Brian Josephson To: darpino@jaccuse.info
>And now, if you have gotten to this point you are philosophically bound to keep reading to the point where you will become convinced that I am either right or wrong. I'll refer you thus to read this page http://jaccuse.info/From%20double%20Dutch%20to%20an%20epiphany.html , in which you will find within no more than ten minutes the answer.<
For what it’s worth, I find what Steve Dutch says more convincing.
bdj
------
Brian D. Josephson
Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Cambridge
Director, Mind–Matter Unification Project
WWW: http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10
Tel. +44(0)1223 337260/337254
At first I was absolutely stunned. Not by the name, not by old memories, not even by the message itself. I just couldn't figure out how Professor Josephson could have gotten word of the email I'd sent around the world! As far as I remembered he was definitely NOT one of the two hundred I had chosen to be recipients of it! It wasn't long at all though before my mind brought me to reality. Why should I care about how that might have happened? What really mattered was that a Professor Emeritus of Physics, from the greatest university in the world, took the time to let me know that he'd found Mr. Dutch's arguments more convincing! Not only that. What mattered even more was that the man in question is a Nobel prize winner--and one whose name has been forever carved in history. Yeah, this is the man behind Josephson junction.
And with such thoughts in mind I quickly replied to the above.
From: Remus Poradin To: Brian Josephson
Re: >For what it’s worth, I find what Steve Dutch says more convincing.<
)))))))Good to know. Thank you for your contribution ;-)
For a while after replying I thought about writing Mr. Dutch a letter beginning like this: "Mr. Dutch, before anything else allow me to congratulate you. Whether you've been made aware of it or not, I can inform you that in our little debate you are being backed-up by none other than....". That thought, however, did neither find the right time in my brain, nor the desired depth, to get any chance of becoming reality. Instead I decided to put my feet up for a few days and see what sort of impact my new email will have on the other 199 physicists I'd sent it to.
Today is Friday, 17th of May 2013. Ten days have passed since the events I penned above. The email I had sent to the other 199 physicists doesn't seem to have had any impact at all. Three days ago (when the seven days specified in my email came up) I'd decided to wait one more week before sending them that "one last email with one last question". That decision was triggered by a sudden spike in the hits I'd gotten for the previous couple of days. Since then though things went back to their routine normality, and in the process I thusly have dumped that idea and drawn a new plan. And the first part of that plan I will implement here and now.
My second open letter to the current establishment of physicists
When it comes to the currently reigning theories in physics there is not one in which the academic ignorance is rifer (or indeed easier to prove) than in the Newtonian theory of light and colours.
When it comes to the currently reigning theories in physics there is none easier to experimentally obliterate than Newton's theory of light and colours.
When it comes to the currently reigning theories in physics there is none more readily available to be resolved, and thereby to be used in the furtherance of mankind's understanding, than the conventionally accredited theory of light and colours.
(You have been made aware of these three facts, and thus you will no longer be able to hide behind your silence--or indeed dodge the imminency of the present's, and future's, summons. You have been told.)
There is no simpler or more direct way to prove that when it comes to Newton's theory of light and colours the academic ignorance is so rife that not only PhDs are afflicted by it, but also Nobel Prize winners, than the email I received from Professor Emeritus Steven I. Dutch on the 2nd of May (and which was also endorsed by the Emeritus Professor of Physics Brian D. Josephson, Nobel Prize laureate).
From: Dutch, Steve. Subject: This may answer your question
I read some of your pages and looked through a prism. The first thing I noticed was that when I looked directly at something through a prism, I couldn't see it. I had to change my line of sight by a pretty large angle. So all wavelengths bend when viewed through a prism.
On one of your pages you draw a parallel to quantum mechanics, saying we know what happens at the source and where the spectrum is projected, but not in between. That's flatly false. We can use a triangular tank full of water for a prism and put a drop or two of milk in it to scatter light, and we can use dry ice to create some fog in the air, and see the entire light path from start to finish. Or we can use more sophisticated analytical tools. But there is nothing unknown at any point on the light path.
Your problem seems to be, why does a projected spectrum have red on the top, but when viewed directly, red is on the bottom. Here's why.
Here's your eye viewing a spectrum. Your eye focuses the light on the retina. Note that the image is inverted. That's important.
Now, here's your eye viewing a spectrum directly. Your eye is still focusing an image, but an image of the distant slit (in my case, the gap between a window shade and the sill). I could see the details of the shade and sill, but many overlapping colored images. Here the spectrum is created right in front of your eye. The originally single image of the slit is split into many colored images and projected directly onto your retina. Note that the order on your retina is opposite the order when viewing a projected spectrum. Your brain inverts the image so that red appears on the bottom.
If the prism is further from your eye, say sunlight passing through the beveled edges of a cut glass window pane, the whole spectrum won't fit onto your retina at once. You'll have to move your eye to get the full range of colors. It will be like sticking your eye between the prism and the screen in the top figure. You'll see red with your eye high and violet with it low.
Since a simple look through a prism shows that all wavelengths are bent, how to account for your claim that green and yellow are not deflected? If the slit is wider than the apparent width of the spectrum, there will be a band where the images created by all wavelengths overlap and the light is white. This will happen in the middle of the spectrum: that is, green and yellow. You still won't get a clear image of the slit because it will have red fringes on one side and violet on the other.
Steve Dutch
Now, I shall neglect (at this point) the things depicted in blue, and I shall only concentrate on the subject highlighted in red. Before doing that, though, I would like to let you know--in advance--that when a common thinker encounters the reversed spectrum for the first time, his (or her), immediate attempt for an explanation about its existence is quite often based on exactly the same idea as Mr. Dutch's above. However, in total contrast to Mr. Dutch, the common thinker does usually discard that first attempt at an explanation after no more than a couple of minutes of reasoning. Why? Well, because that's how long it does normally take a common thinker to realise that any explanation based on the idea of 'retinal image-inversion' is just bull dust (or baloney, bilgewater, crap, or perhaps humbug, bosh, or taradiddle). In spite of this being an easily demonstrable fact to any common thinker (dare me to prove that, if you happen to harbour either related doubts, or beliefs), Mr. Dutch does not show any reservations when he says:
Your problem seems to be, why does a projected spectrum have red on the top, but when viewed directly, red is on the bottom. Here's why.
Hey, Mr. Dutch! Let me reply to that. I don't have any problem with either the projected spectrum (ROYGBV), or with its directly observed and reversed counterpart (VBGYOR). You are the one having problems, with both! So much so that you don't seem to have even the slightest inkling of how stupendously stupid your so-called explanation is! Yeah, your so-called explanation is stupendously stupid because it can so easily be shown to be so from all three scientific perspectives--those of logic, theory, and experimentation. Here, however, I shall restrict myself to showing you that so indeed it is the truth only from one of those three perspectives. The one you claim to value and respect the most. The experimental perspective. (For the other two, you'll either have to ask or challenge me.)
Let us consider the two experimental set-ups depicted by Mr. Dutch in the two illustrations from his email above.
Firstly, it is imperative that a few things are clearly specified from the outset (for reasons which shall become apparent later). Therefore, then, in the first picture above we have a source emitting light, light which is passed through a thin slit and is then focused (collimated, really) into a triangular prism, from which it eventually emerges in spectral form to cast a rainbow-like image on a screen similar to the one shown. Furthermore, the naked eye of an observer looks at the spectral display projected on the screen while coloured lines, extending in the manner shown from the screen to the observer's retina, have been drawn to show the path of every coloured ray in order to account for Mr. Dutch's 'explanatory' note: Here's your eye viewing a spectrum. Your eye focuses the light on the retina. Note that the image is inverted. That's important. (At this point I have to, even if only rhetorically, ask: Really? Why is that important, Mr. Dutch? :-)
Now, in regard to the second illustration, it is equally imperative to make absolutely clear--just like in the first picture--the following facts that are (vitally) relevant to that particular set-up. Therefore, then, let it be understood that in this case, too, we have a source emitting light, light which is passed through a narrow slit and is then focused (collimated, really) into a triangular prism, and from which it eventually emerges in spectral form. However, unlike in the first case, the spectrum that emerges from the prism is intercepted not by a screen, but by the naked eye of an observer.
And now, having made all necessary facts clear, let me cite next Mr. Dutch's conclusion regarding this set-up: Now, here's your eye viewing a spectrum directly. Your eye is still focusing an image, but an image of the distant slit (in my case, the gap between a window shade and the sill). I could see the details of the shade and sill, but many overlapping colored images. Here the spectrum is created right in front of your eye. The originally single image of the slit is split into many colored images and projected directly onto your retina. Note that the order on your retina is opposite the order when viewing a projected spectrum. Your brain inverts the image so that red appears on the bottom. (And, again, rhetorically: Really, Mr. Dutch? How certain are you about that? :-)
Remember I'd said earlier that I will prove how stupid Mr. Dutch's explanation is only from an experimental point of view? Good.
Let me begin by tackling first what an observer sees in an experimental set-up like the one depicted in the first picture above. The simple answer to that is the following: in that particular experiment an observer shall always see an exact copy of the spectral image that's projected on the screen. Surprising? Certainly not. The only surprise regarding that particular set-up is--at least as far as I'm concerned--Mr. Dutch's wholly redundant (and equally ambiguous, inconsequential, irrelevant, and ultimately stupid) 'explanatory' comment about the inverted image on the observer's retina.
Things, though, get much muuuuch more interesting in the experimental set-up depicted graphically in the second picture above. So, then, let's ask the question: what does the observer see in that particular case? Well, let me answer that question with the help of some real images.
And now in spoken language: when an observer puts his eye in the spectral bands that emerge from a prism he sees nothing but lights of those very colours--one at a time, though, and without exception. Thus, when he puts his eye in the red band of the spectrum (which, btw, appears at the top of the spectrum--just like it is depicted in Mr. Dutch's illustration) guess what he sees? Red light, of course--and nothing else. And, conversely, when the observer puts his eye in the violet part of the spectrum (which, just like in Mr. Dutch's illustration, appears at its bottom) the only thing he can ever hope to see is violet light. At no time whatsoever, therefore, can an observer see the full array of spectral colours when the location of his eye is anywhere within the boundaries of the spectrum that's emerging from the prism.
From this experiment alone then, Mr. Dutch, a common thinker can quite safely conclude that if the reversed VBGYOR spectrum really exists, it must be neither a creation, nor an effect, nor indeed a dependent of the Newtonian ROYGBV display. That's why, as I have said numerous times in the past on these pages, in order for an observer to see the VBGYOR spectrum he must position his eye beyond--and ideally above--the boundaries of the emerging ROYGBV spectrum. Pretty much like in the photo below on the left.
And then, when one does that, presto--one can see the reversed VBGYOR spectrum in all its fullness and glory! Just like in the photo above on the right.
(At this point do not let yourself be lured astray by the shadows of silly questioners, or by those of dumb yet cantankerously argumentative debaters. Do the experiments first, observe everything carefully, then after that think deep, and hard, and well before eventually contemplating the prospect of a real combat over these matters. Trust me, I know why I am saying this. I'm talking from my personal experience :-)
Lastly, on the current topic, a careful analysis on the part of anyone who's genuinely understood where I am coming from (and perhaps toward where I'll be heading from this point onwards), should unreservedly reveal the final truth, which really is just a conclusive confirmation that the reversed VBGYOR spectrum does indeed exist, and that it does so with a complete and undisputed independent status from its sibling, ROYGBV. And, furthermore, and truly finally this time, the previous conclusive confirmation should come to one in tandem with another: that is that any attempt to tie the reversed VBGYOR spectrum to Newton's ROYGBV, and consequently in the process to subject both to the same factors, laws, and principles, can only lead to a state of complete anarchy and paradoxicalness. (Much like the state of the present, really.)
When it comes to the currently reigning theories in physics there is none easier to experimentally obliterate than Newton's theory of light and colours.
This little chapter is here only to remind you that the statement in the title is wholly justified by the fact that I can prove that in the experiment that Newton listed first in Opticks the colours red and blue are bent in opposite directions. Furthermore, this is also an advisory memorandum informing you that I can prove what I'd just said in a great number ways, making use of a great number of different experiments. Finally, furthermost, this is to make you aware--if you are not already--that the great number of experiments I have referred to can be easily, and very cheaply, conducted by anyone out there.
I shall conclude now by dropping below a picture very much of relevance to this little chapter (and to the previous page). I wanna see how smart you really are, my dear physicists! And, make no mistake about it, there'll come a time when I'll find out--for you'll be pushed from everywhere to front me. (Of what I've seen thus far of your kind I can only say what I feel in three simple words: "What a disappointment!")
No comments:
Post a Comment