Having no one else referential to address I have no choice but to use that of Mr. Dutch (and of Mr. Josephson, by association). As a direct consequence of that fact I have decided that since all of you are represented, it seems, there is imperative that you are given a crash course in Greek reasoning. I believe that the benefits of this short course will become invaluable to you almost immediately (even if you're likely to never admit it). Here we go.
There are two types of prismatic experiments. One involves the passing of a beam of light through a prism before being captured by a screen and thus scrutinised. The other involves the direct scrutiny of a source of light through the prism itself. Newton, by and large, employed in his investigations the first type. Most others though have made use of the second type. Newton, who had conducted a very small number of the second type of experiments, assumed that his theory was equally and absolutely capable to account for both kinds of observations--and 350 years later you continue to believe that. Unfortunately for Newton--and for you--that is a fatally flawed belief. Even more unfortunately, a direct consequence of that fact, coupled with a common flaw in character and wisdom, make you look like absolute fools. And this hurts. Because I know that you're no fools. This, however, is an absolutely real example of how easily one can become a fool even when one really isn't.
The first type of prismatic experiments came to be dubbed (by you, I bet) the objective type. The second came, in the same manner, to be called the subjective kind. In spite of that, you're convinced that the arguments of Newton's theory can compellingly describe all observational prismatic facts, whether they are objectively or subjectively acquired. Alas, this is a fatal mistake, which in the end must uncompromisingly be paid for. And that time is, unluckily for you, now.
Remember when I sent Mr. Dutch the picture below as "a fool-proof" demonstration for the red-blue opposite refractions?
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.
That's how Mr. Dutch replied to my "fool-proof" demonstration. See how convinced he is of everything he says? Now, I knew very well that he was demonstrably wrong, yet I still wanted to see him arriving at that conclusion on his own. That's why I suggested to him a simple way of realising that I was correct, which involved nothing else but the use of his mouse pointer and a prism, of course. Alas, instead of heeding my well-intentioned advice Mr. Dutch reacted with the haste of pre-puberty and the vanity of mid-age--in the process making an even bigger fool of himself:
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.
(Really, Mr. Dutch! Do you know how stupid it is what you're saying? Stupid and wrong. Stupidly wrong.)
I hope you're aware that I'm playing fair. You know, you should have read that little chapter about the greatest secret in chess. That's what I'm doing now. That you are losing there's no doubt. You should not suffer over that. You have inherited the game in which your predecessors have made a fatal, irrecoverable mistake. What matters now is how you gonna lose this game. Let me tell you how I'd play, if I were in your shoes.
I'd read with great care everything I (you know...) have written. I'd conduct, with great care, every experiment. I'd compare all of that, after, with what Newton says. I'd be able then to decide, conclusively, if I have any chance of winning. Regardless of the direction of my conclusion I would next play the best moves possible, under the circumstances, until I'll be convinced that my opponent knows what the game requires as well as I do. I'd then stretch my arm with dignity in acknowledging the result and ask if we could have another game.
As a sign of earnestness I want to open for you a window into my mind. My Greek mind. So, do you want to know on what evidence I have claimed that the colour green is not refracted in a subjective prismatic experiment? I'll tell you. Pick up your prism and look (vertex left) at the picture of the two white rectangles, below left. What you'll see is an image very similar to that shown below right.
Taking next all these facts into consideration look through your prism at the image below.
Put the prism down and think now. If you have been blessed (or cursed, from an opposite perspective) with a Greek mind, at this point you should be quite satisfied with the evidence for the idea that the colour green is not refracted in a (so-called) subjective prismatic experiment. On the other hand, if you haven't been blessed (or cursed...) with a Greek mind, you might need to take your prism again and look through it at the images below. Look carefully at each example, for I'm going to ask you a question after that.
Have you noticed that in four of the five cases above the spectrum generated by each coloured line contains one spectral component which stubbornly refuses to be 'moved' by the prism from its original place? Have you noticed the particular colour of that spectral component? If you haven't go ahead and look again through your prism, with more care. And now again: What colour is that particular spectral component (which is seen in all the above cases bar the red one)?
In view of what we have covered thus far, then, one reliable referential thing that could be used to definitively determine whether in subjective prismatic experiments the colours red and blue are refracted in opposite directions, or not, is a green line. Or two.
There are many, and great, differences between what is seen in the so-called objective and subjective prismatic experiments. Equally, there are many and great differences between their causes in each of them. With what I am bringing to the common table, however, we are on the verge of finally making a genuine step forward in physics. Be smart, is my advice. Be wise. You have a lot to gain and only a little to lose, if you are. Ignore my advice and the result will be totally different: You'll gain nothing and you'll lose everything. Play the game right, mate.
Three little interesting stories that took place in the month of June
June was a most interesting month. It began early enough, on the 3rd, with my sending two emails. The first was addressed to Mr. Dutch, and it contained the following message:
You have gone awfully quiet, Mr. Dutch. I wonder why.
The other was destined for Mr. Josephson, and it read:
Still siding with Mr. Dutch? The world wants to know.
Now that last remark was a bit of an exaggeration (to the best of my knowledge the world seemed to give not a damn), but I, being a Greek, am not only a dramatic by nature and a dramatist by default. I am also aware of things which my world, overwhelmingly, is yet to even discover (let alone comprehend).
Anyway, on the 6th I received the following email from Mr. Dutch:
Well, I sent you evidence and you ignore it. Your page showing images of a light source in different parts of the spectrum is exactly what I told you would happen if you viewed a spectrum far from the prism so that only one portion of the spectrum falls on your retina or imaging chip at one time, so what exactly you think is happening there is unclear. In any case, you're not asking questions with the intent of getting answers and you just send rehashes of stuff you put out before.
"What a marvellous story for the world of tomorrow", I thought when I read the above. "Oh, Mr. Dutch, you have proven to be such a sad buffoon in my world, and play! Unfortunately that experience still failed to reverberate, in the right key, to either your mind or soul, and thus you have still to atone for those things you have not even discovered--let alone understood. That's why, Mr. Dutch, you'll become an even sadder buffoon in the world of tomorrow. How else do you think you could atone for, if nothing else, the perversion and degradedness that let your mind write '...I sent you evidence and you ignore it'? Think about it in truthfulness and with wisdom, Mr. Dutch, and you should see that the perversion and degradedness I mentioned have been so overwhelming that you did not even get a hint of a sniff at the irony of the truth that is prodding at your forehead with a proverbial finger. 'I sent you evidence and you ignore it'. Ha."
Unlike Mr. Dutch, Mr. Josephson has not answered my email. Very pleasingly to my mind, however, both men had reacted exactly in the manner I imagined. In view of all these facts I therefore reached new conclusions in regards to my relationship to the two men. First, I decided to forever exile Mr. Dutch beyond the boundaries of my universe; second, I decided to put a moratorium on Mr. Josephson's immediate fate until, or if, further mutual developments may occur.
A week or so ago I posted on YouTube a video titled "The prismatic experiment which proves that Newton's theory of light and colours is flawed". You can find it here, if you want to have a look at it. The making of that video has been largely symbolic, on my part, and if you decide to watch it you'll see what I mean. Nonetheless, even if that exercise has been largely one of symbolism (and fun, let me tell you), it reinforced with eloquence, to my mind, a number of truisms I knew well enough to not take me completely by surprise. (Yet, I obviously did not know it sufficiently well to have been all completely attuned to my expectations.)
For instance, I knew very well that the conventional spiel about physicists' fundamental ideology (that they consciously want to be proven wrong because they're aware that that's the only way to progress in science) is just that--a spiel. In spite of knowing that, beyond any doubt, I must humbly confess that I still find it difficult to believe that not one of the hundreds of those I've written to has found the strength to acknowledge that there is not any doubt whatsoever that when the colours red and blue are viewed directly through a prism they refract in opposite directions. In fact, to tell you the whole truth, I still find it very hard to believe that two such physicists have known for at least a few weeks now that the Truth is as I have said all along, yet they are continuing to remain with their heads deeply buried under the sand, hoping perhaps that the turmoil I have brought to the world is only a temporary phenomenon that will soon die out like the voice of a kid in the middle of a herd of raging bulls and cows on heat. If you, like myself, used to hold an inner belief that there are at least some people in the world who are able to transcend the usual limitations of those that form the vast majority of mankind, you might also find the current state of affairs quite distressing too. I, for example, do indeed find the present situation distressing, even though I neither need nor seek any kind of approving, or acknowledging, or confirmatory reassurance from anyone out there. What I find most distressing and troubling is to see that although those who're supposed to be integral parts of humanity's evolutionary paragon are driven and controlled by the same fears, urges, and weaknesses as those of the most ordinary of us who are forming the very bottom of the social pyramid. They are slaves, they're not masters. They are mere followers, not leaders. They are cops and lawyers, not teachers.
Yes, there are many things that continue to trouble me from one day to the next. But even though that is a truth of a substantial inconvenience and pain I can also tell you that there is another truth that rules my universe, and that truth is the one that colours and conducts my life with a great compensatory eloquence and flair. That is a truth only I'm fully aware of, and know, at least at this point in time. And that is the Truth that keeps all conventional physicists in the same hopeless state: silent, meek, clueless, banal, pitiful. But the thing that hurts them the most is the pathetic submissiveness they have been reduced to, for they have been left with absolutely nothing to fight back. And, lastly, even though I exaggerated earlier in my email to Mr. Josephson, let me tell you one thing: the world is watching. That's why I've been telling them to be smart, and to start playing the game right. Alas, their pride has thus far won all their battles--and so they have continued to remain nothing more than pretentious fools.
For those who do not know, I have been fortunate enough to have experienced living in a former Communist country for the first 25 years of my life, and in a country of the so-called 'free world' for the last 30 years. That has equipped me with first hand experience about what real differences usually exist between the two apparently deeply antagonistic ideologies. Rest assured, though, for I have no intention of giving you my two bobs of either. There is however one little story I want to share with you, for I truly believe that this little story (which also took place in the month of June) you not only want to know--you must know.
One morning at the beginning of June I was reading the online counterpart of the Time magazine, when I found this review of yet another book written by a physicist for the masses: Science's brilliant blunders: How oops moments became Eurekas. You can find the review in question here. Now, I urge you to visit the linked page, for I can guarantee that you will find that little exercise veeery interesting. However, I will ask you to do it after you have read the paragraph below.
OK. First I will ask you to open the link in a new tab, to be able to switch with ease between the pages, and then to come back to this point. I'll wait for you.
Now, I'll ask you next to go back to the linked page and then, optionally, to read the article. Following that I will next ask you to scroll below the article, where you will find a number of comments (which is 11, at this point in time), and I will ask you to check carefully if there is any comment submitted by Poradin. Next, I'll ask you to find the "Sign in" prompt, which is located in the submission box right above the first comment displayed. Press the button and you'll be prompted for a Username and a Password.
Now, I'll ask you to type Poradin in the Username, and 1959Oravita in the Password box. These are my identification means for the account I had to open before posting my comment.
Finally, I will ask you to check again if there is any comment submitted by Poradin.
PS. I told you it's an interesting little story, didn't I?
No comments:
Post a Comment