Collaboration Day 1

It's taken me a long time to come back in earnest to these pages, but now I am finally here and thoroughly looking forward to working with you, dear unknown collaborator. That's all I'll choose to say to you here as an introduction and it will have to be enough. Now, to work.

Let me begin by giving you an informal outline of what I am bringing to the table.

The first, and perhaps the most important, piece of work that I am happy to lay on the common table is the fact that in all so-called subjective prismatic experiments four out of the six spectral colours do not at all conform to the Newtonian-Snellian paradigm. Thus, in effect, the spectral blue and red refract/bend in opposite directions to each other, while yellow and green do not refract/bend at all. Now this is a fact that can be proven in many a number of ways, and it is also a fact with deep and manifold implications. For instance, there's surely no need of me to mention in any kind of detail that the Newtonian theory requires Snell's law to be governing the refractive affairs in all prismatic experiments, be they of either subjective nature, or indeed of that so-dubbed objective kind. Neither is there a need of me, of course, to remind you that ultimately those two different kinds of experiments (together with their respective observational results) ought to, according to the demands of the theory, collaborate and complement each other seamlessly, in order for the entire theory to stand any chance of survival. As it happens, though, that is not at all the case.

Now, at this point I would like to show you an interesting consequence of the red's and blue's opposite refractive directions in subjective prismatic experiments. It begins innocuously enough with looking through your prism (initially from a distance of about 0.5m) at the figure below.

Holding your prism with its apex pointing to your left look carefully at how the image above changes under your—so-called—subjective observation. Can you make sense of the picture you're seeing through your prism? It shouldn't be too hard, although perhaps somewhat oddly surprising when that strange hue of green is taken into consideration. The most important feature of this observation however is that thin black stripe that lies right in the middle of our picture. Although important, that thin black stripe is not surprising in the least. Indeed it is created, as you most likely have already realised, by the directionally opposite refractions of the red and blue. In effect, thus, red refracts in a direction toward the base of your prism, while blue refracts in the opposite direction—toward its apex. And with this extra bit of information into our hands we can easily account now for the rest of the colourful features in the image observed.

Let us change now the perspective of our next observation, by holding your prism with its apex pointing to your right. From the same distance of 0.5m you will get now two thin black stripes, with both perfectly explained by the opposite refractions of those two spectral colours.

Things, however, get even more interesting when the distance of observation is increased. Try, for instance, the same two-fold observation from a distance of about 2m. From this distance, when you look at the picture through your prism with the apex toward your left you will no longer get any sight of the blue objects in the picture, while the former black thin stripe in the middle of the figure will have become noticeably broader. None of these effects is surprising, for—as we know—with distance, in prismatic observations both the amount of refractions as well as the widths of the spectral bands increase commensurately. And by adding to those known facts our new understanding of the directionally opposite bending of red and blue, not even the quite dramatic chromatic change seen when looking at our picture above from a distance of about 2m through a prism whose apex is pointing to the right, is posing any real challenges now. I urge you to take your time at this point, to see it for yourself.

However satisfying things may seem at the moment by understanding that those four spectral colours—BGYR—behave in subjective observations as they do, let me assure you that things will become markedly even more satisfying when to that little piece of understanding one is fortunate enough to add knowing precisely what one should expect to see every time one looks through a prism, as well as why and how. Let me explain, and then we'll look at a couple of concrete examples of why one is indeed very fortunate to know and understand those things.

In spite of the total darkness and silence in the conventional quarters about what one should expect to see every time one conducts a subjective prismatic observation, to me and my Greek that subject turned out to be one of the most directly, straightforwardly simple. So much so that I can illustrate pretty much the entire process in one picture. Like this, for example.

On the left you have the Newtonian depiction of the conventional view of the prismatic saga while on the right there is ours. The conventional view tells you pretty much nothing about what one should expect to see in any prismatic observation. (Well, I suppose one could argue here that the Newtonian depiction shows the observed spectral dispersion that is usually cast on a screen—the ROYGBV spectrum—and to that I'd say, with the greatest amount of magnanimity I could ever muster, however, fair enough.) On the other hand our unconventional depiction shows the Newtonian dispersion ROYGBV, the longitudinal VBGYOR spectral distribution of the beam of light that exists before entering the prism, the so-called reversed VBGYOR spectrum that has been known to be seen directly by the naked eye through the prism since Newton himself, as well as providing a tangible explanation for the not-mere-at-all fact that “Prismaticall colours appeare in the eye in a contrary order”.

Indeed, the fact that in subjective observations the distribution of the spectral colours shows a reversed VBGYOR spectrum instead of the Newtonian ROYGBV one carries a great deal of weight in our ultimate desire and need to understand fully the nature of light and colours. What am I saying! It carries the greatest deal! That's why if we are to stand any chances of understanding that, then we have to know what we're talking about. And in order to get to know it we have see it. And, lastly, if you want to truly see it, then you should know that you won't get there by swinging equations or by measuring things to tens of decimal places. In order to see, you have to look. And then when you'll see it you'll know that you've seen it because you can describe it in fluent and coherent spoken language. For indeed that is the only way of insuring that you have understood. Maths, and the rest, is just a routinely moderate hard yakka.

And this is what I will try to do in our collaborative act. I'll talk and I'll show you pictures and videos. The rest is up to you, mate. Do what you will. Just don't forget: In everything you'll say or do think what you mean and mean what you think. Otherwise you'll instantly become just another Pharisee of the late saint kind.

The conventional physicist has not seen it, let's make no bones about that. That's why I have no problem at all pointing in clear spoken language where she's been routinely flanking it for, oh...much too long already. Taking as an immediate example the issue we were discussing a moment ago—why VBGYOR instead of ROYGBV in subjective observations—let me to give you an example that depicts quite clearly where, and how, the conventional physicist gets it all wrong.

It so happens that the original picture painted by Newton (that about the ray of light, with all its Newtonian qualities) has been inked so deeply in the conventional mind that it's been the outstanding controlling factor of all things optics ever since. In the conventional mind, it seems, the reality out there is delivered digitally, very much like an image on a hard drive is conveyed onto a computer screen. “Pixel so and so receives colour FF00C70. Pixel that and that receives colour HC90CC...” and so on until: “Oh, a rainbow!”. Admittedly, to a contemporary mind that is a very tempting image. Alas, the conventional physicist has carried that picture too far. She has forgotten that although God is subtle, He is never malicious. (He doesn't have to be, for, after all, to the very best of our understanding, He is boundless—boundlessly resourceful, boundlessly efficient, boundlessly wise, boundlessly imaginative...) She should have stopped and pondered a long time ago about that, when she had began experiencing those first chronic bouts of incoherence and inconsistency. Instead she has desperately continued to try to force all the square pegs into the round holes and all the round pegs into the square holes—for a complete and comprehensive mess up all around. Which is why, today, in order to completely redress even the simplest conventional prismatic 'explanation' one must write a book solely dedicated to that subject. We'll talk much more about the contents of this paragraph as we will stroll slowly ahead, together.

There are two most important thinks related to our present topic that one should keep well stored in one's mind. The first one is that in all subjective investigations the prism reveals to the observer's eye a mapping view of the third spatial axis (the depth), which is otherwise forbidden to the naked eye.

Equally important is a second fact, which takes just a little more elaboration to explain.

Although prisms can offer to the observer's eye a perspective of whatever lies along onto that third spatial plane, a more important fact is that by and large prisms are used to monitor and observe the behaviour of light. And it is a direct consequence of this fact that we are able to predict with virtually 100% accuracy what we should expect to see every time we look through a prism at a beam of light. Incredibly, however, although what I'm about to tell you is basically a most simple, almost trivial thing, the tragic fact of the matter remains that even today, 350 years after Newton's optical legacy to the modern world, the conventional physicist is still poignantly ignorant of its reality. (How ignorant, still, we shall see in a few moments.)

That most simple matter of fact is that any subjective observation of light through a prism reveals (rather blatantly) that the chromatic distribution thus observed is invariably different, yet always the same, to the Newtonian ROYGBV display. In effect that spectral distribution is always showing the exactly opposite array of colours to the Newtonian spectrum: VBGYOR instead of ROYGBV (displayed along the same directional orientation). Which ultimately means that just like we can predict the usual Newtonian spectral distribution in those so-called objective prismatic experiments we can now predict the inverted spectral display that is characteristic to those so-called subjective prismatic experiments.

Now, although what we said above is entirely and invariably correct, there are a couple of subtleties that play a part in the game, and therefore they must be paid the attention they require. And one of those is quiet visibly at work in one of the pictures of the collage above. Take a good look at the four pictures, think a little, and I believe you will be able to see it without any help.

The subtlety in question is encapsulated in the real picture that shows a prism 'lifting' into observer's perspective what is lying along that forbidden to the naked eye dimension (which in our case is a mock-up image of the VBGYOR spectrum). As you can see in that case, the first (top) two spectral colours that are displayed just below the apex of the prism are not the VB combination, as stipulated, but rather the Y(O)R combination, which are supposed to be the last (bottom) colours in the normal VBGYOR array. So? What went wrong in that particular case? The answer is: Nothing. Nothing at all went wrong. In fact the colours displayed are exactly those we would have fully predicted, and indeed expected, under the given circumstances. That's because we have long understood that in order to see the full VBGYOR display it is an absolute requirement to have the entire source of energy that is generating the spectrum into the prism's view. As in fact one can easily and eloquently establish for oneself, by looking through a prism at a white page of a document, for example, displayed on the computer monitor in front of one's eyes. As in fact, indeed one can just as easily predict by taking into consideration the two factors that are responsible for all prismatic spectral displays: the size of the source of light that is being observed, and the particular distance that exists between it and the prism. (As, in fact, had been precisely the same subject of discussion a little earlier on, remember?)

The other subtlety that comes into play under the given circumstances is concerned with the rather considerable degree of consequence and influence that the VBGYOR prismatic display carries and conveys in its particular interactions with the physical reality within which it manifestly exists. Consider, for example, the following extensional reality to the inherent conditions that are the governing factors behind the reality of the VBGYOR prismatic display. If it is true that a triangular prism is capable of revealing the physical reality of a reversed spectral display to the one that was firstly discovered, it should conceivably also be likely to exist some other means (or perhaps other things) able to do either the same or at least similar feats. This kind of extensional reasoning should indeed become a natural and reasonable expectation, provided there is also existing a sound understanding of the factors that have been primordially responsible for those prismatic observations in the first place.

To cut a long story short, in the end we realised that there was just one major factor that was overwhelmingly responsible for the VBGYOR display—the particular shape of the prism itself. Specifically, in effect, it was a direct consequence of the inherently continuous unevenness that exists at every given point between any two adjacent faces of a triangular prism that was ably and aptly capable of 'lifting' into an observer's direct field of vision the perspective of the light field that extends along that so-called third dimension of space, or if you instead so prefer, the field that extends along that which is sometimes referred to as the depth axis. Nevertheless, regardless of the specific particularity of your choice as such, you can confidently rest assured that whatever your choice may be, it will certainly bear no other consequences in the matter beside those that are only semantically important (if at all, perhaps).

Two things are most important to retain from our discussion on this first day of collaboration:

1. A prism used in any subjective observation displays the VBGYOR spectrum (from the apex towards the base);
2. A prism used in any subjective observation displays the reversed VBGYOR spectrum because due to its geometrical configuration it 'lifts' the named spectrum from its original spatial axis (which is basically extending horizontally relative to the light's direction of travel and the observer's line of sight) onto an inclined plane that allows an observer to see it.

(For a visual depiction of the above see the picture below.)

Finally, on this topic, there's just one other thing I wish to say before going any further.

Although until now we have only associated the prism with the attributes and effects summarised in the two points numerically denoted above, the complete truth is that any conceivable optical object which is fundamentally shaped (to whatever extent, great or small) like a prism, shares with it basically the same attributes and effects. For example, a double convex lens is basically a triangular prism that has been rotated a full turn around a point situated right at the centre of the prism's base, while a double concave lens is basically a triangular prism which has been rotated a full turn around a point situated right in the middle of its apex. That's all about that, for this is no news. Everybody knows that, even the conventional physicist, and thus we can go further now. Stay with me.

To justify my claim that the conventional physicist has practically no understanding of any significance in the science of optics I will present you with a number of concrete examples for the rest of this first day of collaborative work.

The first example I've chosen for you is described in the screenshot below. Let's have a look at it.

So, having read everything with great care and diligence, as you do, what did you think about the question, first, but far more importantly, tell me what you thought about those answers after that. In the meantime though let me tell you as succinctly as I can what conclusions I myself have drawn in turn.

Although the conventional physicist is well aware, apparently, that lenses are basically prisms, she clearly has no idea about what really causes the effects in the question. Her only alternative, therefore, is to utter some sort of 'explanation' by reciting, with the obvious vagueness of the shonky leader and typical nerve of the ignorant zealot, the main theme of the conventional prismatic dogma. It's all clear cut, straightforward and quite simple, she's basically saying from behind and in between the lines. So much so that after an 'explanation' that could easily be tweeted she ends up with a most prosaic and mundane advice: “Look up prism refraction and you'll see all you need to know.” Wow!

But if that wasn't enough what happens in the next exchange pretty much does it. I'm referring here to Carl Witthoft's reply to HyperLuminal's new posited question, which says “... try drawing the ray path thru a prism—you'll see the “bending” will be reversed for rays with angles of entry on the right and left sides of vertical.” Wow wow!

You see, even though the visual effects described in the question are part of a subjective prismatic observation, the guys with apparently all the answers have not even contemplated the possibility that the basic Newtonian prismatic setup, which inherently is of a so-called objective nature, couldn't answer all conceivable prismatic questions. Therefore, I say, if this is not a concrete exposition of the fact that the conventional physicist has no understanding of any consequential significance, then I will have to slur, so only my Greek friend and God can hear me: “What the...!”

So why those coloured borders then? And why blue and yellow, instead of the usual blue and red? What about the reversal of colours between left and right?

Before answering those questions I want to make it clear that unfortunately the description of the observation is quite vague (and therefore quite confusing). Nevertheless, that is a reality that does not in any way impinge irreversibly on the final outcome. It only means that as a consequence there are two possible answers in the matter. One is that the man's glasses have what are called plus lenses, while the other is that the reality is completely opposite to that, which in turn means that the man's glasses have minus lenses instead. Without going too much at all into details that very basically means that if the man is wearing plus lenses he is wearing convex lenses. If however the opposite case is true, then he is wearing concave ones. And now by saying that we're almost ready to conclude this little chapter. The only thing we have to do before that, however, is for you to fetch your favourite prism and for me to draw a clear, eloquent picture below. So see you in a jiffy.

Remember those three questions a moment ago? It's time to answer them—not one by one, but all of them at once.

Take therefore your prism, hold it with its apex pointing to the left and bring it forward towards your screen (aiming to observe the black ellipse and rectangle on your left) until it is about 10-15cm away from it. (Remember, your observing eye doesn't have to follow, so you can remain comfortably seated as you were before.) Now, look first what colour is laying along the inside edge of the white canvas. Look next what colour borders the black rectangle on the left side and then what colour's on the right. Proceed next to observe the border colours of the black oval. When satisfied with what you have seen, start thinking.

Next, turn your prism a full 180° around and conduct a similar observation on the right side of the picture. When satisfied with what you have seen stop for a few moments and ponder. See?:)

OK, it should be a no-brainer now to guess what follows next. So do it. Hold your prism in a position with its base pointing to the left and observe the black objects on the left side of the picture from a distance similar to the previous ones. And then, of course, proceed with the final observation of this little chapter.

Things look pretty much like in the man's description, don't they? They do. Indeed they do. But tell me, is there any need of me now to still put the words on the paper in order to answer those three earlier questions? After all I have already answered them today. And, after all again, I only recently made a sincere pledge that this time I will write solely for you. So, let me then just say: “Until next time. Take care, and all the best.”