The
next example that illustrates even more eloquently the wilderness in
which the conventional physicist has been lost for three hundred and
fifty years comes directly from a couple of the most praised
exponential contemporary mouths. Take a good, close look at the two
presentations below.
I
have to tell you that at this point I am greatly tempted to add
nothing to what you have seen in the dual display above. That's
simply because if you have read the previous pages with even a
moderate degree of interest you should need nothing from me to be
able to truly and vividly see the wilderness into which the
conventional physicist has taken not only herself but her
conventional world too. That notwithstanding, in the end I somewhat
tentatively relented to offer
you a brief (but thoroughly sufficient, for all genuine intents and
purposes) presentation of my own on the subject. My own genuine
expectation, on the other hand, is still that you by now have seen
and understood enough to be able to articulately substitute for me in
the current matter.
The
first thing I would like to see entering your thoughts above all
others is the conventional physicist's monstrous omission (or
obliviously the absolute non-consideration) of what it ought to
unquestionably be the first and most
probable explanation for that apparent colour reversal in our
example. After all, has there ever existed a more direct and eloquent
demonstration of colour reversal in a prismatic experiment than
Newton's own observation that “Prismaticall colours
appeare in the eye in a contrary order”?
That omission, or
non-consideration, of such an obvious possibility is profoundly
disappointing. Indeed, by the standards of the modern academia such a
gaffe should clearly and widely be deemed intolerable. (Indeed, I
say, this has been such a gaffe that only Donald Trump could become
envious upon hearing it.)
And
then, alas, there's more, I have to say, for it is eminently clear
from the pictures taken that what we are dealing here with is
obviously one of those so-called subjective
prismatic observations—hence a reversal of the spectral colours is
not only a natural expectation, it is a dead-set absolute
requirement!
And then I have to say alas
again, alas, for there is even more beside. It is plainly clear from
the pictures that the drops of rain that have generated those
reversed spectra have distinctly prismatic shapes, with relatively
great differences in the apparent thickness of their congruent
regions. Nonetheless, in total spite to that visual evidence, the
conventional physicist of this most 'advanced' era in humanity's
history did not manage to find anything more coherent to say than
that slurring mumbling about the negative lens (ha?!) effect that was
apparently created by a change in the curvature of the drop that
reversed the otherwise normal, Newtonian dispersion, with its
conventional red outer edge instead of one that is so heretically
blue!
She,
the conventional physicist, is the smartest of all the dazed and
confused Homo sapiens
sapiens specimen that have been
grazing on these earthly pastures with and along with us. (Today, I
choose to believe that.) But smartness is one of the most minor gifts
bestowed by God on humanity, and I'm afraid it will be a long, long
time before she'll learn to understand that. Smartness is a minor
gift because it is so, oh so common. She'll have no choice but to
learn and understand that, if she hopes to maintain her current
status into the foreseeable future. (Now, in regards to that let me
say something here, in the privacy of our own parentheses and
in-between just the two of us: She neither does know that, nor think
about it, alas.) Poor she, just cannot see that smartness, on its
own, is a wholly, truly, thoroughly infertile, impotent and grandiose
irrelevance, in the end. Smartness, when on its own, is very much a
sniffy, overbearing, haughty, lordly, pleonastic display of humans'
inherent fear and contempt for, of, about and toward everything that
might look, feel, suggest, or God forbid expose, our general
prevalence and propensity of being, as a rule of thumb, common,
ordinary, mediocre, average, very much the same. We may all be quite
different indeed—all seven billion of us and more—but you make no
mistake about it: We're different in fractions of degree; we're
certainly not different in kind.
The biggest drawback to being
smart is that one is very (veeery) rarely wise as well. And that is
usually for one an insurmountable, gigantic, lifelong handicap, for
without the benefit of wisdom it becomes pretty much impossible to
learn and understand in earnestness the wholeness that completes and
complements the nothingness that is forever metamorphosing the
perpetual realm of our common universe of somethingness into the
infinite expanse of God's (or Truth's, equivalently) boundless
kingdom of everythingness .
There is no pathway to the
Truth beside that offered by the only truth you truthfully can boast
to know—the truth that is exclusively your own and conjointly your
God's. The truth that is therefore a truth of the Truth. And although
I have good reasons to believe that you know your truth of the Truth
pretty much like anyone and everyone else out there, at this
particular point in our common time I have no choice but remain as
discerningly incorrigible, cautiously sceptical, yet candidly
optimistic about the future of our collaboration as I have been in
all my past affiliations. (Remember? I'm writing this only for you.
Which means that if it's you, indeed, the one who I am writing for
right now, that you should really understand every thing I have said
in this little break we've taken in-between subjects:)
Hands down, the most
spectacular real demonstration of prismatic phenomena takes place in
the subject of atmospheric optics. That subject is made even more
spectacular by the conventional physicist's ominous (bombastically
ominous, as the future shall confirm) description of it. Now, that
subject is richer (much richer, in fact) than the comparatively
frugal offerings we've seen in the case of basically Newtonian optics
thus far. What do I mean by that? I simply mean to state that, at the
very least, when it comes to the subject of atmospheric optics all of
a sudden the sheer amount of observational evidence on offer is
staggering, by comparison.
Let me start this little
chapter by stating what it may be perhaps an all too obvious thing: I
never believed the conventional tale about how rainbows are formed
and function even when I basically knew next to nothing about the
matter. Now, I am certainly well aware of what one or another may
think when I'm saying that, but you do not be one of those. I did not
believe the conventional story because when I began studying it (on
the first day of 2015) I had learned enough already about the way of
the God in His Universe and it was quite clear to me that the
conventional tale was just that—a tale. Not good enough for God
and His Universe. Bad, in fact. Really bad.
To our minds it was more than
enough the highlighted passage on its own to instantly raise red
flags all over the joint. No mind can literally hold any hopes of
solving the optical marvels in the sky by resorting to that
kind of reasoning. Not a chance in hell, I'm afraid. That is a
fundamental—and pretentiously infantile, alas—error, and thus the
game for the conventional physicist is over right from the beginning.
Now, why do you think I have
said that?
Because the right line of
reasoning is this.
The rainbow is basically an
image of the sun. That image, in whatever spectral outfit may appear
at one time or another, will nevertheless always extend from the
source-core at the centre spherically towards ever increasing
boundaries. Like so (from a two-dimensional perspective)
and so
and so
and ultimately so
It is precisely (and only) for
this reason that violet is at the 'bottom' of the rainbow and red at
its 'top', and—as always—this is a simple and direct explanation
that flows and follows naturally from common physical bases, sources
and origins. That's how God works in His Universe, and whoever fails
to understand that will never be able to see the real landscape that
shines brightly beyond their conventionally implanted
cataracts.
Now, at this point I ought to
probably continue by explaining why the conventional physicist has
been driven to their belief, which I had highlighted in yellow above,
but I must confess that that is one of those things I dread most in
this job I have chosen. Don't ask me why that is so, just believe me
that it is for a number of very good reasons (at least in as far as
me and my Greek are concerned). Luckily, for us two, one of the main
factors responsible for that conventional belief comes right out from
our highlighted passage above (albeit, in a most miserly fashion):
When violet light from the
lower drop reaches the observer's eye, red light from the same
drop is incident elsewhere, toward the waist.
Indeed, it was basically as a
consequence of that line of reasoning that the conventional physicist
was forced to concoct the scenario she did. After all how else could
she hope to combine the image of a rainbow seen by an observer, with
a drop of rain that could be ten miles away (one may argue). Think
about it, she seems to be saying, that line of reasoning is exactly
like understanding clearly that a sharp shooter who deviates by only
1 mm from a perfectly straight line between his rifle's sights and
his target (which is, say, a mile away) will in effect miss it by
metres by the time his bullet gets there. So...
Hmm... I say. Remember this:
Reality is never going to conform because one can't imagine any other
form.
And then there's more (much
more, in fact) that the conventionalists should “please explain”
before invoking the reality of their preaching mantra in the subject.
For instance let her then explain how the rainbows imaged below
managed to still maintain their colouring display, with violet at the
bottom and the red at the top.
That's all for this Day 2 of
our collaboration. Take good care in your thinking and your acting.
No comments:
Post a Comment