Collaboration Day 4

Today is the fourth day of our collaborative endeavour, but my immediate hope is that by the end of it we will both see it as actually becoming the first. I'm saying that because today I will make the first suggestions about how exactly you could begin in earnest prodding along with us toward a common goal. So, are you ready for that? Good. Let's go, then!

We have seen how the conventional physicist has been attempting to explain the existence of the single rainbow, and she's been doing it pretty much in the same manner since the work of Descartes a good quarter of a century before the time of Newton. We have also gotten a glimpse, for the time being, of how unfounded and lame is all that so-called evidence onto which she has been basing it for all those many and arid years. Today we shall continue our journey into the conventional understanding of the rainbow phenomena by looking at two additional subjects that are intimately related to the topics of our last discussion, and in the process we shall examine how, or if, they fare any better.

First we'll take a look at how the conventional physicist has been dealing with the double rainbow system, and in order to do that I will use as points of reference excerpts from the same source I had used last time. (See below.)

As for the bit of text that is missing from the screenshot below, let me cite and highlight it here:

Frequently, a larger second (secondary) rainbow with its colors reversed can be seen above the primary bow (see Fig. 19.29). Usually this secondary bow is much fainter than the primary one. The secondary bow is caused when sunlight

Unsurprisingly, the line of reasoning that was used before for the single rainbow is also employed for the secondary one—albeit, with a just a little twist this time around. Thus, we are told, in the case of a double rainbow system the secondary bow appears in the form it does because the rays of light that create it suffer two internal reflections in the raindrops that are apparently responsible for its existence. Simple. (Emphatic and simple, I've just heard thousands of conventional voices singing.)

What about the reasons for the existence of that dark band of Alexander's? Well, the conventional explanation for that is apparently just as emphatically simple, according to the same sources.

Needless to say, since we rejected the first conventional explanation that was built around the same line of reasoning we're certainly not going to accept it now. But at this point I feel that the time is right to elaborate a little further on the issue, for believe me, it is really worth it.

Back last year, when I paid attention for the first time to the basics behind the conventional explanation we're discussing, I rejected it on some totally different grounds to those I am aware of today. In effect, the primary reason for my then rejection (apart from my gut-feeling that God does simply not operate so blatantly rigid—to the point of appearing malicious, to my mind and my Greek's—in His Universe) was the rather conspicuous conventional inability to produce clear experimental evidence that could sustain, support and substantiate their case beyond mere rhetoric and grandiloquence. After all, since they have been apparently easily able to reflect light inside raindrops (not only two or three times, but no less than 200 times) they should have just as easily been able to re-create beautiful images of rainbows and double rainbows in the lab. That, however, has never happened to any degree of satisfaction in all these long and bitter years, so... no cigar, mate! Not even a rollie, for that matter, as far as we're concerned. Quite the contrary, in fact. As soon as we saw exactly what they have been able to produce over the years, and with their equipment, we began to reject their 'teachings' thus—by kicking their ample backside with stern diligence and plenty of enthusiasm.

But let me show you precisely what I am talking about. Immediately below there is a video concocted by a conventional physicist, which has been on YouTube for a few years now and comes with the title "How to make a double rainbow at home". I urge you to watch, for it is superlatively telling about the conventional reality on the matter.

The image below shows the 'double rainbow' produced by the dude who made the video. No comments.

Now, the two images below represent the best conventional effort ever at re-creating pictures of rainbows in the lab. It is a most cumbersome, perplexing and hardly enlightening effort, begging many more questions than offering answers.

Finally, below there is a video I made on the same subject. Watch it carefully, weigh it objectively against the others, see what you think, then reconstruct on your own at home and make a final decision about where you stand and what you should do.

I wrote the passage below a few years ago in a former blog I had run, and today I made a sudden decision that it was a bloody good time to re-jog it back to life once again.

When I was 13 or 14 years of age I read Mark Twain's A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court. By that time I had already developed a deep affinity for the great man, having read previously Tom Sawyer's and Huckleberry Finn's stories he had written. All those three books had given me a great deal of joy by reading them, but the story of the Yank who had found himself somehow shifted back in time to the era of King Arthur of the Round Table fame was to strike an entirely new chord in me. It was emphatically in this book that I clearly saw not only the unique wit of Mark Twain but also his wisdom. Anyway, from that book I want to recall this little story-parable, which is so soothing to my Romanian-Australian-Greek pains!

It so happens that one day the hero of the book, who had travelled in time and by now had become the most famous person in King Arthur's Court, and who was now known as Boss (after his own suggestion, of course) was strolling on a big day of celebrations through a crowded market, listening to the people and thinking of modern (meaning 19th Century) ways of developing his new society. Lost in thought he comes across a particularly large group gathered around a very loud voice, which was saying: "Do you people want to know what the King of France is doing right now?". "Yes, yes!" the crowd screamed for a moment, before suddenly getting quiet in order to hear the voice: "His Majesty is walking his dogs in the garden". And with that the crowd went wild again, marvelling in loud voices about such an amazing gift from God. Boss got absolutely mad at the sight of that scene. He quickly made his way to the crook and then said: "People, can't you see that this crook is just fooling you? Look, I'll prove it to you right now", and with that he turned around to face the crook, put one hand behind his back (from where only the crowd could see it) and then sticking three fingers out he asked: "Tell me, what am I doing now?" The crook began to mumble something and then went quiet.

Pleased with his clear demonstration Boss then walked away to continue his stroll. Half an hour later, however, he found himself around the same gathering (which was even bigger now) who was listening to the crook's latest message: "People, do you want to know what the Queen of Spain is doing right now?" "Yeeees!", came the answer.

Now, I so happen to have myself a similar story-parable that I want to tell you about. Mine is a modern story, only about ten months old, and anyone who wants to verify its authenticity can easily do so.

If one decides to take a leisurely stroll through the YouTube market to see what is new there in Optics, one does not have to go far at all before being inundated with viewing offers. None of those offers though contain anything new, of any kind, that could be called the modern optical understanding. What one will find instead would be hundreds and hundreds of new videos that would show conventional physicists and professors presenting the four-centuries old Newtonian so-called theory of light and colours to an audience that is quite blindly following the unwitting fool-buffoon who is busily tracing rays between objects through prisms (or lenses, or both) and the eye of the observer, or otherwise calculating refractions by making use of some really dodgy formulae—which if they understood how all those equations came to be and how, yes, they evolved toward a devolutionary future, they would be left with no other urge than to finally laugh out loud.

And I myself get a different urge when, from time to time, watch a couple of minutes of a particularly well-viewed video. I get the urge to yell to the world: "Hey, can't you see that you are being conned in a most obvious manner? Can't you see that this con job has been going on for exactly 342 years and 48 days today? Look, I can so easily prove it to you—not in one way, not in two, not in ten, but in literally hundreds of ways..." But of course I never do that. (Well, not exactly as...)

And now let me close this little retro-chapter by recalling from the past a couple of Mark Twain's most memorable bits of wisdom.

I have never let my schooling interfere with my education.

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.

In my rather long life as an inconvenient smart ass I have had ample opportunity to witness and experience (alone, on my own) such a great number of conventional 'scientific' crap that one would expect me by now to have become quite immune to its pungency. Alas, that hasn't been the case at all. That is not to say, however, that all that long exposure to it hasn't had any effect on me, for it certainly has. As a matter of fact, for instance, all that experience has enabled me to acquire a certain kind of pungency of my own, by virtue of which over the years I have managed to appease and propitiate some of my own ingrown boils and chafes. So much so, in fact, that these days I have grown to be pungently happy most times, and that's in no small measure thanks to Mark Twain and a handful of others that were blessed like me with a personal gift of pungency.

Nonetheless, in spite of all that there inevitably come certain occasions and times when I still find inconceivable to see how grossly lopsided and cockeyed is the physical reality out there to the metaphysical mumbo jumbo that is predicated from the highest pulpits of society these days.

Take no other case than that of Alexander's Dark Band. Less than two years after my first foray into the atmospheric optics phenomena it has been absolutely obvious to us for pretty much that long already that when it comes to that subject the truth about it is much deeper and implicative than what the conventionalist quarters are telling themselves and the world. Let me show you a couple of some most relevant pictures of it to see if you'll see what we see.

(To be continued in a few hours)

-----------------------------------------

Change of plans. We'll pick it up from here on our next day of collaboration. Take care.