After a pretty depressing couple of months I'm once again in front of the computer determined to pen down this fifth day of collaboration between us (us meaning me and the Greek upstairs, of course) and you (meaning you, whom only you know, you know). This is the short version of the truth, however, for in the longer version I have already written this post almost four times. Long story, not worth discussing either now and here (or ever and anywhere, for that matter).
On second thoughts, there is one, final thing that I ought to mention in regards to the above. For the last two weeks I have been kept busy by a spate of raging emails I have received from one Dr. Markus Selmke, whom--in fairness--I contacted first by sending him the following email on November 27:
Dear Markus,
I have been independently conducting my own research in optics since 1997, and since then I have been fortunate enough to make a number of very interesting discoveries. Like you, in a way, a significant part of my work has been in Atmospheric Optics, and in the course of that work I discovered for example that a double rainbow system (including Alexander's Dark Band) can be easily and directly created by a single raindrop. In fact the truth is that a double rainbow system is so easily and straightforwardly generated by a single raindrop that I have managed to show the entire process in just one 4 minute video. You can see that video on You Tube at the following URL https://youtu.be/HKsLh1yZVtE
I urge you to invest the next 5 minutes of your life in watching that video therefore, for it is certainly very much worthy of the attention of a professional in the field.
Thanking you very much for your attention,
Remus Poradin
Then, on December 3, I received this reply from the good Dr. Selmke:
On second thoughts, there is one, final thing that I ought to mention in regards to the above. For the last two weeks I have been kept busy by a spate of raging emails I have received from one Dr. Markus Selmke, whom--in fairness--I contacted first by sending him the following email on November 27:
Dear Markus,
I have been independently conducting my own research in optics since 1997, and since then I have been fortunate enough to make a number of very interesting discoveries. Like you, in a way, a significant part of my work has been in Atmospheric Optics, and in the course of that work I discovered for example that a double rainbow system (including Alexander's Dark Band) can be easily and directly created by a single raindrop. In fact the truth is that a double rainbow system is so easily and straightforwardly generated by a single raindrop that I have managed to show the entire process in just one 4 minute video. You can see that video on You Tube at the following URL https://youtu.be/HKsLh1yZVtE
I urge you to invest the next 5 minutes of your life in watching that video therefore, for it is certainly very much worthy of the attention of a professional in the field.
Thanking you very much for your attention,
Remus Poradin
Then, on December 3, I received this reply from the good Dr. Selmke:
Hello!
I
have seen your video and was a bit shocked by your conspiracy
attitude towards science (you "denounce all members of the
absolutist physics establishment"). I would suggest you either
start to be consistent and denounce the technology invented by
scientists (i.e. log off your computer from the internet, and go back
into the woods hunting animals and gathering berries), or develop a
respectful attitude towards the achivements of the scientific
endeavor that is truly a community effort of many generations of
committed scientists. There is no “absolutism” in science, as
clearly evidenced by the myriad of debates / step-wise developments
and rivalry of theories in the scientific community. I suppose you
have never been involved on any side of the peer-review process in
scientific publication?
In
any case, it is a debate that is beeing conducted with certain
standards, with evidence settling debates at some point as the
debates will always be conducted under such terms as will allow
settlement based on evidence and quantitative analysis (not mere
qualitative metaphysical talk). Theories are ultimately always
predictive of clearly defined measurements, and different approaches
often lead to consistent results. For rainbows, thus far wave theory
has been applied (scalar, i.e. Airy rainbow theory, and full
vectorial in the Mie solution of Maxwell’s equations, even partial
coherence wave descriptions exist, or time-domain Mie scattering) as
well as geometrical optics (ray and complex ray theories). Each
framework represents a different level of approximation, but all have
been found to be compatible and to be able to describe the observed
bulk of rainbow-scattering related phenomena consistent with the
chosen level of approximation. Even though the scopes are not equal
(e.g. geometrical optics alone will not decsribe the polarization
structure of the rainbow, neither does the plain Airy theory.), each
may be used to get quantitative predictions at a desired accuracy /
information level. E.g., only wave theory descriptions will be able
to describe the interference necessary to account for the
supernumerary bows (don’t try to get those with your flash-lamp,
but use a laser pointer instead).
Importantly,
though: Entering a scientific discussion without before making an
effort to analyse and study the existing body of literaure is like
interrupting a debate mid-way without having listened to anything the
parties have said before (or commenting on a single sentence out of
context). This is rude and plain stupid, period.
In
regard to your apparent puzzlement with the inverted image of the two
merging reflexes close to the first rainbow angle, either completely
study the phenomenon in question and read, for instance, the articles
by J. D. Walker (I have included also his publications efforts in
more educational literature), or simply take your favourite textbook
on optics and analyse the sequence of rays around the Cartesian ray
(ray of least angular deviation, ray “f” in the ray-racing
calculation(!) below): You will see that g-f stay in order, while f-e
are inverted opon leaving the drop. The image does NOT show the two
possible paths
(http://rainbowstudy.blogspot.de/2010_07_01_archive.html)
leading to an equal angular deviation which make up the images of a
light source. I will agree that the SKETCH (see below, likely not a
raytracing)
in https://www.itp.uni-hannover.de/~zawischa/ITP/refraction.html is
wrong in the unimportant detail of the point at which the back-side
reflection takes place (it won’t be the same point). However, the
inversion of the parallel light rays seen in the raytracing and
calculations (again, cf. Walker) is the ultimate reason for the image
inversion that you parade as a blow to the conventional rainbow
theory…
Regards,
Markus
Selmke
Now, by the time I got this email I had almost forgotten who exactly this man was supposed to be. But, then, in no more than a jiffy my Greek rushed back in and began poking at my brain with every new word it was reading. For instance, in the first sentence Markus Selmke says that he watched my video "and was a bit shocked..." The truth of the matter is that in the video I asked him to watch there is absolutely nothing about my ''denouncing...". In fact the issues that Markus Selmke is complaining about in that first sentence are part of another video of mine, which you have seen already, called The real physics of rainbows Part 1. Moreover, even his mentioning of a certain sketch from the website of Hannover University comes also from that video. So...
A couple of hours later I receive this short message:
Just as promptly I replied on the same day:
The next day, on the 10th of December I receive this:
Markus' reply:
Show me then what is your best evidence (EXPERIMENTAL evidence) that Descartes' theory of double rainbow creation is correct.
What evidence do YOU have that the transistors in the computer in front of you work?
Fortunately, this is not how science work. If you think it does, be consistent and invent the computer yourself all over again.
(Btw, the literature you've sent me I had already read.)
No you haven’t.
Well, mate, you're living it first hand.
I am. I have contributed incremetally to science and knowledge, building up on previous work. This is precisely the process which brought you your computer.
I have held public lectures on atmospheric optics phenomena measuring the delfection function with a single acrylic ball, showing precisely the inversion of the deflected outgoing ray that I was explaining in my original e-mail and which was already explained and quantified by Descartes. This is so basic and fundamental (i.e. requiring no more than geometry and snell’s law) that it is tought in each and every optics course over the planet and in schools. It was by the time of its invention a genuine theory as it had predictive power concernig the width and angular coordinates of the bows. It has been confirmed ever since, while new theories added details (e.g. the description of Airy explaining the supernumeraries via interference close to the caustic which was well explained by Descartes already). Any new level of detail and predictive power reduced and incorporates the previous level and thereby automatically the myriad of observations which are all in accord with it. Maxwell theory of electrodynamics (called Mie theory when applied to a sphere) reproduces both the supernumeraries as well as reducing to geometrical optics in the limit of vanishing wavelength. QUantum electrodynamics adds quantization and adds further detail when partial coherence is concerned of the illuminating light source. Again, the theory reduces to Maxwell’s electrodynamics in the proper limit, thereby reducing to geometrical optics and specifically to Descartes raimbow theory when applied to a drop of water.
My own evidence? I have recreated many of the basic experiments (mostly in university lectures or seminars) and, importantly, understood the subject matter well enough to be able to interpret it in accord with the powerful body of scientific frameworks and theories. I.e., I will not assume that the tooth fairy produces the rainbows. There is an enormous body of literature using Descartes rainbow theory. There is even a metrology (ie. precision measurement) method for the determination of refractive indices (a material property) called liquid cell refractometry, which ultimately relies on Descartes theory. The recently photographed higher-order rainbows go back to Descartes simple and beautiful theory (see articles attatched). You may even show the higher order bows with your acrylic ball (my version is on the cover of Am J Phys). The intensity distribution relies on the deflection function having a minimum. You can show that at home. I did. Millions of other interested individuals did so, too. Thousands of scientists did so. You can compute it by elementary means (see Cartesian Theory - Rainbow pdf attatched). It proves the point that there are TWO ray paths for a single deflection angle above the minimum (a horizontal cutting the graph twice). If you cannot agree on that…. and if your argument is that you somehow don't understand an image formation from a flask experiment (without showing any effort in studying either image formation, optics in general or the rainbow phenomenon in particular)…. well then… I’m sorry, but you would have disqualified yourself from any physics discussion.
If you should have a superior rainbow theory it should have the following properties:
1) be reconcilable with the existing body of experimental observations. All of them. A common way is to show that your quantitative framework reduces in the proper limit to the existing framework. Or that it adds a correction on top which explains past minute differences and might have survived unnoticed due to a lack of precision in past measurements. In optics, you probably should suggest anything that violates Snell’s law on macroscopic scales. It just that well-supported. Like gravity. If you suggest that gravity doesn’t act as 1/r^2 on usual scales you wouldn’t receive your satellite mobile signal because the sattellite wouldn’t be up there transmitting it.
2) have predictive power. I.e., it must not be a so-called ad-hoc explanation of a given phenomenon but be able to make falsifiable predictions.
3) Have an explanatory scope which either enlarges the previous theories or simplifies or reduces the required assumptions
If you find such a theory on rainbows, journals will LOVE to hear about it. But keep in mind the extraordinary task described above.
Einstein did this: He derives from his insight into inertia a set of tensor field equations (16 equations in scalar form) relating energy and space-time geometry (non-Riemannian). He added a principle of geodesic motion. In combination he could show that in weak gravitational fields this set of equations reduces to Newtonian mechanics. Thereby, all preexisting observations and confirmations applied to his theory as well. However, on top of that his theory made novel predictions which were different from those made by Newton. He predicted a parallaxe shift which was subsequently confirmed. He also explained the Mercury parhelion advance unaccounted for by Newtonian dynamics.
Maxwell’s equations can be shown to reduce to ray optics, i.e. Fermat’s principle (which encompasses Snell’s law of refraction). To do so, the wavelength of monochromatic light is taken in the limit of -> 0. However, Maxwell’s equations also simplified assumptions as no longer an Ether was required to sustain electromagnetic radiation in vacuum. It also had enhanced predictive power in regard to interference effects, polarization (!) and intensities (Fresnel coefficients).
I hope you will begin read...
Markus
BTW: http://graphics.ucsd.edu/~henrik/papers/physically_based_simulation_of_rainbows.pdf
Now, by this point I was getting really pissed, and for the first time I was actually glad that I had called him "a pompous fool" earlier. I was glad because it was becoming clearer and clearer to us that the guy was indeed a gigantic, pompous fool. For a good number of reasons, first amongst which was the sheer and stupid crassitude with which he stated--without any shred of evidence whatsoever--that I had not read the literature he had sent me! The foolish dude with a Ph.D. from Princeton did not even care to think for a moment that the only person in the entire Universe who knew the truth about that was myself, and myself only. (My Greek is smiling in a dark corner of my skull as I am writing this.)
Secondly, for a man who had been all too ready to assert that I didn't have any experience or knowledge, or even desire to find out how science is apparently conducted, he was nonetheless all too eager to lay down for me in quite some detail the conventional body of work upon which the physics establishmentarianism has been putting all its faith (and all its accumulated eggs) for 400 years now.
Thirdly, and most importantly, the guy--who's been speaking since the very beginning with either the foolish self-proclaimed authority of a Judaic prophet, or with otherwise the absolute conviction of a certified moron--has never seemed to care one fucking bit that in spite of the apparently enormous amount of extraordinarily accurate data that they 'have known' and 'comprehensively understood' since Descartes' world, there has never, ever been any double rainbow system emulated, or simulated, or recreated in their fancy labs, with their even fancier gear. Isn't that so lopsidedly odd as to at least raise some thoughts, in some minds, at some point, somewhere, somewhen, somehow...
Fourthly, isn't terribly odd also that this guy, who has neither academic credentials nor any desire to listen to those who have, has managed to emulate/simulate/recreate a perfect image of a complete double rainbow system by making use of nothing more than a crystal sphere and a $2.70 LED torch? No, apparently that is ...nothing worthy of even mentioning in passing, let alone talking about by someone so accomplished and knowledgeable like Dr. Markus Selmke .
Fifthly, it is truly getting to me the great number of spelling errors that are littering all his emails.
On December 11 I replied with the little picture below and to the email I attached a file which you can see at the URL under it:
...
OK Markus, not a problem. However, I want to let you know that I will nonetheless make public all of our correspondence, for the world needs to see more conventional "pearls of wisdom", and yours are some of the best.
I will then contact your blog hoster to get my private communication removed.
Otherwise, oh, well, so be it. Have your fun...
Last thing: Maybe this helps you understand A’s dark band and its near-field characteristics? (its a ray tracing calculation based on nothing more than geometry and Snell’s law of refraction, computed for an index of refraction of n=1.33 and a typical spherical water-filled 250mL Florence flask. Second image: acrylic sphere, n=1.49):
(Just for the records: you may not use these images without my permission. It is for the sole purpose of helping you)
as an addendum to my last and final email: you may, if you want, refer to http://photonicsdesign.jimdo.com/physics-at-home/…
BTW: those “sketches” you see are raytracings. Also in the last e-mail, which contained the pdf vector-files. This means: you can actually confirm, if you’d care, that each refraction conforms with Snell’s law, i.e. n_1*sin(alpha_1)=n_2*sin(alpha_2), where the angles are measured to the normal of the interface. That is, you can confirm quantitatively (again, assuming you cared about quantitative science instead of metaphysical talk) that the depicted ray-paths are correct according to the laws of geometrical optics. However, I would not be enturely surprised if you also came to the conclusion that Snell’s law of refraction is false.
On my page, I have tried the best I can, to illustrate physically correct the mechanism of A’s dark band and the difficulty in producing it with artificial raindrops (i.e. water-filled spherical flasks or small drops). And the difference to the acrylic sphere case…
Regards,
Markus
Markus, you seem to be a nice man, beneath the self-assumed superiority you're so obstinately display, so I take this opportunity to genuinely advise you to think very carefully before speaking in statements. Trust me, you will regret so badly that you haven't done it already, and I will not enjoy it at all to see that, despite of what you probably think.
Instead of uttering threats, or whatever that was, why don't you try to stay with reason and arguments? Or did you run out of any already?
i do not care if you like me. i'd care more about seeing you address the very specific points i have raised and read the literature i've send you...
For instance all the articles (and by now there are numerous observations all over the world) analyzing the photographs of 3rd&4th order rainbows, the 5th and the 7th. I assume their explanations are also wrong despite appearing (and having been predicted) exactly where Descartes theory tells us?
Incredibly, as indeed it is, for 400 years nobody seems to have been bothered by why the conventional description of how the rainbow is created in a raindrop is always depicted in the same manner--with a ray of light entering the raindrop close to its top, bending then at an angle at which it will hit somewhere near the centre of the back of the raindrop, and then being reflected from that point at the same angle as the previous one, which will then finally lead straight into the eye of the Cartesian observer. Yeah, all conventional graphic depictions of rainbow formation look just like in Descartes' own depiction from 1637.
But, surely, anyone with the gut of a physicist must think, at some point: "Hang on, mate. Rainbows happen at 6 am, when the sun is barely above the horizon. Where does a ray of sunlight enter the raindrop then? How is it thereafter coming back into the eye of the Cartesian observer? Hmmm... I don't know, but what I do know is where to start investigating this problem. I shall start by physically replicating Descartes' own theoretical description."
And that is exactly what I did, only to find out that if you do that the image that any observer will see is that of an upside-down arched rainbow! Can you believe that? No? Then show me how you do it Descartes' way.
So, until that time will come, Markus Selmke (and all the other Cartesian-Newtonians out there) should throw their academic garbs away, dress in rags from this point on and cover their heads with dust for the entire duration of their mourning.
That's all for now, for this post is already too long. I'll see you on Day 6, which I promise you that is going to be special. Take care, think more, read less.
There are many issues in Markus' email that I could talk about, but after considering carefully what I should do about that I decided that there was a need of me to streamline a bit my answers to the man--for as you will see there is still a lot more that Markus had to say to me before deciding when to stop.
So, on my part I have to tell you that I thought long and hard about what I should say in reply, and in the end the following line of reasoning determined my reply: Since it was quite obvious that Markus' email was a pretty good facsimile of what he thought and how he felt about the whole story, I decided that I should do exactly the same--by telling him exactly how I see his reply to me. So, on the 9th of December I replied thus:
Oh,
Markus Selmke, if you only knew what a gigantic, pompous fool you
are...
Regards,
A couple of hours later I receive this short message:
congratulations
to your mature reply…
Just as promptly I replied on the same day:
I'm
sorry, Markus, but you asked for it. For, after all, I'm not a
Christian--so I do not turn the other cheek.
The next day, on the 10th of December I receive this:
Dear
Remus,
You
denounce physicists flat-out on youtube, call many respected
scientists “Liars!”, and then expect via e-mail a discourse about
a specific physical issue, right? (thinking of your original e-mail)
Do you realize the absurdity of that?
I
think, considering the rudeness you so proudly display on youtube, I
have been rather successful in trying to remain conciliatory.
I
took my time and have addressed SPECIFICALLY what you have taken as a
bone of contention (i.e. an image formed being inverted). I have even
made an effort to compile the appropriate literature on the topic, an
effort that should have been yours before you went ahead and insulted
centuries of scientists who have devoted their time and scientific
spirit to the development of understanding of the rainbow phenomenon.
There is a gigantic body of literature out there, and as I have tried
to convey (and as you would find upon a thorough study yourself):
importantly this body of literaure coprises a consistent (with each
other and all experimental observation) set of independent frameworks
(ray theory / geometrical optics being only one of them).
Assuming
to disprove this almost 400 year old subject (in a quantitative
sense, cf.: Descartes, 1637 Lés Météores) by the simplest
imaginable experiments (in fact done as early as in the 14th century
by Theodoric of Freiburg) is a quite clearly a sign of
megalomania.
In
your defence, I would assume that you have not the slightest concept
of the scientific method, such that I would suggest to you a good
read of maybe something
like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method,
especially the subject of "Properties of scientific inquiry".
If
you shall truly find an inconsistency in prevailing theories, and
communicate such an issue in a fact-based, quantitative and
respectful manner (i.e., not presupposing that scienticts will-fully
deceive but instead are prone to err as any human being or simply
suppose that new theories replace oder ones as new methods /
accuracies of measurements become available), scientific journals are
open to you and would GLADLY take up your findings. This happes all
the time(!), although usually with regard to subtle issues, i.e. the
fringes of established frameworks typically at the boundaries of what
is measurable. Putting in question something fundamental will require
extraordinary evidence. All this, of course, is subject to the
constraint that whatever you report is compatible with previous
measurements / observations. If, however, you display no intention to
have any firm understanding of the subject-matter by bringing up
trivialities, do not dispair when you are not taken seriously.
For, after all, I'm not a Christian--so I do not turn the other cheek.
It’s
about basic human decency, not religiosity.
Best
Regards,
Markus
When I received this new email I first smiled at his 'understanding' of my non-Christian quipping. Then I replied:
Dear
Markus,
You're
outraged about things you know nothing about. You obviously did not
care to read my blog, so you know nothing about my work or my
dealings with the establishment. But let's leave aside what you don't
know, and let us spend a mere minute on what you do, apparently.
The
video you've seen shows how a double rainbow system is created by a
single raindrop. Megalomania, you say? Show me then what is your best
evidence (EXPERIMENTAL evidence) that Descartes' theory of double
rainbow creation is correct. (Btw, the literature you've sent me I
had already read.) Or something even simpler. Show me how rainbows
are created in the morning.
Markus,
I think you are a genuine man. You're looking for the truth? Well,
mate, you're living it first hand.
Best
regards,
Remus
Poradin
Markus' reply:
Show me then what is your best evidence (EXPERIMENTAL evidence) that Descartes' theory of double rainbow creation is correct.
What evidence do YOU have that the transistors in the computer in front of you work?
Fortunately, this is not how science work. If you think it does, be consistent and invent the computer yourself all over again.
(Btw, the literature you've sent me I had already read.)
No you haven’t.
Well, mate, you're living it first hand.
I am. I have contributed incremetally to science and knowledge, building up on previous work. This is precisely the process which brought you your computer.
I have held public lectures on atmospheric optics phenomena measuring the delfection function with a single acrylic ball, showing precisely the inversion of the deflected outgoing ray that I was explaining in my original e-mail and which was already explained and quantified by Descartes. This is so basic and fundamental (i.e. requiring no more than geometry and snell’s law) that it is tought in each and every optics course over the planet and in schools. It was by the time of its invention a genuine theory as it had predictive power concernig the width and angular coordinates of the bows. It has been confirmed ever since, while new theories added details (e.g. the description of Airy explaining the supernumeraries via interference close to the caustic which was well explained by Descartes already). Any new level of detail and predictive power reduced and incorporates the previous level and thereby automatically the myriad of observations which are all in accord with it. Maxwell theory of electrodynamics (called Mie theory when applied to a sphere) reproduces both the supernumeraries as well as reducing to geometrical optics in the limit of vanishing wavelength. QUantum electrodynamics adds quantization and adds further detail when partial coherence is concerned of the illuminating light source. Again, the theory reduces to Maxwell’s electrodynamics in the proper limit, thereby reducing to geometrical optics and specifically to Descartes raimbow theory when applied to a drop of water.
My own evidence? I have recreated many of the basic experiments (mostly in university lectures or seminars) and, importantly, understood the subject matter well enough to be able to interpret it in accord with the powerful body of scientific frameworks and theories. I.e., I will not assume that the tooth fairy produces the rainbows. There is an enormous body of literature using Descartes rainbow theory. There is even a metrology (ie. precision measurement) method for the determination of refractive indices (a material property) called liquid cell refractometry, which ultimately relies on Descartes theory. The recently photographed higher-order rainbows go back to Descartes simple and beautiful theory (see articles attatched). You may even show the higher order bows with your acrylic ball (my version is on the cover of Am J Phys). The intensity distribution relies on the deflection function having a minimum. You can show that at home. I did. Millions of other interested individuals did so, too. Thousands of scientists did so. You can compute it by elementary means (see Cartesian Theory - Rainbow pdf attatched). It proves the point that there are TWO ray paths for a single deflection angle above the minimum (a horizontal cutting the graph twice). If you cannot agree on that…. and if your argument is that you somehow don't understand an image formation from a flask experiment (without showing any effort in studying either image formation, optics in general or the rainbow phenomenon in particular)…. well then… I’m sorry, but you would have disqualified yourself from any physics discussion.
If you should have a superior rainbow theory it should have the following properties:
1) be reconcilable with the existing body of experimental observations. All of them. A common way is to show that your quantitative framework reduces in the proper limit to the existing framework. Or that it adds a correction on top which explains past minute differences and might have survived unnoticed due to a lack of precision in past measurements. In optics, you probably should suggest anything that violates Snell’s law on macroscopic scales. It just that well-supported. Like gravity. If you suggest that gravity doesn’t act as 1/r^2 on usual scales you wouldn’t receive your satellite mobile signal because the sattellite wouldn’t be up there transmitting it.
2) have predictive power. I.e., it must not be a so-called ad-hoc explanation of a given phenomenon but be able to make falsifiable predictions.
3) Have an explanatory scope which either enlarges the previous theories or simplifies or reduces the required assumptions
If you find such a theory on rainbows, journals will LOVE to hear about it. But keep in mind the extraordinary task described above.
Einstein did this: He derives from his insight into inertia a set of tensor field equations (16 equations in scalar form) relating energy and space-time geometry (non-Riemannian). He added a principle of geodesic motion. In combination he could show that in weak gravitational fields this set of equations reduces to Newtonian mechanics. Thereby, all preexisting observations and confirmations applied to his theory as well. However, on top of that his theory made novel predictions which were different from those made by Newton. He predicted a parallaxe shift which was subsequently confirmed. He also explained the Mercury parhelion advance unaccounted for by Newtonian dynamics.
Maxwell’s equations can be shown to reduce to ray optics, i.e. Fermat’s principle (which encompasses Snell’s law of refraction). To do so, the wavelength of monochromatic light is taken in the limit of -> 0. However, Maxwell’s equations also simplified assumptions as no longer an Ether was required to sustain electromagnetic radiation in vacuum. It also had enhanced predictive power in regard to interference effects, polarization (!) and intensities (Fresnel coefficients).
I hope you will begin read...
Markus
BTW: http://graphics.ucsd.edu/~henrik/papers/physically_based_simulation_of_rainbows.pdf
Now, by this point I was getting really pissed, and for the first time I was actually glad that I had called him "a pompous fool" earlier. I was glad because it was becoming clearer and clearer to us that the guy was indeed a gigantic, pompous fool. For a good number of reasons, first amongst which was the sheer and stupid crassitude with which he stated--without any shred of evidence whatsoever--that I had not read the literature he had sent me! The foolish dude with a Ph.D. from Princeton did not even care to think for a moment that the only person in the entire Universe who knew the truth about that was myself, and myself only. (My Greek is smiling in a dark corner of my skull as I am writing this.)
Secondly, for a man who had been all too ready to assert that I didn't have any experience or knowledge, or even desire to find out how science is apparently conducted, he was nonetheless all too eager to lay down for me in quite some detail the conventional body of work upon which the physics establishmentarianism has been putting all its faith (and all its accumulated eggs) for 400 years now.
Thirdly, and most importantly, the guy--who's been speaking since the very beginning with either the foolish self-proclaimed authority of a Judaic prophet, or with otherwise the absolute conviction of a certified moron--has never seemed to care one fucking bit that in spite of the apparently enormous amount of extraordinarily accurate data that they 'have known' and 'comprehensively understood' since Descartes' world, there has never, ever been any double rainbow system emulated, or simulated, or recreated in their fancy labs, with their even fancier gear. Isn't that so lopsidedly odd as to at least raise some thoughts, in some minds, at some point, somewhere, somewhen, somehow...
Fourthly, isn't terribly odd also that this guy, who has neither academic credentials nor any desire to listen to those who have, has managed to emulate/simulate/recreate a perfect image of a complete double rainbow system by making use of nothing more than a crystal sphere and a $2.70 LED torch? No, apparently that is ...nothing worthy of even mentioning in passing, let alone talking about by someone so accomplished and knowledgeable like Dr. Markus Selmke .
Fifthly, it is truly getting to me the great number of spelling errors that are littering all his emails.
On December 11 I replied with the little picture below and to the email I attached a file which you can see at the URL under it:
...
The file in question contains the manuscript of an article I had written a couple of years earlier, which I had called Four straightforward experiments which prove that Newton's theory of light and colours is fatally flawed, and which I had sent to a handful of conventional physics journals in US, UK, and Australia. If you have never read that little article before I urge you to read it now, for things are about to get more and more interesting in our current saga, as you'll be able to see for yourself as we'll keep strolling along deeper into this post.
The next day, on December 12, I got the following email from Markus Selmke:
Dear Poradin!
I see that you genuinely attempt to enter a scientific discussion. It is, however, flawed and spoiled (evident to any referee who will report on your manuscript) by your refusal to study the subject first.
Anyhow, the reasons for this article to become rejected by any serious journal are multifold:
1) Starting with the obvious: if the refrangibility of colors were opposite to common scientific knowlegde the photo-lithographic dichromats (chromatic aberration-corrected lenses) producing the CPU chip for the computer from which you are writing your article would not have been able to be fabricate (with the required nanometer precision achieved nowadays) the multilayered and ultra-fine structure of your CPU. It has been a long development, relying on Electromagnetic theory, which, as I have poited out before, reduces to precisely the geometrical optics (and refraction / color theory you assume to be false) in the macroscopic limit (neglecting polarization). The company producing these lenses is, btw, ultimately Carl Zeiss, a Jena company I have visited multiple times before.
2) Your argumentation neglects the image inversion by the lens of the eye.
4) you are missing references in your article… Again displaying that you did not consult the literature. Which, in EXTREME cases, might be fine if at least the physics were alright. However, they are not.
5) you provide no quantitative description of your “experiments”.
Regards,
Markus
I see that you genuinely attempt to enter a scientific discussion. It is, however, flawed and spoiled (evident to any referee who will report on your manuscript) by your refusal to study the subject first.
This article, assuming that the referee process goes orderly (there have been exceptions in the past, since, as any process, no process is perfect. However, if the paper is important enough, retractions are not uncommon in those cases and the scientific community has a tendency to cleanse itself from non-frequent oversight in due process), will not get published. It will be rejected. This is 99% certain. However, you have successfully selected a low bar in scientific publishing. I know a few articles in that journal which are of questionable quality and make unsupported claims. Well, this happens and so you might be lucky :) If you were serious about your endavour, and had the arguments on your side: Go for "Nature" or “Science”, or at least a respected and dedicated optics journal such as “Applied Optics”, “Optics Express”, JOSA, … . If you throw over, as you claim, this bedrock of optics, no reason to go for an impact factor 2 journal :D… Otherwise, maybe you find an appropriate journal in this list?: https://scholarlyoa.com/individual-journals/
Anyhow, the reasons for this article to become rejected by any serious journal are multifold:
1) Starting with the obvious: if the refrangibility of colors were opposite to common scientific knowlegde the photo-lithographic dichromats (chromatic aberration-corrected lenses) producing the CPU chip for the computer from which you are writing your article would not have been able to be fabricate (with the required nanometer precision achieved nowadays) the multilayered and ultra-fine structure of your CPU. It has been a long development, relying on Electromagnetic theory, which, as I have poited out before, reduces to precisely the geometrical optics (and refraction / color theory you assume to be false) in the macroscopic limit (neglecting polarization). The company producing these lenses is, btw, ultimately Carl Zeiss, a Jena company I have visited multiple times before.
2) Your argumentation neglects the image inversion by the lens of the eye.
3) Green light DOES get refracted. Obviosuly. Buy a 1$ green laser pointer and send it through your precious prism. You will see its refraction. Better yet: Do what any physics student does in his first year at college / university and MEASURE the precise refrangibility / refractive index for at least let’s say 3 different colors using the minimum deviation angle (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/geoopt/prism.html) and find for yourself the quantifyable difference. You will find any color refracted, and blue the most (assuming a regular material, e.g. any type of glass at visible wavelengths). The solid-state physics of atomic lattice interaction with electromagnetic radiation causing the particular dispersion typical for most (not all) materials (and predicting) the particular shape of the function refractive index vs. wavelength will likely be beyond you, but you would find it in any good textbook on solid state physics or optics. But then again, you have proven your relcutancy to read already, so likely that’s not an option for you…
4) you are missing references in your article… Again displaying that you did not consult the literature. Which, in EXTREME cases, might be fine if at least the physics were alright. However, they are not.
5) you provide no quantitative description of your “experiments”.
Regards,
Markus
You might be thinking that when I received this new email I must have gotten even more pissed than before. But you would be totally wrong in that case, for the reality, as it happened, was that when we got this 'pearl' of a message, for a good couple of hours we just couldn't stop laughing. Yeah, dear world, there was absolutely no doubt whatsoever now that the man called Markus Selmke, PhD, was a truly gargantuan, most pompous and ridiculously pretentious kind of fool. He was, by Zeus, a genuine fool-buffoon! Thank God for that, for now it was crystal-clear that neither of us two (us two meaning the Greek and I) should ever feel even a minute tinge of guilt. Ever!
By all rights, however, the truth is that by the time we had finished reading the email we both should have been not merely fuming, but indeed blowing long beams of fire through the nose, like any other decent but really pissed off dragon out there! Now I do not intend at all to spend any more time talking about the imbecilic comments of Dr. Markus Selmke--conventional fool-buffoon. For any valid wants and purposes it suffices to only touch (very briefly) on a couple of the real issues of attention and concern, which--btw--Selmke did not manage to get even a hint of a smell of. So, let's get into those right now, for time is certainly most precious these days.
It is absolutely mind boggling that Selmke, for whatever reason (which I couldn't be bothered to even consider speculating about--let alone doing it for real) is totally oblivious to the fact that everything in my article on Newton's flawed theory of light and colours is strictly referring to observations conducted in those so-called subjective prismatic experiments. So much so that for the life of me I just cannot comprehend how a Princeton PhD, who furthermore is an Optics specialist, couldn't figure out merely from looking at the original drawing of Newton's first experiment published in his Opticks, and which is also the experiment and picture I had used myself as reference on the first page of my article, was such a bloody obvious subjective prismatic experiment. He should have figured that out even if he didn't read even one word from that article! Nonetheless, the fool-buffoon didn't even manage to get that, let alone anything else. So, as a direct consequence of that infantile gaffe, everything he said at points 1 and 3 (in a most condescending tone and manner, too) is totally irrelevant to my work on the subject. That's why, as I always made sure to clarify for any other potential imbecile (of the same, or very similar kind to Selmke himself) that it is directly observable that only in subjective prismatic experiments the colours red and blue refract in opposite directions, while the colours yellow and green do not refract at all in those experiments. Nonetheless, in total spite to all the precautions I took in order to prevent a similar monumental blunder happening to anyone, there is no possibility of denying the fact that Selmke himself has fallen prey to his own genetic predisposition for foolishness. Moreover, since a wise, ancient Romanian proverb says that a fool is not foolish enough if he is not proud as well, Selmke (who's German, not Romanian... or Greek) could just not help himself to unwittingly reinforce the validity of the common wisdom, managing thus in the process to become a buffoon, as well. Unsurprisingly, therefore, he immediately marched like a peacock from one trap directly into another, chanting in a loud voice for everyone to hear, an old and very familiar slogan to us:
Your argumentation neglects the image inversion by the lens of the eye.
Who can try now to convince us that contrary to the general opinion history doesn't ever repeat itself? Us two, in fact, have been fortunate enough to have seen with our own eyes how easily history does repeat itself, and most times, more than once. For those who've read my work in entirety there should certainly come immediately to their mind the name Steven Dutch, and most likely also the name of a Nobel Prize winner, whose surname has long ago been given to a certain kind of junction--a Josephson junction, to be exact. The Josephson part of that particular type of junction comes from the full name of Professor Emeritus Dr. Brian Josephson, of Cambridge University, and the story of how I came to be 'associated' (and at this point I must confess that my usage of that word was overwhelmingly forced upon me by my lacking at this time of any better term I could--and most certainly would--use) with those two men (aliens, really, for they come from a totally different planet to mine) I faithfully recorded for posterity in real time--meaning that the story of that brief 'association' of ours I recorded online exactly as it was taking place, a few years ago. Now, I just want to tell you that regardless if you have read that story before or not, at this point I would be absolutely thrilled if you would take the time to read it now. It is available on this blog in exactly the same form as it has always been, amongst the 14 posts I published this year in the month of April. Here I will drop the links to the three posts that covered that story: http://remusporadin.blogspot.com.au/2016/04/an-unplanned-introduction-to-next.html http://remusporadin.blogspot.com.au/2016/04/from-double-dutch-to-epiphany-story-of.html
http://remusporadin.blogspot.com.au/2016/04/open-lesson-on-greek-reasoning-for.html
Finally, for this particular mini-chapter of the story I intend to discuss with you today, there are three more remarks I want to make before going further into the last couple of emails I got from Selmke.
Firstly I want to tell you that in total spite of the catastrophically idiotic belief that "the [apparently sound concept of] image inversion by the lens of the eye" playing any role in a valid explanation for the commonly observed existence of two reversely related spectra (in the forms of one Newtonian half--which has long been understood as being the objective ROYGBV display--plus its other half, in the form of the so-called subjective VBGYOR display, when any given conventional physicist is pushed to give an explanation for that duality of spectra, invariably and immediately she resorts to that idiotic belief without ever giving it the proper consideration of how exactly that feat could really, truly be made to work. Now, in total contrast to the conventional physicist, when it comes to how the common thinker reacts when confronted with the same issue, it usually takes him/her about two minutes, tops, before firmly discarding the idea as totally inadequate to satisfactorily resolve the issue of spectral reversal. This is exactly what I had told Steve Dutch when he--invariably, as I was saying a moment ago--came up with the same argument years ago. But in addition to that I also said that if he wanted to know how the common thinker managed to satisfactorily do that he, Steve Dutch, would either have to ask me, or dare me, in order to tell him. (Of course, he did neither.) Now and here, therefore, I will offer Markus Selmke exactly the same opportunity to find out how the common thinker does that. Otherwise I, on the other hand, will both ask and dare him to tell me how they do it, on their conventional planet. The game is on, and it will start in exactly 49 seconds from now.
Secondly I want to make clear, once and for all, the truth about Selmke's unceasing accusations that I never care to read the conventional literature on the subjects I choose to tackle. Now let me tell you, not him, what the truth of the matter is on this topic. The absolute truth about that is that on every little issue I confront in my work I amass and carefully study pretty much every bit of conventional literature that is available online in at least the first twenty or thirty pages of Google. (In fact on some of the subtler issues I tackle I go much, much further than that, still.) So much so that over the years I have gathered into my computer, and also stored in a number of clouds and other external repositories, an enormous amount of literature and data. (To that end I'm readily willing to bet, in fact, that I have at my disposal a greater amount of conventional literature that Selmke does.) That's why every little piece of literature he had sent me, I had gathered myself long before he came into my picture. I even collected and studied pretty much every bit of work he himself had done, before I decided to send him an email. (After all, how on earth does he think that I came across his name in the first place--and, even more importantly, on what basis does he think that I'd decided to write him the first email I did? Come on, dude, start thinking, before jumping--without any real evidence--to foolish conclusions and buffoonish declarations! After all, by now you should have learned that anyone with that kind of propensity sooner or later will get burnt. And many a time badly burnt. In fact, you should begin right now to pay heed to this free Greek advice: Think more, read less!)
Finally, on this second point, I believe that I can figure out why Markus Selmke is so convinced that I do not study the conventional body of either the theoretical or the empirical evidence behind the reigning theories in physics. I believe that it is due to his own interpretation of what I had said at the end of the only video I had asked Markus to watch. What I'd said there were words to this effect:
This video was made by Remus Poradin, who--as always--never cared to listen very seriously at the old Newtonian caper that forms the basis of rainbow understanding, even though it continues to be pushed around by conventional zealots as the correct theory in optics in this year of 2016 AD.
Something like that I had said on the last scene of that video, and that is the only conceivable piece of data that could have driven Markus Selmke to his absolute confidence that that must be the whole truth of that matter. That and his pretty obvious inherent inability to choose wisely the closest path to the real one, which usually is the demarcation bollard between the leading minority and the mediocre majority in any field of endeavour. (You know what I mean? If you're not sure that you either do, or in fact if you alternatively believe that you wouldn't because you shouldn't, let me give you a bit of info about the causes that had driven me to write what I had--for, after all, I am again the only person who knows the truth of that matter.)
There are two facts of relevance behind the whole issue. One is the fact that I only began studying atmospheric optics on the 1st of January 2015. The other is that, in stark contrast to the first, I began studying the Newtonian optics in September 1990 and by the end of 1997 I knew beyond the shadow of a doubt that the entire theory was fatally flawed. Now, with this (kind of) new information in mind, read again my (approximate) citation above of the final caption from the video How to recreate a perfect image of a double rainbow in the lab. (Or, better still, just watch the video again.)
On the 12th of December I replied thus:
Oh, Markus Selmke...
Do you want to continue this discussion publicly online? Let me know. We can start straightaway.
A few hours later I received the following:
I hope you understand that for obvious reasons I do not want to be associated with you. A publication qualifies as an open / public discussion. This is the kind of discussion I engage in. This, and conferences / meetings are the form of public and open scientific debate. This is the process which has been proven to work and you are most welcome to participate and submit your work there. Your publication attempt shows that you wish to do so. I hope the referee reports will point you in a similar direction as I have tried without much success.
I do not care about rude conspiracy blogs. There are too many of those out there (cf. hollow earth theory blogs, chem-trail blogs, ...), and the least thing I’d want is to grant them an aura of credibility by participating in a “discussion” on such a “stage”.
By all rights, however, the truth is that by the time we had finished reading the email we both should have been not merely fuming, but indeed blowing long beams of fire through the nose, like any other decent but really pissed off dragon out there! Now I do not intend at all to spend any more time talking about the imbecilic comments of Dr. Markus Selmke--conventional fool-buffoon. For any valid wants and purposes it suffices to only touch (very briefly) on a couple of the real issues of attention and concern, which--btw--Selmke did not manage to get even a hint of a smell of. So, let's get into those right now, for time is certainly most precious these days.
It is absolutely mind boggling that Selmke, for whatever reason (which I couldn't be bothered to even consider speculating about--let alone doing it for real) is totally oblivious to the fact that everything in my article on Newton's flawed theory of light and colours is strictly referring to observations conducted in those so-called subjective prismatic experiments. So much so that for the life of me I just cannot comprehend how a Princeton PhD, who furthermore is an Optics specialist, couldn't figure out merely from looking at the original drawing of Newton's first experiment published in his Opticks, and which is also the experiment and picture I had used myself as reference on the first page of my article, was such a bloody obvious subjective prismatic experiment. He should have figured that out even if he didn't read even one word from that article! Nonetheless, the fool-buffoon didn't even manage to get that, let alone anything else. So, as a direct consequence of that infantile gaffe, everything he said at points 1 and 3 (in a most condescending tone and manner, too) is totally irrelevant to my work on the subject. That's why, as I always made sure to clarify for any other potential imbecile (of the same, or very similar kind to Selmke himself) that it is directly observable that only in subjective prismatic experiments the colours red and blue refract in opposite directions, while the colours yellow and green do not refract at all in those experiments. Nonetheless, in total spite to all the precautions I took in order to prevent a similar monumental blunder happening to anyone, there is no possibility of denying the fact that Selmke himself has fallen prey to his own genetic predisposition for foolishness. Moreover, since a wise, ancient Romanian proverb says that a fool is not foolish enough if he is not proud as well, Selmke (who's German, not Romanian... or Greek) could just not help himself to unwittingly reinforce the validity of the common wisdom, managing thus in the process to become a buffoon, as well. Unsurprisingly, therefore, he immediately marched like a peacock from one trap directly into another, chanting in a loud voice for everyone to hear, an old and very familiar slogan to us:
Your argumentation neglects the image inversion by the lens of the eye.
Who can try now to convince us that contrary to the general opinion history doesn't ever repeat itself? Us two, in fact, have been fortunate enough to have seen with our own eyes how easily history does repeat itself, and most times, more than once. For those who've read my work in entirety there should certainly come immediately to their mind the name Steven Dutch, and most likely also the name of a Nobel Prize winner, whose surname has long ago been given to a certain kind of junction--a Josephson junction, to be exact. The Josephson part of that particular type of junction comes from the full name of Professor Emeritus Dr. Brian Josephson, of Cambridge University, and the story of how I came to be 'associated' (and at this point I must confess that my usage of that word was overwhelmingly forced upon me by my lacking at this time of any better term I could--and most certainly would--use) with those two men (aliens, really, for they come from a totally different planet to mine) I faithfully recorded for posterity in real time--meaning that the story of that brief 'association' of ours I recorded online exactly as it was taking place, a few years ago. Now, I just want to tell you that regardless if you have read that story before or not, at this point I would be absolutely thrilled if you would take the time to read it now. It is available on this blog in exactly the same form as it has always been, amongst the 14 posts I published this year in the month of April. Here I will drop the links to the three posts that covered that story: http://remusporadin.blogspot.com.au/2016/04/an-unplanned-introduction-to-next.html http://remusporadin.blogspot.com.au/2016/04/from-double-dutch-to-epiphany-story-of.html
http://remusporadin.blogspot.com.au/2016/04/open-lesson-on-greek-reasoning-for.html
Finally, for this particular mini-chapter of the story I intend to discuss with you today, there are three more remarks I want to make before going further into the last couple of emails I got from Selmke.
Firstly I want to tell you that in total spite of the catastrophically idiotic belief that "the [apparently sound concept of] image inversion by the lens of the eye" playing any role in a valid explanation for the commonly observed existence of two reversely related spectra (in the forms of one Newtonian half--which has long been understood as being the objective ROYGBV display--plus its other half, in the form of the so-called subjective VBGYOR display, when any given conventional physicist is pushed to give an explanation for that duality of spectra, invariably and immediately she resorts to that idiotic belief without ever giving it the proper consideration of how exactly that feat could really, truly be made to work. Now, in total contrast to the conventional physicist, when it comes to how the common thinker reacts when confronted with the same issue, it usually takes him/her about two minutes, tops, before firmly discarding the idea as totally inadequate to satisfactorily resolve the issue of spectral reversal. This is exactly what I had told Steve Dutch when he--invariably, as I was saying a moment ago--came up with the same argument years ago. But in addition to that I also said that if he wanted to know how the common thinker managed to satisfactorily do that he, Steve Dutch, would either have to ask me, or dare me, in order to tell him. (Of course, he did neither.) Now and here, therefore, I will offer Markus Selmke exactly the same opportunity to find out how the common thinker does that. Otherwise I, on the other hand, will both ask and dare him to tell me how they do it, on their conventional planet. The game is on, and it will start in exactly 49 seconds from now.
Secondly I want to make clear, once and for all, the truth about Selmke's unceasing accusations that I never care to read the conventional literature on the subjects I choose to tackle. Now let me tell you, not him, what the truth of the matter is on this topic. The absolute truth about that is that on every little issue I confront in my work I amass and carefully study pretty much every bit of conventional literature that is available online in at least the first twenty or thirty pages of Google. (In fact on some of the subtler issues I tackle I go much, much further than that, still.) So much so that over the years I have gathered into my computer, and also stored in a number of clouds and other external repositories, an enormous amount of literature and data. (To that end I'm readily willing to bet, in fact, that I have at my disposal a greater amount of conventional literature that Selmke does.) That's why every little piece of literature he had sent me, I had gathered myself long before he came into my picture. I even collected and studied pretty much every bit of work he himself had done, before I decided to send him an email. (After all, how on earth does he think that I came across his name in the first place--and, even more importantly, on what basis does he think that I'd decided to write him the first email I did? Come on, dude, start thinking, before jumping--without any real evidence--to foolish conclusions and buffoonish declarations! After all, by now you should have learned that anyone with that kind of propensity sooner or later will get burnt. And many a time badly burnt. In fact, you should begin right now to pay heed to this free Greek advice: Think more, read less!)
Finally, on this second point, I believe that I can figure out why Markus Selmke is so convinced that I do not study the conventional body of either the theoretical or the empirical evidence behind the reigning theories in physics. I believe that it is due to his own interpretation of what I had said at the end of the only video I had asked Markus to watch. What I'd said there were words to this effect:
This video was made by Remus Poradin, who--as always--never cared to listen very seriously at the old Newtonian caper that forms the basis of rainbow understanding, even though it continues to be pushed around by conventional zealots as the correct theory in optics in this year of 2016 AD.
Something like that I had said on the last scene of that video, and that is the only conceivable piece of data that could have driven Markus Selmke to his absolute confidence that that must be the whole truth of that matter. That and his pretty obvious inherent inability to choose wisely the closest path to the real one, which usually is the demarcation bollard between the leading minority and the mediocre majority in any field of endeavour. (You know what I mean? If you're not sure that you either do, or in fact if you alternatively believe that you wouldn't because you shouldn't, let me give you a bit of info about the causes that had driven me to write what I had--for, after all, I am again the only person who knows the truth of that matter.)
There are two facts of relevance behind the whole issue. One is the fact that I only began studying atmospheric optics on the 1st of January 2015. The other is that, in stark contrast to the first, I began studying the Newtonian optics in September 1990 and by the end of 1997 I knew beyond the shadow of a doubt that the entire theory was fatally flawed. Now, with this (kind of) new information in mind, read again my (approximate) citation above of the final caption from the video How to recreate a perfect image of a double rainbow in the lab. (Or, better still, just watch the video again.)
On the 12th of December I replied thus:
Oh, Markus Selmke...
Do you want to continue this discussion publicly online? Let me know. We can start straightaway.
A few hours later I received the following:
I hope you understand that for obvious reasons I do not want to be associated with you. A publication qualifies as an open / public discussion. This is the kind of discussion I engage in. This, and conferences / meetings are the form of public and open scientific debate. This is the process which has been proven to work and you are most welcome to participate and submit your work there. Your publication attempt shows that you wish to do so. I hope the referee reports will point you in a similar direction as I have tried without much success.
I do not care about rude conspiracy blogs. There are too many of those out there (cf. hollow earth theory blogs, chem-trail blogs, ...), and the least thing I’d want is to grant them an aura of credibility by participating in a “discussion” on such a “stage”.
OK Markus, not a problem. However, I want to let you know that I will nonetheless make public all of our correspondence, for the world needs to see more conventional "pearls of wisdom", and yours are some of the best.
I will then contact your blog hoster to get my private communication removed.
Otherwise, oh, well, so be it. Have your fun...
Last thing: Maybe this helps you understand A’s dark band and its near-field characteristics? (its a ray tracing calculation based on nothing more than geometry and Snell’s law of refraction, computed for an index of refraction of n=1.33 and a typical spherical water-filled 250mL Florence flask. Second image: acrylic sphere, n=1.49):
(Just for the records: you may not use these images without my permission. It is for the sole purpose of helping you)
as an addendum to my last and final email: you may, if you want, refer to http://photonicsdesign.jimdo.com/physics-at-home/…
BTW: those “sketches” you see are raytracings. Also in the last e-mail, which contained the pdf vector-files. This means: you can actually confirm, if you’d care, that each refraction conforms with Snell’s law, i.e. n_1*sin(alpha_1)=n_2*sin(alpha_2), where the angles are measured to the normal of the interface. That is, you can confirm quantitatively (again, assuming you cared about quantitative science instead of metaphysical talk) that the depicted ray-paths are correct according to the laws of geometrical optics. However, I would not be enturely surprised if you also came to the conclusion that Snell’s law of refraction is false.
On my page, I have tried the best I can, to illustrate physically correct the mechanism of A’s dark band and the difficulty in producing it with artificial raindrops (i.e. water-filled spherical flasks or small drops). And the difference to the acrylic sphere case…
Regards,
Markus
Markus, you seem to be a nice man, beneath the self-assumed superiority you're so obstinately display, so I take this opportunity to genuinely advise you to think very carefully before speaking in statements. Trust me, you will regret so badly that you haven't done it already, and I will not enjoy it at all to see that, despite of what you probably think.
Instead of uttering threats, or whatever that was, why don't you try to stay with reason and arguments? Or did you run out of any already?
i do not care if you like me. i'd care more about seeing you address the very specific points i have raised and read the literature i've send you...
For instance all the articles (and by now there are numerous observations all over the world) analyzing the photographs of 3rd&4th order rainbows, the 5th and the 7th. I assume their explanations are also wrong despite appearing (and having been predicted) exactly where Descartes theory tells us?
So Dr. Markus Selmke wants to hear my arguments (if I have any). Okay, then, let me start with this one, first.
To anyone who nurtures a belief that she was naturally blessed with a genuine physicist's gut, there is one ominous thing, amongst all other conventional things that have long been on public display, which shouldn't have escaped her (if indeed she's been blessed with the gut of a physicist). Do you know what that ominous thing is?
But, surely, anyone with the gut of a physicist must think, at some point: "Hang on, mate. Rainbows happen at 6 am, when the sun is barely above the horizon. Where does a ray of sunlight enter the raindrop then? How is it thereafter coming back into the eye of the Cartesian observer? Hmmm... I don't know, but what I do know is where to start investigating this problem. I shall start by physically replicating Descartes' own theoretical description."
And that is exactly what I did, only to find out that if you do that the image that any observer will see is that of an upside-down arched rainbow! Can you believe that? No? Then show me how you do it Descartes' way.
So, until that time will come, Markus Selmke (and all the other Cartesian-Newtonians out there) should throw their academic garbs away, dress in rags from this point on and cover their heads with dust for the entire duration of their mourning.
That's all for now, for this post is already too long. I'll see you on Day 6, which I promise you that is going to be special. Take care, think more, read less.
No comments:
Post a Comment