The next day after posting Collaboration Day 5 I receive yet another email from Markus Selmke:
Dear Remus,
I have read your “blog entry”. And I must confess that it is everything I expected it to be. It is a mere collection of insults (“fool”: 13 times, “buffoon": 5 times, …) with no displayed attempt to address specific points. Lots of argumentum ad hominem, i.e. the last rhetoric recourse people take if they run out of real arguments.
So, in addition to having contacted your Blog-provider for violation of their guidelines, I’ll just quickly address the only meaningful points you brought up:
1)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.
“Subjective experiments” are not physics. It is just as simple as that. Therefore I save my time to further comment on your conspiracy Newton paper.
2)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.”
When the sun is low light strikes almost parallel to the horizon and immerses the atmosphere above the observer in this manner with rays parallel to the horizon. You may even observe this fact in the form of the “Belt of Venus”, http://www.atoptics.co.uk/atoptics/earshad.htm
So I, and probably no one else pondering about rainbows in the evening or morning, see a problem here. There is none. There are even studies analyzing the coloring of rainbows in the evening hours due to enhanced Rayleigh scattering. All as expected, no conspiracy here, no new physics.
3) you show a video below this comment:
So Dr. Markus Selmke wants to hear my arguments (if I have any). Okay, then, let me start with this one, first.
You again show a rainbow from an acrylic sphere. Supported by funky music (to add credibility I assume?). I am not sure what you want to show with that, and I guess no one ones. It is all well-explained by Descartes’ theory. Nu puzzle here, no new physics. Just different rainbow angles due to the index of refraction being close to 1.47 instead of 1.33 for water. See https://arxiv.org/abs/1612.09563 or download MiePlot (http://www.philiplaven.com/mieplot.htm) and simulate for yourself (although this requires an understanding of Mie theory. Is it wrong, too?).
4)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.
Again, I think if you look up the meaning of “megalomania" you will pretty much find a lengthy description of just your statement above. Also: I have made my PhD in Leipzig, and a spent my Post-Doc at PU. Not that this matters anywhere in the discussion.
BTW:
5) you quite aggressively put claim that A’s dark band has never been created in the lab is plain false:
"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…”
See for instance, and those are just the tip of the iceberg (although I’m sure you’ve read them all already):
Fig. 8 of the attached paper Marston et al.
Or Fig.2 from Sassen et al.
The man just keeps coming back, for some reason, and every time he does it he manages to reveal more and more of the foolishness that is the general characteristic in any kind of blind conventional proselytism. But this is going to be the last time I will care to respond to anything concocted by the brain of Markus Selmke (either on these pages, or anywhere else) because the guy is so fundamentally brainwashed by those who are still (grossly, unlearnedly, ignorantly) lavishing in power, that he's got no a hope in hell to see the truth (in this lifetime, at least) in the field he has chosen (God knows for what kind of twistedly contorted reason).
Without any further ado, then, let's tackle the first issue in the email above.
“Subjective experiments” are not physics. It is just as simple as that. Therefore I save my time to further comment on your conspiracy Newton paper.
The issue of those so-called 'subjective prismatic experiments' is, much like everything else in the conventional physics, convolutedly knotty and tangled in ways no conventional physicist likes to discuss in any sensible or rational manner. But let me give you a concrete example of what I mean by that, for it truly is worth remembering the murky history of that subject.
Two hundred years ago, when Goethe attacked the Newtonian view of light and colours, he was forced to concede--upon being subjected to unrelenting pressure from the Newtonian proselytes of the day--that virtually the entire body of optical experiments he had conducted and invoked in his argumentation against Newton's theory was of a subjective nature. Newton's experiments, on the other hand, were by and large backed by experiments which were considered fundamentally objective, and this difference in itself was considered then (as now, incidentally) to be sufficiently persuasive and pertinent on its own as a definitively superior measure of validity in science.
In Newton's and Goethe's time subjective prismatic experiments were of course prismatic experiments in which the observing tool was the naked eye. Because of that reality one could quite easily argue that any observation in which the naked eye played the final role cannot be anything else but subjective in nature, and towards that end one could just as easily bring forward a host of proofs that apparently fully justified the conventional view.
Now, the most interesting artefact of that old reasoning was (and, alas, still is in the conventional quarters) that the reason for the spectral display in a subjective prismatic observation being inversely oriented relative to the display seen in a so-called objective prismatic observation apparently due to the inversion of the image by the lens of the eye! Remember that argument? Yes, it was just a month ago that yet another conventional physicist (and a contemporaneous one, not someone from Goethe's time) by the name of Markus Selmke, was invoking that ancient and totally fallacious line of reasoning in a stupid attempt to find some justification for yet another grotesque claim of the conventional powers! 350 years ago, when Newton observed that when you look with the naked eye through a prism at a source of light, the distribution of the colours in the spectrum is fully inverse to the distribution of the colours in the spectrum projected on a screen he merely said that "Prismaticall colours appeare in the eye in a contrary order to that in which they fall on the paper". His followers, though, went further than that. They declared the observation by the naked eye as subjective (which was supposed to mean that they are not physics, just as M. S. said in his last email), then proceeded to dub the other prismatic experiment (in which the spectrum emerging from the prism is cast on a screen) as objective, and with that they have basically closed the gate in the face of any potential contestant since.
It's been a long time since those events, and many things have changed in dramatic ways in the meantime. For instance, the so-called subjective observation by the naked eye (which is illustrated ahead on the right) was proved to be in fact very objective, when the observation formerly seen only by the naked eye was confirmed many times over by such objective devices as photo cameras and video cameras. See below.
Now, in view of the so many and the so radical developments and advances in the nature of how prismatic observations are conducted today, one would think that at least at this point in time our contemporary physicists would make time to reconsider the primitive conventional views of 300 years ago. Well, one would presumably think so, but one would be wrong if one did. Badly wrong, in fact, for in spite of the great number of monumental changes in the nature of observing, monitoring and recording of prismatic experimentation, nothing at all has been even discussed by those who are meant to be responsible for the progress and evolution of humanity, let alone reconsidered and changed by the current mob of rulers in the science of conventional physics. So much so that even if one uses the best camera in the world to record the results of a prismatic experiment, one is flatly told by those physicists made of conventional dough that the end product is still merely just a subjective observation--and that therefore that is not physics, as M. S. declares without batting even an eyelid. So much so that even in the case of the observations that form the meat of the so-called paper I had written--the one that M. S. says about: Therefore I save my time to further comment on your conspiracy Newton paper--I had no choice but to follow the reigning protocol and refer to all as subjective observations. So much so that even when an astronomer takes a picture of the heavens through his telescope, he still conducts a subjective observation--which is not physics! So much so that when one uses an apparatus with a prism through which one looks at the spectrum generated by some element in order to identify it precisely, one does merely conduct yet another subjective observation--which, M. S. says is not even physics!
When the sun is low light strikes almost parallel to the horizon and immerses the atmosphere above the observer in this manner with rays parallel to the horizon. You may even observe this fact in the form of the “Belt of Venus”, http://www.atoptics.co.uk/atoptics/earshad.htm
So I, and probably no one else pondering about rainbows in the evening or morning, see a problem here. There is none. There are even studies analyzing the coloring of rainbows in the evening hours due to enhanced Rayleigh scattering. All as expected, no conspiracy here, no new physics.
It never ceases to dumbfound me how disgustingly wrong the conventional physics is in a myriad of issues and a thousand places, yet how it seems that their conventional guardians appear to remain deliberately oblivious to its gigantic blunders and continue to nonchalantly bath themselves, full and all, in incomprehensibly murky and dingy potholes of shit, as happily as the dirtiest breed of pigs on the planet. Read carefully what I say (in green) then what MS says (in red) and when you're sure that you understood everything said, please look at the pictures below.
Now, according to the conventional 'wisdom' (to which MS is by all accounts totally and hopelessly addicted) those white lines with embedded arrows that are depicted in the first and second pictures above are supposedly creating the early morning rainbows, and that's apparently how sunlight still manages to enter the raindrops like in Descartes' original depiction (which you have seen in our last post, and which I will show again below, for convenience).
Now let me say the following: This is without doubt one of the stupidest and most idiotic attempts at any scientific explanation that I have ever been fortunate enough to see with my own two eyes! Do you happen to know why I said that? Take your time and think for a little while about why I so firmly said that, for I find it very hard to believe that there is anyone on this Earth at all who couldn't see the sheer fallacy of the conventional 'argument' above pretty much straight off one's bat, to be absolutely honest. In the meantime I will roll myself a durry and ponder for a while on Einstein's feeling that the only infinite thing in the Universe is the human stupidity.
OK, I'm back and ready to lay down all the relevant cards on the issue. Not only that, I will also make it all very short and swift, for there are still plenty of subjects I want to talk with you about in this post.
In order for any rainbow to be created there is imperative that a copy-image of the Sun does physically exist (in miniature, of course) somewhere inside a raindrop. There is no other way for any rainbow to exist. And then there is another absolute reality in the matter at stake: the simple fact that that is no way that such rays as those that supposedly immerse the atmosphere above the observer (those drawn in white and embedded with arrows in the first couple of the three relevant pictures above) can possibly create a copy-image of the sun inside any raindrop! Think about it, for Zeus' sake, and it shouldn't be too hard at all to see that the only way for a copy-image of the Sun to enter a raindrop is by a ray that travels directly from the Sun to the raindrop, as I've depicted in yellow in the second of the three relevant pictures above. That's why I have also posted above that third picture, which shows four real examples of the Sun's images contained inside raindrops. After all how on Earth can you capture an image of any source of light displayed on any kind of screen, without having the source directly aligned with the screen in the first place! Think about it, as I've said a moment ago.
So Dr. Markus Selmke wants to hear my arguments (if I have any). Okay, then, let me start with this one, first.
You again show a rainbow from an acrylic sphere. Supported by funky music (to add credibility I assume?). I am not sure what you want to show with that, and I guess no one ones. It is all well-explained by Descartes’ theory. Nu puzzle here, no new physics. Just different rainbow angles due to the index of refraction being close to 1.47 instead of 1.33 for water. See https://arxiv.org/abs/1612.09563 or download MiePlot (http://www.philiplaven.com/mieplot.htm) and simulate for yourself (although this requires an understanding of Mie theory. Is it wrong, too?).
First of all, the sphere I have thus far used in my experiments is not made of acrylic--it is made of crystal quartz. Yes, Descartes' theory is wrong, Newton's theory is wrong, Mie theory is wrong, and in fact just about everything else that is currently upheld as the truth in the subjects of optics, and light and colour theory, is monumentally and fundamentally wrong to the core. So, Markus Selmke, you better start praying to your God that by the time the world will come to finally see the truth in those matters you will be hopefully already departed into the neverending plains of eternal bliss and contemplation. Otherwise you will have to eat so much humble pie that you'll beg even Satan to offer you a place in his Hell.
And, then, second of all, watch this music-less video to see that even a flask like that that is commonly used by today's conventionalists involved in atmospheric optics produces the same result as my crystal ball. How about that, hey Markus?
Again, I think if you look up the meaning of “megalomania" you will pretty much find a lengthy description of just your statement above. Also: I have made my PhD in Leipzig, and a spent my Post-Doc at PU. Not that this matters anywhere in the discussion.
Now, in regard to this particular comment of MS I shouldn't even raise my always bored eyebrow, for if anyone cares to check, my own comment (shown in green) is in regard to who knows best about what I had--or had not--read.
"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…”
See for instance, and those are just the tip of the iceberg (although I’m sure you’ve read them all already):
Fig. 8 of the attached paper Marston et al.
Or Fig.2 from Sassen et al.
We are finally reached the last point of contention from MS, and I can tell you that I'm more than happy to be able to just show you the two figures that are supposed to show me that Alexander's Dark Band has been created in the conventional labs a long time ago. Here they come, then, and until we will meet next I wish you a happy and productive time ahead. Take care.
No comments:
Post a Comment