One of the most reliable signs that a theory is correct is the seamless manner in which it provides explanations for observations other than those for which it had been originally created. Today we'll have a look at just such an example, which involves Alexander's Dark Band, and in the process of doing that we'll have a perfect opportunity to see how the conventional view on the issue fares against our own unconventional one.
The conventional view of what stands at the origin of Alexander's Dark Band is well known, and one can readily find it in any one of the myriad of webpages that populate the internet as representations of the currently mainstream understanding on the subject. Beside those there are also perhaps just as great a number of scientific papers on the same subject, although of course not all of them are freely available for the public. Interestingly (and totally incidentally, by the way) even the latest paper of our friend Dr. Markus Selmke deals basically with the same subject, and as we'll go along we'll refer to it on a couple of issues. (You can download the paper from here.)
Now, without going into too much detail let me drop below two depictions of the conventional explanation that is currently believed to be at the origin of Alexander's Dark Band. The first one comes from Wikipedia and the following one from Hyperphysics.
The conventional view of what stands at the origin of Alexander's Dark Band is well known, and one can readily find it in any one of the myriad of webpages that populate the internet as representations of the currently mainstream understanding on the subject. Beside those there are also perhaps just as great a number of scientific papers on the same subject, although of course not all of them are freely available for the public. Interestingly (and totally incidentally, by the way) even the latest paper of our friend Dr. Markus Selmke deals basically with the same subject, and as we'll go along we'll refer to it on a couple of issues. (You can download the paper from here.)
Now, without going into too much detail let me drop below two depictions of the conventional explanation that is currently believed to be at the origin of Alexander's Dark Band. The first one comes from Wikipedia and the following one from Hyperphysics.
Now there is only one thing that I want to say here in regards to the conventional view of what causes the dark band of Alexander, and that is the following. We continue to find absolutely incredible how poor is the conventional understanding of what exactly is conveyed by a so-called ray of light from the source of origin to any subsequent point in space. To our mind the answer to that is as simple and as clear as daylight: A ray of light conveys (carries) from the source of origin to all subsequent points in space the image (the entire image) of the source. This has been (since the very beginning of the conventional speculation on light) the most damaging of all the theoretical issues upon which the conventional view has been erected. As it's been standing, that issue is such a mess of 'reasoning' that until (and unless) it will be soundly resolved it will continue to wreak absolute havoc in the conventional minds. At this point, here and now, I do not want to spend too much time discussing this issue, for in the context of what we had planned for this post that topic is wholly irrelevant after all, as you shall see. One final thing I will say, though--that there is absolutely no way at all that Alexander's Dark Band is a consequence of the current mainstream 'reasoning'.
In stark contrast to the conventional view, which is entirely based on theory (speculation), our own understanding of the origins of Alexander's Dark Band is fully based on direct visual observation. To see what I mean you may want to watch once again our relevant video, which for your convenience I'll drop again below, or--otherwise--if you're confident that you have retained the most important points in it from watching it the first time around, you may overlook it here and proceed to have a look at the sequence of photos directly underneath it.
And now, as I was saying in the video, everything should be straightforwardly clear for any genuine observer (and common thinker). So much so that without any further ado from here I will jump straight to the relevant conclusions. Which are these:
Alexander's Dark Band, as well as the secondary rainbow, are generated by the reflection of the bow that is displayed on the concave back surface of the raindrop. (See below.)
Both the secondary rainbow and Alexander's Dark Band (in their fullness) appear (are displayed) before the primary rainbow, relative to the position of the Sun.
Think about these conclusions on your own, for after all we are collaborators, aren't we?😉
Just one more thing, before we'll go to the last point of this post. The most interesting aspect of our conclusions (especially of the first one) is that there have been others a long time ago who have suggested that Alexander's Dark Band was caused by the reflection of that bow. Alas, I do not know their names. Nevertheless, to them I'll say now in the best Australian way: Good on ya, mate! You have been vindicated (alas, as in most other cases, perhaps a little too late for any real comfort).
Finally we have arrived at the main reason of this post, and as with everything we have discussed on this page, I will be very brief and swift.
It's been observed both in the beams of searchlights, as well as in lighthouses' beams, that the order of the primary and secondary rainbows and Alexander's Dark Bands was rather 'un-custumory', according to the conventional beliefs and dogma. (See the two figures below.)
You can find and download the first paper, titled Double rainbow and dark band in searchlight beam, written by John Harsch and Jearl D. Walker, here.
As for the paper from where I extracted the second diagram, which is titled Optical phenomena and optical illusions near lighthouses, by C. Floor, you can find and download from here.
That's all I really had to say about those issues, but before drawing this post to a close I want to drop below two more pictures, which I had promised some time in the past that I will discuss and clarify. My late apologies notwithstanding, these two pictures below should make much more sense now. Think about it.
In stark contrast to the conventional view, which is entirely based on theory (speculation), our own understanding of the origins of Alexander's Dark Band is fully based on direct visual observation. To see what I mean you may want to watch once again our relevant video, which for your convenience I'll drop again below, or--otherwise--if you're confident that you have retained the most important points in it from watching it the first time around, you may overlook it here and proceed to have a look at the sequence of photos directly underneath it.
And now, as I was saying in the video, everything should be straightforwardly clear for any genuine observer (and common thinker). So much so that without any further ado from here I will jump straight to the relevant conclusions. Which are these:
Alexander's Dark Band, as well as the secondary rainbow, are generated by the reflection of the bow that is displayed on the concave back surface of the raindrop. (See below.)
Both the secondary rainbow and Alexander's Dark Band (in their fullness) appear (are displayed) before the primary rainbow, relative to the position of the Sun.
Think about these conclusions on your own, for after all we are collaborators, aren't we?😉
Just one more thing, before we'll go to the last point of this post. The most interesting aspect of our conclusions (especially of the first one) is that there have been others a long time ago who have suggested that Alexander's Dark Band was caused by the reflection of that bow. Alas, I do not know their names. Nevertheless, to them I'll say now in the best Australian way: Good on ya, mate! You have been vindicated (alas, as in most other cases, perhaps a little too late for any real comfort).
Finally we have arrived at the main reason of this post, and as with everything we have discussed on this page, I will be very brief and swift.
It's been observed both in the beams of searchlights, as well as in lighthouses' beams, that the order of the primary and secondary rainbows and Alexander's Dark Bands was rather 'un-custumory', according to the conventional beliefs and dogma. (See the two figures below.)
As for the paper from where I extracted the second diagram, which is titled Optical phenomena and optical illusions near lighthouses, by C. Floor, you can find and download from here.
That's all I really had to say about those issues, but before drawing this post to a close I want to drop below two more pictures, which I had promised some time in the past that I will discuss and clarify. My late apologies notwithstanding, these two pictures below should make much more sense now. Think about it.
No comments:
Post a Comment