Collaboration Day 10

There are not many things—if any—more dangerous in any quest for the truth than conventionality and dogma, and today we’ll begin by giving you a couple of concrete examples of just how dangerous (stupid and dangerous, really) those two are, especially when they are working in tandem. For the common thinker, after all, the simplest connotations of the two words should suffice in convincing one that both come right from the beginning with destructively unacceptable conditions. In effect, both conventionality and dogma, by definition, vehemently oppose originality and impose unjustifiable boundaries, which are things that need no further qualifications to deter any sound mind from letting itself to be bound by them. And then there is of course another sick and ugly consequential fact when conventionality plus dogma are the underlying forces in any intellectual endeavour: censorship. Now, on that topic let us be clear about one thing—that in this day and age there is no censorship in the traditional sciences only a Markus Selmke can be blind enough to not see it and deaf enough to not hear it. The rest of the world, however, is neither blind nor deaf, so it knows better—and we, along with it, should thus conclude today’s introduction: Thank God, and Lucifer, for the existence of the Internet.

Let us now have a look at the screenshot below.

Read carefully the ‘explanation’ given and then tell me if you are buying it. We (the Greek and I) haven’t stopped laughing since we first came across it, a year ago. What can we say? We love it! Especially the brilliant piece of observation of Marko: “I have noticed that Nautococcus coronas become circular at midday sun elevations”. No shit!! (Sorry, we couldn’t help ourselves;)

Anyway, these days we wonder what might have created our own (black-red arrow marked) elongated ellipse below.

But let us continue, for there is more, and there is fun. Let us have a look next at the Jovian puzzle below.

Interesting, isn’t it? I mean in spite of the lower sequence above, which “shows that the aureole presence, size and shape is cloud related”! Why? Because apparently “those from high object should always be circular”. (Talking about conventionality and dogma.)

Then let us think next what could have created the elliptical halo below.

Now this apparently rare elliptical halo is very interesting, from our point of view (and we’re not kidding this time). Not because it is elliptical (for in as far as we are concerned the elliptical shape is a non-issue), but because this particular halo contains two rings, and especially because other halos can apparently have even three. It is this issue that holds our interest in the subject, for we believe that we can provide a beautiful explanation for it. We may talk about that a little later, but for now let us have a good look at the picture below.

The streetlights in this picture seem to have halos as well—albeit, not elliptical—and all their halos distinctly show two rings each. This is not a trivial matter by any means, and we shall come back to it at some point. For now, though we’d like to show you the final two screenshots on the subject of oval/elliptical atmospheric phenomena. These two final screenshots are dealing with coronas.

It is time to conclude this first part in the 10th Day of our collaborative endeavour, and we shall begin to do that by reminding us all what is arguably the best advice for any diligent physicist: KISS. Now, in regard to that I can truthfully testify that we—my Greek and I—have both striven to respect and follow since the very first day of our involvement in the quest. Which is only natural for us, since we are both neither more nor less than common thinkers. And as a direct testimony of that truth, we invite you next to examine below, at your own leisure, our visual props on the subject we have discussed thus far.

From time to time I visit two physics forums (namely physics.stackexchange.com and https://www.physicsforums.com/) to see what and how our conventional physicists are dealing with at any given time. I’ve been doing this since the day I had returned to the Internet, some 10 or 11 years ago. Occasionally I also take screenshots of threads I find poignantly interesting, as it happens, and on even rarer occasions I post a question or offer an answer. Needless to say, none of my offerings is ever welcomed, which is loudly evident by the fact that virtually all of my postings are swiftly deleted by moderators, usually within minutes. Of course, these days such events do not touch me even at some purely metaphysical level of any imaginary kind—let alone at some tangibly physical one, as such. After all I believe that anyone can evolve to develop a very, very thick skin after being for half a century in the opposition of just about everything the overwhelming majority of the world is following at any given time. In fact, these days I look forward to see how the current moderating guards of the physics forums are exercising their conventional powers. A couple of things, for example, never cease to amaze me about them. First is the incredible amount of time they spend within the digital boundaries of their respective sites. Second is the even more incredible load of the same old shit they dig in and out for years and years on end, for some conceivable purpose, I guess, which nonetheless I myself cannot ever fathom, I’m sure!

Now, it so happens that this morning I took a quick stroll through the relatively new threads at https://www.physicsforums.com/ and there I found, amongst the usual crap, a little gem worth talking about. You can see it below in all its unrewarded glory, and then I’ll tell you a little more about it.

Now, when I found this little gem (as I called it) I wanted to send KaylaT a message of personal approval—since I myself have arrived at the same conclusion, through a combination of theoretical reasoning and experimental evidence—but unfortunately she had left this forum immediately after posting this thread (which happened to be her only one, as well). Interestingly, though, from the little bit of information she had left on her profile it seems that she was a physicist herself. From my own personal point of view that is important, for although I have made the same claim in good faith myself, I would nonetheless love to either see some corroborating evidence from other sources, or alternatively to conduct my own experiments with better gear than the one I had had to use in the experiment below.

To a certain degree I am quite surprised that her post did not attract a greater array of answers and opposition than those two meaningless contributions above, which kind of made me think in a somewhat preferential manner—if you know what I mean. Also surprising has been Selmke’s silence in regards to my video, which I know he has watched, even if only for a minute or so. Now, if there is anyone who does definitely have access to top gear, I’m sure he is. However, since I had promised my Greek about two weeks ago that I will ignore MS indefinitely, I had to keep my promise (even though he, MS, continues to this day to send me messages).

Anyway, at this point I’d like to show you my last offering to https://www.physicsforums.com/, which took place a while ago and of course suffered the same fate as all the others. Then, after that, we shall change gear and drive in a new direction. Stay with us.

Two things I want to say before embarking on a new direction. First: I hate it when a conventional physicist can forbid me from challenging the mainstream science without being able himself to spell challenge. Second: We will touch on the subject of my deleted post above as a part of our today’s journey.

If you want to see how the combination of conventionality and dogma are constraining the free flow of originality in today’s world, I’d advise you to google something like “refraction in water” and then go to have a look straight to the images page to see the results in a visual format. To us it was a rather disturbing experience to see that hundreds upon hundreds of images showed pretty much the same thing in relation to the simplest demonstrations of how objects are refracted in water. In essence all those many pictures were very much like the picture below, in spite of using different props—like pencils, spoons, drinking straws, etc.

Now you may wonder why that fact was a “disturbing” experience for our liking, but I am sure that in a few short moments you may wonder no more.

You see, a few years ago now we had come across the picture below, and upon reading the conventional explanation—or rather the lack of it, in any acceptable manner—we were astonished to see the apparent overwhelming difficulty it presented for the conventional mind.

I can tell you that to us the explanation for the observation above was a real walk in a park. Moreover, I can also tell you with a healthy degree of confidence that the real explanation for the refracted otter has absolutely nothing to do with the tales listed above. Moreover still, I believe that if we’ll show you a picture and a little video, we have made with exactly that purpose in mind, you should be able yourself to see the correct explanation for that ‘mysterious’ refraction’ without either of us having to say one word as a helping cue. In any event, we should really try this little exercise, don’t you think?