Collaboration Day 8

Today
we'll talk about a number of issues, and hopefully we shall be able to accommodate in this post all the subjects I have prepared and listed on my Desktop for the best part of the day (they are quite a few). And we'll start with perhaps the most important piece in my body of work—my own experimentum crucis. Which is so simple, and yet so far reaching, that I shall never understand how it escaped the attention of the world for three and a half centuries. Now, since I have written about it in the past (a couple of times, in fact), we'll be scarce in the written information but rich enough in the visual one to successfully convey the necessary message without that many gaps and misses as to make it—for all genuine intents and purposes—too much of a struggle even for those with the best intentions and desire to decode it.

My own experimentum crucis

Led by a line of reasoning that shall remain unmentioned, I lay on a flat surface a one-word message on a piece of paper and then I placed my eye of observation on the same plane and at the same level to see what it could see exactly. Then, after becoming satisfied with the the result, I slid in front of my observing eye a triangular prism—when, lo, my people, and behold—I saw the message that my Greek had earlier suggested!

With this little piece of knowledge safely in my mind I then thought for a little while about one of Newton's unanswered observations and thus immediately I substituted my Greek's message above with a personal little image of a spectrum and then recorded the now expected observations for you, amongst the others.

Finally, completely pleased with the results, and fully confident in what message they were revealing to the both of us, I typed above the pictures I had taken “This is our own experimentum crucis” and then I drew below them—very much like I will do it here—three other pictures that were destined to carry forward the message of our common effort in the field.

(There is very sound reason about why I drew three pictures instead of just two, but since I hope that you'll conduct the observations drawn in the three pictures above, that very sound reason shall remain unmentioned. However, rest assured that if you do conduct the given observations, you'll figure out in no time at all why there I drew three pictures, and not two.)

Remember Dr. Markus' absolutist assertion that those so-called subjective observations are simply and decidedly not part of physics? Although of course about that he is certainly just another conventional follower of a living trend who's marching in complete obedience along with all the others, the fact is that when it comes to their supreme commander—Newton—I cannot for the life of me remember him saying anything at all along the same line. And come to think of it, how could he, when the very core of all his understanding was based on the complete equivalence purported to exist between what the eye sees to unfold while looking through the prism, to what at the other end a screen is seen to intercept after a beam of light is passing through the prism. Indeed, it's long been understood that when the eye of an observer looks directly through a prism at a beam of light, it will see that the spectral colours are 'bending' in exactly the same mode and fashion as they appear to do when the resulting spectrum is cast on a screen. On this apparent common behaviour alone one surely cannot go even an inch further than most reasonably thinking and expecting that there must be a deeply ingrained connection between what happens in those so-called subjective observations and those so-called, on the other hand, objective.

Now Newton, as the story goes, concluded that in subjective experiments the spectral colours appear refracted to the naked eye in the same order as they seemed to do in objective experiments: from red (which was the least refracted) to orange, yellow, green, blue and ultimately to violet, which was refracted the most. And then, he stipulated further, that the amount by which each colour was refracted was determined by Snell's Law. (I highlighted the part in question because it's quintessential to the entire theory.) About that central issue, nonetheless, one thing is certainly very much worthy of specification. That is that when Newton assigned the quantitative amount of refraction of each spectral colour to Snell's formula, he only ever did it in the case of those so-called objective experiments! And, thus, as a direct consequence the former deeply ingrained connection between subjective and objective observations was lost once again. And, furthermore, thus the conventional Newtonians have found yet again a reason to irreconcilably separate the two different kinds of observation (and experimentation) and in the process to declare those of the so-called subjective kind not a part of physics.

There is no doubt that the distribution of the spectral colours in any beam/ray of light is longitudinal, straddling from violet to red as it's illustrated above. The conventional establishment may be as much aghast against the idea as they like, but we are as absolutely certain about that as we are that it indubitably lives very much on highly borrowed time. The only reason that it still survives at the moment is because it's been for too long ruling like Putin has been in the contemporaneous Russia—with absolute power and with no strong, real opposition. For instance consider solely this undeniable fact: Of course, any kind of establishment could manage to control the state of the affairs in this so-called Free World if it have always had complete monopoly over all publishing and information media, over all teaching, preaching and impeaching institutions, as well as over the abysmal prevalence of ignorance, self-interest and chronic apathy of generally the entire world, from those at the very top to those at the very bottom. 

There is no doubt also that a beam, or ray of light, upon entering a triangular prism it changes its plane of propagation from a horizontal (longitudinal) one to one lying vertically (transversally) relative to its direction of travel. (See video below and then the picture underneath it.)

That is the difference between our understanding and the conventional one. As you can see there is no either room or need for Snell's Law, and that is not only more desirable from an Occam's razor perspective. Far more importantly, it is in fact demanded by our original realisation--that in those so-called subjective observations four of the spectral colours do not obey at all Snell's requirements. Effectively we have long ago proved that unlike in the claims of Newton's theory, in those so-called subjective observations the colours Red and Blue refract (bend) in opposite directions to each other, while, at the same time, the colours Yellow and Green do not refract at all from their original locations! 

Therefore we had no other choice but conclude that if Snell's Law was wrong on one side of the prism, it had to be likewise deficient and unreliable on the prism's other side too. So confident we were about that conclusion that we weren't even tempted to consider conducting Newton's own experimentum crucis in order to--say--verify directly if the Newtonian claims had any real substance, after all. Instead what we have done was this:

And on the side we also have done this:

That's all we've done on the subject at stake, and in as far as we're concerned like always the ball is once again in the conventional yard. Whatever they decide to do about these issues we truly do not care even one bit. However, as it has been invariably our experience for the last (Lucifer knows the full number) of years, it is most likely that they will not do one thing about this very, very thorny subject. 

Take for example none other conventionalist than the most recent one, Dr. MS, whom you should know almost as well as I myself have known. And I said almost because unlike you I had some extra privileges--to watch him hovering around for a while from an usual dark Google corner, which is routinely granted to web masters and the like, and usually from where you can see others without being seen yourself. What I can say about Dr. Markus is that on truly all accounts he has been as predictable and shallow as all (and I mean all) the other many (many) conventional Dr's I had been meeting in the decade, or so, since I've decided to become a real pain in their asses, egos and their mediocre brains. As I was saying, Dr. Markus S. came first into my bubble barking loudly, flexing all his available pocket full of muscles, undoubtedly convinced that he will crush my every little ordinary bone and flesh with his supposed and self-assumed conventional superiority and knowledge, before departing like some modern Cesar singing aloud "Veni, vidi, vici". But then, on the last day of our interaction, he came and watched less than a minute from the prismatic video above before leaving us so hurriedly and in such a profound silence that I completely missed the last sight of his laid down tail.

But I, in turn, had known all along what he himself knew nothing in response: I knew the Truth, while he knew merely a story. I knew that in my private universe there had been pretty much a new, real discovery occurring if not this week, then almost certainly the next day after. For anyone who comes without any real insightfulness or warning inside our private bubble, we'll always be either deluded souls, or perhaps mega creatures of megalomania, or rather more politely, I suppose, just plain and simple crackpots of one kind or other. To those of that kind of kind, however, my Greek's advice is worth its weight in gold: Beware and be very aware, my friend, about that fine--so fine--line that separates the real prophets from real buffoons. Beware and be very aware for no one else's sake but yours.

When I had showed Markus the picture of an upside down rainbow displayed on a screen when the conventional location where in accordance to the graphic depiction of Descartes' own theory the ray of sunlight is supposed to enter the raindrop in order to send to the eye of the observer a perfect image of a rainbow, he scoffingly riposted that it was all due to my using an acrylic sphere for the raindrop.

 Then, a few days later I showed Markus another picture of the same display of an upside down rainbow, even though this time around I used for a raindrop the favourite conventional round bottomed flask that has been used by atmospheric optics physicists for close to four hundred years now. 

Of course, this time around there came no longer any answer from Dr. MS, although I'm almost sure that he's still looking for some way to discredit this most troublesome reality, which otherwise flatly in plain English uncompromisingly renders Descartes' rainbow theory as yet another conventional physics myth.

Nevertheless, however desperately any physicist may be trying to find some flaw in the conspicuous rebuttal of yet another long reigning mainstream theory in which the full establishment has been unquestionably placing its complete faith, teaching and theoretical understanding on, there is one clear fact among Descartes' own theoretical understanding that not only prevents such act of pure desperation of ever coming to the rescue of the still reigning theory in question, but in fact totally demanding that the image of the rainbow that should rightfully be generated by the modus operandi that is both verbally and graphically depicted in Descartes' theory should be none other than exactly the one that's displayed in both pics shown above!

Now, before laying down the final, decisive factor that in the end must unquestionably determine which of the two contending pictures should be cast onto the screen? The one in which the image of the rainbow should stand fully erected, as depicted in Descartes' drawing?

Or rather in its upside-down version, as it had been earlier shown in those two previous pictures? 

The decisive answer in the matter has been lying around pretty much ever since day one, so to speak. Nevertheless, until today it has--unacceptably--escaped the scrutiny of all those that have been involved in the supposed continuous development of the mainstream understanding in the matter of concern since the times when none other than Descartes himself was physically roaming on the earthly fields four hundred years back, if you believe it. And that decisive answer should be inside-out understood by any half-decent would-be physicist, just like the daily bread and butter is for most. Alas, as I was saying a moment ago, for four hundred long--very long--years the answer of concern just lay about dormant and completely idle. In any case, that answer is the one pictured below. See if you can figure its role in the matter at least at this point in time. Good luck, then, I guess I should say.

Let us return now to what's perhaps the most important part of our current bit of collaboration. I am talking here about the longitudinal distribution of the spectral colours in any beam or ray of the white light, as it is understood to be by the majority of those working in the field.

Although the concept of a longitudinally propagating ray of light is openly rebuked by the physicists who are belonging to the mainstream/conventional views and understanding, the real evidence about the truth in the matter is overwhelmingly staked against them, to be sure. There is only one genuinely minor theoretical block behind which they most stubbornly continue to retreat every time they're pushed into a corner by someone of a hell raising predisposition (as indeed anyone of a  kind very much like our own is swiftly branded). That minor theoretical stumbling block, really, or better still, that conventional handicapper behind which those with mainstream views and leanings gather every time they're challenged is officially called not longitudinal propagation/spectral distribution, but rather something more seemingly respectable, in spite of the sheer reality--which is that the thing in question is decidedly more cumbersome and hazy in nature and in handling than any longitudinal aspect of light propagation. Anyway, that conventional handicapper is officially called diffraction.

We shall stop here, now, but next time we shall continue from here. In the meantime you take care of yourself, and think about what we have discussed today.