On rainbows. Part 2

Personally, I find it hard to believe that the conventional theory about the rainbow phenomena has been reigning for virtually 400 years. However, having become aware over the years of how things tend to develop within the scientific establishment these days I can see quite clearly how that state of affairs managed to happen. That’s all I’m going to say on that subject here, nonetheless, for today I have far more important things to share with you. So, without any further ado, let us jump straight at the deep end into those matters.

The conventional theory concerning the rainbow phenomena is riddled with a substantial number of fallacious components, and many of them are fatal individually on their own. Today I’m going to talk about some of the most prominent of those fatally flawed parts of the reigning conventional theory, and I will try my best to be as frugal in unnecessary commentary yet, at the same time, as comprehensive as I ought to be in order to sufficiently convey my arguments for analysis and empirical verification. And now with these things being specified let me begin with what I’ll call—for obvious reasons, as you’ll see in a few moments—the problem number one.

There is one decisive problem in the reigning conventional understanding, and that problem was (on its own and in its own right) sufficient to convince me that in its current form, at the very least, is decidedly flawed. It is by no means a new problem at all, having been misused in the past at least on two other times and occasions. The decisive factor in the rainbow phenomena was first called Goethe’s ‘white wall’ supposed misunderstanding and then on a second occasion it was invoked as a valid explanation for the Newtonians’ impossible task to account for the observation that the distribution of the colours in the spectrum appears in reversed order when a so-called subjective experiment is conducted.

Now, I have written about both those occasions in the past (and in sufficient detail, in my biased opinion) so if you want, or need to understand precisely what I’m talking about) I’m afraid you’ll have to manually look for those pages—they’re somewhere on this site, rest assured. Nonetheless, here I will touch on the most salient points of the two cases I mentioned.

This problem I called earlier number 1 is not some subtle, hard to detect thing. Quite the contrary, it is an ‘in your face’ fact. And most certainly because of that it can really be expressed in just one or two sentences. So, let me try to see if I can manage to do just that.

The conventional theory of the rainbow’s causes must be flawed because if the sunlight were to travel from its origin to the observer’s eye in the conventionally known manner the observer would become instantly, literally and comprehensively blinded. 

Basically that’s all there is with that problem number 1. For those who have read all the posts of this blog, you might remember my daring the conventional physicist to do exactly that when he tried so tragically to explain how the spectral colours appear in reversed order when one looks at a source of light directly through a prism. I then used real images of what such an eye will see if a real experiment of the conventional kind were to be conducted. Not only that--I also said that the observer who wants not only to just do the talk but to earnestly be just as ready to do the walk, is totally free to use any reasonable kind of light, as weak as his mind can (reasonably, remember?) conceive.

Today, on this new occasion, I will do exactly the same two things again. I will first show you a real video of what the eye of a camera sees when it is placed in the path of the conventional rainbow display conducted in a lab and then I will dare you to replace the camera's eye with your own. Simple. And as straightforward as you can get. So, who's game to do it first? I'll be eagerly waiting for your reply.

Every other day I have to use a bus and a tram and in the process pretty much dissect in two fairly even parts a good chunk of my beautiful town. The journey never bothered me, for every occasion of the sort offers me a great time to watch and think. For example, when those little trips happen to be in the mornings I watch with great care and attention how the sun, which is very generous with its time in this part of the world, mingles its usual activity with many optical displays common in a modern city of these times. Every distinct part of each of my trips offers their own kind of observational offers. For instance, the middle section  of my trips is copiously dominated by a myriad of windows, balconies, terraces, etc. that usually are made out of all sorts of glasses and acrylics, which  make wonderful optical objects useful to anyone truly interested in the subject of light, colour and all the other many parts in the branch of physics that deals effectively with one of its two fundamental halves. When my trips take place after dark, on the other hand, the optical displays I get consist of many more individual lights than the solitary sun and of even more optical tools to observe the nature of light and colours from many a kind of different perspectives.

Having said all that I can tell you that over a period of 12 years I have had ample time and opportunity to see how even a very lean and short-lived ray of sunlight can easily render any human eye completely blind for the entire duration of its existence as a direct connector between the two. Every such experience I have thus had was invariably very short but extraordinarily intense, ended either by a quick change of perspectives (courtesy of my relatively fast moving frame of reference) or by my distressing, instinctive need to immediately look in another direction. And that in spite of the fact that in virtually all the cases the overwhelming part of the light that eventually reaches my eye (after being refracted and/or reflected by the optical tools I mentioned) is continuing its journey in the opposite direction, through a transparent window or whatever else may happen to be. Now this is not a trivial realisation, and you--the conventional physicist--should earnestly know that.

(I forgot to mention one other telling event I am regularly fortunate to eyewitness. Towards the final part of my trip I travel through a complex of an elaborate array of shops and upmarket apartments, where the sunlight is  beautifully dispersed in an amazing show of spectra. I will probably talk a little more about this in the near future, but for now what I said here should suffice.)

Finally I should also add that when it comes to looking directly with the naked eye at the sources of light and the optical tools I use in my experiments I am able to sustain a stare for quite some time, in certain cases--in spite of the obviously inherent discomfort that ensues. Also not a trivial realisation. 

In the last three or four weeks I have made four videos, which I then uploaded to You Tube. Nobody's watching them, really. So? Couldn't care less. They are all called "Rainbows. Haloes" and numbered sequentially. The foursome show a visual presentation of what I have good reasons to believe as being the real story of rainbow's existence and manifestation. All four are wordless and completely non-enhanced by any kind of means. The only thing that works in their favour is the compelling picture they reveal about rainbows. (And haloes, I should also mention, in passing.)

Now, I have decided to not show any of the four on these pages. For personal reasons I don't wish to disclose. Those who may want to see them should effortlessly find them. As for those who do not I will say again "Couldn't care less, mate. Hooroo."