It's been a long time since my last post. And it would have become even longer, if not for the following email I found a few days ago in my inbox.
Dear Remus,
The red and blue aren’t refracted in opposite directions and I can prove it.
Make this pattern and keep the red line and black square movable. Notice the green, blue and white line created from the red line over the cyan backdrop, as seen in image 1? Move the black square closer to the red line until you notice the once white line turning yellowish, as seen in image 2. Now, move the black square even closer to the red line, as seen in image 3. The once white line is now red. The cyan contains blue and green. When they overlap with the red, we see white. The black square blocks any incoming light from the opposite side. Notice how the once blue line is now black, as well. If you make the red line thicker, you’ll notice that we’ll see the black again because the blue from the right side isn’t overlapping it.
Gopi asked in his paper, “What is the source of this darkening or brightening?” I have all the patterns memorized now. I know the answer, and I’m sure that I can prove it to you, if you give me the chance.
I would like to finish our little chess game, if you don't mind.
Your move! What say you, Remus?
Deborah
P.S. Colors: Slippery little devils, aren't they? (-:
Deborah, a.k.a. The American Lady, a.k.a. Secular Sanity. The person who's been practically stalking me online since 2008. The unfathomable character who has attempted on countless occasions and through many a means to either prove or convince (me, and/or others) that I've been wrong in basically everything that I have ever written in regard to physics. But the most disturbing aspect in this pathetic melodrama is the fact that not once has this person managed to raise even a half-decent set of arguments as a backup to her claims. In fact, to be brutally honest one would have to admit that the majority of all the reasons and arguments that she has used in that misguided and misconducted quest was rather more embarrassing, than anything else. For everyone.
Now, for many months before the arrival of this last email I had completely ignored all her other attempts to re-engage me into some form of communication, and I would have most likely continued to do so--were it not for those final bits of her message, which I knew so, so well... It is because of those sluggy bits that I've decided to respond, once again, to yet another grandiose display of utter gibber.
𝝽
Make this pattern and keep the red line and black square movable.
Notice the green, blue and white line created from the red line over the cyan backdrop, as seen in image 1?
Move the black square closer to the red line until you notice the once white line turning yellowish, as seen in image 2.
Now, move the black square even closer to the red line, as seen in image 3.
The once white line is now red.
The cyan contains blue and green. When they overlap with the red, we see white.
The black square blocks any incoming light from the opposite side.
Notice how the once blue line is now black, as well.
If you make the red line thicker, you’ll notice that we’ll see the black again because the blue from the right side isn’t overlapping it.
This is the entire chain of arguments and reasons on the basis of which she has become convinced that she can prove my claim that the colours Red and Blue are deflected in opposite directions in subjective prismatic experiments to be false. The sheer reality, however, is that she is badly mistaken, as I will demonstrate next.
𝝽𝝽
To make the matter absolutely clear for all concerned I will make use of a slightly more elaborate pattern than the one seen above, and you will see why in a few moments.
The bone of contention is whether my longstanding claim that, contrary to the conventional views, not all spectral colours obey the Newtonian assertion regarding the direction of refraction in the subjective prismatic observations. Specifically, I contend that the colours Red and Blue are refracted in opposite directions by the prism, and that Green is not refracted at all. Effectively, it is my contention that Blue is deflected in a direction toward the apex of the prism, and Red in the direction of the base. It must also be remembered that the colours under scrutiny display that kind of refractive behaviour only when they are projected upon backgrounds that are darker than their own. For example, the colours in question do not refract in the same manner if they are cast against a uniformly white background. (The beautiful reality is that in that case it is their complementary counterparts that assume those roles. We'll come across that subject a little later.)
Now, with that being said, let us begin examining the evidence.
Notice the green, blue and white line created from the red line over the cyan backdrop, as seen in image 1?
Yes, Deborah, I notice them. (The reference above is better discerned in my own pattern above on the right, and is marked by the arrow 11.)
The cyan contains blue and green. When they overlap with the red, we see white.
That's basically correct. But before even attempting to take this statement further, in order to use it in any subsequent argument, as you actually did, you should have easily realised that there are two obvious, imperative issues that you must have uncompromisingly addressed.
The first one is your blatantly flawed assumption that the red line was not deflected in any direction by the prism! That is the only conclusion anyone could draw from your words, for in fact you failed to mention anything in that regard.
The second one is the equally flawed presumption that somehow those blue and green lines that are accompanying the white line needed no explanation. (This is also a guess, for again, you make no mention whatsoever about the provenance of those lines.) The harsh and uncompromising reality, however, is that one must provide an explanation for the existence of those lines, too.
It's hard to believe that someone who, by all accounts, has studied this subject for at least 13 years, did not, at the very least, realise that in order to try to figure out whether my claim was right or wrong the very first thing of absolute necessity is to determine some point of reference that would remain in the same position even when observed subjectively through a prism. Otherwise, how could you be sure that when you look through your prism at some object whether it's been (or it's been not) deflected from its original position? Come on, it's elementary, Dr. Watson!
A simple, elegant way to do that is to use as points of reference identical objects as those under observation, but which are either black or white in colour (depending on circumstances). For instance, suppose that you want to determine if the colours Cyan, Yellow, and Magenta, when they are cast against a white background and observed subjectively through a prism, are behaving in the same manner as the colours Red, Blue, and Green do when they are projected against a black background. (Remember?) In that case, you could then use a pattern like the one below.
If you now conduct a subjective prismatic observation of the diagram above you should be able to establish with absolute certainty if the CMY trio on a white background behaves like the RGB counterpart displayed onto a black background. (Do not ask why, or how, because I have described the whole concept so many times in the past that, by Zeus, I just couldn't do it even once, any longer.)
A short intermezzo
When I published the first part of this post (12 days ago) I made a conscious decision to not add anything to it for a few days. The main reason for that decision was to see how Deborah will react when she was to see the figure with my pattern that I showed a little earlier above. Then, three days ago I found the following email in my inbox:
“Now, with that being said, let us begin examining the evidence.”—Remus Poradin
By all means, please do so…because so far, you’ve only managed to cast doubt on my character rather than my contentions. You have to actually discredit my argument, not my character, Remus.
The devil is in the details (-;
Check, mate!
𝝽𝝽𝝽
It has become obvious to me now that I had foolishly given Deborah far more credit than she ever deserved. The reason I'm saying this is because, as far as I'm concerned, anyone with even a modest grasp of the subject at stake should--upon examining the pattern I mentioned in the intermezzo--immediately realise on their own that my longstanding claim about the refraction in opposite directions of the colours Red and Blue in subjective observations is eminently correct, and in the final part of this post I will explain why.
To make things a little easier to follow I will now drop below a copy of the pattern that interests us the most. I'm referring of course to the prismatic view of the original (un-refracted) pattern. Here we go, then.
We shall begin at the top (with what is seen at numbers 1 and 13) and proceed to go down, one step at a time, until we'll have explained every visual feature in the entire picture. Let's go.
At number 1 we have a magenta line, which is about half as wide as the original red line of my non-prismatic pattern, and a wider yellow line adjacent to it. How did these two particular lines come into being? The explanation for their presence is equally simple and straightforward. As I had mentioned earlier, the colours blue and red are only deflected by a subjective prismatic observation when they are cast upon a darker background than their own hues. When they are observed prismatically against a white background, as it is the case here, they are not deflected (refracted, bent, etc.) at all. So the magenta line is really part of the original red line, upon which the white background has cast half of the so-called boundary spectra. And the half in question is formed by the blue-cyan combination, since the observation conducted is through a prism oriented with the apex pointing to the left. The other half of the boundary spectra is of course formed by the red-yellow combination, which is always displayed toward the base of the prim, and which it is in fact the reason for the yellow line that is adjacent to the magenta line in our case.
That's all there is at play at number 1, and the only thing I need to add to the paragraph above is that if there is anyone out there to whom what I said is not immediately evident, then that person has absolutely no business of being here, in any shape or form.
Now, for a complete explanation about what is seen at number 1, and of course at number 13 as well, there still remains one other little thing that perhaps needs some more clarification.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When I returned home--very early this morning--another email from Deborah was waiting for me. Subject?
Let me know when you're finished.
"Now, for a complete explanation about what is seen at number 1, and of course at number 13 as well, there still remains one other little thing that perhaps needs some more clarification."~Remus Poradin
Thanks, Remus. Good day to you!
It's 5.33 Am. It's quite cold, I need a hot coffee and a couple of smokes, I haven't said a word directly to this woman for... I've got no frigging idea how long, I absolutely abhor this kind of Trumpenesque double-downing, I'm suddenly convinced that she is a devoted loyalist/patriot, and for fuck's sake--I have had much too much more than enough! I am done. I am finished.