Marching inexorably towards the final goal. Decisive prismatic experiments that will settle the matter. Part 2

Let us think for a while about what is seen in this objective experiment. At 1 we see the subjective spectrum, in which B appears towards the apex of the prism and R towards the base. At 2 there is a colourless image of the aperture of the source of light. At 3 we see the objective spectrum, in which B has apparently been deflected towards the base of the prism and R towards the apex. Do you agree with my assessment? Probably not. Most likely because you could not see how in the objective display R could have been refracted in a direction towards the apex of the prism. But the reality is that R can be refracted towards the apex of the prism. In fact, none other than Newton himself did it for the first time, and since then many others have routinely continued to do it to this day. The 'secret' is to place the prism in a position of minimum deviation relative to the G component of the white light. See the diagram below.

The purist would be quick to argue that choosing to set up a prism at minimum deviation relative to G does not entitle one to claim that R and B are refracted in opposite directions in objective experiments. To that I'll reply by asking the purist to wait until the end of this post to bring that argument into discussion, for I'm willing to bet the two-dollar coin that I have in my pocket that by then he may be having serious second thoughts about its validity.

Before going any further I'd like to show you a couple of pictures I took when I conducted an objective experiment in which I used three laser pointers (V, G and R) to pass through a prism placed in a position of minimum deviation relative to G. See below.

The first thing that I learned from the Universe, about the Universe, was that the most fundamental attribute of being is its dichotomous nature. The lowest universal number is 2. 1 doesn't exist because 1 cannot exist. There are 2 of absolutely everything in this Universe. Most famously, of course, there is an action and there is a reaction. There is a subjective spectrum (VBGYOR) as real as an objective (ROYGBV) one. See below.

I love this picture. For a number of reasons. I love it first because there are 2 of everything in it. Then I love it because I can see a beautiful example that pokes a stick at the fragility of the conventional understanding regarding light and prismatic phenomena. You want me to tell you about it? OK.

A while ago I thought about confronting the conventional physicist with the argument that the so-called inverse spectrum that is seen in the prism should not be deemed to be a subjective observation, but truly an objective one, as it happens. That's because I, as an observer, do not interfere with it in any shape or form. In fact, I don't even look at it. The only information that I extract from the entire picture is solely from my looking at the image of that subjective spectrum, which is cast on the same screen from which you obtain your information. This little fact should suddenly render us, both, objective observers. 

Newton believed that there is only one difference between the subjective observations and the objective ones. In his theory of light and colours he mentions that difference: “Prismaticall colours appeare in the eye in a contrary order to that in which they fall on the paper.” Disappointingly though he never dedicated any time to trying to elucidate why that was the only observable difference between the two kinds of prismatic observations.  Unlike Newton, over the years we have dedicated considerable time specifically to that subject, for we had reasoned that in it laid the entire story of light, as well as its magical interaction with prismatic objects. 

Right from the beginning we realised that whatever effects were observed in one kind of experimentation, were invariably mirrored in the other. There was always a perfect correlation between any particular observation and its direct counterpart from across the table. We understood early on that whatever was that caused the refraction, was ultimately the magic key that opened all the doors behind which the light was hiding whilst travelling through the prism. We also understood quite early on that whatever the driving force behind refraction was, the bending of colours as Newton imagined was not.

In the end it did not take very long until we managed to figure out what was going on. It turned out that the reason behind the refraction seen in subjective observations (which we had solved first) although quite subtle and beautiful, it wasn't related to any Newtonian concept or attribute. That proved to be then an impossibly difficult product to sell, in a market that has been overwhelmingly dominated by Newtonian ideas for 350 years. To give you a taste of how difficult that task has remained I will next show you a handful of pictures that explain eloquently what exactly the prismatic refraction is, how it is created and why it exists. In turn your job will be to figure out what we are talking about from those pictures only, without any additional explanations. Game? OK, let's go.

I believe that the conventional understanding of light is riddled with baseless and toxic doctrines that have plagued our imperative need to continuously evolve in order not to perish. One of those toxic doctrines states that light, once emitted, will perpetually travel in space without ever experiencing any change in its physical attributes. A photon created here, next to my prism, will travel forever, to the end of the universe, without changing in any shape or form, its colour, its wavelength, its frequency. I categorically refuse to believe that. In fact, according to my understanding, a photon created here, without the backing of an expanding field to push it from behind, will completely dissipate into space well before getting anywhere near your own prism.

Let me show you a picture I took recently of the light field of a LED lamp.

There are very good reasons behind my belief that white light is formed by a spectral formation that lays longitudinally in BGR units. Light is forced, or perhaps guided, into those formations by the particular geometry of the spacetime at any given point in spacetime. For instance, you can't force the red light I marked in the picture above, into the marked area where the blue light is. Or, if you can, it is because by the time the red light is forced into the blue light's area, it is no longer red: it is categorically blue. Space (spacetime) drives, shapes and moulds the light it receives according to the geometrical constraints that are typical to the location. It simply couldn't be any other way of accommodating and propagating a field of light in the most efficient and simple manner that is characteristic to the God Universe.

I read somewhere a few days ago that we, humans, are very good at seeing patterns. That in fact we're better than the best computer programs in the world.

So far, to the best of our knowledge we know that when it comes to our interaction with light there are two phenomena we must consider. One of those two we call refraction. The other we call diffraction. In refraction we observe that the spectral colours appear to be deflected by prismatic objects in a ROYGBV order. In diffraction the spectral colours appear to be deflected by obstructive objects in inverse order. VBGYOR.

In refraction we know that light reveals its colours in two ways. One of those we call subjective observation. The other we call objective observation. In a subjective observation we know that the spectrum of light comes in a VBGYOR order. In an objective one the spectrum is displayed in inverse order. ROYGBV. 

According to the reigning theory there is no underlaying pattern behind these observations. According to my understanding, on the other hand, there is. That light exists in a VBGYOR