The proofs behind my claims

 

We shall begin by explaining in a little more detail the main reasons for all the experiments you have seen in the previous post.

One of the most important reasons behind those experiments was to introduce you to what I'll show to be perhaps the most obvious error in the conventional understanding of the prismatic phenomena. The error I'm referring to is summarised in the screenshot below, which I took from here.

It is truly incredible that the conventional understanding can be so wrong in such a simple and obvious matter. And it is even more incredible how easy it is to prove it. I must tell you that every time I encounter an issue like this (and believe me, there have been many times like this) I find it pretty much impossible to find the best way of explaining why it is wrong. That's because there are so many things wrong in the conventional explanation that I simply don't know where to begin. Fourteen or fifteen years ago, when I first wrote about this issue, I conducted a very simple experiment to show that the conventional understanding is wrong. See below.

To give a quick explanation of what the three pictures show (if it's really necessary...) I drew a line that divided in two equal halves one face of an equilateral prism. I placed the eye of the observer (camera) at the same level with that line. I then turned around the prism so that the opposite face of the prism was fronting the camera. Lastly, I observed that the line I had drawn exactly halfway across the first face of the prism appeared to have been deflected towards the apex of the prism, even though I had not moved the eye of the observer at all from its original spot. 

(A cautionary note. Do not be tempted to argue that my line was drawn right on the face of the prism, instead of being at some distance away from it. It is a silly argument. No, let me rephrase that: It is a stupid argument. Think about it, if you have to.)

To my mind, the simplest way to see that the conventional understanding is flawed is to just grab a prism (preferably a wedge like in the conventional diagram) and look through it at the world around. I believe that if one pays attention at the images observed, and at the prism's location relative to the positions of the objects under observation, it is virtually impossible not to see how wrong the conventional view is. For instance, no observer ever lowers his eye to see an object. He lifts instead the prism to let the object come into the field of vision of his prism. And when that happens more often than not his eye will be pretty much perpendicular to the face of the prism he is looking through. The conventional idea of placing one's eye in the line of refraction is completely irrelevant in subjective observations. Not only that. The sheer reality is that that idea is badly misleading, and that truth is amply manifested in the fact that no one in 350 years has been able to see such simple facts as the following.

Look carefully at the two pictures above. They are images of a wedge prism. To be exact, they are images of half of an equilateral prism. In the first image the tilted face of the prism is fronting the camera. In the second image the flat face of the prism is right in front. Notice the difference between what the first image shows and what is absent from the second.

Now, the question that elicits a definitive answer is this: Why is the base of the prism visible in the first image, but not in the second?

Let me show you another image.

Here we have another prism (a 90⁰/45⁰/45⁰) in which we can see both its base (that appears like an inclined plane) as well as a display of the image of the steel rod appearing to be deviated towards its apex. Both of those things are caused by the same factor, but that factor isn't in any shape or form connected to the conventional understanding. Instead, the real factors that are responsible for the observations we mentioned are deeply connected to the particular field of view each kind of prism basically has. To make our task a little easier have a good look at the illustration below.

In this illustration we have depicted a wedge prism ABC (which essentially is one half of an equilateral prism), its particular field of vision (which is teal coloured) and the seemingly elevated base of this prism EBCD. Now, if one conducts a subjective observation by using this prism, one can only see objects that happen to be located inside the shown field of vision. (This last statement is only in principle true, for the following reasons. A prism is a truly gigantic object, considering the objects it looks at--rays of light. This fact gives the eye of the observer significant liberty to choose its preferred point of observation from amongst the relative many that are possible. For instance, an observer may want to see his object right in the middle of the face of the prism, whilst another may opt for the display to become visible closer to the apex of the prism. You know what I mean? Nonetheless, although the observer has a relatively high degree of freedom in that respect, in reality when a particular position extends the field of view in one direction, at the same time it commensurately reduces it in the direction opposite to it.)

Finally, on this topic, let us explain why the base of the prism is visible in one case but not in the other. This is one of those issues that are dearest to my mind, because I have never seen anyone grasping the fundamental aspect of what a tilted face of a prism really is. Let me begin by reminding you that the human eye (or the eye of a camera, for that matter) is a device that can only see two of the three spatial dimensions. Let's make use of the conventional notation of the spatial axes, with x and y representing the horizontal and the vertical planes, and with z representing the depth of space. The flat reality (pun intended) is that the eye (of either a human or a camera) can only see and record the world around upon a two-dimensional screen. Of course, man has had ample time to find and develop means of fooling his brain into believing that he can see along the z axis as well, but the truth is that the brain can be fooled to such an extent that it 'sees' the depth of space even in a photograph!

This subject seems to be such a difficult issue to grasp that a few years ago, when I said that what a prism does is giving the observer the possibility of seeing along the third dimension of space, a certain Dr. Markus Selmke from Leipzig University told me that he hadn't ever heard anyone talking about the prism like that. I knew that his remark was meant to show me that by saying that I was some kind of a wacko. But the reality was that what I got from that was that physicists are not very smart. They are educated, but almost never smart. In any event, let me show you why I knew that I knew better.

The two pictures shown above are self-explanatory, so the only thing that I will add to what I already said is this: Do you agree with me that I knew better? If you do not, I will change the eye of the camera that is facing the prism with your human eye, and then I will take the prism away and dare you to tell me that you can see what is written on that red strip of paper.

The reason that the base of the prism is visible when the tilted face of the prism is facing the eye of the observer is because the face AC (see the illustration showed earlier above) is partially extending over the z spatial axis. Since the spatial planes are all perpendicular to each other an image of the base BC is projected upon the AC face as if it were extending from C to E, like an inclined plane. On the other hand, when the vertical AB face is fronting the eye of the observer the image of the base BC remains in its original position--lying flat along the z axis.

The last thing that I should mention is that the same reason is responsible for the apparent deviation of an image towards the apex of a prism. And there are even more observational effects that are due to the same reason. For instance, have a good look at the image below and then try to explain the particular distribution of colours in the prism shown by using the same kind of reasoning. Try it, it should be fun.

Another of my claims that is very dear to me is my belief that the spectral colours are distributed longitudinally according to their respective wavelengths (from B to G to R) in a beam of white light. Everybody seems to be astonished by that apparently ostentatious claim, while at the same time I myself am decidedly baffled by their inability to see how profound, parsimonious and beautiful that idea is. Most interestingly, when I discuss this topic with a conventional physicist not one of them is able to offer any argument that carries even a faint smell of plausibility with it. I, on the other hand, can offer you a dozen good reasons why that should be the case.

Before mentioning any of those good reasons let me show you a number of pictures which--to my mind--are clearly revealing a distribution of waves in perfect agreement to my understanding, but which apparently reveal absolutely nothing to the minds of conventional physicists. Here we go.

The image on the left was snapped by a British pilot in the Second World War, right after he had successfully dropped a bomb on a German cruiser. Water basically waves transversally, pretty much like the light does. The image on the right is a diagram I extracted from a paper written by a Chinese physicist, who was at the time the foremost authority in the world on the subject of the observed frequency downshift in the propagation of water waves. That particularly difficult subject came to my attention about fifteen years ago, when I tried to find out if the distribution of water waves was governed by the same set of principles as all other forms of energy propagation, as I believed. It was with a great deal of satisfaction to learn that indeed such was the case in virtually all forms of energy propagation--including in those situations where the propagation of the travelling waves was longitudinally manifested. To my mind that was a no-brainer. Whether some form of energy is travelling from one place to another by waving transversally or longitudinally its spatial distribution (or extension) will display a discreetly quantized formation similar to the spectral VBGYOR orientation. For one quintessential reason: Energy propagation is spatial vibration. Light is spatial vibration. A photon is neither a particle, nor a wave of energy. A photon is a quantum of space which vibrates when it is disturbed by some form of energetic manifestation. A photon does not travel, just like a wave does not travel.

Even a coiled spring will display a kind of 'spectral' distribution, if it is pushed against a wall, for example. An even better display of a longitudinal propagation that shows a similar distribution is routinely witnessed by physics undergraduates. See the picture below.

A steel tube, which is open-ended on both sides is filled with a propane gas. The tube has a series of little holes drilled along the top, and when the lecturer blows air through one end of the tube whilst holding a candle above the tube a series of flames will be ignited by the gas that escapes through those holes. And since air is pushed in a longitudinal direction, the distribution of the gas inside the tube will be compressed at some points and rarefied at others. This situation will therefore create bigger flames in the compression zones and smaller ones in the areas where rarefaction occurs. Now this is supposed to prove that air propagation is longitudinal in nature, but to my mind this proves that even longitudinally there exists a precise distribution of energy which extends in a gradual order from high to low. Just as I said a million times already.

The two pictures above are showing, according to me, how energy is propagating in basically any type of medium. The conventional physicist--alas--has learned nothing from pictures like these. When a conventional physicist talks about how our sun emits light in the form of rays that are basically travelling toward the earth in parallel formations, he obviously has learned nothing from pictures like these. And when he 'explains' that the reason for that idea is because the sun is so big, and the earth is so small!?! And if you ask him what distance is there between two hydrogen atoms that are sitting next to each other (on the sun) and emit one photon each, at the same time, he suddenly begins to panic. And to stutter. And when you ask him to help you draw a dozen parallel lines around a circle, he looks decidedly ready to die. Or to kill you. And it is then when you realise that you just shouldn't try to show him that it is impossible to draw two parallel lines in this Universe.

About two weeks ago someone found necessary to let me know that polarization is proof that light is a transversal wave. Initially I wanted to ignore that comment. Then I was going to reply to it in my typical way of dealing with irrelevant arguments. But then I remembered that many a physicist have thrown at me exactly the same stupidity over the years, so I changed my mind again and quickly concocted a kind of animated picture that I attached to some badly camouflaged bit of politeness in a lifeless reply.

Have a look at the image above. As crude as it may be, it accurately illustrates my understanding of how light propagates in space. The first thing it shows is that in my understanding there are only three spectral colours. BGR are truly sufficient to create any conceivable colour in the entire spectral gamut we know. BGR can also account perfectly for both kinds of prismatic experiments. The second thing the image above shows is that BGR are oscillating transversally to the direction of travel. The only longitudinal thing about BGR is their particular orientation relative to each other. Polarization, therefore, is not a problem at all in my understanding of light. (Besides, it is also worth mentioning here that the newest thing about polarization is that the conventional physics is actually changing its stance in regards to the idea that longitudinal waves cannot be polarized. But that's another story.)

One very important issue about why I believe that the three primary colours are distributed in a BGR pattern in what we call white light is intrinsically linked to the universal morphology of space. Fundamentally, my understanding of light is just like that both Newton and Goethe had. Fundamentally, I believe that light is colourless. It is only when light is confined to the particular geometry of the space it occupies at any given point that it acquires colour, wavelength and frequency.

To see what I mean I have for you five beautiful visual examples that will knock at least some socks off some feet, I'm sure. Those five examples come from here, which is a site of many wonderful scientific applets. In our case the applet we're interested in at the moment is a Fresnel Diffraction Applet. I encourage you wholeheartedly to plan a good visit to this Fresnel diffraction applet, for it is truly fascinating. Go right now and have a quick look first, then click this for the info you need in order to understand what's going on the page with the actual applet, and to make my job a little easier with the presentation of those five examples. In the meantime, I'll drop below the first image and lay down a couple of explanations to make sense of what you'll be looking at.

(I hope you have visited the two links I provided, for then I could rest assured that you have a good chance to grasp the importance of this presentation.)

The image above shows what an observer sees when he looks from his point of observation, which is four metres away from the object under scrutiny--a small hole about 5 mm in diameter drilled in an opaque screen, on which white light is shined. The white light is provided by three RGB lights. The red circle is basically the area over which the effects of diffraction are observed. On the right half of the image there are a few variables that can be adjusted or changed. One of those variables that is of interest to us is the size of the aperture (the hole's diameter). For the image above the size of the hole remained unchanged. To guide us in our journey I placed a red double arrow in the aperture's field. As we'll change the size of the aperture, I will mark each increasement accordingly. That's about all the info that we need for our current purpose.

So, we have a small aperture on which white light is shined and a kind of blueish colour is recorded.

Image number 2. To obtain this image I have increased slightly the diameter of the hole. I have marked this change by placing a red double arrow that extends from one side of the hole to the other. Not much has changed for the observer, except that the blueish colour is more prominent. That was to be expected, since by increasing the aperture more light is coming towards the observer.

Image number 3. We have again increased marginally the size of the aperture, and this time there is a visible change in the colours observed. The blueish colour is now surrounded by a band of reddish hue. Moreover, the reddish band appears to have spread over the boundary of the red circle.

Image number 4. Increasing slightly again the size of the aperture rendered the image above. In this image the seemingly blueish band has metamorphosed in more of a cyan kind of colour. The reddish area is also bigger and more vivid than before.

Image number 5. Increasing the size of the aperture, in this case has resulted in a number of substantial differences to the rendered image. First, the blueish-cyan area in the middle of the image has been replaced by a greenish-yellowish-almost-white hue. Right at the centre of the image there is a circular area that looks almost certainly white. Surrounding those two central zones is an area that could best be described as orangey. That, in turn, is enveloped by a dark reddish band. Next is a narrow circular band of a pretty much violet colour, followed by a similar band of dark blue. Lastly, a thick band of a dark green colour completes the image.

Here we have an almost complete Newtonian spectrum being created by a source of white light. I know, the conventional physicist would be quick to say that everything in this picture is easily explained by the theory of diffraction, which affirms that... I know. But I can't help thinking how flatly unimaginative the god of the conventional physicist is. I mean this god has apparently created a universe in which every single phenomenon is governed by its own distinctive set of rules, and which myriad sets of rules are more often than not clashing head-on when they're trying to develop some social bonds with each other. Nothing is simple in that universe. Everything is ridiculously complicated and devilishly cumbersome. 

Take, for instance, that god's explanation of why the colours of the rainbow are running from V to R. Let me see if I can remember first what that god has decreed in that regard. Hmm... No, I can't remember exactly, and I don't care to yell "Hey Google" for such an insignificant matter. Nonetheless, I can remember that it has something to do with some turns of the spectral colours in certain media. Or something like that. The whole explanation is tedious and as stinking dubious as hell, in any event.

Compare that with what my god has done for the rainbows of my universe. The reason for the VBGYOR distribution of colours in the rainbow is a representation of their respective energy levels, which in turn are dictated by their respective spatial locations relative to the emitting source of energy. Consider a source of light, like an atom of some kind, or a star like our sun, for that matter.

Our source of energy is emitting light. The emitted light is basically colourless, but in certain areas that colourless light appears to acquire an attribute that we call colour. The colour attribute is due to the particular density of radiation at different points in space relative to the centre of the source, where the density of radiation is at its maximum and the distance between the created photons is virtually zero. At the centre of the source then the emitted light remains colourless (or white, as we call it). As the light is a disturbance in space, the light field is expanding by occupying new quanta of all the available space that's engulfing our source. So, as the disturbance of space creates ever newer photons at longer and longer distances from the centre, the created photons get 'coloured' according to the specific density of radiation at every point. Close to the central white, for example, the photons will appear V, and display the specific wavelengths and frequencies that are characteristic to that colour. A bit further away the photons will be B, then G, and so on until the last bit of visible light will be R. Once a full spectrum is completed the process starts again at the next point of expansion. See the image below.

The spectrum is the DNA of light. Through it no information is lost at any point in spacetime. 

I love what my god created in my universe, and how he governs its internal affairs. I believe in the validity of my understanding of light, for it is not only beautiful and simple. I believe in it because it has tons of advantages over the conventional understanding. Here I will give you just one concrete advantage that my understanding holds over the conventional view. 

Remember Goethe's white wall controversy? At this point the conventional physicist will be quick to say that the conventional theory can fully account for that apparent anomaly, but the truth is that he's lying. The white wall issue has never been satisfactorily resolved, and if there is anyone who doesn't believe that let him come forward and argue that issue with me, in the open. I dare you, whoever you may be. Show your real colours (of course the pun is intended!) and prove that you can do more than just preach for the converted. In the meantime, I'll give you a quick demonstration of just a handful of arguments that no conventional physicist can accommodate into his badly flawed understanding.

Some of you may remember the illustration above from my past writings, or perhaps from the website of Professor Emeritus Zawisha, of Hannover University. The illustration is purportedly the full demonstration that the conventional theory can account for whatever arguments Goethe's white wall may present. To that assertion I will firstly say "Hogwash, dudes!" That I will then follow with the following.

The wall appears white because there are at least three layers of superposed colours covering it everywhere. That's according to your own theory. Tell me, then, how do the colours that you have depicted to travel backwards toward the prism know how to choose the right colour from among the three that are available at every given point? Don't say something stupid, like for example because that's how the colours are dispersed in an objective experiment.

What the hell is that white line that emerges from the prism and then enters the observer's eye? Is the colour of the wall some beam of white laser, which travels independently from one place to another? Is it that hard to understand that what the eye of the observer sees in those circumstances is an image of the prism, which carries with it an image of a white wall bordered at its apex by a B and C band and at its base by a Y and R one?

And as a last argument I will add a second prism to the illustration above. Think about this one.

Needless to say, my understanding of these issues accounts for the white wall observations without even a hint of effort. Take care.

All together now

It's time to lay it all down. I have been talking for a long time about refractions in opposite directions in subjective prismatic experiments, about colours that do not refract at all, I have even claimed that these prismatic events happen in objective experiments too. So now is time to put all those issues out here, in the open. Let's thus get moving straight into the matter.

It is surprisingly easy to demonstrate that in subjective experiments the colours R and B refract in opposite directions in a prism. To all intents and purposes, it suffices to look through a prism (oriented as always with the apex pointing to the left of the observer) at a picture like the one shown below.

We are quite familiar with this kind of picture, for it has been used to describe subjective prismatic experiments for a very long time. You may be inclined to believe that this picture is in fact so well known that it does not hold any secrets from us, and you could probably draw all the colours that would be seen in a prismatic observation without having to actually look through a prism. Well, you may know all those things, but I bet that you didn't know that this picture shows quite clearly not only that R and B refract in opposite directions, but also that G does not refract at all. See image below.

This is what the observer will see from a distance of about 0.5 m. This is one picture that brings to the attention of the observer not only the three Newtonian primary colours, but also the Goethean trio of the complementary colours. And it does even more than that. It also demonstrates the perfect symmetry between those two sets of colours. To my mind, however, the most important thing that it brings to attention is the manner in which the colours are affected when observed through a prism.

We know that the G bar is actually occupying the same space where the white bar was in the original picture. The former white bar appeared white because the three colours were superposed (in the space occupied by the G bar) before they were refracted by the prism. It is clear therefore that in subjective prismatic experiments R is refracted towards the base of the prism, B in the opposite direction, towards the apex, and G is not refracted at all. In fact, the R and B refraction in opposite directions is also evident from the displays of the RY and BC combinations.

I want to show you a beautiful exposition of the subject we're discussing now. This example comes from the pages of Dr. Pehr Sallstrom, who has dedicated the best part of his work to promoting Goethe's theory of colours to a status equal to that of Newton's. See image below.

                                                               (Click on the image to see it enlarged.)

The image is self-explanatory. At 1 there are four bars aligned vertically. One of those bars is white, the others are coloured Red, Green and Blue. Then, at 2 there is the image at 1 seen through a prism oriented with the apex to the left. At the top, the white bar has produced the Newtonian spectrum. Below that Red has been deflected towards the base of the prism, Green has not been refracted at all, and Blue was refracted towards the apex of the prism. 

Now, if this is not conclusive evidence that the spectral colours are behaving in subjective prismatic experiments exactly as I claimed, I cannot imagine what kind of evidence would be more conclusive. And yet, Sallstrom, a professional physicist with extensive expertise in optical phenomena and colour theory, describes the outcome of that experiment by saying nothing more than that "the three colours find their respective appropriate positions"! It is absolutely incredible that he appears to be totally oblivious to the fact that in order for the three colours to have found their "respective appropriate positions" they must have obviously violated the Newtonian rules of refraction! And that's not all either. On top of all that, Sallstrom also fails to mention that in order for the three colours to find their so-called "respective appropriate positions" it is absolutely imperative that the observation is conducted through a prism oriented with the apex pointing to the left of the observer! To merely say, as he does, that the three colours find their "respective appropriate positions" when "looked at through a glass prism" is a completely unacceptable faux pas. That's clearly because one can look through a glass prism at the same experiment and see an inverse distribution of the three Newtonian colours!

I have always asked myself why apparently no one has noticed such blatant discrepancies between the theoretical understanding and the experimental evidence. It's hard to say, but I think I may have an idea. After all I had also wondered why everybody, from Goethe onwards, described so clumsily how the spectral bands that are seen in subjective prismatic experiments depend on how the white and black areas are positioned relative to each other. ('If white is above and black is below, and the prism is positioned with the refractive angle...'etc.) To my mind it has always been plain and simple: In subjective experiments the Blue-Cyan bands appear towards the apex of the prism, and the Red-Yellow combination towards the base. Forget about the black background, for it plays no active role in the process of spectra generation. Black means absence of light, and it therefore cannot generate a spectrum. Black, however, plays a very important passive role in prismatic phenomena. I will elaborate on this topic in due time.

It is profoundly disturbing to see how grievously defective the conventional understanding of the prismatic phenomena still is 350 years after Newton. Our physicists' only 'accomplishment' in all this time has been to successfully supress any kind of potential dissent from the mainstream fundamentalist dogma by adding more and sillier epicyclic concoctions to it. Take, as a concrete example, this page from a website created by a former Professor Emeritus of physics at one of the greatest German Universities there is. The page I'm referring to is called Simple observations with a prism, and in a rather typical note it begins with the following statements:

Little is needed for the following experiments: In addition to a prism only a piece of black paper and white and coloured paper strips. The following photographs objectify subjective observations. On the left hand side the object is shown, to the right its appearance if viewed at through a glass prism.

Please pay close attention to the statement contained in the second sentence of the above paragraph: "The following photographs objectify subjective observations". With this declaration in mind in a few moments I will not only show you how plainly false that statement is, but also how incredibly stupid the arguments used by this former Professor Emeritus on that page truly are. Before getting to that though let me mention the first monumental stupidity the Professor has already uttered to this point. Apparently, Herr Professor is not even aware of the fact that--according to the mainstream understanding itself--photographs simply cannot objectify any subjective observation! That's because what the naked eye sees through a prism is always exactly the same to what a camera will record, when used in the same circumstances! Otherwise, if photos could indeed objectify subjective observations our mainstream establishment would be forced to accept that no subjective prismatic observations exist! Think about that, Herr Professor.

Let us now examine the first experiment presented, which is thus described by the author:

Put a thin strip of white paper on a dark surface and look at it through a prism. You have to look in a different direction, and due to the differences in the refractive index for the different wavelengths of light, the strip now looks coloured. If the strip is sufficiently narrow, there are essentially only three colours to be seen: red, green and blue-violet. This is a special case of the phenomenon known since the 19th century under the name of Bezold-Brücke shift.

Thus we perceive the spectrum of white light, if it is rather dim, as made up of only three bands, red, green, and violet-blue, with hardly perceivable transitions.

For the photographs, the arrangement was as shown in the adjacent sketches, only the eye was replaced by the camera.

(Those "adjacent sketches" are shown below.)

Three rays of light from the white stripe are shown. The prism splits them up because the higher the frequency, the more the light waves are refracted. Only three refracted rays are drawn each time, but in reality each ray creates a fan of rays. (The drawing is strongly exaggerated.)

It is easier and clearer to draw only rays that reach the eye, if you want to visualize the geometry (lower picture). The "white" rays are indeed superpositions of rays of all the wavelengths present in the light, and if only the portion ultimately reaching the eye is drawn, it should not be concluded from this that the rest is not there.

Now, before anything else I must say that everything stated about this experiment is such a cacophonous train of arguments that it is pretty much impossible to make any sense of what it all means. And you don't have to take my word for it, for in just a few moments you shall be able to judge for yourself if what I said is true or not. In the meantime, I shall try my best to discuss and clarify every single argument that is involved and relevant to the greater picture of the subject concerned.

Let me begin with the spectrum that was apparently generated by the thin white line that was observed through a triangular prism, which is shown in the second picture of the first couple of images above. The plain reality is that a thin white line as the one that it is purportedly observed subjectively in this experiment will never be able to generate a spectrum like the one shown above. For one very simple and straightforward reason.

In order for a thin line like that on display to be able to generate a spectrum with three coloured bands as wide as those of the shown spectrum, the observation would have to be conducted from a significant distance away from the white strip. (I would say from a distance of about 1.5-2 m away.) This causes a great problem, for the simple fact that a subjective prismatic observation of a thin line (like the one in this experiment) will result in a spectrum in which the B component will appear completely separated from the other two colours. In fact, from such a distance even the R component would be separated a little from the G one. And you can easily verify whether what I am saying is true or not. All you have to do, of course, is look through your own prism at the thin white strip from some distance away. You don't even have to do it from the distances I had suggested. It suffices to conduct the observation from about 80 cm to 1 m away, and you'll be able to see exactly what I said.

The only way to conduct a subjective observation on the thin strip of this experiment and obtain a spectrum in which the three colours will be right next to each other is to conduct the observation from a distance of only about 20 cm away from the object under observation. The only problem is then that the widths of the three colours would be about equal to the width of the white source.

Now, if the first couple of pictures were ridden with errors (as well as with quite a bit of disingenuity, I believe) the next two images are downright perplexing in their fantasist display. What on earth they are supposed to illustrate could only be perhaps described in some sort of gibber, and gibberish is not something that I could claim to understand. Nonetheless, there are enough clues encapsulated in their display to give me plenty of opportunities to assess whether they carry any worthiness within, or rather just a heap of caca.

The first thing to notice is that the prisms in the two illustrations are depicted in positions of minimum deviation. This is a typical conventional trait, which it is relatively useful in objective experiments but absolutely useless in subjective ones. Now I'm pretty sure that this particular topic is likely to create quite a stir amongst the majority of you, so I will take a bit of time to discuss it in some detail.

The fact that most (perhaps all) conventional physicists use the position of minimum deviation in both objective and subjective prismatic experiments is one of the most enduring legacies that Newton has left to the world. 

-------------------------------------------------------------------

I have just realised a few moments ago that basically every single subject I had planned to discuss in this post I had already done so in many of my old postings of the past. In fact, after reading most of my posts from the past--for the first time, since I had published them--I was greatly surprised (and quite pleased) at the amount, and depth, of the issues I had already discussed in this blog. That realisation made me suddenly come to yet another brand-new decision. (I am saying that because I had made similar decisions in the past, as some of you surely know.)

Firstly, that from this point on I will make an earnest effort to avoid discussing topics that I had already covered in the past. Secondly, that I will genuinely push myself to periodically review the writings I had done in the past (even though I completely hate the mere thought of having to do that). Thirdly, that from this point onwards I will only focus my writing on my latest and most relevant work that I will consider worthy of sharing with anybody else. Fourthly, that I will only make one final reference to what we were discussing right before my drawing of this new line on the sand, by using just a one-word sentence: Caca.

----------------------------------------------------

Of all the prisms I own one has always been my favourite. It is a quite large (5 cm each side) equilateral prism, with a very high (in excess of 1.8) index of refraction. It was most likely made out of highly fused flint glass. I have been using this prism for more than ten years, in both objective and subjective experiments. I have placed this prism in positions of minimum deviation many a time, and used it to conduct both objective and subjective observations from that position. Many of the experiments I conducted over the years I have also filmed. Indeed, a couple of them I have posted on YouTube (see this video, and this video, for example). 

A few years ago, however, I came to the conclusion that in subjective experiments one should never conduct an observation through a prism placed at minimum deviation. That conclusion was based on a number of reasons, of which two were perhaps the most important. The first of those two reasons was closely linked to the fact that unlike to the objective experiments (in which minimum deviation came with a definitive list of advantages) in subjective experiments minimum deviation came with not only a basically empty list, but in fact with a number of distinct potential of liabilities.

My conclusion also suggested that I should be able to determine and predict how and where exactly I should place my prism in order to get and extract the most eloquent set of data from a vantage point that is determined not by the particular index of refraction of the particular prism involved but by its particular geometry. And in a relatively short span of time, I was able to discover everything I needed to obtain all the desired particulars of a subjective observation without any reliance on a setup of minimum deviation. To that end, I will next share with you all the experimental evidence that is required to prove the validity of my claims.

Suppose that you'd like to find out if there is a precise, mathematical process (rather than a laborious and ineffective one of trial-and-error) that would enable one to determine how to conduct a subjective prismatic observation of some object randomly placed anywhere in space. See the picture below.

That was the exact question I had asked myself a few years ago, and to a great degree of genuine surprise I was to find myself, after a relatively short period of investigation, on a straightforward path to a definitive answer. With a great deal of pleasure, I was to discover that the answer in question turned out to be not only comprehensive and simple, but also insightful and coherently beautiful. To see what I mean just imagine yourself at this point as a nosey neighbour that is looking through his window at the people that are walking on the street that is facing that particular window. Imagine next that the window in question is in your attic and that it is tilted at a 60० angle, just like the face of an equilateral prism. Now, shouldn't it be obvious therefore that the best perspective that such a window could offer would necessarily be running along the plane most perpendicular to the plane of the window itself?

Anyway, a handful of days later I was absolutely certain that what had begun as mere speculation had quickly evolved into a comprehensive array of scientific fact. In less than a week I had thus learned how to assess and conduct basically any kind of subjective observation, with such a high degree of precision that it practically enabled me to almost instantly determine, choose and predict in advance what, how, and where the eventual results should become reality.

So, let me show you how easy it is to determine where exactly an observer should first place his prism relative to the object under observation, and, secondly, where then he ought to place either his naked eye or the eye of a camera, in order to be sure of getting the best possible results of a subjective observation. Take a look at the picture below.

As you can see, we have simply drawn a line that is running perpendicularly towards the face of the prism through which the observation will be conducted. We have also decided at which particular point that perpendicular line should meet the face of the prism, and it is very important to realise that that particular decision had been made completely independent of any refractive conditions. (As it can clearly be seen, the line we had drawn is not at all affected by its travelling through the prism.)

But let us show you one more perspective of the setup involved in this experiment, before proceeding to the actual act of observation. The perspective this time was recorded at an eye-level view.

And now is time to see what kind of results our experiment yielded. See the two pictures below, and don't forget that if you click on them, you'll be offered enlarged views of the pictures.

So, the results shown thus far are most eloquent demonstrations about the validity of my work in the matter. Nonetheless, there is still a great deal of additional evidence needed in order to ultimately prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that everything I have been saying can comprehensively account for all--past, present and future--prismatic observations.

We'll return to the presentation of more prismatic observations in a few moments, but at this point in time I'd like to continue elaborating on a subject I had briefly touched on a little earlier into our current journey. Specifically, you remember my wondering if there was some mathematical method that one could perhaps discover and use as a highly efficient tool in all conceivable prismatic investigations, before arriving at the "perpendicular" possibility that we have been using thus far. As satisfying as that particular method proved to be I can tell you that it pales in comparison to the joy I felt a little later down the track, when I had learned that indeed there was an exact, mathematical way of determining where a prism should be placed relative to an object.

 

To cut a long story short I will simply say that one day it suddenly dawned on me that by using the geometry of two perpendicular planes that are intersecting at some point in order to exchange personal gifts, we had in fact been led to that spot by following two very precise and directly connected trigonometrical routes. To make our task easier to visualise, and in effect to thus get a better grasp of it in the end, I will now drop below an illustration I made. Let's have a look at it.

Consider an object (green circle denoted O) located at no particular place somewhere in space. An observer who, like us, had learned from experience how to determine what would be the ideal location where he should place his equilateral prism and conduct a subjective observation of O from, had drawn a line (h) which is running directly perpendicular from the object towards the face of the prism through which he will look at his target. 

At this point he realises that although he had chosen this particular location based solely on a line of reasoning that relied on the perpendicularity of Cartesian planes, he could have also used basic trigonometry to arrive at the same conclusion.

Now, if you wonder what the point of this exercise was, I would like to draw your attention to the highlighted remark in the paragraph below (which you might remember from the page we had discussed earlier).

Put a thin strip of white paper on a dark surface and look at it through a prism. You have to look in a different direction, and due to the differences in the refractive index for the different wavelengths of light, the strip now looks coloured.

By all scientific principles, that should be rightfully deemed as one dumbfounding remark. In the context of the sheer reality out there, however, it becomes a real gem. It becomes a gem because in its elusiveness it is encapsulated the prevalent quagmire in the conventional understanding of prismatic phenomena. With this in mind let us return to the presentation of more subjective observations.

In the two pictures above, we have a subjective observation conducted with a water prism, photographed from two different perspectives. The index of refraction in water (1.33) is much lower than the index of refraction in the prism we used in the previous observations (1.879936). Yet, as you can see, the same principles led to the same outcome in both observations.

In the two pictures above, we used a glass prism with an index of refraction of 1.54.

For the observation captured in these two pictures we used a wedge prism whose angle at its apex is 30⁰. Effectively that is therefore one half of an equilateral prism. For this observation we firstly placed the prism with the tilted face fronting the camera, and then we changed its orientation with the straight face in its place. See the pictures below.