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."

On rainbows. Part 1

In modern physics one consideres [sic] the theory of rainbows to be a settled field of optics. All conventional optical theories (geometrical optics, wave optics and quantum physics) provide an [sic] unified understanding of rainbow phenomena. 

Thus is stated in this website, which was kindly recommended  to me by Dr. Markus Selmke, of Leipzig University, (even though he needn't have bothered, really, since I had been aware of that site long before the good Dr. took the time to point it to my attention some time last year). Thus is stated in that particular website and, more importantly, thus is believed in the conventional quarters. But I beg to differ, and I'm doing so for very good reasons. Nonetheless, and needless to say, my defiant attitude towards the conventional wisdom regarding the rainbow phenomena has been met with the same degree of contemptuousness and virulence as in my past endeavours of the kind, so I'd like to assure you, all and sundry, that there is nothing anyone can do to get beyond the thickness of my presently long-trained, well-adjusted skin.

I am a sceptic. I do not take anything in without subjecting it to careful scrutiny. Regardless of its source, origin, provenance, backing or accreditation. I am a sceptic and anything I choose to believe in must invariably pass the test of my own scrutiny. Period.

I was suspicious about the validity of the conventional understanding of rainbows ever since I first learned about it, which happened to be on January 1, 2015. I was suspicious especially about the ray tracing description of how, supposedly, the image of the rainbow comes to the eye of the observer. I'm basically referring here to the description that has remained with us since Descartes' time, of course.

But to an even greater extent I am referring here to the description that is depicted in the image below.

When it comes to dealing with the conventional description of the rainbow the plain and simple truth is that over the years I have had a pretty good degree of success, and that I have also acquired a commensurate degree of experience in the matter.  Take for instance the manner in which I resolved, and successfully defended, one of Newton's most prominent and unexplained prismatic conundrums--which was concerned with finding the reasons behind the known observation that the distribution of the spectral colours is reversed when a source of light is viewed directly through a prism, instead of being cast onto a screen.

Now I have talked extensively about that particular event in the past, but here I shall briefly touch on it once more, for two substantial new reasons. Firstly, because when I discussed it here and here and especially here I did it under a different set of circumstances and context. Secondly, because in the context of our current discussion that particular observation and the specific manner in which it was conventionally treated is more relevant than any other.

To see where I intend to go with this remember what I said earlier about the main reason for which I had become suspicious of the conventional description of rainbow formation-observation right from the very start of my initial foray into the mainstream understanding. Then, look carefully and ponder at the picture I am next dropping below.

And now think along with me.

I'm looking at the picture of a triangular prism which shows the spectrum created by a beam of light that entered it via a narrow, horizontal slit. As the spectrum in this picture shows an inverse (VBGYOR) distribution of colours instead of the usual (ROYGBV) display, Newton's only comment in regards to this particular observation was:

"Prismaticall colours appeare in the eye in a contrary order to that in which they fall on the paper".

Then I remember how more recently a number of very important conventional physicists tried desperately to show that there was in fact quite easy to explain--in the spirit of the reigning theoretical understanding--the spectral display above.

And then, more recently, I remember how a while ago I was browsing my saved emails and re-read all the emails I had received from Dr. Selmke. There was a lot to read. Dr. Selmke's emails were long, and involved. Nonetheless I went through all of them. When I finished I suddenly decided to answer to each and every single argument he raised. And that took a long time. He'd raised a lot of arguments. 

But I remember most recently how one day I took a good and hard (and long) look at all the staff I had gathered for my reply to Dr. Selmke's arguments and I felt satisfied that I had enough of it to begin laying it down.

Now, yesterday, I realised how long it would have taken me to write down everything I'd had in mind about that. And that took time. So I instantly decided that I wasn't to lay down and answer to every single argument raised by Markus Selmke. Instead, I will answer to all those arguments that I deem important enough to play decisive parts in the our optical saga. 

The body of conventional evidence regarding the rainbow phenomena is an amalgam of great diversity. And, fascinatingly--but hardly surprising--all those arguments whether great or small play decisive roles in the matter. Take for instance the conventional claim that sun's light rays are virtually running on parallel paths when they hit the earth. Now that may seem to some to be just a  minor issue in the play. I can tell you that it certainly seemed so to me for a long time. But the real truth is that it plays a major role, in the whole play. 

The subject of the supposedly parallel light rays is one that mystifies the common thinker. So much so that he continues to raise this issue in physics fora even though there is a prolific amount of conventional answers in that regard everywhere online. And one must wonder why that is so. After all, by all accounts it appears that no counterargument offered over the years against that particular belief has managed to raise even an eyebrow in the conventional quarters. Nonetheless, there is a very simple way to show why the idea of virtually parallel 

sun rays must be wrong. Watch carefully the video below.

The video is pretty much self-explanatory. Thus one can see that in the instances when divergent light was used the rainbow projected on the wall was quite well defined: it was perfectly round, with the spectral colours showing vividly all  along its circumference. That pacifying situation changed dramatically, however, as soon as I adjusted the focal length of my LED torch, collimating in the process the divergent light into a beam of reasonably parallel rays. Indeed, as soon as I rendered the light parallel the former well-defined rainbow with vivid spectral colours metamorphosed into a fairly diffuse circle of white light. Surprised? I have to confess that I too was a little surprised when I first saw it, before quickly realising that instead of getting surprised I should have anticipated that result well before any subsequent experiment. In fact I'm going to say that even our conventional physicists should have really made the same anticipation, even though they are still a fair distance behind in the race for knowledge and understanding of the optical phenomena. Let me explain why I said that.

Now, in as far as we are concerned the simple truth is that we have learned a long time ago that when it comes to the spatial distribution of the spectral colours in a beam of white light the reality is as clear as daylight: in any beam of white light the colours that makes it "white" are invariably marching in a specific order. That invariable order of spatial distribution is VBGYOR along the longitudinal axis. To us, there's not even a shadow of a doubt about that. To us that is a fact. An established and proven fact. So much so, in fact, that when I wrote about it (some ten years ago now) I called the simple experiment that confirmed it my own  personal experimentum crucis. To the conventional physicist, however, that fact has remained a gargantuan stumbling block and a prohibitive barrier to this day (in spite of all the many times and instances when that stultifying handicap rightfully came to bite them on the ass over and over again, over the years). (And, of course, that's not all either--for when you make such a poor decision in the past the longer you continue to hang on to it, the deeper, the lower and the further it will exile you into wilderness.)

A beam of white light, then, whose rays are running parallel to each other, it will only be able to convey and display just one colour at any given point for as long as it will remain parallel: White. No need to say any more than that.

On the other hand all light rays that are diverging spatially whilst travelling from one point to another will invariably display the full array of the spectral colours in the same, unadulterated VBGYOR order.

That's why a picture like the one I'm about to drop below will show those colours. Think about it for a few moments on your own whilst you'll be watching the picture below. Think about what I have just said a few moments ago, forget about what you have learned from the conventional physicist about diffraction, blah, blah, blah, and you should have little trouble making sense about the colours displayed. (The pic, btw, shows the result of a camera flashlight cast on the screen of a digital LED TV.)

Before moving on to another subject of great interest in the rainbows phenomena I just want to reassure those who might think that we've dealt a little too swiftly with the idea of virtually parallel sun rays that we shall come back to that topic very soon. Just as we'll also come back to the subject of diffraction, to be sure. For now though we'll turn our attention to another major sticking point in the common thinker's arsenal of questions. This particular subject is very important for anyone with a genuine desire to understand how truly rainbows work. So if you're one of those I'll ask you to look for your favourite triangular prism and to put it somewhere near your monitor, for very shortly you will need it.

There is another subject of great interest to the common thinker with a love for rainbows, but which is much less discussed in the major physics fora--by and large because our conventional physicists have much less to say about it than in the other cases. This particular subject is concerned with how do raindrops can work together in such an effective manner that they manage to display for us basically only one big rainbow, in spite of the fact that each and every one of those complotting raindrops can also display their own individual mini rainbow- copies. Now, when the common thinker asks the conventional physicist to explain how raindrops manage to achieve such a feat the only answer he gets is that it has been empirically established that the totality of raindrops in a curtain of showers, say, are undoubtedly behaving in the light of the sun very much like a single droplet of rain, and that that's why we see only one big rainbow, instead of a myriad of small ones. Fair enough, I'd say to that, but we can do a lot (and I mean a looot) more than that in order to convince the rightfully sceptical common thinker that he is  really not just taken for a quick ride around the block.

OK. We'll begin by looking at the pictures below through a prism. (I wager that I do not need to explain why through a prism instead of a spherical lens, for example. Or indeed that by using a triangular prism we can be reasonably confident that basically all other known optical tools are behaving and responding in a like manner.) That being said I will next reiterate a handful of pointers about how you ought to conduct the observations below in order to extract the maximum amount of benefit from them.

First make sure that you position yourself comfortably in front of your computer monitor at a distance of about 50 cm from it. Then, with your favourite hand (which I'll assume to be the right one) hold your prism oriented with its apex to the left and slowly stretch your arm forward toward the monitor until the front side of the prism is almost touching the screen. Keep in mind that there is no need to alter your position (by trying to follow the prism with your eyes towards the screen, for example) for you should be able to easily look through it from where your original position.

Next, look carefully through your prism at the first picture below and you should be able to see that from that very close distance to the screen your prism will display the regular spectral colours, albeit as very narrow chromatic bands. the spectral colours will be shown to be split in two halves: one half consisting of the blue-violet part (which should be visible on the left side of each white rectangle, toward the apex of the prism) and with the other half being formed by the yellow-red combination at the opposite side of each rectangle, toward the base of the prism. Some of you may also distinguish a hint of a green band of colour, if your prism is a little more distant from the screen (than my own particular distance, for instance). It is desirable that you conduct your observations slowly and with care, so please don't rush. Otherwise you run the risk of hindering the full potential of the experience.

Next, when you are satisfied with your observation from that particular distance start drawing very slowly the prism toward yourself, continuing to observe what happens to the original chromatic display with every little step you take. Once again I'll ask you to not rush at any point, for as you should notice things change quite quickly in the spectral display that is unfolding right before your very eyes. As you'll be drawing the prism closer and closer to your observing eye you will see radical changes taking place in the colours displayed, and I truly believe that if you'll pay the right attention to those changes you should certainly begin to envisage new insights, new possibilities,  new potential scenarios.

Lastly, for the time being, please continue your observations in the same manner and with each picture shown below. What we are aiming for, in effect, is to look at each particular picture from as many relative distances as possible, for it is in this manner that you should begin to see the real truth about rainbows and indeed the entire optical phenomena, in general. I can tell you that in my own case I have conducted these observations--and many others on top--starting from a virtual zero distance between my prism and the screen to distances in excess of 7 metres. And with this being said I will now bid you goodbye and hope to see you again very soon. Take care.