On rainbows. Part 7

Dispersion, Markus Selmke, is pointing at your overgrowing nose

Let's talk about dispersion, and let us begin by looking at dispersion in the context of the conventional understanding of rainbows.

The pictures above are all depicting the conventional understanding of how the spectral colours that form the so-called white light are dispersed in a raindrop. They have been created by representatives of some of the most reputable universities around the world. The message they convey is clear cut and identical for all. To my mind that practically means that what they are saying is not a subject of further interpretation or potential 'spin'.

Let us next have a look at some other pictures, which I have taken myself.

Now, can you read the message my pictures are displaying? You should be able to, and rather easily, for they are all screaming it loud and clear.

A glass ball, an acrylic sphere or a raindrop, for that matter, is a converging lens. Therefore, within an object of such kind any conventional dispersion of light is forbidden by default.

Need I say anything more? Come on, have you all overgrown a nose like Markus Selmke?

       

It is painfully sad to see how our 'modern prophets' get away with even the most idiotic declarations simply because the common man does not only believe that those who managed to acquire so great titles as Doctors of Philosophy and Professors Emeritus must know what they are talking about, but also that someone of his ilk is just not smart enough to understand or figure out things of the kind those smart ones appear to routinely eat for breakfast any given morning.

To show you what I mean, and also to prove to you that what I've said is undoubtedly correct, I'm going to give you one concrete and most popular example from the world of physics, of course.

One of the most popular questions asked on physics fora is how could it possibly be right the conventional claim that the sun rays are, for all intents and purposes, pretty much parallel to each other when they hit the earth. Many a time those who appear to have doubts about that conventional claim post images like the one below as corroborative evidence to their gut-feeling that, for once, physicists might be mistaken on this issue.

Needless to say, those incredibly smart physicists, who are routinely eating such 'simple' things for breakfast in a hurry, are not even minutely fazed by that kind of  'evidence' and as a 'proof' of their superior ability to reason they quickly post a picture themselves, which invariably shows the same thing the picture below does.

To that picture then they triumphantly add that "it's a mere matter of perspective, people", before drawing a full stop to the issue.

Now, I can tell you that I have seen threads exactly like the one I depicted here dozens of times, and yet not once I have witnessed any rebuttal of the conventional argument above, despite of it being so darned stupid that it still makes my skin crawl every time we cross paths in one way or another.

Now let me show you how easily it can be proven that this conventional line of reasoning is particularly stupid.

If you ever come across an 'explanation' like the one above ask the 'explainer' to draw on a piece of paper not merely one pair of rails that make a railway track, but as many as he, or she, can manage. (If he, or she, asks why just say that the sun is not radiating just two rays either.) Now, I can very confidently tell you that upon attempting to fulfill such request anyone will visibly begin to 'stutter' after not more than a minute or two. Why? I'll show you why--see the picture below.

Regardless of how close to really parallel one may draw each successive pair of 'rays' pretty soon one will have no choice but to 'close the circle' so to speak, and that will immediately render that conventional argument totally flawed. And stupid. And idiotic. (Don't ask again "why", for anyone should need no further help to see "why" from here onward, surely.)

Two days after publishing this post I am concluding it by bringing to your attention more visual data that reinforces what I was talking about in the first part of this post. Let us have a good look thus at the pictures below, which are all creations of the conventional physics establishment.

Let us look carefully at the points where the dispersion of the incident white light does occur, and then let us think for a while about the likely explanations and implications of our observations. After all the first of the freedoms we all want, claim and boast about is the freedom of thought, isn't it? We're all free thinkers, aren't we?

Until next time I say hooroo, from a hot Down Under.

On rainbows--Part 6.

On the disarmingly simple and devilishly complicated inverse spectrum of light

It has finally become obvious to me why you do not understand why in a so-called subjective prismatic observation the spectrum appears inversely displayed. It has also become clear very recently in my mind why the conventional physicists have not a clue about the real causes of prismatic experiments, regardless of their so-called subjective or objective nature. Today I'm going to redress that tragic reality and you'll see the truth. Period.

You have had ample opportunity to be aware of how many conventional physicists of the highest pedigree in this world have tried to explain that long known observation that prismatical colours appear to the eye of the observer in inverse order to that cast on a screen. Effectively, VBGYOR instead of ROYGBV, in a direction running from the top towards the bottom of the prism. Today you'll be shown definitive proof that the conventional physicists just plainly cannot do it, regardless of what kind of spin they either have put or will ever put on whatever things they can feel free to choose from. 

That's all. Let's go.

A slit is casting a beam of white light onto a converging lens.

The beam is then entering a triangular prism, in which each individual wavelength bends at its own angle. Upon exiting the prism each wavelength bends, again at its own individual angle, a second time around. That results in the observed separation of the spectral colours. The order of the colours in a direction from the apex of the prism to the base is ROYGBV.

That particular order is due to the 'fact' that the speed of R in the prism is slowed down the least, of  V the most, and of all the other colours, in between those two in the known order.

That's basically the entire gamut of the conventional view on prismatic phenomena, and--based on known accounts--all mainstream physicists staunchly believe and declare that any other possible prismatic observation can be explained within the boundaries of that context. 

Now from all historical accounts that we have gathered since the very times of Sir Isaac Newton to this very other point in time there have been hardly any known challenges or demands calling on the mainstream physicist to please explain why "prismatical colours appear to the eye of the observer in inverse order to that cast on a screen". Personally I'm only aware of two. The first one that I know of was raised by Anthony Lucas in a couple of letters to Newton himself, three and a half centuries back. The second one was raised by a Canadian Engineer called Doug Marsh, only a few years ago. Although I had contacted Mr. Marsh in the past (to which in turn he courteously replied) that remained the entire extent of our communication. (Until five minutes ago, that is, when I sent the man a new email.) You can find his essay here and I suggest you read it.

Since I believe that you have read all the posts of this site you'd be well-aware of my own debates with some of the mainstream physicists out there, but the bare truth is that in all those cases I thought that in the end it was always manifestly obvious where the reality lay. In hindsight that may well have been an error in judgement, on my part. 

Overwhelmingly, two conventional replies to my challenges proved to be the most popular, the most used. Here and now I'll deal with them, and with any other if or whenever they might raise their heads in my living future.

Invariably, at some point pretty much everyone with conventional leanings took turns to remind me that things appear inverted on the human retina, and that he--the human--only managed to redress that wrong orientation in his brain via a long evolutionary process. Dr. Dutch did it, and--surprise, surprise--Dr. Selmke did it too. To both of them I replied that one of the first things a common thinker analyses when he encounters the inversely displayed spectrum is exactly that, but that he then dismisses it after thinking about it for no more than a couple of minutes. To that I then added that I will reveal that decisive 2 min line of reasoning if they either asked or dared me. Neither of them did either. So neither did I.

Today however I'll reveal it freely, for you.

If we have only learned to put things right in our brains in the conventional manner then we must have also somehow  learned to do it in all possible situations bar one: namely, when we look with the naked eye through a triangular prism at a source of light!!!

So, how long will you need to think about that, before you'll genuinely be able to make a sound sense of it and therefore  understand it truly? Time yourself, and remember that I have already given you the answer. Good luck.

That's all about this, let's go to the next one.

The second is the one that was discussed in that Physics Forums thread back in the year of 2010.

It is the one that has been visually depicted by mainstream physicists like in the two pictures shown below.

Conversely, it is the same one that I consequently dismissed because of the reality of the observational fact shown by the two pictures below and described in a direct message I sent that Claude Bile, Senior Adviser with a Ph.D. in optical physics, and published openly for everybody else in one of my subsequent posts following that thread. Which basically both conveyed the following matter-of-fact message: The conventional 'explanation' is fatally flawed due to the fact that in order for the observer's eye to see the inverse VBGYOR spectrum it must be placed well outside the path that is willy-nilly imposed by the mainstream understanding. And in fact I did even more than that, for then I showed with real pictures what the observer's eye will strictly be able to see when it's placed right in the beam of colours that emerges and extends all the way down from the prism.

 Which are factually of this kind of kinds.

Now, to my mind  what I had offered was conclusive proof that the conventional view was irrevocably flawed, dead, non-existent, bogus, hot air. But as I said a little earlier above that was until the other day--when I realised that in spite of all my explanations it was rather conspicuous that neither laity nor academia have nowhere near understood what kind of conditions must be met by any would-be explanation. So let me then add to everything that I have said before on this topic the following.

Look carefully at the picture above. Note the Newtonian ROYGBV spectrum that is literally cast onto an intercepting screen after exiting the prism. Think soundly and you should realise that any valid explanation must unquestionably show the same spectrum visibly cast and displayed on some screen of sorts, as well as contain a copy readily observable of the so-called subjective, VBGYOR spectrum within the same experimental setup. This is an absolute and non-negotiable prerequisite for any would-be explanation, and anything less than that should clearly and categorically be deemed unacceptable and therefore rejected out of hand. In view of this condition let me show you then that my particular prismatic setup does meet that requirement, fully. See below.

Not only that, if you look carefully towards the ceiling of the prism you'll readily notice two other inverse spectra, which have been generated by two of the three easily discernable slits.

Here you have a full view of the three inversely displayed spectra. Then below I'll show you in a sequential array of pictures what the observer's eye would see if it is placed not only in the beam of colours that emerge from the prism, but indeed anywhere near and around it as well.

It is time to now present for your scrutiny my own explanation for the observation, even though I have done it before.

The reversed VBGYOR order appears to the naked eye because the picture that it (the eye) gets is basically that of the prism itself and the image of that inversely running spectrum is effectively a travelling companion (or side-effect, if you prefer) embedded with the prism as such.

Let's have a look at a few more pictures now.

Observe and think. Look carefully at the spatial orientation of the objects relative to the orientation of camera's eye, as well as that of the prism itself. Think.

Observe and think. You remember how I explained the apparition of the inverse spectrum. Now look at what the arrow on the left is pointing. Think about that. As I have said, forget about the conventional spill about how diffraction is responsible for such observations. Think. Now put two and two together and you should see.

Take the beam of light marked by the left arrow and put it on the top of the beam (I shouldn't say 'beam', but I can't seem to get anything else at the moment.) that's laying on the floor. It is all visible, from the slit to the refracted beam that is passing on your right. Think.

This is a real picture, not tampered with in any way. It shows an entire process at work: that of refraction. Period.

On rainbows. Part 5--To the ponderer

On the colour dispersion of white light in my own universe

Let me begin this topic by reminding you first how the reigning conventional understanding depicts, visually, how a ray of white light  is dispersed into the known colour display called the spectrum by a typical triangular prism.

These two visual depictions are described as being "conceptual", which I suppose is intended to suggest that they are only qualitatively representative of the phenomenon as such. The first of the two is conceptually depicting the conventional wave aspect of light, while the second is clearly concerned with the particle aspect of it. Both pictures are quite conspicuously displaying all the major conventional attributes of the light and dispersion phenomena. For instance from the particle version of the duo it is immediately apparent that, according to the conventional understanding, when travelling through a prism the speed of the red light is greater than those of all other spectral lights.

=============

A quick note to the ponderer. 

If you want to get an accurate picture of where exactly our contemporaneous understanding in physics truly is my genuine advice is to forget consulting any online website that is associated with any official institution or similar representative (e.g. Wikipedia) and to direct your attention instead to fora like Physics Forums and Physics Stack Exchange. It is only in places like the two I mentioned where you'll be able to get a clear picture of the reality of our time in the subject of physics. As a concrete example that is directly related to our current topic click on this link and on this one.

=============

Now, let me make no bones about it, when it comes to the subject of how the conventional dogma describes what a ray of white light is and how it is dispersed by a prism into a spectrum I can (barely) manage to keep some sort of a straight face these days and pretend (to the best of my meagre abilities) to listen politely to those who are preaching the conventional view. To give you another concrete example that is directly related to this issue please have a good look at the 'pearls of wisdom' I extracted from this thread that took place in 2010 in the Physics Forums. 

This was the question that started the thread and what you'll see below (if you haven't visited the link I gave above a moment ago) are some of the most prominent answers it attracted in reply.

Now, for those who don't know it I have to say that I have dealt with this particular thread in the past. But the truth is that when I did it (eight years back into the past, I think) I left a handful of things untouched, so today I am mending that misdeed of mine. Without any additional explanations, however. Not even in regards to why I have changed the "up" for the "left". See below.

There is no secret by now that according to my understanding the distribution of colours in the typical spectrum is well defined and ordered. This is naturally in total contrast to the view of the conventional understanding, which--apparently--looks something like this.

The four pictures above come from a You Tube video made by a high school teacher, I believe, in order to explain to her students, I guess, how refraction occurs in a triangular prism. Pretty wild, huh?

Nothing like that in my own understanding.

The picture above is meant to be looked at through a triangular prism (equilateral one, preferably) from a distance of about 1.5 m. (Prism should be oriented with its apex/vertex pointing to the left of the observer.) When such observation is conducted the three coloured bars vertically displayed on the right hand of the picture will merge, forming a ray of light (approximately) similar to the one shown horizontally. (Approximately because the coloured bars are dispersed by the prism into individual spectra themselves. Additionally, when blue refracts in a subjective prismatic observation on a black background it leaves behind a band of  a dark green hue, which you can clearly see laying along the right side of the original trio.)

Now, those three bars (which are obviously coloured in the primary hues) are joining together along the same line because in all subjective prismatic observations Red is deflected towards the base of the prism, Blue towards the apex, while Green does not change its position at all. 

And you can see the same law at work again if you next direct your attention to the horizontally placed ray of light (while continuing to look through your prism, of course). You know what I mean?

My ray of light is sufficient to account for light propagation, refraction, dispersion and diffraction as well, and all without any additional conditions. Now that is something that your conventional ray just cannot do, full stop. Do you dispute this fact, Markus Selmke? Or are you looking now at whether you should remind me or not that what I've done so far is to merely make declarations? Really, do I need to show you how easily  beautifully easy all those things can be accomplished when my ray of light is employed? 

Well, if I have to, I will. But not now. Next time, for now I want to show you instead another definitive proof that your so-called "well understood, quantified" theory of dispersion is flatly false. Have a look below.

Figured it out yet? No? OK, I'll show you some more pictures. And this time some of your own.

How about now? Still nothing? OK, but I'm afraid you'll have to wait until my next post, for now I have to go and see my little granddaughter--who, unlike you, is a real handful. Hooroo!