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.

Red and Blue refract in opposite directions; Green, Yellow and Cyan do not refract at all.

 

The simplest things are hardest to discover. This truism is probably most evident in science, and I've been fortunate to become a direct eyewitness to one of its concrete manifestations.

For 350 years no one has managed to discover what was undoubtedly the most astonishingly obvious flaw in Newton's theory of light and colours. Not even Goethe managed to see it, and I have a very good reason for mentioning only his name out of many, many others.  That very good reason I have is perfectly encapsulated in what is arguably the most popular artefact designed by Goethe in his long study of colours. See below.

On the right we can see the four spectral colours, which Goethe called boundary colours. They appear to an observer who looks at the figure with the four black and white rectangles through a prism that is oriented with the apex pointing down.

Now, without saying anything more than what I already have, can you see the flaw in Newton's theory that I have been talking about? 

However lenient one may be with anyone, the reality is that even without a prism, anyone should not have too much trouble noticing that Red is 'looking' UP whilst Blue is 'looking' DOWN. How much easier should be to notice that, then, with a prism. One shouldn't even have to look through it at Goethe's diagram. Indeed, it would suffice to hold the prism in front of the figure, halfway along the middle line with the base up and apex down, for anyone to easily see then that Blue and Red extend in opposite directions. This is in stark contrast to Newton's view that all colours are bent, refracted, or deflected in the same direction by a prism.

And that is all that it should have taken anyone to spot what is in truth a major flaw in Newton's celebrated theory. As it stands, though, no one has managed to detect it in 350 years of intense research. Not even Goethe, as I said.

Have a good look at the two images below. The first contains a diagram that can fully verify, or otherwise falsify, the statement in the title when it is used in a subjective prismatic observation. Specifically, we'll be looking at it through an equilateral prism (oriented with the apex towards the left) from a distance of about 50cm. When one does that, one sees the first image transformed into the second one below it. Moreover, if one claims that one knows what's going on in that transformational process then one ought to provide a concrete and coherent explanation for every single spectral item that is visible in the second picture. Otherwise, one has obviously no idea about what causes those features.

According to the significant experience that I have accumulated on that topic over the years, there is a strong possibility that there isn't another person able to do what is required in that matter. Another person than myself, that is.

We begin by explaining the reason for the black and white bars that are sitting above those three columns of colours under scrutiny. The reason for my putting them there is the fact that they provide precise points of reference relative to which we can monitor whether the G, C and Y rectangles are deflected from their original positions by the prism.

Now, let us look at the top of the middle column, which has a narrow black bar in the first image and in the other the trio of colours that is also called the Goethean spectrum: Y, M, C. This, sometimes called inverse spectrum, is generated by the white background upon which the black bar in the first image rests. The narrow black bar is not seen in the second picture because it has been covered by the overlapping of R and B, with B coming from the white field on the right of the black bar, and R from that on the left. As we know, R is deflected in the direction towards the base of the prism, and B in the opposite direction, towards the apex. Together they form M, which is exactly as wide as the black bar. Y appears on the left of M, at a relatively large distance. C is on the right of M and much closer to it. All three appear to have the same width. And now we are at my favourite part of the explanation for this case. My favourite because I have good reason to believe that no one, beside me, knows what the correct answer must be to the following question: What is the reason for the gaps between the three complementary colours?

The reason is the fact that the two spectra generated by the white background are not only deflected upon observation. They have also much larger widths, which when in combination with the deflection increases the overall effect. In fact, the widths of the colours in this case are the same as those of their counterparts from the other two columns. That's easily verifiable. It is only the distance between observer and subject that determines the widths of the spectral colours, as you can readily see when looking at those two counterparts I had mentioned earlier. And this fact tells a different story for those gaps between the colours than one may believe. The four spectral colours (Y R B and C) overlap on larger areas than we may be led to believe, which leads to two inevitable situations: R to overlap C, and B to overlap Y. Both situations create white patches, hence...

Before getting into the next case, it is very important to realise that a subjective observer can understand quite a lot more of the subject when every observation conducted involves not only observation from a distance, but also observation of all points of reference along the perpendicular axis. For those who do not really know what I am talking about, it means observation conducted in the following manner. Place yourself at a distance from the monitor that is roughly an arm extension away. Hold your prism with the apex pointing to your left and look carefully at the image in front of you. When satisfied, begin taking the prism very slowly away from your eye towards the monitor. There's no need to immediately try to follow the prism, you can get a good perspective from where your head is, for the time being. Finally, in order to see clearly how the unfolding of the entire phenomena evolves, you can place your eye close to the prism, which is practically touching the screen, and repeat the process, in reverse. 

Let us look next at the RGB spectral trio right below in the middle column. Here we can see that the G component of the spectrum is perfectly lined up with the M, which means therefore that G has not been deflected at all from its original position. That also means that R had been deflected by the prism in a direction towards its base, and that B had been deflected in the opposite direction. There is no other way. And the most beautiful part of all this is that anyone can literally see how that happens simply by looking through their prism (apex to the left) at the narrow white bar that generated the RGB bars, while moving slowly the prism closer and closer to the monitor.

Staying with the middle column, the next spectral display is that generated by the G bar. There is not much to notice here, except that the G component is most dominant, with only very narrow bands of R and B barely showing on each side of the G bar. One particular thing is worth mentioning in this case, however.  That is that R and B are always projected onto the (black) background. In other words, they are never encroaching into the original width of the light source.

The next item we'll scrutinise is one of the most interesting in our entire panoply of spectra. Looking subjectively at the C bar in the middle column, we observe that from our distance of 0.5 m the original C bar appears to be perfectly G! At a first glance this might seem like a most surprising occurrence. A closer inspection, however, reveals that there is nothing exceptional about that. Looking carefully at the C bar whilst moving the prism closer and closer to the screen shows us why from a distance the C bar appears G. The B component of C is increasingly deflected towards the apex of the prism, leaving behind the other component of C, which is of course G. (Although this is basically what happens in this case we shall return to this subject very soon, for there are still a number of very important implications that need to be discussed.)

Red and Blue refract in opposite directions in objective experiments too

 

According to the conventional understanding there are two kinds of prismatic experiments: subjective and objective. The subjective experiments are basically understood to be those in which the observer is thought to be interfering with the experiment. The objective prismatic experiments are understood to be those in which the observer is thought not to be interfering with the experiment. Thus, if the experimenter is looking through a prism at a source of light, what he sees is deemed to be a subjective observation. Conversely, if the experimenter is looking at some screen upon which a prismatic image has been intercepted, his observation is deemed to be objective. Furthermore, if the experimenter substitutes his eye with the eye of some recording device, like a camera, the observation thus acquired is still considered to be subjective. If, on the other hand, the experimenter uses a camera to record a prismatic image captured on a screen, the observation acquired is considered to be objective. 

Now, with all these things being said, I want to ask the conventional physicist what kind of observation is the one captured in the image below.

Think carefully before trying to sell me a hybrid story (half subjective, half objective, blah, blah) for there is a prismatic image intercepted by the same screen upon which your so-called objective image is recorded. And if you're still defiant and start concocting other stories to try to justify your position, I will show you even more confronting images that will make your skin crawl with the fear of your time coming to an inevitable end. Images like this

and this

and this

Needless to say, the conventional physicist has treated the so-called subjective experiments much differently than those so-called objective ones. This is of course another Newtonian legacy, and it is a most unfortunate one. Somewhat ironically though Newton believed that the same rules governed and applied to both. In spite of that, however, the reality is that he took little time to examine the subjective observations with the same care as he did with the objective ones. One significant example of this fact is the manner in which he treated the observation that in subjective experiments the spectrum is inversely displayed--VBGYOR, instead of ROYGBV (from the apex of the prism to the base). Apart from mentioning that fact, in passing, he did nothing at all about it. And that failure, again, has reverberated to the present day. To such an extent that today's conventional physicist's 'explanation' for that observation is such a cacophonous verbiage of nonsense that it makes me want to howl to the moon every time I hear it. And believe me, I have heard it so many times over the years...

Newton's failure to treat the so-called subjective experiments with the same degree of care as he treated the objective ones is by and large the main cause for the staggering level of prismatic ignorance that is prevalent today. From the hundreds (perhaps thousands) of examples that I could give you about that fact, in the end I have chosen only one. It is a personal example and it happened a few months back at the Physics StackExchange forum. It began when I posted the question below.

My question attracted two answers.

I don't want to spend any time at all discussing the 'answers' given. That wasn't my intention in the first place for showing you this particular example. The main reason for that decision was to highlight what should be the most valuable insight one should extract from this little piece of factual reality. The overarching lesson of this story is to see that the vast majority of us invariably fail to see that the simplest truths are the hardest to discover. The question I had posted to that forum should have been comprehensively answered in less than 100 words by pretty much anyone who had even a superficial knowledge of Goethe's and Newton's work. So much so, I say, that any ordinary thinker (with even a superficial knowledge of the works I mentioned) should have instantly realised that when it comes to providing a consistent explanation for the observation in question Goethe's wins hands down, beyond the shadow of a doubt. For those unable to see the truth of this matter even now the only thing I have to say is this: I'm sorry that it is I who had to inform you that you're definitely not a thinker. That doesn't mean that you couldn't be a physicist. Quite the contrary, in fact, for to the best of everybody's knowledge, there hasn't been thus far even a single physicist--of the conventional kind, let us specify--who's managed to see that small piece of the bloody truth in the last 350 years. So, I have said, once and for all, but if there's anyone who thinks that he knows better don't cower in the safety of shadows. Come forward, out here, in the open, under the lights and scrutiny of all--or otherwise keep your mouth firmly shut. Forever.