The story of my latest journey (Part 2)

All rise--hooray! A Nobel Prize laureate declares his faith in

Mr. Dutch!

This is the second leg of my latest journey, and it starts on the 7th day of May.
A truly memorable day, indeed. First, just after midnight I received from Mr.
Dutch an email to which he'd attached healthy copies of his two pictures, of
which circa 1.66 you saw on the previous page. Then, immediately after that I
sent the following email to two hundred physicists around the world.
Hello,
This is to advise you that due to well-defined and conclusive factors I have to tell
you in one sentence the following: I, Remus Poradin, have the crucial
experimental proof that Newton's theory of light and colours is flawed. And now,
if you got to this point read one more sentence: In fact you can easily prove that
to yourself by conducting a number of simple and straight forward experiments,
of which one is shown below to prove that the colours red and blue in the first
experiment listed by Newton in Opticks are refracted in opposite directions.
And now, if you have gotten to this point you are philosophically bound to keep
reading to the point where you will become convinced that I am either right or
wrong. I'll refer you thus to read this page
http://jaccuse.info/From%20double%20Dutch%20to%20an%20epiphany.html ,
in which you will find within no more than ten minutes the answer.
Lastly, in seven days from now I will contact you one last time, to ask you one
last question.
Just a few hours later I receive this:
From: Brian Josephson To: darpino@jaccuse.info
>And now, if you have gotten to this point you are philosophically bound to keep reading to the point
where you will become convinced that I am either right or wrong. I'll refer you thus to read this page
http://jaccuse.info/From%20double%20Dutch%20to%20an%20epiphany.html , in which you will find
within no more than ten minutes the answer.<

For what its worth, I find what Steve Dutch says more convincing.
bdj
------

Brian D. Josephson
Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Cambridge
Director, MindMatter Unification Project
WWW: http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10
Tel. +44(0)1223 337260/337254
At first I was absolutely stunned. Not by the name, not by old memories, not even
by the message itself. I just couldn't figure out how Professor Josephson could
have gotten word of the email I'd sent around the world! As far as I remembered
he was definitely NOT one of the two hundred I had chosen to be recipients of it!
It wasn't long at all though before my mind brought me to reality. Why should I
care about how that might have happened? What really mattered was that a
Professor Emeritus of Physics, from the greatest university in the world, took the
time to let me know that he'd found Mr. Dutch's arguments more convincing! Not
only that. What mattered even more was that the man in question is a Nobel prize
winner--and one whose name has been forever carved in history. Yeah, this is the
man behind Josephson junction.
And with such thoughts in mind I quickly replied to the above.
From: Remus Poradin To: Brian Josephson
Re: >For what its worth, I find what Steve Dutch says more convincing.<
)))))))Good to know. Thank you for your contribution ;-)
For a while after replying I thought about writing Mr. Dutch a letter beginning
like this: "Mr. Dutch, before anything else allow me to congratulate you. Whether
you've been made aware of it or not, I can inform you that in our little debate you
are being backed-up by none other than....". That thought, however, did neither
find the right time in my brain, nor the desired depth, to get any chance of
becoming reality. Instead I decided to put my feet up for a few days and see what
sort of impact my new email will have on the other 199 physicists I'd sent it to.

Today is Friday, 17th of May 2013. Ten days have passed since the events I
penned above. The email I had sent to the other 199 physicists doesn't seem to
have had any impact at all. Three days ago (when the seven days specified in my
email came up) I'd decided to wait one more week before sending them that "one
last email with one last question". That decision was triggered by a sudden spike
in the hits I'd gotten for the previous couple of days. Since then though things

went back to their routine normality, and in the process I thusly have dumped that
idea and drawn a new plan. And the first part of that plan I will implement here
and now.

My second open letter to the current establishment of physicists

When it comes to the currently reigning theories in physics there is not one in
which the academic ignorance is rifer (or indeed easier to prove) than in the
Newtonian theory of light and colours.
When it comes to the currently reigning theories in physics there is none easier to
experimentally obliterate than Newton's theory of light and colours.
When it comes to the currently reigning theories in physics there is none more
readily available to be resolved, and thereby to be used in the furtherance of
mankind's understanding, than the conventionally accredited theory of light and
colours.
(You have been made aware of these three facts, and thus you will no longer be
able to hide behind your silence--or indeed dodge the imminency of the present's,
and future's, summons. You have been told.)

There is no simpler or more direct way to prove that when it comes to Newton's
theory of light and colours the academic ignorance is so rife that not only PhDs
are afflicted by it, but also Nobel Prize winners, than the email I received from
Professor Emeritus Steven I. Dutch on the 2nd of May (and which was also
endorsed by the Emeritus Professor of Physics Brian D. Josephson, Nobel Prize
laureate).
From: Dutch, Steve. Subject: This may answer your question
I read some of your pages and looked through a prism. The first thing I noticed
was that when I looked directly at something through a prism, I couldn't see it. I
had to change my line of sight by a pretty large angle. So all wavelengths bend
when viewed through a prism.
On one of your pages you draw a parallel to quantum mechanics, saying we know
what happens at the source and where the spectrum is projected, but not in
between. That's flatly false. We can use a triangular tank full of water for a prism
and put a drop or two of milk in it to scatter light, and we can use dry ice to create
some fog in the air, and see the entire light path from start to finish. Or we can

use more sophisticated analytical tools. But there is nothing unknown at any point
on the light path.
Your problem seems to be, why does a projected spectrum have red on the top,
but when viewed directly, red is on the bottom. Here's why.

Here's your eye viewing a spectrum. Your eye focuses the light on the retina.
Note that the image is inverted. That's important.

Now, here's your eye viewing a spectrum directly. Your eye is still focusing an
image, but an image of the distant slit (in my case, the gap between a
windowshade and the sill). I could see the details of the shade and sill, but many
overlapping colored images. Here the spectrum is created right in front of your
eye. The originally single image of the slit is split into many colored images and
projected directly onto your retina. Note that the order on your retina is opposite
the order when viewing a projected spectrum. Your brain inverts the image so
that red appears on the bottom.
If the prism is further from your eye, say sunlight passing through the beveled
edges of a cut glass window pane, the whole spectrum won't fit onto your retina
at once. You'll have to move your eye to get the full range of colors. It will be
like sticking your eye between the prism and the screen in the top figure. You'll
see red with your eye high and violet with it low.
Since a simple look through a prism shows that all wavelengths are bent, how to
account for your claim that green and yellow are not deflected? If the slit is wider
than the apparent width of the spectrum, there will be a band where the images
created by all wavelengths overlap and the light is white. This will happen in the
middle of the spectrum: that is, green and yellow. You still won't get a clear
image of the slit because it will have red fringes on one side and violet on the
other.
Steve Dutch
Now, I shall neglect (at this point) the things depicted in yellow, and I shall only
concentrate on the subject highlighted in red. Before doing that, though, I would
like to let you know--in advance--that when a common thinker encounters the
reversed spectrum for the first time, his (or her), immediate attempt for an
explanation about its existence is quite often based on exactly the same idea as
Mr. Dutch's above. However, in total contrast to Mr. Dutch, the common thinker
does usually discard that first attempt at an explanation after no more than a
couple of minutes of reasoning. Why? Well, because that's how long it does
normally take a common thinker to realise that any explanation based on the idea
of 'retinal image-inversion' is just bull dust (or baloney, bilgewater, crap, or
perhaps humbug, bosh, or taradiddle). In spite of this being an easily
demonstrable fact to any common thinker (dare me to prove that, if you happen to
harbour either related doubts, or beliefs), Mr. Dutch does not show any
reservations when he says:
Your problem seems to be, why does a projected spectrum have red on the top,
but when viewed directly, red is on the bottom. Here's why.
Hey, Mr. Dutch! Let me reply to that. I don't have any problem with either the
projected spectrum (ROYGBV), or with its directly observed and reversed

counterpart (VBGYOR). You are the one having problems, with both! So much
so that you don't seem to have even the slightest inkling of how stupendously
stupid your so-called explanation is! Yeah, your so-called explanation is
stupendously stupid because it can so easily be shown to be so from all three
scientific perspectives--those of logic, theory, and experimentation. Here,
however, I shall restrict myself to showing you that so indeed it is the truth only
from one of those three perspectives. The one you claim to value and respect the
most. The experimental perspective. (For the other two, you'll either have to ask
or challenge me.)
Let us consider the two experimental setups depicted by Mr. Dutch in the two
illustrations from his email above. For convenience I shall display two half-sized
copies below.

Firstly, it is imperative that a few things are clearly specified from the outset (for
reasons which shall become apparent later). Therefore, then, in the picture above
on the left we have a source emitting light, light which is passed through a thin
slit and is then focused (collimated, really) into a triangular prism, from which it
eventually emerges in spectral form to cast a rainbow-like image on a screen
similar to the one shown. Furthermore, the naked eye of an observer looks at the
spectral display projected on the screen while coloured lines, extending in the
manner shown from the screen to the observer's retina, have been drawn to show
the path of every coloured ray in order to account for Mr. Dutch's 'explanatory'
note: Here's your eye viewing a spectrum. Your eye focuses the light on the
retina. Note that the image is inverted. That's important. (At this point I have to,
even if only rhetorically, ask: Really? Why is that important, Mr. Dutch? :-)
Now, in regard to the second illustration, which is displayed above on the right, it
is equally imperative to make absolutely clear--just like in the first picture--the
following facts that are (vitally) relevant to that particular setup. Therefore, then,
let it be understood that in this case, too, we have a source emitting light, light
which is passed through a narrow slit and is then focused (collimated, really) into
a triangular prism, and from which it eventually emerges in spectral form.

However, unlike in the first case, the spectrum that emerges from the prism is
intercepted not by a screen, but by the naked eye of an observer.
And now, having made all necessary facts clear, let me cite next Mr. Dutch's
conclusion regarding this setup: Now, here's your eye viewing a spectrum
directly. Your eye is still focusing an image, but an image of the distant slit (in
my case, the gap between a windowshade and the sill). I could see the details of
the shade and sill, but many overlapping colored images. Here the spectrum is
created right in front of your eye. The originally single image of the slit is split
into many colored images and projected directly onto your retina. Note that the
order on your retina is opposite the order when viewing a projected spectrum.
Your brain inverts the image so that red appears on the bottom. (And, again,
rhetorically: Really, Mr. Dutch? How certain are you about that? :-)

Remember I'd said earlier that I will prove how stupid Mr. Dutch's explanation is
only from an experimental point of view? Good.
Let me begin by tackling first what an observer sees in an experimental setup like
the one depicted in the picture above on the left. The simple answer to that is the
following: in that particular experiment an observer shall always see an exact
copy of the spectral image that's projected on the screen. Surprising? Certainly
not. The only surprise regarding that particular setup is--at least as far as I'm
concerned--Mr. Dutch's wholly redundant (and equally ambiguous,
inconsequential, irrelevant, and ultimately stupid) 'explanatory' comment about
the inverted image on the observer's retina.
Things, though, get much muuuuch more interesting in the experimental setup
depicted graphically in the picture above on the right. So, then, let's ask the
question: what does the observer see in that particular case? Well, let me answer
that question with the help of some real images.

And now in spoken language: when an observer puts his eye in the spectral bands
that emerge from a prism he sees nothing but lights of those very colours--one at
a time, though, and without exception. Thus, when he puts his eye in the red band
of the spectrum (which, btw, appears at the top of the spectrum--just like it is
depicted in Mr. Dutch's illustration) guess what he sees? Red light, of course--and
nothing else. And, conversely, when the observer puts his eye in the violet part of
the spectrum (which, just like in Mr. Dutch's illustration, appears at its bottom)
the only thing he can ever hope to see is violet light. At no time whatsoever,
therefore, can an observer see the full array of spectral colours when the location
of his eye is anywhere within the boundaries of the spectrum that's emerging from
the prism.
From this experiment alone then, Mr. Dutch, a common thinker can quite safely
conclude that if the reversed VBGYOR spectrum really exists, it must be neither
a creation, nor an effect, nor indeed a dependent of the Newtonian ROYGBV
display. That's why, as I have said numerous times in the past on these pages, in
order for an observer to see the VBGYOR spectrum he must position his eye
beyond--and ideally above--the boundaries of the emerging ROYGBV spectrum.
Pretty much like in the photo below on the left.

And then, when one does that, presto--one can see the reversed VBGYOR
spectrum in all its fullness and glory! Just like in the photo above on the right.
(At this point do not let yourself be lured astray by the shadows of silly
questioners, or by those of dumb yet cantankerously argumentative debaters. Do
the experiments first, observe everything carefully, then after that think deep, and
hard, and well before eventually contemplating the prospect of a real combat over
these matters. Trust me, I know why I am saying this. I'm talking from my
personal experience :-)
Lastly, on the current topic, a careful analysis on the part of anyone who's
genuinely understood where I am coming from (and perhaps toward where I'll be
heading from this point onwards), should unreservedly reveal the final truth,
which really is just a conclusive confirmation that the reversed VBGYOR
spectrum does indeed exist, and that it does so with a complete and undisputed
independent status from its sibling, ROYGBV. And, furthermore, and truly
finally this time, the previous conclusive confirmation should come to one in
tandem with another: that is that any attempt to tie the reversed VBGYOR
spectrum to Newton's ROYGBV, and consequently in the process to subject both

to the same factors, laws, and principles, can only lead to a state of complete
anarchy and paradoxicalness. (Much like the state of the present, really.)

When it comes to the currently reigning theories in physics there is none easier to
experimentally obliterate than Newton's theory of light and colours.
This little chapter is here only to remind you that the statement in the title is
wholly justified by the fact that I can prove that in the experiment that Newton
listed first in Opticks the colours red and blue are bent in opposite directions.
Furthermore, this is also an advisory memorandum informing you that I can
prove what I'd just said in a great number ways, making use of a great number of
different experiments. Finally, furthermost, this is to make you aware--if you are
not already--that the great number of experiments I have referred to can be easily,
and very cheaply, conducted by anyone out there.
I shall conclude now by dropping below a picture very much of relevance to this
little chapter (and to the previous page). I wanna see how smart you really are,
my dear physicists! And, make no mistake about it, there'll come a time when I'll
find out--for you'll be pushed from everywhere to front me. (Of what I've seen
thus far of your kind I can only say what I feel in three simple words: "What a
disappointment!")

Good bye for now.

Remus Poradin

index

previous

next