Before anything else, you might want to correct what you said about "...he proceeded to tell me how stupid I was..." with what I really said, which was that the number of stupidities you had been telling me is staggering. You might argue that that is the same thing, but I would disagree with that. In any event, let me show you how many stupidities you have said on this page only.
Well, it's not like you haven't said even worse things in the past. Paparigoo Papadoo? What kind of moniker is that? Well, anyhow, it looks like someone has been busy, eh?
Secular Sanity Wrote:As far I know, the conventional theory is that the red is just refracted less than the blue, as can you see in this diagram below.
paparigoo papadoo Wrote:Now, let me tell you that only in that diagram you have depicted so many things wrong that I couldn't be bothered to count. What I will do, instead, is show you another diagram, depicting correctly everything that is involved in the matter, and then I will explain a few other things you are obviously completely unaware of. See first my diagram below.
In the left image above there is a white rectangle cast against a black background. According to the reigning theory that rectangle is white because the three primary colours of light are superposed onto each other as shown. In the image on the right I have depicted the distribution of the spectral colours that an observer will see when will look through a prism oriented with the apex pointing to the left. A number of things in this image are quintessential to the entire matter. The most important of those is the fact that R and B are always refracted by the prism upon the black background. That is the reason for my extending the two black rectangles higher than the YR and CB combinations, just to show you what you (and apparently everyone else who has viewed this thread) have clearly been, until now, blissfully ignorant of. Note that I have left the RGB trio in the same place, and before being ready to scream "Hey, the white rectangle should not contain the C and Y bands, then!" let me tell you why I did that. I did it for a two-fold reason: One, because I wanted to show you where exactly the borders between the white rectangle and the black background are; Two, because I wanted to show you from what position are the R, G and B colours refracted by the prism to eventually form the spectral display depicted above them. Lastly, I should mention the widths of the spectral bands, with B and Y being more than twice as wide as the C and R (which are approx. of the same size).
I do think Bruce MacEvoy and David Briggs are right in saying that my ray tracing diagram needs to come into the eye rather than from the eye. Even Newton said as much.
"I have heard it represented, that if the Light of a Candle be refracted by a Prism to the Eye; when the blue Colour falls upon the Eye the Spectator shall see red in the Prism, and when the red falls upon the Eye he shall see blue; and if this were certain, the Colours of the Globe and Rain-bow ought to appear in a contrary order to what we find. But the Colours of the Candle being very faint, the mistake seems to arise from the difficulty of discerning what Colours fall on the Eye. For, on the contrary, I have sometimes had occasion to observe in the Sun's Light refracted by a Prism, that the Spectator always sees that Colour in the Prism which falls upon his Eye. And the same I have found true also in Candle-light. For when the Prism is moved slowly from the line which is drawn directly from the Candle to the Eye, the red appears first in the Prism and then the blue, and therefore each of them is seen when it falls upon the Eye. For the red passes over the Eye first, and then the blue."—NewtonSOURCE
As far as the red and blue being deflected in opposite directions, I’m still on the fence. I’m not sure what our perception would be by having the red-light pass over into our eye first. I think that it might fan out in the opposite direction, but not actually be deflected in the opposite direction. It looks to me like the red is just always deflected less than the blue. *shrug
Heffron said that the black line on the white background produces magenta as the absense of green reamins stationary where the black line was, blue shifts towards the apex producing yellow where the black line was, and the red shifts towards the base producing cyan where the black line was.
He goes on to say that as the absense of blue deflects towards the apex with the blue pane, it produces yellow where blue is absent.. Similarly, as the absense of red deflects towards the base with the red pane, it produces cyan where red is absent.
We’re basically dealing with two halves of two light sources here.
On one side, we have the blue and cyan. On the other we have red and yellow. As the black line get’s thinner and closes the gap between the two, the blue overlaps with the red creating magenta. As the blue starts to overlap with the yellow, we see a white gap. Yellow is a combination of red and green, add blue to it…and voilà, we have white!
paparigoo papadoo Wrote:Now, you should all watch the videos I made on this topic, before embarking on all sorts of futile arguments. Learn the subject well, and then come and argue with me.
I don’t have the same equipment as you do and things do get a little confusing because we have to take the background into consideration. You have a thin red line on a white background next to a black background. We might also have to consider the possibility that this an example of florescence vs. reflection.
Excerpt...
"Diffraction grating glasses bend different amounts when they pass through the lens – just like a prism.
This isn't just reflection; this is something else. How do I know? If it were just reflection, the only color would be green (same as the incident light). This is an example of fluorescence. Basically, in fluorescence, the light doesn't just oscillate the electrons. The light excites the electrons to a higher energy level." SOURCE
I’m a little lost again because David Briggs just posted a new video where he points out some misconceptions in Steve Mould’s Magenta Video and Michael Stevens’ Yellow Video.
It’s an older topic that he discussed in March of 2014.
It's likely that Stevens and Mould were not especially concerned with colour itself, and mainly intended to make the valid point that physically the brain effectively determines the dominant wavelength of light by means of the relative response of the three cone types. It's just unfortunate that in doing so they create or perpetuate misconceptions about the fundamental nature of colour, the details of the colour vision process and (in the case of Stevens) the physical basis of object colours. The combination of outdated cone physiology and colour "realism" that these videos reinforce constitutes perhaps the most widely-held view of colour vision among non-scientists today. Although the details of how the colour-opponent signals are generated within the brain are still mysterious, the opponent model itself has been widely accepted in science for many decades. In selecting the topic "What is color?", the 2014 Flame Challenge has certainly highlighted an area where scientists have largely failed to convey a modern understanding of the topic to a wide audience, and apparently even to some science communicators.
Here's the "What is Color?" video that he's referring to.
I'll be busy this week. I'm staging a store and then I'll be leaving to visit my son. I'll try to peek in every now and then, but don't forget, you said you could take a punch.
These were taken through a jeweler’s loupe. No prism involved. My laptop screen with a red line on blue and white at the bottom. Same setup with the green square.
SS, you said that you wanted to have a debate with me, didn't you? So let me ask you this: Do you understand what a debate entails? You had the nerve to post a "reply" to my arguments, which contains nothing but lots of links to things that you had absolutely nothing to say about. You know, I'm a very busy man and I do not like to spend my precious time engaging in a puerile confrontation which is of absolutely no benefit to anyone--let alone myself. After all I used to do that for so long that by now anything of that nature bores me to tears! The reason that I am writing this new reply is solely because I was met with a couple of nice and honest messages, otherwise I wouldn't even have bothered to utter any words only for you.
So, some ten days ago I started a thread at the Physics Stack Exchange forum, with a new name and email address (for I have had quite a history with that mob in the past). Here is a screenshot of my question. https://physics.stackexchange.com/questi...er-spectra
Now, I couldn't care less about that sad little saga, but I believe that some of you may find interesting how the vast majority of those living today (physicists definitely included) have neither an understanding of even the most basic subjects of physics, nor any kind of inherent scruples or guiding principles when they're met with anything that contradicts their beliefs, or potentially exposes them as nothing more than pretentious buffoons and simpletons. I'm saying these things because over the years I had ample opportunity to see that reality invariably materialising over and over and over again. That's because periodically I would assume a new identity and hit prominent physicists, journals and fora with questions I knew they didn't have any clue about. And SS knows these facts better than anybody, for she's been hovering about my work for a dozen uninterrupted years now. Moreover, she had ample opportunity herself to see quite clearly that not one of those I confronted has ever managed to sustain any exchange of arguments with me to a favourable conclusion on their part. Not one. Not even someone like Professor Brian Josephson, from the good old Cambridge University. (If you have a feeling that you know that name then I can tell you that the man is the creator of the Josephson junction, for which he was duly awarded a Nobel Prize in the late 1970s.) Anyway, that's enough boasting for the rest of this year, so let me tell you what is likely the main reason for SS' major discontent with my being.
You see, I have good reasons to believe that the reason for which she hates my guts is driven by her knowing that formally I am even less educated than her. What can I say? The truth is that the entire extent of my formal education comes to the grand total of eight years and three weeks. That's why for many years I used to present my name as Remus Poradin, Ps. D. (Primary School Doctorate, which is a title I awarded myself for the contributions I have made to the field.) Years ago, in fact, she stated publicly that I had no right to know.
Thank you for listening to me. It's more than likely that I will not come back to continue any "debate" with SS, whatever she'll be choosing to say. Take care.
SS, you said that you wanted to have a debate with me, didn't you? So let me ask you this: Do you understand what a debate entails? You had the nerve to post a "reply" to my arguments, which contains nothing but lots of links to things that you had absolutely nothing to say about. You know, I'm a very busy man and I do not like to spend my precious time engaging in a puerile confrontation which is of absolutely no benefit to anyone--let alone myself. After all I used to do that for so long that by now anything of that nature bores me to tears! The reason that I am writing this new reply is solely because I was met with a couple of nice and honest messages, otherwise I wouldn't even have bothered to utter any words only for you.
So, some ten days ago I started a thread at the Physics Stack Exchange forum, with a new name and email address (for I have had quite a history with that mob in the past). Here is a screenshot of my question. https://physics.stackexchange.com/questi...er-spectra
Now, I couldn't care less about that sad little saga, but I believe that some of you may find interesting how the vast majority of those living today (physicists definitely included) have neither an understanding of even the most basic subjects of physics, nor any kind of inherent scruples or guiding principles when they're met with anything that contradicts their beliefs, or potentially exposes them as nothing more than pretentious buffoons and simpletons. I'm saying these things because over the years I had ample opportunity to see that reality invariably materialising over and over and over again. That's because periodically I would assume a new identity and hit prominent physicists, journals and fora with questions I knew they didn't have any clue about. And SS knows these facts better than anybody, for she's been hovering about my work for a dozen uninterrupted years now. Moreover, she had ample opportunity herself to see quite clearly that not one of those I confronted has ever managed to sustain any exchange of arguments with me to a favourable conclusion on their part. Not one. Not even someone like Professor Brian Josephson, from the good old Cambridge University. (If you have a feeling that you know that name then I can tell you that the man is the creator of the Josephson junction, for which he was duly awarded a Nobel Prize in the late 1970s.) Anyway, that's enough boasting for the rest of this year, so let me tell you what is likely the main reason for SS' major discontent with my being.
You see, I have good reasons to believe that the reason for which she hates my guts is driven by her knowing that formally I am even less educated than her. What can I say? The truth is that the entire extent of my formal education comes to the grand total of eight years and three weeks. That's why for many years I used to present my name as Remus Poradin, Ps. D. (Primary School Doctorate, which is a title I awarded myself for the contributions I have made to the field.) Years ago, in fact, she stated publicly that I had no right to know.
Thank you for listening to me. It's more than likely that I will not come back to continue any "debate" with SS, whatever she'll be choosing to say. Take care.
I knew it. Anytime you reject his "God given" answers, his mode of operandi is evasion. Bye-bye, Remus.
Must be God on the brain
That's got me feeling this way (feeling this way)
It beats me black and blue but it f**** me so good
And I can't get enough
Must be God on the brain
And it keeps cursing my name (cursing my name)
No matter what I do
I'm no good without you
And I can't get enough
Must be God on the brain
People invoke divinity only when they reach the limits of their understanding. I'm not there yet.
I want to know the answer. I want to take the time to understand it.
I found it odd that anyone would jump to the conclusion that I hate them. I don’t hate anyone. I might dislike some behavior but that doesn’t mean that I dislike the person.
Remus wants me to accept his experiment with lasers as proof that the red and blue refract in opposite directions, but when viewed though a prism or diffraction grating glasses, we have to take absoption and laser induced fluorescence into account.
A red laser viewed through a prism shining on any colored background will always be just red. A blue laser viewed through a prism shining on any colored background will always look like this.
A green laser shining on a white background will be green. Same thing with a black background but this is what you’ll see when it shines on an orange background.
SyneSep 21, 2020 09:11 PM (This post was last modified: Sep 21, 2020 09:13 PM by Syne.)
(Sep 21, 2020 06:58 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: I knew it. Anytime you reject his "God given" answers, his mode of operandi is evasion. Bye-bye, Remus.
Must be God on the brain
People invoke divinity only when they reach the limits of their understanding. I'm not there yet.
Where did anyone mention God or divinity? Seems you're just making crap up.
Quote:I found it odd that anyone would jump to the conclusion that I hate them. I don’t hate anyone. I might dislike some behavior but that doesn’t mean that I dislike the person.
Yeah, when you choose to attack people personally, when they're just attacking your arguments, it's wholly your own fault when they take a personal attack...personally.
Quote:Remus wants me to accept his experiment with lasers as proof that the red and blue refract in opposite directions, but when viewed though a prism or diffraction grating glasses, we have to take absoption and laser induced fluorescence into account.
If you don't like what he's telling you, here's an idea, quit bothering him. You obviously don't have the expertise to change his mind, and you seem unwilling to learn from him. Brings the definition of insanity to mind.
Remus is someone that is interested in the same question as I am. I’m simply searching for an explanation for why I’m seeing what I’m seeing. I don’t dislike him at all. I do like him but I highly doubt that he could say the same.
If you have something that you’d like to add to the topic at hand, be my guest. Take a look at the pixels. Do you know the cause? If not, bug off.
(Sep 22, 2020 12:24 AM)Secular Sanity Wrote: I don’t dislike him at all. I do like him but I highly doubt that he could say the same.
Yeah, you always do seem to overestimate how much people like others who insult them. Notice how much you dislike when I've given back what you've dished out. Yeah, that really endeared you to me, huh? 9_9
Quote:If you have something that you’d like to add to the topic at hand, be my guest. Take a look at the pixels. Do you know the cause? If not, bug off.
I don't give a crap. I was just welcoming a new member. Hey, wasn't it you who used to whine about running off new members? Hypocrite.
(Sep 22, 2020 02:34 AM)Syne Wrote: Yeah, you always do seem to overestimate how much people like others who insult them. Notice how much you dislike when I've given back what you've dished out. Yeah, that really endeared you to me, huh? 9_9
I was referring to Remus...b u t if you insist on making it about you, I’m not excited about your presence here, but that doesn’t mean that I dislike you.
(Sep 22, 2020 02:34 AM)Syne Wrote: Yeah, you always do seem to overestimate how much people like others who insult them. Notice how much you dislike when I've given back what you've dished out. Yeah, that really endeared you to me, huh? 9_9
I was referring to Remus...b u t if you insist on making it about you, I’m not excited about your presence here, but that doesn’t mean that I dislike you.
And I was trying to get you to see your behavior from another perspective, which obviously failed. You whine about how others treat new members here, but hypocritically, that doesn't seem to apply to yourself. You fail to realize the simple fact that people criticizing your arguments is no more an expression of disliking you, personally, than yours is of theirs. Yet you're the one who always makes it personal, which betrays that you take it personally yourself...or you're just an intentional asshole. And I can't fathom the masochism it takes to think people are attacking you personally and still liking them, or the sadism of being an intentional asshole to people you purportedly like.
Quote:Begone, gadfly.
What on earth would make you think you have any say over what anyone else does? Either learn to exercise your own willpower to ignore what you don't like, or just refrain from sounding like a haughty ass.
I was going to go with C2’s rule #2. Always keep your powder dry.
The phrase means to "always be prepared to take action yourself if necessary."
But Syne is right. My sarcasm gets me into trouble. I’ve used up all my powder to blow up bridges.
I really want to write and ask Professor Eaves about it because he seems to enjoy puzzles, as well, but I sent him an email regarding this topic, and I called him Professor Adding-one. Oopsy! Well, I thought it was funny at the time but now it would just be awkward. Um…excuse me, Professor Adding-one, would you mind helping me with a problem?
Professor Eaves Wrote:Thank you for your email. I looked again at my copy of the print. At first glance, the "5" looked like 5, albeit in an archaic form. Then I looked again with a magnifying lens. I see what you mean! It seems as if a 6 may be overwritten by the 5.
Thanks for telling me about your interesting observation.
I Wrote:Interestingly, in 1923 the fine-structure constant was known poorly enough that one could surmise that it is exactly 1/136. Eddington computed the number of particles in the universe from other measurements and observations and then found a simple mathematical formula based on integers that gave the same value. (When the fine-structure constant was later found to be closer to 1/137, Eddington repeated his work to make it fit that value. This hurt Eddington's reputation as a scientist, and he was jokingly called "Arthur Adding-one" by detractors.
Sep 20, 2020 11:03 PM
(This post was last modified: Sep 20, 2020 11:07 PM by Secular Sanity.)
![[Image: Untitled-1.png]](https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-pExS7hPV1Os/X2Yrqv6R2eI/AAAAAAAAGWs/pB_rI6UpGzQEoTmVV3KJ8qQD-u_YzB3hQCLcBGAsYHQ/s600/Untitled-1.png)
![[Image: 50363665238_96f5946e7f.jpg]](https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50363665238_96f5946e7f.jpg)
![[Image: 50365152172_e422459067_z.jpg]](https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50365152172_e422459067_z.jpg)
![[Image: 50364299498_0c0c6a65af_z.jpg]](https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50364299498_0c0c6a65af_z.jpg)
![[Image: 50363256138_77be2af87b.jpg]](https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50363256138_77be2af87b.jpg)
![[Image: 50363227828_9d0e178875_z.jpg]](https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50363227828_9d0e178875_z.jpg)
![[Image: 50363225328_50d0a867d0.jpg]](https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50363225328_50d0a867d0.jpg)
![[Image: 50330130698_29cbd5ee0e.jpg]](https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50330130698_29cbd5ee0e.jpg)
![[Image: 50366788716_5b83d0b475_z.jpg]](https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50366788716_5b83d0b475_z.jpg)
![[Image: 50366094003_88fef92022_z.jpg]](https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50366094003_88fef92022_z.jpg)
![[Image: 50368328707_b4f8f49afa_z.jpg]](https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50368328707_b4f8f49afa_z.jpg)
![[Image: 50255491407_9bab5c76d6_w.jpg]](https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50255491407_9bab5c76d6_w.jpg)
![[Image: 50255499452_1e95c250b7_z.jpg]](https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50255499452_1e95c250b7_z.jpg)
