Jump to content
Science Forums

THE GREATEST HOAX IN THE HISTORY OF SCIENCE! (Part 1)


Recommended Posts

Do you know what the greatest hoax in the history of science is?
In my view, it is this picture:

main-qimg-ab4f107a36d87e8af128961d9524b1e8

It is taken from the Pink Floyd’s album “The dark side of the moon”. The members of one of the greatest bands of all times have also fallen for this hoax, taking this drawing as an idol of worship on their legendary album. The same drawing can be found in billions of textbooks throughout the world.

Why is this drawing a hoax? Because it has nothing, absolutely NOTHING to do with the truth. The phenomenon doesn’t look like that at all.

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe has already given the right picture two hundred years ago:

main-qimg-16df8a5cd8a7d7484583bed06cc45d16

There are numerous flaws in the first drawing:
1) At the emerging surface of the prism there are practically no colors, only white light;
2) The colors don’t diverge, so to say, parallel to each other as shown in the first drawing, but they combine;
3) There is no green color near the emerging surface. It appears later as a result of the mixing between the yellow and the cyan. The wider the incident beam is, the farther the green color appears;
4) All the colors in the first drawing have equal width. There’s no such thing. The yellow is actually much wider than the red. The same applies to the violet and cyan. The width of the yellow is the same as the width of the violet. The width of the red is the same as the width of the cyan;
5) There is no separate orange color in the refracted beam;
6) There are also no seven colors in the so-called spectrum (as it is usually said). On the plus-side there are only yellow and red; on the minus-side there are only violet and cyan. Together with the green there are overall five colors.

Another hoax in relation to the previous one is the following drawing:

main-qimg-ec616d22d11d35c5ef47a11d1e91e737

It appears in the textbooks when the so-called chromatic aberration is discussed.
The true picture of the phenomenon looks like this:

main-qimg-90a595965fca8820a1081f8cb85b0731

A collimated beam of light goes through a chromatic convex lens. It converges in a point and then diverges. Before the focal point the beam is rounded by a yellow-red wreath (figure a below) and by a violet-cyan wreath after the focal point (figure b). The yellow color turns into violet, the red color turns into cyan.

main-qimg-df071b4a261b49b7021fe5be587abf9b

Have you ever heard of the very simple experiment just mentioned? I doubt you have. Do you know why? Because the science of the last centuries tends to cheat. It sweeps under the carpet the experiments which are not in accordance with its fake theories. If it describes such experiments, then the contradictions become obvious. It should then admit that its theory is wrong and that it doesn’t have a true explanation of the phenomena. But this science would rather cheat than to admit its cluelessness about such simple experiments. The members of the academic community would lose their authority and also their reputation as the smartest people of the society.

I CALL YOU TO REMEMBER THIS EXPERIMENT VERY WELL because it disproves several hoaxes of the contemporary science:
1) the light is not composed of colors;
2) there is no such thing as 
frequencies of colors; then, how on Earth would the frequencies suddenly change into other on their linear path of propagation in a point far from refraction surface?!! ;
3) there is also no such thing as wavelengths of colors;
4) light and colors are not electromagnetic waves.

I want to elaborate something regarding the hoax below:

main-qimg-ec616d22d11d35c5ef47a11d1e91e737

Something similar to this can be obtained with a convex lens in a very specific way. Let me explain.

Let’s say that on the incident surface of the lens we glue two opaque papers: an opaque ring on the outer edge of the lens and an opaque circle in the middle as presented in the figure (b) below:

main-qimg-5c54ccb5713cf0cfffd731b4b46ed438

A collimated beam goes through the lens of the figure (b). If we hold a white sheet of paper before the focal point, then we will get the image presented in the figure (c). A YELLOW-red ring appears at the outer edge, while a VIOLET-cyan ring at the inner edge of the light ring. Between them it is white.
Now, let us narrow the white ring of the figure (b) above, so that we get a lens like the one presented in the figure (b) below.

main-qimg-81634cbf25cb7ea1f0c16c47b5271311

In this case the yellow color from the outer edge will meet the cyan color from the inner edge resulting in a green ring in the middle (figure c).
Only in this way we can get something similar to the hoax image.
I believe that the images in the second to last series of figures could serve as a basis for explanation of the optical phenomenon 
Halo which appears in the very cold polar regions. In some photographs of Halo the yellow-red ring appears at the outer edge, while the violet-cyan ring at the inner edge:

main-qimg-51bb842ca48e29ad031fde8131dcadc9

But in other photographs it is reversed:

main-qimg-632d1e8b72472bc8f210ec69888d9d10

just like the figure (c) and (d) in the mentioned series of figures.
Maybe the frozen water drops in the atmosphere make somehow a huge lens.

* * * * *
If you want to read a really true explanation of the prismatic colors and the colors of the lenses, see the following articles:

WHY IS THE SKY BLUE? HOW DOES LIGHT MAKE COLORS APPEAR?

WHAT IS AN ACHROMATIC DOUBLET?

* * * 

IMPORTANT:

At the end please watch this video where extraordinary experiments with prismatic colors are presented. Watch the WHOLE EMPTINESS of the Newton's theory of colors. Watch it carefully and learn something real, not fables that you are taught in school. This video deserves millions, if not billions of views.
I will explain the experiments in my next article.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I like what you are doing, great. Now I need to digest it.

The illustrations that look like a target, are similar to the Newton's Rings.

Which seem exactly like the famous "interference Patterns" of the Michelson and Morley Interferometer.

I'm not convinced we are seeing two beams of light "interfering" with itself in the Interferometer.

I'm not convinced that Light is actually a wave at all, but its certainly not a Photon Particle. Sure you can SIMULATE light acting like a wave, by sending out pulses at a high frequency, but maybe you can also send out a single continuous energy that will not be detectable as having a frequency.

Most "measurements" of things like Light, are not actually directly measured, but only derived from equations that are themselves based on prior beliefs and assumptions.

Light, biggest mystery for man.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, marcospolo said:

The illustrations that look like a target, are similar to the Newton's Rings.

Which seem exactly like the famous "interference Patterns" of the Michelson and Morley Interferometer.

I'm not convinced we are seeing two beams of light "interfering" with itself in the Interferometer.

Hi Marc.
I am very glad that you are back again.👋

The experiments that you mention are not very simple, whereas the experiment with the convex lens is the simplest possible.

main-qimg-90a595965fca8820a1081f8cb85b0731

An experiment should be kept as simple as possible if man wants to come to the truth. Complicated experiments are not of much use because in such an experiment there are lots of factors in play, so that one cannot know how each factor contributes to the phenomenon. Descartes has already pointed out four hundred years ago that the problems (or experiments) should be divided in their simplest parts. But the contemporary science obviously cannot comprehend that.
With this extremely simple experiment I can disprove all the theory about the light and colors. The science is not only speechless before such an experiment, but it also evidently contradicts the whole ruling theory.
That's why such experiments are swept under the rug. 

I am very strong because I am speaking with experimental facts. I don't tell fables like many others nowadays. I am ready to go out to a public debate with whoever scientist or professor of this world and I will beat him. Not with fists, but with experimental facts and arguments. The debate should include also a presentation of the experiments live. For everything I claim I should present experiments which support it. He (or she) must do the same. Then we will see who is telling fables and who is telling reality.

I have come to a very fundamental truth and that truth will spread among the people, sooner or later.

You will see in my next post how I will explain the extraordinary experiments presented in the video. 
 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I agree with you totally.

Ive been debating with anyone that will step up about the nonsense of Einsteins theories.

So far, a lot of people with degrees, even Physics and Math Professors have tried to explain why Im wrong, but none can overcome the issues I raise.

And what I claim is able to be explained in very simple terms, without requiring in depth Math or complex experiments.

And these issues have been known in various forms since Einstein first presented his paper in 1905.

Now I wish you success in your efforts to explain the mysteries of Light, but I believe that "they" simply wont let you get very far.

Nothing will shake the established doctrines of the church of Scientism.

Today, more than ever, in this world, we do see why pseudoscience is running the Education system.

Its the same international clique of fanatics that want to govern the whole World with a one world tyranny, that manages every aspect of our lives, and keeps us ignorant, separated and helpless. They control all matters financial, all Banking systems, (including Bitcoin), all Music and Movie business, (propaganda) all Sporting enterprises, (diversion)  all Educational Institutions, (indoctrination) all History recording, (The Ministry of Truth) all Politics, and obviously all Medicine. Nothing is left un-corrupted.

But I personally like to try to understand how things actually work, which is why I'm very interested in following your progress and ideas.

And whatever you do, NEVER submit to the covid scam mRNA injection. Who would want to trust a group of people and their quack medicine, who believe that there is one Master Race, and all other races are but disgusting dogs, less than human, and who also believe that this world is grossly over populated? Do people really think that these cultists really want to cure everybody? No, exactly the opposite.  Cull and control the survivors, that's the obvious plan.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, MitkoGorgiev said:

Hi Marc.
I am very glad that you are back again.👋

 

Hi,  Its mostly not a friendly place on this forum. Im a quack and a crank and an idiot and a troll apparently.

About the spectrum, and your information, and Goethe's ideas on color.

What is actually going on when we see the separation of color? I'm mostly referring to the direct measurement of temperature of the spectrum of colors from a prism, where the totally invisible infra red gets a higher recorded temperature than anywhere else....?

Any advice or thought on this?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TheProdigalProdigy said:

It's actually gamma ray>uv>optical>infrared etc

Ok, Im not very clued up on these things, just read up on Einstein, and im leaving all things about Light to you.

Anyway, Im wanting to know how the splitting of the light can separate these rays so that the one with the hottest temperature, (or possessing most energy) can be so easily separated, just by a rain drop or a glass prism. If Light is a wave, then its really consisting of many individual waves, coexisting, all trying to exist in the one combined ray, managing to do this until they pass through a drop of water? Its all quite mysterious.  Einsteins BS is dead easy compared to light.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, TheProdigalProdigy said:

It's mainly in the electron behavior inherent within the additional chemical coating on glass or crystalline molecules that allow the reangeling and repolarization of light and as for your water analogy that's called refraction which has more to with density mediums.

I take it back. I cant leave Light up to you, I think its better addressed by MitkoGorgiev.

You are clearly really confused with all that QM nonsense.

And by the way, Physics is NOT Mathematics.

Math is just a sometimes useful tool, which unfortunately can be a bit rubbery, able to stretch to fit almost any wacky theory.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/20/2021 at 10:24 PM, marcospolo said:

Ive been debating with anyone that will step up about the nonsense of Einsteins theories.

So far, a lot of people with degrees, even Physics and Math Professors have tried to explain why Im wrong, but none can overcome the issues I raise.

And what I claim is able to be explained in very simple terms, without requiring in depth Math or complex experiments.

And these issues have been known in various forms since Einstein first presented his paper in 1905.

Einstein's theories are actually useless hogwash. This mankind has absolutely nothing from them, only confusion in their short-sighted minds. 

The people obviously don't understand that they must not jump with their little minds to the last questions. Our minds are still on a baby's level to understand how this universe functions. Therefore, such theories as Einstein's, Hawking's, then Big Bang, Black Holes, White holes, Worm holes etc. are nothing other than pure fantasies. The sooner this mankind understands this, the better for its development. 
I deal with real questions and real experiments. But obviously very few people understand what real is, because this science made them dreamers. They are floating in the clouds with their empty fantasies and thereby think that they do science. That's the most absurd thing actually.
I want to write more but I have big problems expressing my thoughts in English. I will stop for now. 
I actually plan to write a philosophical essay on this subject, but it is still not ripe in my mind.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...