Did you know this, about the Theory of Light ?


We all know the demonstration, of the theoretical splitting of Light,
in our School General Science syllabus.

But did you know, what the Truth is, regarding this demonstration?
If we consider the demonstration....



But did you know if we open up the Slit, we find this ?



Note; the Green (a mixture of Yellow and Blue)
has disappeared, and Two sets of colours are Left.

The White Light, between the Two sets of Colours,
are Not split by the Prism!

And if we consider only one edge of the Slit, in the orientation, seen
in the next drawing we get this!



Now Invert this Edge!

And we see.....



We find that Yellow turns to Blue and Red to Violet ???

If we Invert the Prism instead of the Edge the same occurs !

And did you know, it does Not matter, which side of the Slit
or Edge is in relation to the Prism (input or Output), the same still occurs !

No matter what the accepted theory of Light is today,
this Phenomena shown above, still remains and requires,
New answers, and New understanding...

Are You still convinced that Light has Wavelength ???

Or is there another more plausible Theory, to Light
yet Not understood.

Or is the Truth being hidden from us for some reason ???

Try this demonstration yourself, before you make any comment.....

Perhaps Blue is Opposite Yellow ???

And Complimentary Colours (a colour and its Complimentary colour)
are Opposites ?

If we mix "Black" and "White" we get Grey.

If we Alternate between Black and White, as in the Case of a rotating Disc,
Rotating slowly, having Half of the disc Black, and the other half White,
we see Pale Yellow along with another Phenomena
which I will discuss Later on in another Thread....

Perhaps we need to Update our knowledge, regarding Light
and Colour, by revisiting the Old theory and re examine it again....

Or are we just going to remain blind, and pretend, by keeping
that Slit narrow, Not researching this again ???

Or are we going to take another 21st Century look,
at the Theory of Light ???

This is just too Important to ignore, as the Theory of Light
underpins most Science today, and our understanding of the Universe!

Sorry have posted this to the wrong thread, but I will leave it here anyway.


[edit on 26-7-2009 by The Matrix Traveller]

Let me throw my two cents into the thread.

Genesis 1:1 says "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Now think about that for a minute. Seriously, just sit and think on that for a full sixty seconds...

...have you thought about it? If God created both the "heavens" and the "earth" then it seems perfectly logical that the sun was part of the "heavens." Why is this? Well, if you look up the definition of heavens you see that it means "The sky or universe as seen from the earth." What do you see when you look up at the sky? At night, stars. During the day, the sun.

It is not inconceivable that God had already created the stars, galaxies, moon, sun, planets, comets, etc. all on the same "day" as the earth. If you read the scripture it's entirely possible. Especially since "heavens" is plural, and not singular. More than one "thing" was created as far as the heavens are concerned.

[edit on 27-7-2009 by one_enlightened_mind]

[edit on 27-7-2009 by one_enlightened_mind]

To makinho21...

It is a great honour to be called one of your respected foes..

I have obviously had an impact on you, even though if negative, it will still have an effect on your reasoning and shall produce the necessary fruit in the end.

Good fortune with you development, in the future...

Peace.

Meh... in the genesis, a day is a billion years for the Universe. But for some reason, a day became a day later on.

Because day might've meant the "mean solar day," the average time it took for Earth to rotate in its axis, and not the "solar day," a division of time equal to the time it takes to return to the position it was in to the sun; Earth might've rotated in its axis without the sun.

Its hard to tell no matter how much evidence there is. ancient evidence is really not evidence at all

Originally posted by daveslaine
Its hard to tell no matter how much evidence there is. ancient evidence is really not evidence at all

Ancient evidence is only as accurate, as ones understanding of their roots.

The same applies to to-days knowledge.

Knowledge has two ends.

a. Truth.

or

b. Fertiliser.

All knowledge is Not necessarily Truthful or factual.

That's a really good question. I guess it's just another contradiction in the Bible.