[Mitko Gorgiev (OP)]

These posts have been removed as they contravene both the rules on material published elsewhere and advertising.

[Bored chemist]

It is taken from the Pink Floyd’s album “The dark side of the moon”.

Which is not a science book.
It's a piece of artwork.
A minute or two with google will let you know that " The sleeve, which depicts a prism spectrum, was designed by Storm Thorgerson, following keyboardist Richard Wright's request for a "simple and bold" design, representing the band's lighting and the album's themes".

[Bored chemist]

5) There is no separate orange color in the refracted beam;

Buy yourself one of these
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Handheld-Spectroscope-Light-Emission-Spectroscopy-Spectrum-Physics-Science-Hobby/402663072602?hash=item5dc096e35a:g:f1gAAOSwLitgEUt-
and have a look through it, you will be able to see the orange light.

[Hayseed]

That is not a hoax, it's just a mis-understanding.   The greatest hoax is c.   It has a relative velocity.   And the second greatest hoax is space-time.  Time is a singularity.   

[Kryptid]

The greatest hoax is c.   It has a relative velocity.

Not according to experimental evidence.

And the second greatest hoax is space-time.  Time is a singularity.   

How far did you walk today? If the answer is anything more than zero, then space exists. How long did it take you to write that post? If the answer is more than zero, then time exists.

[Mitko Gorgiev (OP)]

It is taken from the Pink Floyd’s album “The dark side of the moon”.

Which is not a science book.
It's a piece of artwork.

The same piece of "artwork" can be found in billions of textbooks on PHYSICS.
Is this drawing from Wikipedia also an artwork?


WILL WE COME TO A TRUE SCIENCE THROUGH RANDOM ARTWORKS OR THROUGH PICTURES WHICH MOST GENUINE REPLICATE THE REALITY?

Buy yourself one of these
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Handheld-Spectroscope-Light-Emission-Spectroscopy-Spectrum-Physics-Science-Hobby/402663072602?hash=item5dc096e35a:g:f1gAAOSwLitgEUt-
and have a look through it, you will be able to see the orange light.

Such a spectroscope have a diffraction grating.
Yes, when one looks through a diffraction grating, there is an orange transition color between the yellow and the red.
But in my post I don't speak about diffraction colors, but about refraction colors.

[Petrochemicals]

Actually all of it is wrong if it depicting actual observances unless the light it striking something.

[Bored chemist]

Such a spectroscope have a diffraction grating.

No
It has a prism.
Not only do the sellers tell you this,
"The spectroscope is made of optical glass. The composite prism and converging lens are installed in the vertical tube."
but I have one and I checked.
However, even if it was based on a diffraction grating, it would still prove that a spectrum contains orange light.

WILL WE COME TO A TRUE SCIENCE THROUGH RANDOM ARTWORKS OR THROUGH PICTURES WHICH MOST GENUINE REPLICATE THE REALITY?

We already addressed this when you raised it before.

https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=80680.msg615581#msg615581

Please pay attention to what you have already been told, and don't post stuff that is clearly wrong.

[Jolly2]

These posts have been removed as they contravene both the rules on material published elsewhere and advertising.

I will say one problem I thought about before was that our eyes developed in a light arena that is protected by the atmosphere.


The primary light and paint colours should be the same.

Red,  Yellow and blue.

[Mitko Gorgiev (OP)]

Please pay attention to what you have already been told, and don't post stuff that is clearly wrong.

Wrong?!!
You are very strong behind your computer, but if we were at a public debate in front of a live audience and presenting the experiments live on the stage, I will beat you so that you will not know through which door you have entered the stage. Not with fists (I have never been violent in my life), but with experimental facts and argumented conclusions.
I have written six flaws of the fake 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.

They are ordered from the most important to the least important.
And you have chosen only the fifth flaw to tell me that I am wrong!!!
LOL.
What about the first four flaws?

There is no separate orange color in the so-called spectrum. I have three prisms and no one gives me a separate orange color.
Here is also a video from the Danish academy of arts where the light goes through a huge water prism (41:50 of the video):

Does anybody see an orange color between the yellow and the red?
Does anybody see green color?
Are the yellow and the red of the same width?
Are the violet and the cyan of the same width?

etc.etc.

 

[Bored chemist]

Does anybody see an orange color between the yellow and the red?
Does anybody see green color?
Are the yellow and the red of the same width?
Are the violet and the cyan of the same width?

I'm watching it on a colour monitor; what I see is a pattern of red, green and blue dots. There is no yellow.


"Are the yellow and the red of the same width?
Are the violet and the cyan of the same width?"

Nobody ever said they were.

If you want to get grumpy about the "7 colours" thing that's fine. It was Newton's idea and it was essentially "superstition".
But even he didn't think they were all the same width.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ROYGBIV#/media/File:Newton_prismatic_colours.JPG

Of course, with a prism, the relative  "width" depends on the dispersion of the prism, which  depends on what it's made from as well as a person's personal  opinion.
.

but if we were at a public debate in front of a live audience and presenting the experiments live on the stage

I would point out to the audience that nothing you show on stage is inconsistent with what has been known for a hundred years or more. Your real problems arise from the fact that you have a poorly designed bit of kit. If you want to study the spectrum, you add slits and a lens to the equipment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prism_spectrometer#/media/File:Experiment_setup.svg

But you would look really stupid when I showed, using a diffraction grating that this

there is also no such thing as wavelengths of colors;

is clearly nonsense.

[Bored chemist]

I will beat you so that you will not know through which door you have entered the stage.

By saying obviously stupid thing like this?

Such a spectroscope have a diffraction grating.

I think I already delivered the knockout blow.

[Mitko Gorgiev (OP)]

I think I already delivered the knockout blow.

You have delivered the knockout blow?! LOL! My stomach will burst out!
With your "arguments" you can't even scratch me.
This picture is a knockout for the whole science.



And this EXTRAORDINARY video is another huge knockout for the HOAX science about the light and colors.

CHECK MATE, pal!

P.S. I will explain soon the extraordinary experiments presented in the video.

[Bored chemist]

This picture is a knockout for the whole science.

No it isn't.
Because it's a tiny part of science.

[Bored chemist]

There is no separate orange color in the so-called spectrum. I have three prisms and no one gives me a separate orange color.

OK.
Here's a clip from that video showing the orange bit.


Spectrum.jpg (53.03 kB . 787x719 - viewed 3337 times)

So, are you wrong, or are you wrong?

[Mitko Gorgiev (OP)]

Here's a clip from that video showing the orange bit.

So, are you wrong, or are you wrong?

Is that all you have to say?!!   You are a very, very funny man.

Quotation: A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.

To all readers of this forum: Watch real experiments in this video and learn something real, not fables that you are taught in school.

 

[Bored chemist]

I might get round to repeating the purple ray experiment.
In the meantime, here's a though experiment for you.
Imagine you set up that purple ray scenario, and then you remove the tungsten lamp, and replace it by a blue LED.

Since it only emits blue light the "purple ray" will be replaced by a blue one. that blue light will strike the small prism and be deflected in a manner that we would expect.
Now replace the blue led by a red one.
Again the purple ray will be replaced; this time  by a red one.

And, when that red light hits the small prism it will follow a path which we can predict.

How different will that path be?
How far would you have to follow it before it was clearly distinct from the path of the blue light?
Well, it's impossible to say because we don't have the properties of that prism.
If the divergence is small, then you simply won't see it on a short trip across a small piece of paper.

[evan_au]

I'm watching it on a colour monitor; what I see is a pattern of red, green and blue dots. There is no yellow.

I'm watching with colour cone cells on my retina; what is see is a pattern of excitation of red, green and blue-sensitive cone cells. There is no yellow or orange.

However, these cone cells have quite a broad range of colour sensitivity, and some monochromatic wavelengths in the spectrum between red and green produce a combination of cone cell excitation that is a good match for the pattern of excitation I get when when I look at an orange (the citrus fruit).
- The actual spectrum of an orange fruit is quite different from the monochromatic orange in the spectrum of the Sun.
- But it gives a similar sensation in my brain, so I am happy to say that there is an orange color in the Sun's spectrum
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cone_cell

If you want to start a real fight, ask how many colors there are in a rainbow.
- People growing up in the UK tend to say 7
- People growing up in the US tend to say 6
- The differences are around the purple end of the spectrum
- Color boundaries around indigo and violet are somewhat subjective - but orange is fairly well-defined, because it is defined by something I can eat!