0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
You can consult these cases with some more competent physicists that you know
Your diffraction experiments were, IIRC, entirely consistent with the predictions of classical wave optics.
It's ridiculous to assume that all scientists have the same level of understanding as you about every scientific problems.
Just like you imagine that you had shown that physics is wrong because you don't understand it..
I'm watching it on a colour monitor; what I see is a pattern of red, green and blue dots. There is no yellow.
There is a huge difference between wrong and fraud.
Please present an observation that has been independently repeated and cannot be explained in terms of what we already know. That's how great discoveries are made. Note: this is how Calverd's Hierarchy works - instead of sniping at one another we are looking for the Critical Experiment.
Yet you somehow still think you have contradicted physics.You haven't contradicted it; you have misunderstood it.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 03/12/2022 11:37:30Yet you somehow still think you have contradicted physics.You haven't contradicted it; you have misunderstood it.If you can't explain things in simple terms, you don't really understand it. Just ask Feynman.I haven't read your explanation yet, so I can't determine if you understand it or not.
You can try to explain my experimental results using your currently embraced model.
Quote from: Mitko Gorgiev on 03/12/2022 21:57:33There is a huge difference between wrong and fraud.As there is between physics and engineering. At least MG was honest enough to show a very narrow incident beam in his "fraud" diagram, and a wide beam in "truth". Fact is that for any finite width, i.e. any real experiment, there will be a lot of overlap in the near field and a cunning engineer can exploit this to generate a spectrum of complementary coloursBut a real engineer will know that the underlying physics remains true: the most energetic photons undergo the greatest deflection in a normally dispersive medium, as can be demonstrated with monochromatic light sources.
There is no need of double refraction (as it is happening on a triangular prism) to get refraction colors.
Should we expect that in this case b something will drastically change in a visual sense compared to the case when the beam is not refracted at all
Of course not.
But a real engineer will know that the underlying physics remains true: the most energetic photons undergo the greatest deflection in a normally dispersive medium, as can be demonstrated with monochromatic light sources.
Physics is not wrong.PHYSICS IS FRAUD.
Because at high energies it is not a "normally dispersive medium".
There is a huge difference between wrong and fraud.Just watch this video and see the TRUTH.//www.youtube.com/watch?v=vu_7uG6KlsU
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 04/12/2022 04:57:34You can try to explain my experimental results using your currently embraced model. I did so, about a year ago.
Quote from: Mitko Gorgiev on 03/12/2022 21:57:33Physics is not wrong.PHYSICS IS FRAUD.Is your model part of physics?Or do you call it something else?
Can you give the link?Or perhaps give us the summary of your explanation?
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 06/12/2022 12:41:06Can you give the link?Or perhaps give us the summary of your explanation?What would be the point?if you didn't understand it a year ago, will you do so today?