We pick up where we left off last column by pointing out that Empirical science makes the extraordinary claim that white light contains all colored light. This claim was made up by Newton, and universally accepted, after he found that adding the colors of the spectrum produced white light. Up until that point, everyone concluded that when light hit the surface of matter, the surface of the matter changed its characteristic. Having adopted Newton's folly, after all, color adding simply raises frequency, forces us into several extraordinary beliefs that are perhaps a bit more than extraordinary, they are absolutely ridiculous. When I photoshop pictures, my computer tells me it can paint billions of colors, and indeed, with frequencies being so narrow, there probably are a billion or more hues that can be reproduced. Pigments are supposed to be molecules that absorb light. Thus, when we see a single hue, the molecule has absorbed all of the other hues. Theoretically, therefore, there must be a billion or more pigments. We are forced to believe that it is not the nature of the surface the light is bouncing off that gives it its frequency, the surface is absorbing billions of frequencies so that the only one we see is the one that isn't absorbed. Nature is complicated, but it's not that complicated. When there's a choice between two explanations, and one is absurd, the simplest one is probably the correct one, especially in the face of the second absurdity Newton's folly forces us to believe.
The spectrum of electromagnetic frequencies starts out long and continues on in a smooth progression to short, and shorter. The human eye evolved independent of, but in the context of, this spectrum. The spectrum could not arrange itself to accommodate the development of the eye, indeed, the eye evolved to take advantage of the spectrum. There is no indication in any area of science that groups of these frequencies are bundled together into a single frequency, especially a single frequency that nature evolved pigments to absorb when human's came along and broke it down in a prism. Believing that white light is made up of all colors forces us to the absurd conclusion that the spectrum, in its march from long to short frequencies, has a grouped segment, that segment just happens to be the segment the eye can see, and the segment the eye can see just happens to be the segment nature evolved molecules to absorb so the eye could see colors. Color adding is not a proof that white light is made up of all colors, it is a proof that combining frequencies can raise them, a phenomena found in other areas of the spectrum, so where is the, well, heck with extraordinary, where is any proof at all that white light is made up of all colored light?
Empirical science also makes the extraordinary claim that frequencies are lined up the way they come out of a prism. This claim, another of Newton's self-assertions adopted universally by acclamation, is just that, a conclusion. There has, over the years, been an argument about whether the red to blue line up is from long to short, the current belief, or short to long, believed to be the case for a time, but the underlying observation, that the line up of frequencies is the way they are because that's the way they are, has never been in question. It is so ingrained, that when absolute proof that they aren't lined up the way they come out of the prism is discovered, it is not only all but ignored, it's ignored completely.
The anomaloscope is used to detect and differentiate red-green color vision defects, in short, the extent of color blindness. The way the light comes out of a prism, yellow is just a frequency that's nestled between the higher frequency green and the lower frequency red, and we know that combining red and green light produces yellow light. The anomaloscope uses a white standard disk to reflect colored light (notice, this is a technological device and no pretense is made to claim that all colors but the one seen is being absorbed -- practical people don't talk absurdities, else we wouldn't have a technology).
Yellow light is reflected off half the disk, while a mixture of green and red light is reflected off the other half of the disk. The user, the person whose color differentiation is being determined, rotates a knob that adjusts the color mixture until the mixture matches the yellow on the other side of the disk. By reading the setting, the technician can tell the person the extent of deficiency in either color. So, the eye sees yellow without any trouble, but has trouble seeing either green or red, but when enough of both are added, the eye sees yellow. If yellow is a frequency between green and red, then how can the color deficient eye see the yellow side of the disk to start with? The only way it could see yellow is if yellow is a higher frequency than red. This, of course, is also color adding, because with yellow the higher frequency, adding green and red frequencies produces the higher frequency yellow, additional proof that white light is not made up of all colors. The statement that colors are lined up they way they come out of the spectrum is an unexamined assumption with evidence contrary to its accuracy, so where is the, well, heck with extraordinary, where is any proof at all that the colors are lined up the way they come out of a prism?
Empirical science makes the extraordinary claim that it can measure the distance to the closest star, Proxima Centuari. This claim is based on the fact that the opposite sides of the Earth's orbit theoretically form the base of a triangle with the target star, that the parallax of the star, measured on either side of the base of the triangle allows the height of the triangle to be measured, thus providing the distance to the star. However, the base of the triangle formed by the opposite sides of the Earth's orbit is small, and the distance attempted to be measured very large. Parallax is the effect you get if you put a finger in front of your nose and first close one eye and then the other. The apparent movement of the finger is the same as the apparent movement of the star, and this is the movement that has to be measured. It is a very small movement with respect to stars, less than one second, which, with respect to a circle, is less than a one and a quarter millionth of the circle. It's so small that it's been described as being like a hair .002 inches wide seen 33 feet away. I imagine we could produce technology that, under ideal conditions, could see such a small strand at that distance, but try and find it on a windy day. In fact, measuring parallax presents more variables than wind. These variables are temperature, refraction, precession, nutation, aberration, and the proper motion of the star itself in space, and the margin of error for each, not the bunch, but for each variable affecting the measurement of parallax is over one second, which is larger than the largest parallax empirical science claims to have measured. When the sum of the variables affecting the measurement of the distance to the closest star is more than six times the measurement, where is the, well, heck with extraordinary, where is any proof at all that empirical science's statement that it can theoretically measure the distances to the stars is in fact a reality?
Empirical science makes the extraordinary claim that things that can't be seen can be detected. When Newton's use of the amount of gravity in the Earth to predict the orbit of the moon failed, and didn't even come close for the planets, empirical science accepted it anyway, and then turned it around, saying it could use Newton's equations to prove the amount of matter in the planets from their orbits, a process that, of course, doesn't meet scientific standards because it is unverifiable. This led to two conclusions. First, when astronomers saw motion with no apparent matter, they came up with the fanciful idea that the motion was caused by unseen matter they dubbed black holes. Second, after astronomers computed the distance to the nearest stars, they computed the distance to the center of the galaxy, coming up with its volume. They then filled this volume with the number of stars they estimated the volume would hold. Finally they computed the amount of matter necessary to cause the movement of all these stars and compared it to the amount of matter in the made-up stars. The amount of matter needed to move the stars fell short of the amount of matter in the stars. As they could not see this matter, but knew it had to be there, they determined the entire galaxy was filled with dark matter that equaled the amount of matter needed to account for motion. Forget that empirical science can never verify any of its claims about the amount of matter in the Earth, let alone the galaxy, where is the, well, heck with extraordinary, other than theoretical claptrap, where is any proof at all that black holes and dark matter exist?
Empirical science makes the extraordinary claim that it can measure the light from the beginning of time at the end of the universe. While empirical science doesn't have even a rudimentary understanding of the nature of light, how it is produced and how it travels, it has made some impressive measurements of light. One of these measurements is that it expands. Another is, it expands uniformly. Another is, it diminishes inversely with the square of the distance over which it expands. That, in anybody's book, is a pretty fast rate of diminishing. In the real world, lighthouses are built on prominent points on the ocean front and their beams are of considerable brightness for a reason. Light diminishes inversely with the square of the distance over which it travels, and if the lighthouses had a candle lighting them, no one would see it because the light from the candle diminishes very quickly until it doesn't exist. The light has to be powerful enough so it doesn't diminish out of existence before it can warn captains of the dangers it's designed to warn against. Just as light here on Earth diminishes out of existence, so does the light from the stars and galaxies diminish out of existence. This is a simple fact of reality. Therefore, there is no way that we can see light that has traveled for billions of years. Although empirical science tries to pull the con that its billion dollar telescopes reach out into the depths of the universe, the only thing they can do is magnify existing light. Where is the, well, heck with extraordinary, where is any proof at all that astronomers can measure the light from the beginning of time at the end of the universe?
Empirical science makes the extraordinary claim that the moon, and to some extent, the sun causes the tides. Tide tables are compiled all over the world using the simple expediency of sitting on a beach and measuring them. No one uses the moon or the sun to predict when tides will occur. Newton came up with the moon/tide relationship using no demonstrable evidence. That was over three hundred years ago, plenty of time for empirical science to get off its duff and show the relationship between the movement of the moon and the tides. No such relationship exists. I have a rare, two-volume set by a modern Newton who uses quantum mechanics in an attempt to show the relationship. He fails. The view is unexamined for the same reason our understanding of weather is in a shambles. For the Earth to have been rotating for five billion years, it can have no friction with the air or liquid on its surface and therefore its rotation can't cause the tides because that would produce friction. While Newton of yore didn't recognize that particular problem, he claimed God caused the rotation, empirical science has to rely on it to eliminate God from the equation, saying that the water rises and falls without any friction on the surface of the Earth, and the moon is what makes it do so. I don't care about extraordinary proof. We're dealing with something that's subject to proof here, easy proof, so where are the tables showing the movement of the moon and the sun predict the tides?
Finally, empirical science makes the extraordinary claim that the evidence it uncovered in the 19th Century, clear evidence of a worldwide flood, is the result of an ice age for which empirical science has no explanation as to cause. The ice age was created as a knee jerk reaction to a worldwide flood being described in the bible, a not unique occurrence since it's also described in over six hundred accounts by cultures all over the world. While an ice age can be used to explain some of the anomalies found suggesting a worldwide flood, it doesn't explain a good 90% of them, while a worldwide flood explains the other 10% better than empirical science does. In fact, empirical science is now making up rivers beneath the ice caps, and even ice damns that caused instant, broad scale flooding to save the ice ages as it continues to explain reality. Where is the, well, heck with extraordinary, where is any proof at all that the ice ages occurred?
Peter Bros is the author of the 9 volume Copernican Series and is President of The Far Museum of Dallas, an actual history museum, which will house its collection of 50,000 rare Eastern Mediterranean manuscripts and artifacts together with actual history displays and tours in a full-sized replica of the Egyptian Temple at Dendera to be built in the Dallas Ft. Worth area. Email:peterbros@therealskeptic.com