Romun Nose

Refraction and Diffraction

It is observed that a beam of light on entering a plane sheet of glass is refracted proportionally to the angle of incidence, and on exiting from the second surface the reverse occurs.

It is also observed that when a beam is directed at a glass prism the light is observed to be subsequently diffracted into colours following its emission from the secondary surface.

The first diagram below (from a current textbook) depicts the generally accepted interactions of this beam of light with, and through, the glass prism, in that diffraction commences on entry to the prism at the first surface.

Diagram 1 below depicts the (again currently accepted) passage of a beam of light through two such prisms, the second prism being inverted.

In this case it is suggested that the beam of light is diffracted into the full spectrum of colours of visible light as it passes into and through the first prism, after which the spectrum emerges into the intervening atmospheric gases and then on passing through the glass of the second prism, these colours are recombined into white light on emission from its rear surface.

However if these two prisms are brought together, and so can be effectively considered as a single entity, then this raises a serious question.

How is this assumed internal colour diffraction in the first prism reversed at this effectively non-existent dividing line, as in Diagram 2 below ?

The answer is of course that it is not reversed and, just as with a plane sheet of glass, no diffraction of light into the spectrum occurs at the entry point of the beam into the first prism and is refracted as ‘white’ light in its passages through the glass of both prisms, as depicted in Diagram 3.

But if the two prisms are moved apart as in Diagram 4, the beam is observed to be diffracted on exiting from the first prism while the reverse occurs in its progress through the second, so that the angles of incidence and emergence are the same.

This means that this observed diffraction of light into colours on the emission of the beam from the second surface of a prism can only be as a result of its interactions with the intervening atmospheric gases, and only with these gases, and on the entry to the second inverted prism the reverse occurs and the colours propagate through the glass and are reconstituted into white light on exit.

And so the first diagram, which is still generally represented in student textbooks, is completely false.

And further the observed emission of colours from the first prism is not the full spectrum as in the first image, but is as depicted in Diagram 4, where ‘white’ light is the main component and subsequently red and yellow appear on one side, while blue and magenta appear on the other.

If the second prism in this diagram were removed, when the white proportion disappears the colour emissions eventually combine and these four specific colours are seen, following which the blue and the yellow combine to create a green hue, after which the yellow is eliminated and three colours remain – red, green and magenta, as in the images below.

All this demonstrates that the diffraction of light emerging from the second surface of the prism is not due to any prior interaction with the structure of the glass itself, but instead it can only be due to its interactions with the structure of the atmospheric gases that are in contact with this surface.

But then of course the currently accepted ‘kinetic’ theory of this structure states that it is composed of a 0.1% volume of atoms/molecules within a 99.9% volume of vacuum, and it is therefore practically impossible for a ray of light to produce these observed effects by instantaneously interacting with atoms that are in constant motion and are colliding with the glass surface.

The Electron Microscopy images below are of the atomic structure of glass, on the left in its quartz crystal form, which show the structural arrangements of silicon atoms.

The lower part of this image has been manually edited to show the silicon atoms, in green, as being less than 10% of the actual volumes depicted, and in this image there is no visual evidence whatever of the existence of oxygen atoms, which are edited in and depicted in red as being completely enveloped by the silicon atoms in these specific positions.

So here we have a case of ‘scientists’ adapting observed results, falsifying real images, to suit their theoretical beliefs as to the ultimate structure of glass.

However this can be used to consider the passage of light through such a hypothetical structure of glass.

As Huygens suggested, and Young proved, that light propagates as a wave, and as Einstein et al, (of theoretical necessity) proposed a particulate, a photonic light, the passage of such light rays through these structures can be examined.

The diagrams below show observed interactions of rays of light through sheets of glass, both in terms of Huygens waves and that of sinusiodal ‘waves’ of photons, and clearly there is no possible explanation for the passage of either through such a structure of glass.

Nor is there for the observed deflections resulting from any entry angle other than 90 degrees as in these diagrams.

Of course both of these are hypothetically acting through a kinetic atomic gas, as in the artificially concentrated beams of light in the image below, and again this glass structure is clearly incapable of sustaining any such wavelike progression.

And further these hypothetical structures, both that of the atmospheric gases and of glass, cannot support the observed refraction of light through a prism, as in the image below.

It is therefore generally accepted that in such circumstances light is somehow immediately, instantaneously, refracted at the surface of glass and other translucent matter.

These interactions should also be considered with respect to the observed refraction of light when passing a corner, the edge of, solid matter as in the diagrams below.

Where A is the observed deviation of light around a corner (which conforms to Newton’s observations in experiment) and the progression in B is that which would be expected if the atmosphere were composed of a ‘kinetic’ gas, while those in C would be those expected in a progression of Huygens concept of wavelets, neither of which could possibly act in such circumstances to generate the observed diffraction around a corner.

It been known for centuries that, away from the observers zenith, light is refracted in its passage down through the atmosphere, so that corrections have to be made for the observed positions of celestial bodies.

It is also known that this refraction is progressive, which is due to the increasing density of the atmospheric gases. The image below is copied from the Admiralty Manual of Navigation 1954.

And today, it is now proven that light is coincidentally slowed in its passage down through and into the Earth’s atmosphere, which can only be due to the progressive increase in the density of, and accordingly a progressive increase in resistance generated by, atmospheric gases.

These images below depict the passage of a ray of light from a star down through the atmosphere to an observer at the surface the red stars being the observed position.

Image B is an enlargement of part of A, where the density of the atmosphere is artificially separated into sections as in the Admiralty manual. But of course the density of the atmosphere increases progressively with the reduction in altitude down to the surface and so the curve is parabolic, as is depicted in C.

It is therefore obvious that the density of the atmospheric gases will progressively increase down to the matter at the surface, and that the increase in resistance and the reduction in velocity will be proportionate to the density of this matter and accordingly the refraction of light will be proportionate to these densities.

For example in the close vicinity of surfaces, those of liquids such as water, bromine and mercury and solids such as glass, diamond, granite or lead, the densities of gases will increase in proportion to their diverse densities. Therefore the velocities, and accordingly any angular deflections, of rays of light impacting these various surfaces will differ in concert.

As there are no natural circumstances where gases or liquids can be assumed to be of perfectly consistent densities, then the passage of rays of light through matter cannot be assumed to propagate perfectly linearly, however no deflection is observable in the transit through solid translucent matter such as crystal glass.

It is evident from all the above observations that light is at all times interacting directly with gaseous and liquid matter and is directly influenced by variations in its densities.

The progressive increases in the densities of the atmosphere will continue to the surface and there will be no point where this progression ceases to act within these gases, whether the surface encountered is composed of solids or liquids of varying densities.

In this respect Newton observed, in his extensive experiments, that a ray of light is deflected before it enters a prism, and that this can only be due to its interactions with the atmospheric gases in the vicinity of the surface.

“if a ray move obliquely through such an unevenly dense medium it must be incurved as it is found to be, by observation in water, whose lower parts were made gradually more salt, and so more dense than the upper”

“and the refraction I conceive to proceed from the continual incurvation of the ray ” (my emphasis)

http://www.newtonproject.ox.ac.uk/view/texts/normalized/NATP00002

And so light from the sun will be progressively slowed down to the earth’s surface and, away from the vertical, will be refracted progressively and continuously down to the point where it is in direct contact with this surface.

As this surface can be of differing densities, such as those of water or solid matter, the increase in the densities of gases in direct contact with these will also vary and the velocities and refraction of light will accordingly be affected.

Examples are the observed variations in refraction at the surfaces of water, glass and diamond of masses of 1, 2.5 and 3.5 g/cm³ respectively, as in the diagrams below, where an incident angle of light of 45 degrees results in respective refractions of 32°, 28° and 17° to the normal.

The image below is copied from a textbook and depicts the currently accepted tracking of a perfectly linear ray of light through the atmosphere at the surface of water, and its progression down into the water.

The images below are of the transmission of a reflected ray of light upwards to an observer from a fish in water.

The generally accepted progress of this is of light emerging from water, where again the emergent ray (in black) is presented as being linear at all times and is immediately deflected at the surface.

The red dashed line image is that of a ray of light reflected from the fish traveling upwards through the water and when it is then emitted out into the atmospheric gases of progressively decreasing densities is subjected to a level of refraction that is dependent both on these densities and on the angle of the observers eye to the water surface.

The images below are of the variations in the incidental angles of rays of light emitted from water, where there is no direct mathematical relationship between the incident and the refracted angles.

However if this is considered when the atmospheric gases are of progressively increasing densities towards the surface, then the variations in density experienced by a ray of light passing through at an incident angle of 5 degrees is significantly lower than that passing through at 45 degrees.

The first image below is a copy from a textbook of the interactions of a ray of light emitted out from water to the surface, where the rays are depicted as being linear.

Clearly these emergent rays are moving upwards from the surface into decreasing densities of air, and these rays will be fractionally influenced and progressively diverted.

The second diagram depicts such interactions where apart from the ray emerging parallel to the surface the refractive curves are parabolic.

The third image above is of the refraction of light that is often seen on water due to the reverse occurring on these surfaces, as well as in the mirages seen on land, as in the following diagram.

“in the case of light – it bends on the borderline between two media” “therefore, we do not observe a sudden change – light changes direction gradually”

http://www.pl.euhou.net/docupload/files/Excersises/WorldAroundUs/Refraction/refraction.pdf

This image is a representation of Newton’s experiment, referred to earlier, of the passage of a ray of light into fresh water above a saline solution in which he observed a “continual incurvation of the ray” in such an “unevenly dense medium”.

“The density of surface seawater ranges from about 1020 to 1029 kg/m³, depending on the temperature and salinity. At a temperature of 25 °C, salinity of 35 g/kg and 1 atm pressure, the density of seawater is 1023.6  kg/m³.

Deep in the ocean, under high pressure, seawater can reach a density of 1050 kg/m³ or higher.”

^{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seawater}

In conclusion, and in agreement with experiment, the combined direction and the velocity of a ray of light are dependent upon the density of the medium, and there is no situation in nature where the density of a fluid medium is absolutely consistent.

Therefore, in no such circumstance, does a ray of light propagate perfectly linearly, therefore the current belief that its direction alters instantaneously at the surface of translucent matter is false.

“Everything you’ve learned in school as ‘obvious’ becomes less and less obvious as you begin to study the universe. For example, there are no solids in the universe. There’s not even a suggestion of a solid. There are no absolute continuums. There are no surfaces. There are no straight lines.”

R. Buckminster Fuller (1895–1983)

Chain Fountain Mechanics

In 2014 Steve Mould presented the remarkable results of his ‘chain fountain’ experiment to a Ted ex Newcastle symposium as shown here:-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmFi1xhz9OQ

His original video attracted millions of views online, and the ‘chain fountain’ shown in this video produced an elevation of a chain of metal beads to around 300 mm above the jar, after which they fell for around 2 metres to the floor.
Since then others have carried out experiments from greater heights, Biggins and Warner from a balcony at around 5 metres height, which produced an elevation of around 600-700 mm.

And more recently one experiment was carried out at “30 metres above the ground and – the arch of the chain fountain can reach the height about 2.1 m above the jar.”(Wikipedia)

A video of this Chinese experiment, which is not presented in English, is shown here:- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UM4lnzhvzdE&t=1800

The numerous debates and the papers generated and presented since Mould’s presentation, as he has since suggested, have not provided a coherent, and testable, explanation for this effect, and today there is still no sensible explanation for this, despite the subsequent publication of numerous scholarly papers and articles.

The actual, the intrinsic, structure of the specific ball chains used in these experiments is not readily available to view online, however after some searching I found a paper presented by Pfeiffer and Mayet in 2017 entitled ‘Chain Fountain Dynamics’, copied here , which included some cross sectional views of this structure, and diagram (A) below is an accurate copy of theirs.                   A

On the left is the basic structure, and that on the right is their depiction of the structure and alignments of the components of the loop at the top of the ‘chain fountain’, and if this structure is extended it produces a complete loop as in the diagram B below, where there is no physical contact between the plane faces of the links and the internal plane faces of the spheres as indicated in the central diagram.

                             B

But this does not conform to the loops formed by the chain in Biggins and Warner as copied below in diagram C.

                                                                       C

This suggests that Mould’s demonstration in his video of the flexibility of the chain used by him is the limit of flexibility of this type of chain construction, which conforms to the image in Biggins and Warner’s paper of a loop of five to six spheres, and which indicates a resistance to any closer arrangement.

But it is clear, as is evident in the enlargement in the centre of the diagram B above, that the links between the balls in Pfeiffer and Mayet’s diagram are not in contact with the faces of the recesses in the balls, and accordingly cannot generate any leverage on them, and these spheres therefore could not transfer such a force.

But with a loop composed of five to six spheres, as in the enlargement in diagram D below, the link faces are in direct contact with the internal faces of the recesses and obviously all these links between the spheres will generate leverage.

                      D

It is important to note that each link arriving at the loop, at X above, immediately acts to introduce leverage to the whole hemispherical structure, while on the opposite side each one leaving at Y relinquishes any such influence.

The diagram E below represents the structure of the type of chain used by Mould, where it is obvious that the plane faces of the sockets create an absolute limit to any vertical rotation of the pins, and leverage is accordingly acting in this circumstances here between and upon any two links and spheres.

And, as there is a relatively large, total area of physical contact between the convex faces of the pins and the concave faces of the enclosures there are consequently, and relatively strong, frictional forces generated here.

                                                                           E

In the filmed experiments, what occurs when the chain is drawn down the side of the container and falls, both the length and thus its total mass progressively increase until it reaches the floor, and this results in a progressive increase in  its fall velocity up to the point where the end of the chain touches the floor.

In other words, on the emergent side this upwards motion of a far lesser mass initially increases and, as there is a significant mass imbalance, the rigidity of the loop structure combined with the momentum of the upwards moving section, has the effect of progressively raising the loop upwards, but only to the point where the end of the downward length of chain touches the floor.

As the total mass falling from the jar does not increase from this point, the chain then continues to fall at the same velocity, and the raised loop remains at the same height, until all the chain has emerged from the container, and when the last sphere lifts from the bottom of the jar the remaining length is flipped over the edge of the jar. All of this is confirmed by the video.

On the opposite side, it is obvious that as the velocity on the downwards side increases progressively so does the upwards velocity of the chain, and as the (momentary) composition of the loop acts like a rigid structure, as indicated by the bold dashed hemisphere in diagram F below, and this increasing upwards velocity, combined with an initial and relative reduction in mass on this emerging side, acts to create an imbalance between the two and thus acts to raise the loop of chain.

F

It is also important to note that there may be a variety of chains, of differing manufactures, used in these experiments which may have different internal structures as shown in the diagram G below. And it is obvious that their structural flexibilities would also differ and the heights of the chain fountain loops in experiments will also be affected.

G

However the same effects have been achieved by Slobodan Nedic and his nephew Darko Nedic using ball chains of different internal structures as in this diagram below where the spheres are hollow, and their videoed experiments with these are shown in this link:- https://www.dropbox.com/sh/dh8oq4zh99dp83u/AAA33gGgaH16WrzK5mRuTTRua?dl=0

In the image below on the right, where the rim of the container is of a narrow dimension, a frictional resistance is generated between the rim and the spheres and the chain does not move.

However if the container has a hemispherical rim of a larger dimension the chain begins to move and to fall over it, but it still does not rise above the rim.

But on a further increase in rim width as in the diagram on the left, at some point it begins to rise over the rim as the linkages are extended to the limits of their lateral flexibility and a progressive increase in fall velocity on the downward side, due to the increase in mass, is transferred to the emerging length of chain, progressively increasing its velocity and consequently raising the height of the loop above the rim up to the point where the end of the external length of chain reaches the floor, and from this point the loop remains at about the same height above the jar until all the chain is extracted from the jar.

The diagram below depicts the frictional forces acting at the points of contact between the spheres and the links, which forces acting on the links generate an absolute resistance to their further rotation, and thus to the leverage that is observed in these experiments.

These images below are of an experiment carried out with a piece of plastic tube fixed to the rim of a container, which produced similar progressive elevations above the rim with this type of chain.Elevations with this type of chain can also be generated by using a glass laboratory beaker (used by Mould in his videos) as depicted in the diagram below where the leverage on the part of the chain leaving the edge of the beaker remains active until the linkages of the chain are vertical.

Finally it should be noted that if the structure of the chain differs from that of Pfeifer and Mayet shown earlier and the link enclosure is spherical, as depicted in the diagram below, then the same leverage effects will occur.

Human and Mammalian Respiration

Facts:-
1) The atmosphere is made up of 78 percent nitrogen and 21% oxygen.
2) The time between inhalation and exhalation for humans is from one second up to four seconds. (Dependent on age and on the degree of physical exertion at the time.)
3) Between 25 and 30% of the oxygen content of the gases (i.e. 7% of the total volume) that are inhaled is absorbed by the lungs and the remaining oxygen is exhaled along with all the nitrogen and some ejected carbon dioxide.

Theory:-
In terms of the currently accepted kinetic atomic theory of gases:-
1) 99.9% of the volume of atmospheric gas is empty space, which means that matter, in the form of atoms or molecules, take up 0.1% of the volume of the gas, which, in turn, means that oxygen molecules take up 0.02% of the volume of the air that we inhale.
2) The average kinetic velocities of both oxygen and nitrogen molecules are in the region of 4-500 metres per second.
3) The molecules of oxygen and nitrogen are traveling at these velocities and colliding with each other and with the internal surfaces of the lungs, and in doing so maintain an atmospheric level of pressure on these surfaces.

The simple diagram below shows atmospheric ‘kinetic’ gases in the close proximity of lung tissue, the oxygen atoms are green and the red is the lung tissue which is covered by a blue liquid surfactant.

On this basis the first question is that, in view of the low volumetric concentration of oxygen molecules and the proven slow diffusion of gases:-
How can the lungs absorb 25-30% of the available oxygen in the space of, in some cases, less than one second?
However let us for the moment ignore the observed slow diffusion of gases, and assuming that somehow oxygen atoms/molecules in sufficient quantities collide with the surfactant covering the inner walls of the lungs, and consider this question in terms of the kinetic atomic theory of gases.
This is that, as the relative atomic masses of oxygen and nitrogen molecules are very similar at about 16 and 14 respectively and their average velocities are also similar (which means that in many instances their velocities would be identical) these molecules cannot therefore be identified by any difference in mass or velocity.
In this case, how is it possible that the lung tissue is capable of identifying the different characteristics of these elemental gases during the instantaneous collisions they have with it, so that the nitrogen molecules (presumably) rebound from the surface of the surfactant while the oxygen molecules are absorbed?
Thus a perfectly elastic collision is allowed between the molecules of the lung and the nitrogen molecules so that they are repelled (and in doing so necessarily generate a force of pressure on the internal surfaces of the lungs), while the collisions of oxygen, of a similar mass and often identical velocities, are not perfectly elastic and are accordingly (by some inexplicable means) instantly absorbed.
(Note that any absorption of nitrogen into the blood is very dangerous, a small quantity can cause what deep sea divers call the ‘bends’.)
The human body is a wonderful instrument, with the period between sensory stimulation and physical reaction occurring within fractions of a second, but as to how the lung tissue would be able to differentiate between ‘kinetic’ molecules of oxygen and those of nitrogen in instantaneous collisions is beyond imagination.

Facts:-

The internal surfaces of a typical pair of human lungs are estimated to contain between 300 and 500 million alveoli, i.e. “tiny air sacs in the lungs which allow for rapid gaseous exchange”. It has been calculated that the internal surfaces of these sacs amount to a total area of around 80M2, and that 1mm2 of lung tissue contains around 170 alveoli.
The tidal volume in respiration is about 0.5 litre, in other words in one breathing cycle of between 2-4 seconds this volume of the atmosphere is inhaled and exhaled. Most of this volume of gas is drawn into the alveolar sacs on inhalation, due to the expansive actions of the diaphragm and the chest muscles, which volume is then immediately exhaled, i.e. there is no pause between inhalation and exhalation.
The process of exhalation is the opposite, where the muscles of the rib cage and the diaphragm contract, forcing the expulsion of all the nitrogen, together with the oxygen that has not been absorbed into the blood and with some carbon dioxide that has been expelled from it.
This process is indicated in the diagram below, where the flow of air inhaled into the sacs is indicated :-

The internal surface area of the alveoli totals 80M2 and, as air is composed of a continuous, and homogeneous, distribution of 78% nitrogen and 21% oxygen atoms, this volume of oxygen is the proportion of atoms that would be in direct contact with this, relatively huge, surface area, which would clearly allow sufficient time for the observed 1/3rd of the available oxygen atoms, i.e. 7% of the total volume inhaled, to react with and be absorbed into the surfactant, as in the second diagram which represents the internal surface of an alveolar sac, and the transference of oxygen into the blood vessels in the underlying tissue.