An explanation of some extraordinary experiments with prismatic colors!

In this video are presented some extraordinary experiments with prismatic colors which I want to explain further down:

This video exposes very obviously the whole emptiness of the Newton’s theory of colors.
Please watch it carefully (especially its later part) before reading this post.

The key for an explanation of the prismatic colors and the extraordinary experiments presented in this video is the “principle of the arrow”. I call you to remember this phrase very well because it will certainly be the milestone of the future science.

What is the principle of the arrow? Although I have elaborated it many times in my older answers and posts, still I will repeat the main points here for those who haven’t read them (I will also cite some articles of mine at the end of this post).

When a body moves through space filled with air, then higher pressure is created in front of it, while lower pressure behind it. The higher pressure is Plus, the lower pressure is Minus. I use to call it the ‘principle of the arrow’ (− >—> +).

The greater the velocity of the body is, the stronger is the plus in front of it as well as the minus behind it.

And look now: this very principle can be found wherever the light produces colors. The archetype of this pattern is the flame of a candle or a cigarette lighter. A violet/cyan minus appears at the back and a yellow/red plus at the front of this fiery arrow:

The left picture is a real photograph of an opalite stone illuminated from below with a white LED lamp. ( Opalites are very cheap stones and easy to find. I urge everyone who is really interested in light and colors to find these stones. )

Let’s find the same principle in the phenomenon of refraction colors, that is, the colors which appear on a triangular prism.

The light undergoes two refractions on the prism: one on entering the prism and another on emerging from it. For the birth of the refraction colors there is no need of a double, but only of a single refraction. In the following video it is visible how the colors appear only with one refraction (from 0:48 to 0:57 on the timeline, please watch it on full screen):

Let me jump for a moment to something else, to the question of the so-called Bernoulli’s principle (footnote 1). Please look at the picture below:

(footnote 1) There is actually no such thing as Bernoulli’s principle. It is ridiculous to call a principle after a man’s name. If someone has discovered a principle, then its name should be descriptive, just as “the principle of the arrow” is a descriptive name. The phenomena which the “Bernoulli’s principle” refers to are only particular cases of the principle of the arrow.

The water flows through a wider pipe and then through a narrower pipe. The velocity of the water increases in the narrower pipe. As a result, the water column over it is lower than over the wider pipe. Why is that so?
The water columns over the pipes could be imagined as many tails of the water-body. Since the velocity of the water is greater in the narrower pipe, a stronger MINUS occurs in its tail than in the tail of the wider pipe, thus the air-pressure from above lowers the water column over the narrower pipe more. At the same time a stronger PLUS arises at the front part of the narrower pipe. Everyone knows that the water-jet which comes out of a pipe reaches farther if we narrow the pipe. That happens because higher pressure occurs in the front part.
So, HIGHER PRESSURE within the plus-side of the water-body, while LOWER PRESSURE within its minus-side.
But could the water-body with the higher pressure in its plus-side and the lower-pressure in its minus-side exist without a material environment, that is, without the surrounding air? No, it could not. The surrounding air is an inevitable actor in the whole story.
I want here to stress that in the case of the moving solid body, the higher and the lower pressure arise in the surrounding air, while in the case of the moving liquid body, they arise within it.

Let us get back to the light. When the light propagates through the void space, then there is nothing around it to strike its body in, so it propagates freely. But when there is more or less transparent matter on its way of propagation, then it experiences resistance, so that higher light-pressure arises in the front of its body, while lower light-pressure in the back. The higher light-pressure manifests itself as yellow-red, the lower pressure as violet-cyan.

When a beam of light propagates through space, its frontal surface is at right angle to the direction of propagation. We can call it a frontal propagation of light. But when the beam is refracted, then it propagates sideways, meaning that its frontal surface is no longer perpendicular to the direction of propagation. We can call it a sideways propagation of light.

These two ways of propagation can be imagined as follows: imagine two threads stretched across a room, one horizontally, the other diagonally. On each of the threads is hanging a pierced sheet of paper. We are moving the two sheets along the threads so that they are always in a vertical position. In the figure (a) below is represented the frontal propagation, while in the figure (b) the sideways propagation. The sheet in the figure (b) does not have to be necessarily vertical. It only must not be at right angle to the direction of the thread.

Please look at the diagram below:

A beam of light is refracted. After the refraction, besides the normal component, the beam gets an additional component in the direction marked with the black arrows. Higher light-pressure arises at the front of this component (i.e. plus-colors), while lower light-pressure (i.e. minus-colors) at its back. But these different light-pressures can occur due to the surrounding air, similarly to the cases of the solid and the liquid body. In other words, if we place a prism or a diffraction grating in a very high vacuum, then I claim that the refracted or diffracted white light will remain white after passing through them.

Now, please look at this screenshot from the video:

A beam of light has passed through the prism, but the colored boundaries are covered with black papers.
Let’s say that the source of light and the prism are placed in a black box and you see only the beam presented in the screenshot. Then someone asks you:
He: What do you see?
You: A beam of white light.
He: Is it a normal light?
You: What kind of question is that? Of course it is a normal white light!
He: No, it is not a normal light. Watch now!

And then he places an object in the middle of the beam (screenshot below).

He: Does a normal light throw a shadow like this?!
You: No, it doesn’t … then, what kind of light is this?
He: It’s not a normal, but a slanted light.

Let us now move to the experiments when only one colored ray of the so-called Goethe’s spectrum passes through a narrow slit (screenshot below):

There are actually three cases:

  1. the cyan ray passes through the slit; after that we see a green ray and a blue ray bound together;
  2. the magenta ray (the author of the video calls it purple; Goethe called it also purple) passes through the slit; after that we see a red ray and a blue ray separated from each other;
  3. the yellow ray passes through the slit; after that we see a green ray and a blue ray bound together.

In the screenshot above only the second case is presented for the sake of shortness.
The magenta arrow is added by me to stress a very important detail, that is, the ray has still its own color in the close vicinity of the slit. The same applies for the cyan ray and the yellow ray when they exit the slit.

Before I explain what is going on here, let me tell you something else.
Please look at the figure below:

The magnetic field of the magnet is weaker at a greater distance from the magnet’s pole (figure a). At a greater distance than d, we could say that the strength of the magnetic field is practically zero. The weakening of the strength is symbolically represented by the different shades of gray.

The weakening is also symbolically represented by the red and the blue triangle in the figure (b). If the two identical magnets are brought at the distance ‘d’ (or less than ‘d’) without allowing them to come together, then in the interspace between them there is a uniform magnetic field because the two fields complement each other. This means that the strength of the magnetic field is the same in every point of the interspace (figure c).

The magnetic field is uniform in terms of strength, but it is not homogeneous in terms of polarity. The Plus and the Minus retain their character just as before the bringing of the magnets close to each other.

Something similar to the things just discussed we have with light. Look please at the screenshot below:

The light above the plate’s shadow and the light below it can be imagined as two separate beams of light. Since these beams are far from each other, there is no interaction between them. It corresponds in a way to the two magnets which are far from each other.

Look now at this screenshot:

The shadow is now narrow so that an interaction between the beams can occur. The Plus from below meets the Minus from above, that is, the red color meets the blue-violet. Their overlapping bears magenta. This is not the same case as when we mix chemical colors. If we mix acrylic red and acrylic blue-violet, we do get magenta, but we cannot bring the process back, that is, we cannot separate it into two colors. With the light it is possible.

On the right of the last image, the corresponding situation with two magnets is presented. When the magnets are close to each other, then their fields interact, but, as I said before, the Plus and the Minus retain their character. In relation to this, please read (link at the end of this passage) about another hoax of the contemporary science, the so-called Fleming’s left hand rule. This rule states that if a current-carrying conductor is placed in a uniform magnetic field, then it will experience a force which is perpendicular to the magnetic lines of force. This is true only in the case when the conductor is placed exactly in the middle between the magnets, where the strength of the Plus and the Minus are equal. In every other case it is not true that the force acts perpendicularly to the magnetic lines of force. (see these articles Is the Fleming’s left hand rule valid? and A physics task to be solved (Part 2))

The plane which is exactly between the magnets corresponds in a sense to the magenta color of the Goethe’s spectrum.

Now, let’s get back to this screenshot:

What is actually going on here? The magenta ray enters an environment of low light-pressure, i.e. the pressure around the ray suddenly drops. Therefore, it is a suitable environment for it to dissolve in the original Plus and Minus components.

Please note a very interesting detail in this process. Before the slit in the last screenshot, the magenta ray comes about through mixing of the red ray from below with the blue-violet from above. After the slit the ray splits into a red ray above, while the blue-violet one is below, that is, the rays have exchanged the places.
What does this tell? It tells that this ray behaves as the original refracted light (marked with the added three-colored arrow) although it is born from rays of reverse order.
But we can say also otherwise: the red and the blue-violet ray retain their own directions just as if they were not mixed before the slit.

Look now at this screenshot:

In this case the magenta ray doesn’t split into two. Why? Because it enters an environment of high light-pressure. The forces around it are so strong that it cannot fall apart.

I leave the other variations of the experiments to the reader to try to explain them on his/her own.

Here are some important articles of mine related to this post:

Why is the sky blue? How does light make colors appear?

P.S. The author of the video succeeded to split also the green ray in its constituent parts, yellow and cyan, but it is not presented in the video.

It is presented on his website. Here is the link where you can find this photo:
Inverted spectra of monochromatic rays

P.P.S. I was once asked what the comparison with water was for? It was to show that the water cannot exist and cannot show its properties if there is not an air surrounding it. In the void space, it will fall apart and there will be no water anymore. The air pressure actually keeps the water-body together.

Similarly, the magenta and the green fall apart or don’t fall apart depending on whether there is some light pressure or no light pressure surrounding them.


@Mitko_Gorgiev , thanks yet again for sharing your fascinating research on this forum...I am still going through it and will respond in detail once I have absorbed the whole idea .



@Mitko_Gorgiev , hats off to your patient research !

Like you highlighted - Goethe had said "We wander in the realm of images"...he just demolished Newton's flawed understanding of the colours of light by proving the existence of the "monochromatic rays of shadow" - mind blowing stuff !! Incredible !


1 Like

Folks , I think the real eye-opener from Mitko Gorgiev's research is that the so called "red shift" theory of light , which is used as proof for the Big Bang Theory is WRONG ! This first of these 2 enclosed articles titled "Red Shift Riddles" seems to be censored....hmm !

Ask Ethan: Could 'Cosmic Redshift' Be Caused By Galactic Motion, Rather Than Expanding Space?

Starts With A Bang

Ethan Siegel

Senior Contributor


The Universe is out there, waiting for you to discover it.

This article is more than 2 years old.

The impressively huge galaxy cluster MACS J1149.5+223, whose light took over 5 billion years to... [+] reach us, was the target of one of the Hubble Frontier Fields programs. This massive object gravitationally lenses the objects behind it, stretching and magnifying them, and enabling us to see more distant recesses of the depths of space than in a relatively empty region. The lensed galaxies are among the most distant of all, and can be used to test the nature of redshift in our Universe.

The impressively huge galaxy cluster MACS J1149.5+223, whose light took over 5 billion years to... [+]


In physics, like in life, there are often multiple solutions to a problem that will give you the same result. In our actual Universe, however, there's only one way that reality actually unfolds. The great challenge that presents itself to scientists is to figure out which one of the possibilities that nature allows is the one that describes the reality we inhabit. How do we do this with the expanding Universe? That's what Vijay Kumar wants to know, asking:

When we observe a distant galaxy, the light coming from the galaxy is redshifted either due to expansion of space or actually the galaxy is moving away from us. How do we differentiate between the cosmological redshift and Doppler redshift? I have searched the internet for answers but could not get any reasonable answer.

The stakes are among the highest there are, and if we get it right, we can understand the nature of the Universe itself. But we must ensure we aren't fooling ourselves.

An ultra-distant view of the Universe shows galaxies moving away from us at extreme speeds. At those... [+] distances, galaxies appear more numerous, smaller, less evolved, and to recede at great redshifts compared to the ones nearby.

An ultra-distant view of the Universe shows galaxies moving away from us at extreme speeds. At those... [+]



When you look out at a distant object in the sky, you can learn a lot about it by observing its light. Stars will emit light based on their temperature and the rate at which they fuse elements in their core, radiating based on the physical properties of their photospheres. It takes millions, billions, or even trillions of stars to make up the light we see when we examine a distant galaxy, and from our perspective here on Earth, we receive that light all at once.

But there's an enormous amount of information encoded in that light, and astronomers have figured out how to extract it. By breaking up the light that arrives into its individual wavelengths — through the optical technique of spectroscopy — we can find specific emission and absorption features amidst the background continuum of light. Wherever an atom or molecule exists with the right energy levels, it absorbs or emits light of explicit, characteristic frequencies.

The visible light spectrum of the Sun, which helps us understand not only its temperature and... [+] ionization, but the abundances of the elements present. The long, thick lines are hydrogen and helium, but every other line is from a heavy element that must have been created in a previous-generation star, rather than the hot Big Bang. These elements all have specific signatures corresponding to explicit wavelengths.

The visible light spectrum of the Sun, which helps us understand not only its temperature and... [+]


Whether an atom is neutral, ionized one, two, or three times, or is bound together in a molecule will determine what specific wavelengths it emits or absorbs. Whenever we find multiple lines emitted or absorbed by the same atom or molecule, we uniquely determine its presence in the system we're looking at. The ratios of the different wavelengths emitted and absorbed by the same type of atom, ion, or molecule never changes throughout the entire Universe.

But even though atoms, ions, molecules, and the quantum rules governing their transitions remains constant everywhere in space and at all times, what we observe isn't constant. That's because the different objects we observe can have their light systematically shifted, keeping the wavelength ratios the same but shifting the total wavelength by an overall multiplicative factor.

First noted by Vesto Slipher back in 1917, some of the objects we observe show the spectral... [+] signatures of absorption or emission of particular atoms, ions, or molecules, but with a systematic shift towards either the red or blue end of the light spectrum.

First noted by Vesto Slipher back in 1917, some of the objects we observe show the spectral... [+]

VESTO SLIPHER, (1917): PROC. AMER. PHIL. SOC., 56, 403

The question we want a scientific answer to, of course, is "why is this occurring?" Why does the light we observe from distant objects appear to shift all at once, by the same ratio for all lines in every individual object we observe?

The first possibility is one we encounter all the time: a Doppler shift. When a wave-emitting object moves towards you, there's less space between the wave crests you receive, and therefore the frequencies you observe are shifted towards higher values than the emitted frequencies from the source. Similarly, when an emitter moves away from you, there's more space between the crests, and therefore your observed frequencies are shifted towards longer values. You're familiar with this from the sounds emitted from moving vehicles — police sirens, ambulances, ice cream trucks — but it happens for light sources as well.

An object moving close to the speed of light that emits light will have the light that it emits... [+] appear shifted dependent on the location of an observer. Someone on the left will see the source moving away from it, and hence the light will be redshifted; someone to the right of the source will see it blueshifted, or shifted to higher frequencies, as the source moves towards it.

An object moving close to the speed of light that emits light will have the light that it emits... [+]


There's a second plausible possibility, however: this could be a cosmological shift. In General Relativity (our theory of gravity), it is physically impossible to have a static Universe that's filled with matter and radiation throughout it. If we have a Universe that is, on the largest scales, filled with equal amounts of energy everywhere, that Universe is compelled to either expand or contract.

If the Universe expands, the light emitted from a distant source will have its wavelength stretched as the very fabric of space itself expands, leading to a redshift. Similarly, if the Universe contracts, the light emitted will have its wavelength compressed, leading to a blueshift.

An illustration of how redshifts work in the expanding Universe. As a galaxy gets more and more... [+] distant, it must travel a greater distance and for a greater time through the expanding Universe. If the Universe were contracting, the light would appear blueshifted instead.

An illustration of how redshifts work in the expanding Universe. As a galaxy gets more and more... [+]


When we look out at the galaxies we actually have in the Universe, the overwhelming majority of them aren't just redshifted, they're redshifted by an amount proportional to their distance from us. The farther away a galaxy is, the greater its redshift, and the law is so good that these two properties increase in direct proportion to one another.

First put forth in the late 1920s by scientists like Georges Lemaitre, Howard Robertson, and Edwin Hubble, this was taken even in those early days as overwhelming evidence in favor of the expanding Universe. In other words, nearly a century ago, people were already accepting the explanation that it was expanding space and not a Doppler shift that was responsible for the observed redshift-distance relation.

Over time, of course, the data has gotten even better in support of this law.

The original 1929 observations of the Hubble expansion of the Universe, followed by subsequently... [+] more detailed, but also uncertain, observations. Hubble's graph clearly shows the redshift-distance relation with superior data to his predecessors and competitors; the modern equivalents go much farther.

The original 1929 observations of the Hubble expansion of the Universe, followed by subsequently... [+]


As it turns out, there are actually a total of four possible explanations for the redshift-distance relation we observe. They are as follows:

  • The light from these distant galaxies getting "tired" and losing energy as they travel through space.
  • Galaxies evolved from an initial explosion, which pushes some galaxies farther away from us by the present.
  • The galaxies move rapidly, where the faster-moving, higher-redshift galaxies wind up farther away over time.
  • Or the fabric of space itself expanding.

Fortunately, there are observational ways to discern each of these alternatives from one another. The results of our observational tests yield a clear winner.

According to the tired light hypothesis, the number of photons-per-second we receive from each... [+] object drops proportional to the square of its distance, while the number of objects we see increases as the square of the distance. Objects should be redder, but should emit a constant number of photons-per-second as a function of distance. In an expanding universe, however, we receive fewer photons-per-second as time goes on because they have to travel greater distances as the Universe expands, and the energy is also reduced by the redshift. Even factoring in galaxy evolution results in a changing surface brightness that's fainter at great distances, consistent with what we see.

According to the tired light hypothesis, the number of photons-per-second we receive from each... [+]


The first is to look at the surface brightness of distant galaxies. If the Universe weren't expanding, a more distant galaxy would appear fainter, but a uniform density of galaxies would ensure we were encountering more of them the farther away we look. In a Universe where the light got tired, we would get a constant number density of photons from progressively more distant galaxies. The only difference is that the light would appear redder the farther away the galaxies are.

This is known as the Tolman Surface Brightness test, and the results show us that the surface brightness of distant galaxies decreases as a function of redshift, rather than remaining constant. The tired-light hypothesis is no good.

The 3D reconstruction of 120,000 galaxies and their clustering properties, inferred from their... [+] redshift and large-scale structure formation. The data from these surveys allows us to perform deep galaxy counts, and we find that the data is consistent with an expansion scenario, not an initial explosion.

The 3D reconstruction of 120,000 galaxies and their clustering properties, inferred from their... [+]


The explosion hypothesis is interesting, because if we see galaxies moving away from us in all directions, we might be tempted to conclude there was an explosion long ago, with the galaxies we see behaving like outward-moving shrapnel. This should be easy to detect if so, however, since there should be smaller numbers of galaxies per unit volume at the greatest distances.

On the other hand, if the Universe were expanding, we should actually expect greater numbers of galaxies per unit volume at the greatest distances, and those galaxies should be younger, less evolved, and smaller in mass and size. This is a question that can be settled observationally, and quite definitively: deep galaxy counts show an expanding Universe, not one where galaxies were flung to great distances from an explosion.

The differences between a motion-only based explanation for redshift/distances (dotted line) and... [+] General Relativity's (solid) predictions for distances in the expanding Universe. Definitively, only General Relativity's predictions match what we observe.

The differences between a motion-only based explanation for redshift/distances (dotted line) and... [+]


Finally, there's a direct redshift-distance test we can perform to determine whether the redshift is due to a Doppler motion or to an expanding Universe. There are different ways to measure distance to an object, but the two most common are as follows:

  • angular diameter distance, where you know an object's physical size and infer its distance based on how large it appears,
  • or luminosity distance, where you know how bright an object intrinsically is and infer its distance based on how bright it appears.

When you look out at the distant Universe, the light has to travel through the Universe from the emitting object to your eyes. When you do the calculations to reconstruct the proper distance to the object based on your observations, there's no doubt: the data agrees with the expanding Universe's predictions, not with the Doppler explanation.

This image shows SDSS J0100+2802 (center), the brightest quasar in the early Universe. It's light... [+] comes to us from when the Universe was only 0.9 billion years old, versus the 13.8 billion year age we have today. Based on its properties, we can infer a distance to this quasar of ~28 billion light-years. We have thousands of quasars and galaxies with similar measurements, establishing beyond a reasonable doubt that redshift is due to the expansion of space, not to a Doppler shift.

This image shows SDSS J0100+2802 (center), the brightest quasar in the early Universe. It's light... [+]


If we lived in a Universe where the distant galaxies were so redshifted because they were moving away from us so quickly, we'd never infer that an object was more than 13.8 billion light-years away, since the Universe is only 13.8 billion years old (since the Big Bang). But we routinely find galaxies that are 20 or even 30 billion light-years distant, with the most distant light of all, from the Cosmic Microwave Background, coming to us from 46 billion light-years away.

It's important to consider all the possibilities that are out there, as we must ensure that we're not fooling ourselves by drawing the type of conclusion we want to draw. Instead, we have to devise observational tests that can discern between alternative explanations for a phenomenon. In the case of the redshift of distant galaxies, all the alternative explanations have fallen away. The expanding Universe, however unintuitive it may be, is the only one that fits the full suite of data.


Thank you @Mitko_Gorgiev this is very interesting. It does prove conservation of energy and by energy=information everything is accountable in every angle.