Theory Of Light And Colours (Goethe vs. Newton)

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Theory Of Light And Colours (Goethe vs. Newton)

Post by Thinkforyourself on Wed Jan 20, 2016 5:36 pm

Posted by icedrink58 on 06/11/2015
Has anybody ever heard of this?

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe - Theory of Colours

coming from the guy who wrote "Faust"...

It seems that about another very important theory of physics we might also not know the whole truth….







It’s actually possible to get totally different colors out of a prism when you hold it against a “ray of darkness”.

Not sure what to think of this, but I know that physics books do not acknowledge Goethe’s theory. My mother even owns a very thick book only on the subject of colours. The entire almost 500 page book merely brushes Goethe and his experiments with light and prisms aside and says something like “he might be one of the greatest poets of all time, but his theory of colour (which he worked on over 40 years by the way) was just totally off.”

I don’t know, but phrases like “Blue is a darkness weakened by the light” makes some kind of sense if you look at it from a flat earth perspective.

What do you guys think of this?

_________________
All about Shillaphobia

Shun the non-believers!

'Flat Earth Diva'

Supposed 'temper temper beanpole', 'snidy weasel' and 'clueless, cloying, sychophant.'

Apparently 'dangerous person'
avatar
Thinkforyourself
Admin

Posts : 2080
Points : 5662
Reputation : 2799
Join date : 2015-12-30
Age : 26
Location : United Kingdom

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Theory Of Light And Colours (Goethe vs. Newton)

Post by Thinkforyourself on Wed Jan 20, 2016 5:36 pm

Posted by vortexpuppy on 06/11/2015
--> Yes, www.painting-course.com/wp-content/pdf/Goethe_theory_of_colours.pdf

It seems that about another very important theory of physics we might also not know the whole truth….

--> Goethe was a remarkable scientist and not just an author, He critically questioned the accepted way that "science/nature was observed".
--> See also en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goethean_science and how "nature was his teacher".

It’s actually possible to get totally different colors out of a prism when you hold it against a “ray of darkness”.

--> Goethe thought Newton was full of shit with his "proof" that white light contains all the other colors. 
--> Goethe showed that black is actually a color (and not the absence of any color) and that black and white create all the other colors depending on the medium through which they shone.

Not sure what to think of this, but I know that physics books do not acknowledge Goethe’s theory. My mother even owns a very thick book only on the subject of colours. The entire almost 500 page book merely brushes Goethe and his experiments with light and prisms aside and says something like “he might be one of the greatest poets of all time, but his theory of colour (which he worked on over 40 years by the way) was just totally off.”

--> When the establishment ignores or ridicules, its a sure sign, that he was onto something !

I don’t know, but phrases like “Blue is a darkness weakened by the light” makes some kind of sense if you look at it from a flat earth perspective.
What do you guys think of this?

--> I personally think this is a part of the solution to the puzzle as to "how" we are being deceived.
--> Rudolf Steiner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Steiner) thought loads about it and was a biographer of Goethe's Life & Work, taking many things into his Anthroposphy. 
--> He wrote various books on the scientific works of Goethe all of them good reads !

Literature I have personally read that helped me understand:

Steiner, The Theory of Knowledge Implicit in Goethe's World-Conception - www.rsarchive.org/Books/GA002/
Lehrs, Man or Matter: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/5641

_________________
All about Shillaphobia

Shun the non-believers!

'Flat Earth Diva'

Supposed 'temper temper beanpole', 'snidy weasel' and 'clueless, cloying, sychophant.'

Apparently 'dangerous person'
avatar
Thinkforyourself
Admin

Posts : 2080
Points : 5662
Reputation : 2799
Join date : 2015-12-30
Age : 26
Location : United Kingdom

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Theory Of Light And Colours (Goethe vs. Newton)

Post by Thinkforyourself on Wed Jan 20, 2016 5:36 pm

Posted by o on 06/11/2015
When you find two different approaches to colour which seem conflicting, please keep in mind that one might be taking the situation from physics perspective, the other from chemistry. One subtracts the colours, the other adds. Think of RGB vs crayons. That might be why Goethe's theories are not in physics documents. 

“Blue is a darkness weakened by the light" might have a mystical meaning, but blue in fact is a colour which makes another colour darker. For example blue-black hair is darker than black. Or a pine green (slightly blueish dark green) is darker than a forest green (slightly yellowish dark green)

Blue makes darker, yellow makes lighter.

_________________
All about Shillaphobia

Shun the non-believers!

'Flat Earth Diva'

Supposed 'temper temper beanpole', 'snidy weasel' and 'clueless, cloying, sychophant.'

Apparently 'dangerous person'
avatar
Thinkforyourself
Admin

Posts : 2080
Points : 5662
Reputation : 2799
Join date : 2015-12-30
Age : 26
Location : United Kingdom

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Theory Of Light And Colours (Goethe vs. Newton)

Post by Thinkforyourself on Wed Jan 20, 2016 5:37 pm

Posted by on 06/11/2015
“It may be boldly asked where can the man be found, possessing the extraordinary gifts of Newton, who could suffer himself to be deluded by such a hocus-pocus, if he had not in the first instance willfully deceived himself;

Only those who know the strength of self-deception, and the extent to which it sometimes trenches on dishonesty, are in a condition to explain the conduct of Newton and of Newton’s school. To support his unnatural theory Newton heaps fiction upon fiction, seeking to dazzle where he cannot convince.

In whatever way or manner may have occurred this business, I must still say that I curse this modern history theory of Cosmology, and hope that perchance there may appear, in due time, some young scientists of genius, who will pick u courage enough to upset this universally disseminated delirium of lunatics”. 
~ Johann Goethe

_________________
All about Shillaphobia

Shun the non-believers!

'Flat Earth Diva'

Supposed 'temper temper beanpole', 'snidy weasel' and 'clueless, cloying, sychophant.'

Apparently 'dangerous person'
avatar
Thinkforyourself
Admin

Posts : 2080
Points : 5662
Reputation : 2799
Join date : 2015-12-30
Age : 26
Location : United Kingdom

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Theory Of Light And Colours (Goethe vs. Newton)

Post by Thinkforyourself on Wed Jan 20, 2016 5:37 pm

Posted by vortexpuppy on 08/09/2015
Thomas Malton on Newtons Theory of Colour

"Had the Theory of Colours, as deduced from the Prism, been amongst the first and chief of this great Man's pursuits, I am much in doubt, if the reputation he has acquired had ever been established, at least on that Basis. 

From what has been observed, respecting the effect of Colours produced by the Prism (unless it can be proved that the particles of Air, through which Light must necessarily pass, are Prisms) to infer, that Nature has given no inherent Colour to Objects, is bold and assuming; it is also groundless, seeing that, the Colour, which is natural to each, remains when the Sun does not shine on them, though it differs greatly in the degree of it. 

Light, considered as a Medium by which Vision is conveyed to the Eye, is of too refined a nature for my speculations. But, as the great author of Nature has given a portion of reason to every human Being, we have certainly a right to make use of that reason; and, if we will exert it, properly, it is possible, nay certain, that one person may penetrate as deeply into the mysteries of Nature as another, tho'not blessed with quite so much learning.

We are told by several great and profound Philosophers (for to be a Mathematician is not necessary ) that we perceive Objects , only by means of Rays of Light , reflected from every point in their Surfaces to the Eye ; which enter there, and form an Image, or Picture of the Objects perceived, on the Retina, or fine Membrane which surrounds all the back part of the Eye, internally. The Retina is said to proceed directly from the Optic Nerve, which dilates or spreads itself as before mentioned; and, the impression being made thereon, we are further told, is conveyed, by the Optic Nerve, to the Brain or seat of Perception. 

But, why do they stop here? I expected and should be glad to be convey'd into the inmost recesses of the Brain, and be shewn or told, how the Image of the Object, on the Retina, is there perceived; for I must own it is astonishing! that, from what is perceived or felt within, we should have a true Idea of the Figure, Colour and Magnitude, Situation and Distance of Objects, which are external, or situate without the Eye. 

Now, after all this parade, and pompous display of great sagacity and deep penetration, what does the Sum total amount to? Why, that the Object is perceived, i.e. the Mind is sensible of the existence of such Objects as it perceives; and, that the Vision of them is conveyed in right or direct Lines from the Object to the Eye, or from that wondrous Organ to the Object; but how, or in What manner, remains as much a mystery as before. 

So that, after all which has been said on the Subject, and, allowing the Image, formed on the Retina (inverted or otherwise) as perfect as they please, what nearer are we? Where is the Perception of that Image or Picture of the Object? how the Mind or Soul perceives the Image on the Retina, any more than the real Object, we are as much at a loss to account for as ever."

_________________
All about Shillaphobia

Shun the non-believers!

'Flat Earth Diva'

Supposed 'temper temper beanpole', 'snidy weasel' and 'clueless, cloying, sychophant.'

Apparently 'dangerous person'
avatar
Thinkforyourself
Admin

Posts : 2080
Points : 5662
Reputation : 2799
Join date : 2015-12-30
Age : 26
Location : United Kingdom

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Theory Of Light And Colours (Goethe vs. Newton)

Post by Nev on Fri Jan 29, 2016 10:09 pm

Good video, although he goes a little crazy between 15:21 and 15:34.

As with seemingly all 'great men', if the British establishment promote them, they are usually very far from being 'great'.

It was Liebnitz, not Newton, who developed calculus, Huygens, not Newton, who correctly predicted the nature of light, and now Goethe seems to be the one whose work leads to a fuller understanding of the spectrum.

We have only to look at Newton's role as Master of the Mint, where he regularly had people executed in vile and obscene manner, to see that Isaac Newton was a nasty piece of work.

Nev

Posts : 4
Points : 593
Reputation : 7
Join date : 2016-01-13

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Theory Of Light And Colours (Goethe vs. Newton)

Post by George Tirebiter on Mon Feb 29, 2016 4:33 pm

Redshift Technology: The Fraud Factor...

In physics, redshift happens when light or other electromagnetic radiation from an object is increased in wavelength, or shifted to the red end of the spectrum. In general, whether or not the radiation is within the visible spectrum, "redder" means an increase in wavelength – equivalent to a lower frequency and a lower photon energy, in accordance with, respectively, the wave and quantum theories of light.(1)

Some redshifts are an example of the Doppler effect, familiar in the change of apparent pitches of sirens and frequency of the sound waves emitted by speeding vehicles. A redshift occurs whenever a light source moves away from an observer. Another kind of redshift is cosmological redshift, which is due to the expansion of the universe, and sufficiently distant light sources (generally more than a few million light years away) show redshift corresponding to the rate of increase in their distance from Earth.(1)

"Any practice that is fraudulent cannot be scientific. The word "science", we recall, comes for the root "scire" which means "to Know". True science therefore cannot rest its conclusions on any technology that can be computer manipulated to produce data than can make or break a ruling paradigm such as Big Bangism. The stakes are too high, the temptation too great, the manipulation too easy...to allow the fox to be in charge of this hen house..."(2)

"So...is Redshift Technology as applied by the Origins fixated agenda of the Space Program a fact-producing enterprise devoted to revealing truly factual (scientific) evidence about the cosmos? Or, is it merely another fraudulent use of technology that is being employed deceitfully to uphold those three essentials of the "Origins Program" and fulfill the Kabbalistic "creation" account behind them?"(2)

"Given the huge role of the Hubble Telescope in establishing the ages and distances involved in the makeup of the universe in the Big Bang Paradigm, let’s go beyond the overview given of Edwin Hubble in Part II where it was noted that he vacillated frustratingly between championing and rejecting an expanding universe caused by a Big Bang. Consider this from The Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada:

"Hubble concluded that his observed log N(m) distribution showed a large departure from Euclidean geometry, provided that the effect of redshifts on the apparent magnitudes was calculated as if the redshifts were due to a real expansion. A different correction is required if no motion exists, the redshifts then being due to an unknown cause. Hubble believed that his count data gave a more reasonable result concerning spatial curvature IF the redshift correction was made assuming NO RECESSION [i.e., no expansion]. To the very end of his writings he maintained this position, favoring (or at the very least keeping open) the model where no true expansion exists, and therefore that the redshift "represents a hitherto unrecognized principle of nature". 2 [This viewpoint is emphasized in several of Hubble's books, papers, and lectures....]  [Note: Emphasis added to quotations throughout....]"(2)

"When one recalls that the Zionist concept comes from the same mystic Kabbala as the Big Bang Paradigm, and that super-Zionist Einstein was the catalyst in finalizing monopolistic control over cosmology by Theorists (i.e., false scientists), an agenda emerges that clearly has nothing to do with true science except to distort it and use it as the perfect tool in fulfilling that all-but-hidden agenda. Whether Hans Bethe, Max Born, Niels Bohr, Arno Penzias, Carl Sagan, and NASA’s present head and author of the "Origins Program", Mr. Goldin (and numerous other lesser known Jewish scientists) have been instrumental in keeping control of cosmology in the hands of the "Theorists" because they too have supported Kabbalist Zionism and its "creationist" scenario, others can investigate. What is certain is that lifting the Kabbala’s Big Bang Paradigm out of the "ify" hypothesis category and putting it in the unapproachable light of "scientific fact"--and keeping it there!--is a goal of such knowledge-shaping importance that using any means to assure success and prevent exposure has been and will be employed."(2)

Cites-
(1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift
(2) http://www.fixedearth.com/redshift-fraud.html
avatar
George Tirebiter

Posts : 55
Points : 752
Reputation : 132
Join date : 2016-02-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

So far...the best info on light imo come from Walter Russell

Post by hauntedhouse on Fri Nov 25, 2016 6:59 am

The Secret of Light – Chapter XII
Light cannot be seen, it can only be known. Light is still. The sense of sight cannot respond to stillness. That which the eyes “feel” and believe to be Light is but wave motion simulating the idea of Light. Like all things else in this electric wave universe the idea of Light cannot be produced. Electric waves simulate idea only. They do not become idea. When man sees the light of the sun he believes that he is actually seeing light when the nerves of his eyes are but “feeling” the intense, rapid, short- wave vibrations of the kind of wave motion which he senses as incandescence. The intensely vibrant electric current mirrored into the senses of the eyes fairly burns them. They cannot stand that high rate of vibration. The eyes would be destroyed by such a vibration but light would not be the cause of that destruction. Fast motion, simulating light, would be the cause. It would be like sending a high voltage electric current over a wire, so fine that the current would burn it out.
avatar
hauntedhouse

Posts : 5
Points : 418
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2016-07-03
Location : New Jersey

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Theory Of Light And Colours (Goethe vs. Newton)

Post by Hawkward on Sun Nov 27, 2016 3:33 am

Thinkforyourself wrote:Posted by vortexpuppy on 06/11/2015

--> When the establishment ignores or ridicules, its a sure sign, that he was onto something !



so true

Hawkward

Posts : 5
Points : 278
Reputation : 7
Join date : 2016-11-24
Location : austria

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Theory Of Light And Colours (Goethe vs. Newton)

Post by hauntedhouse on Sun Nov 27, 2016 6:48 pm

Ok, Has anyone ever noticed, the closer you think you have travel to the Sun it always seems like it is the same distance away? We've all seen these supposed balloons flight take themselves up to an alleged 23 miles high and there's the Sun....suspended momentarily in that same spot, what i prefer to call "up there". sunny

I think we're dealing with a spot, projected onto the more viscous area of the atmosphere. The heat comes from the light's incandescence....

then what does that make the fuckin Moon??! Shocked
avatar
hauntedhouse

Posts : 5
Points : 418
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2016-07-03
Location : New Jersey

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Theory Of Light And Colours (Goethe vs. Newton)

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum