Four straightforward experiments which prove that Newton's theory of

light and colours is fatally flawed

Abstract
In spite of always being shrouded in controversy and met with opposition, Newton's
theory of light and colours has remained the chosen authority in its field ever since it was
first published in 1672. In this article I will present a number of simple, straightforward
and decisive experiments, which will show that Newton's theory of light and colours is
irrecoverably flawed.
Newton claimed that he developed his theory of light and colours after conducting a number of
prismatic experiments in 1666. The reality however seems to have been rather different than his
own account, as indeed there is enough evidence to suggest that the same kind of discrepancy was
to persist over his entire life. Whatever the truth may have been, one thing is certain: his theory
appeared for the first time in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society on the 19th of
February 1672. Based on a number of prismatic experiments (to which he attributed absolute
authority, demonstrability and evidentiality) Newton lay down not only a new view of light and
colours, but of the entire field of optics.
Newton's theory of light and colours is almost completely dependent on prismatic experiments and
observations. Moreover, Newton's theory is equally dependent on two types of such prismatic
experiments and observations. One of those types has been branded over the years as the objective
type. The other has been seen as the complete opposite to it, becoming therefore in that unfortunate
process the so-called subjective type. Newton's theory, according to its master and his epigones,
covers and accounts for the results of both types of experimentation. Take for example the
following subjective experiment, described by Newton firstly in Of Colours and listed thereafter as
Experiment number one in Opticks.

On a black peice of paper I drew a line opq, whereof one halfe op was a good blew the other pq
a good deepe red. And looking on it through the Prisme adf, it appeared broken in two twixt
the colours, as at rst, the blew parte rs being nearer the vertex ab of the Prisme than the red
parte st. Soe that blew rays suffer a greater refraction than red ones.

Newton's conclusion that the experiment proves that blew rays suffer a greater refraction than red
ones however is totally false, and despite its 350 years of complete and undisputed hegemony it is

disarmingly easy to demonstrate it. To that end begin by drawing on a black background a line half
red half blue, as Newton did.

Place next a prism and two pins (optionally tagged one red and the other blue) next to you. Take the
prism and orient it in front of your observing eye with its apex pointing either toward your left or
your right, whilst looking through it at the picture above. Take next one of the two pins and
continuing to look through the prism at the image stick the pin in one of the two coloured lines as it
appears to you through the prism. Following the same procedure take the other pin and stick it in
the other line (as it appears through the prism). Finally, put down your prism and look with your
naked eye at the image with the two pins stuck in it.
The result is strikingly clear and evident: the two colours refract in opposite directions. Needlessly
said, this experiment alone renders Newton's theory false. But, of course, like all other factual
evidence, the reality of this experiment is far from being unidimensional. Indeed it is just one of
many, many others (as you all shall soon become aware of that). Here I will only mention in
passing two other strikingly clear and evident facts.
If the two colours in our experiment above refract in opposite directions (in subjective prismatic
experiments) two other colours contained in the Newtonian spectrum do not refract at all in
subjective prismatic experiments. The colours in question are green and yellow, and to prove this,
hitherto unknown fact again, is just as disarmingly simple.
To demonstrate conclusively that the colour green does not refract at all in a subjective prismatic
observation it suffices to look through a prism (oriented with its apex pointing either to the left or to
the right) at the figure below left. For anyone with a decent understanding of the subject it should
become immediately clear that, as I said, the colour green is not refracting at all in our current
subjective observation. That's because, if there's a need of me to elaborate, upon looking through
the prism at our figure the two green lines (which to the naked eye are bordering the white
rectangles as depicted) will prove to remain fixed in their position by the manner in which they will
relate to the spectra generated by the two white rectangles. In effect, the two green lines will remain
perfect lines of demarcation between the spectral cyan and its blue counterpart on one side of each
rectangle as well as between the red and the yellow spectral bands on the other side (which in turn
are also the lines that demarcate the relevant boundaries of our two rectangles, of course).

Finally, as a concluding summary of the subject there are two other subjective prismatic
experiments worth mentioning here. In the first let the observer look through his prism (apex
pointing either to his right or to his left) at the five illustrations below, in which the green lines from
the previous experiment have been replaced by lines of the other colours contained in the spectrum.
In this particular experiment it shall be observed that in four out of the five depicted cases there is
one spectral component which absolutely refuses to be shifted from its position of origin.

In the second let the observer look through his prism at a new version of Newton's original
subjective experiment, shown below, for in that version there is a beautiful two-fold demonstration
about what we have discussed thus far.

But what about the other half of Newton's theorythe one in which the body of apparent evidence
was formed by the so-called objective prismatic observations? Could that half a theory be valid still,
even in the absence of the other half?
No, of course not. And, curiously, the observational proof that such is the case has been known to us
for much longer than Newton himself has. And, thus, of course even Newton himself was aware of
it. The observation I'm referring to is the fact that
Prismaticall colours appeare in the eye in a contrary order to that in which they fall on the
paper.

Alas, Newton never said anything else on the matteralthough I have little doubt that he must have
tried to figure out why, without success. This long time known observational fact I personally have
named as the inverted spectrum, or VBGYOR. And I did it for very good reasons, as the two
pictures below perfectly illustrate: the ROYGBV (left); the VBGYOR (right).

Now, if Newton never ventured at least an opinion about what caused the display of the inverted
spectrum in subjective observations, the contemporaneous Newtonian physicist and I have both
claimed at some point in the past to know the causing factors. In the last part of this first article I
will show why the claim of the Newtonian physicist is false (which by an as yet unqualified
extension could at the very least mean that my claim could be correct). (The presentation of my
own perspective on the matter, however, will form the topic of my next article.)
The explanation that was claimed by the contemporaneous Newtonian physicist to cause the the
inversion of the spectrum in subjective prismatic observations has been graphically depicted as in
the figure below.

In the illustrations above the Newtonian physicist has once again put all his faith in Newton's theory
and combined its main individual elements into a scenario around which he sketched some rather
dubious story standing in for a line of reasoning. Alas, the result of that act of pure faith had so

many inherent weaknesses and flaws that its whole edifice collapsed as soon as it met its first,
introductory test.
In effect, specifically, the Newtonian explanation for the existence of the inverted spectrum
VBGYOR is false because in order to see the nominated spectrum the eye of the observer must be
positioned above the ROYGBV beam that emerges from the prism. (See pictures below.)

The alternative, as it was suggested by the Newtonian physicist, was for the observer's eye to be
positioned right in the spectral beamfrom where, if it's not completely blinded by it, the eye of
any observer shall only be ever able to see Newton's ROYGBV spectrum, never the inverted
VBGYOR one.
Conclusions
A simple analysis of only the evidence I have presented here will demonstrate beyond the shadow
of a doubt that Newton's theory of light and colours is irrecoverably flawed. A little deeper analysis,
on the other hand, shall prove to be even more far-reaching. Toward that end consider the
implications of the following line of reasoning: Since there is no doubt that in the subjective
prismatic observations the majority of the spectral colours (red, blue, yellow, green) do no longer
behave as in the hitherto mainstream Newtonian understanding the entire field of Optics, as thus far
understood, can necessarily must be no longer valid also.