We now know that you spend no time at all contemplating your responses to posts. Only eight minutes passed between the time I wrote the above post and added the second and last paragraphs.
Lots of things in nature turn out to be mixtures of purer things. Water can be decomposed into pure hydrogen and pure oxygen and those can be recombined back into water. Hydrogen cannot be decomposed into other chemical compounds, so Hydrogen is a pure component, fundamental to chemistry. We call this pure component an element.
...
The main reason that your ideas are not science is that you don't explain all of these observations with precision better than the current model. If you don't understand that, then you don't understand science.
---
I have restored the original context of my remark (now in bold) because people who read well will have no problem with a non-technical argument:
That white light is a mixture was demonstrated by Newton. A prism or diffraction grating can separate white light from an incandescent source (the sun or a hot filament bulb) into a spectrum of pure color. A prism does this via dispersion while a diffraction grating does it directly based on the wavelength of each component.
Each isolated component cannot be further broken down, so they are pure. Each isolated component has a wavelength between about 400 nm and 800 nm.
Some components are invisible, such as those near 1000 nm -- but we have instruments which are sensitive to their presence.
None of the isolated pure components are white -- therefore all white light is a mixture of various pure components.
Incorrect,
What is incorrect? Be specific. Your vague claim of "incorrect" rests on nothing and suggests that you are not intellectually engaged. If you denying that "none of the isolated pure components are white" then you must have an example of a pure component of white light which is also white. This you did not give, so this interpretation fails to render you as intellectually honest. The natural alternative is that you deny "all white light is a mixture of various pure components" but you give no counter-example or reason to suspect one exists, so this interpretation also fails to render you as intellectually honest. A third alternative is that you object to "Generic phenomena X with property Y may be always partitioned into Z₁, Z₂, Z₃, ..., none of which has property Y, and which cannot be further partitioned. However assembling some or all of Z₁, Z₂, Z₃, ... one may synthesize arbitrary phenomena X' which has property Y. Therefore there is no part of phenomena X which both has property Y and cannot be further partitioned." as a syllogism, but you do not argue against it or offer a counter example. Therefore we must reluctantly conclude you are not both intellectually engaged and being intellectually honest in your claims.
the various pure components are by interference, the pure components are man made by interference or natural interference
You admit my pure components are indeed components of white light and pure, so I don't see the objection that the white light doesn't spontaneous decompose into pure spectral hues. After all, water doesn't spontaneously decompose into hydrogen and oxygen under prevailing terrestrial conditions.
and are not part of a mixture of frequencies but rather interference of one frequency making various pure components.
The prism experiments by Newton suggest that every frequency of light has an associated speed of travel in glass -- i.e. the index of refraction of glass is frequency-dependent, a phenomenon called dispersion. It is this property of each frequency of light that causes prisms to allow white light to self-separate into pure components. Likewise, for a diffraction grating in the Maxwellian or QED view, the wavelength of light in air is the sole factor in rendering certain geometries permissible and others not, so again the light self-separates. You provide no evidence against those descriptions or evidence in favor of your own view, so you haven't made your point.
A Prism has no mechanism to untangle a mixture entanglement but does have a permeability mechanism by angle that changes the constant speed force by opposing force of angle of the prism making an offset of center of pressure of light force .
Not English. Not relevant to any observable phenomenon. Not relevant to this conversation.
Science is suggesting that I can add different coloured paints to a river and a prism will magically separate the paint back into individual colours. that in some way the prism has a magic mechanism to separate the mix.
That is an analogy and not correct. But if you did add different paints to a river (an act which almost certainly runs afoul of local environmental laws) the paint particle could be extracted via mechanical separation of the water downstream. (Actual paint consists of finely ground insoluble particles of pigmented material, so no chemistry is needed to do the partition.)
The prism isn't magic -- it exploits a physical phenomena called optical aberration which made Galileo-style telescope images distorted. Even with perfected shaped lenses, the material of the lens has different index of refraction for 800-nm and 400-nm light the end result being you couldn't get both to a sharp focus simultaneously. The prism is just a degenerate case of a lens in that respect allowing one to investigate the dispersion (defined above) responsible for the optical aberration rather than the trivial of focusing various images
