| |
| |
|
The professor argues that there are problems with the three theories put forth by the passage that makes them infeasible.
The first theory the professor debunks is the one that put forth the idea that the chemical reaction caused by phosphine is the source of the will-o-the-wisp. While the reaction does provide some light, the professor refutes this theory by mentioning how the color of the light produced in experiments with phosphine were green and not at all resemble the red and yellow coloration of will-o-the-wisp. This is why the professor argues that the phenomenon could not have been caused by the chemical reaction of phosphine.
After rejecting one possible theory, the professor goes on to invalidate the theory that fireflies are the cause of will-o-the-wisp. While the professor acknowledge that the fireflies do glow in the dark, their light is not the same as the light of will-o-the-wisp. First off, fireflies are spread across a wide expanse, so it does not match with the tendency of will-o-the-wisp to be concentrated. Also, the lights of fireflies blink on and off and, in groups, do this in a synchronized fashion, while will-o-the-wisp emits a steady light. These are the reason the professor gives for disbelieving the theory of fireflies being the source of will-o-the-wisp.
Finally, the professor scoffs at the idea that barn owls could play a role in the phenomenon of will-o-the-wisp. Not all barn owls are not white, so the assumption that the reflection of light from the fur of barn owls causing the will-o-the-wisp seems unlikely to the professor. Furthermore, the reflection would require a steady light source. In the night time, when will-o-the-wisps are visible, it is unlikely that the owls will find a constant lightsource that can cause a reflection. Because finding a constant light source is basically impossible and not all owls are white, the professor strikes down the last theory proposed by the passage.