Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Steiner's mistake about colored shadows???

Expand Messages
  • Robert Mason
    ... turns dark and eerily red during a total lunar eclipse. But the Moon itself is not actually reddening. Light from the sun is bending through the Earth s
    Message 1 of 62 , Feb 2, 2008
      Mathew Morrell wrote:

      >>From our perspective here on Earth, the Moon
      turns dark and eerily red during a total lunar
      eclipse. But the Moon itself is not actually
      reddening. Light from the sun is bending
      through the Earth's atmosphere as it "curls"
      around the Earth and throws the Moon into a
      darkened shadow. The redness, so to speak,
      comes from the Earth.<<

      Carol brought this from Yahoo Answers:

      >>The coppery glow of the totally eclipsed moon
      is due to refraction of sunlight by the earth
      which, during a total lunar eclipse, is causing
      a total solar eclipse. Sunlight is bent
      (refracted) by the thick atmosphere of the
      earth, and it is only the red light that gets
      through (like red sunsets).<<

      Robert writes:

      We might have a tendency go down on our knees
      before the "explanations" of Science (with the
      capital *S*). After all, Science builds
      computers and rockets and nukes, and Scientists
      have PhDs from prestigious universities and get
      Nobel Prizes . . . so how could we, mere
      uneducated peasants and proles that we are,
      dare to contradict the "explanations" of
      Science? To do so would show us not only to be
      uneducated but stupid, and arrogantly stupid at

      But despite the amazing inventions of Science
      and the authoritative prestige of Scientists,
      Science is sometimes astonishingly stupid. To
      recount an example often mentioned by Steiner,
      the conventional "explanation" of lightning as
      an enormous spark discharging "static
      electricity" in the storm clouds disregards the
      simplest, most basic facts about static
      electricity. Common experience shows that
      static electricity on a small scale cannot
      exist in the presence of moisture; we get those
      sparks only when the air is dry. Yet Science
      somehow decided that static electricity is
      generated on a large scale in the rain clouds,
      and students must bow before the authority of
      the Scientific "explanation", no matter how
      grossly it violates common sense. And most do
      mentally bow; such is the hypnotic power and
      crushing authority of Science.

      Most of us (myself included all too often)
      simply do not have the audacity to exercise
      simple common sense if it contradicts the
      "explanations" of Science. Somehow, simple
      common sense alone is not enough; we need an
      alternative, better scientific explanation. In
      the case of lightning, we do have a more
      plausible explanation from the unorthodox, un-
      authoritative neo-Goethean science as
      exemplified in Ernst Lehrs' *Man or Matter*.
      Lehrs explains that lightning is an electrical,
      polaric counter-manifestation to the sudden
      conversion of water from the imponderable, non-
      material state to the ponderable, material
      state in the process of the production of rain
      during thunderstorms. -- Given this better
      scientific explanation derived through a long,
      arduous mental process, one might feel
      embarrassed that one failed to use one's simple
      common sense in the first place, in the face of
      the orthodox Scientific "explanation".

      So, having had a brushing acquaintance with
      Goethean color science, I will venture to try
      to apply a little common sense to this orthodox
      "refraction explanation" of the reddish-orange
      color of the moon during lunar eclipses. -- We
      can see this orthodox "explanation" depicted
      here by Wikipedia:
      <html> <br> <img
      <br> </html>

      We can see that here the earth's atmosphere is
      envisioned as a kind of "refracting" prism that
      "breaks up" the sunlight into a spectrum, just
      as a prism in a high school physics book
      supposedly "breaks up" so-called "white light"
      into the seven colors of the "spectrum": red,
      orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, violet.
      The red ends of these supposed spectra from
      opposite sides of the earth's atmosphere are
      bent toward the center of the earth's "umbra"
      shadow, where the moon is situated during a
      lunar eclipse. Thus, during the eclipse the
      moon is bathed in this "refracted" red light
      and therefore appears reddish. -- Such is the
      Scientific "explanation".

      But something is wrong with this picture. If
      one imagines the moon moving toward its
      position in the red light at the point of
      eclipse, one realizes that the moon would have
      to pass through the spectrum on one side going
      into "totality" and then pass through the
      spectrum on the other side coming out of
      "totality". So the moon would have to appear
      to change colors in sequence during the whole
      process of the eclipse; it would have to go
      through the blues to green, yellow, orange, and
      then red -- and again through orange, yellow,
      green, blue, indigo, and violet. But I have
      seen a lunar eclipse, and I have never seen any
      such sequence of coloration of the moon. And I
      would guess that neither has anyone else here
      seen any such colors on the moon. The
      "empirical" facts don't fit the "refraction
      explanation", so that hypothesis (and it was
      *only* an hypothesis), no matter how "orthodox"
      and "authoritative", must go into the round

      Something else also is wrong, in a theoretical
      way, with that picture. The basic "empirical"
      facts of the prism show that at the border of
      darkness and light only one "end" of the full
      spectrum is ever produced by a "refracting",
      prism. To get the standard, seven-colored
      spectrum, one needs to bring two borders of
      darkness close together so that only a narrow
      beam of light passes through the prism. Only
      then the red-orange-yellow and the blue-indigo-
      violet overlap in the middle and produce the
      green. (Conversely, when a narrow band of
      darkness is bordered on both sides by lightness
      the prism produces the "dark spectrum": blue-
      indigo-violet-"peach blossom" (or "purpur")-
      red-orange-yellow.) -- So, in the planetary
      set-up pictured in the Wikipedia "explanation"
      at most only three colors, not seven, could be
      produced by a "refracting" atmosphere on
      opposite sides of the earth.

      But what about the red of the sunset? -- The
      basic insights of Goethe provide a far more
      satisfactory explanation than the "refraction"
      hypothesis. Orthodox Science may "explain" the
      blue of the sky by "Rayleigh scattering" or
      whatever, but Goethe grasped the simple
      "archetypal phenomenon" that applies. When
      darkness is viewed through a light-filled
      "turbid" (*trübes*) medium, the blue end of
      the spectrum appears. Thus the "turbid",
      light-filled atmosphere during daytime appears
      blue; as one goes higher and the air becomes
      thinner, less "turbid", the color passes
      through indigo to violet and finally to black.
      And when lightness, such as that of the sun, is
      viewed through a "turbid" medium, the red side
      of the spectrum appears. As the medium becomes
      more "turbid" the light appears as yellow, then
      orange, then red, and finally darkens. (These
      "archetypal phenomena" can readily be
      demonstrated in the laboratory, as Steiner did
      in the *Light Course*.) -- So the sky appears
      blue and the sun yellowish at noon (on a clear
      day), and the sun appears reddish at sunrise
      and sunset. Why reddish? Because we are
      looking at the sun obliquely through more
      atmosphere than we are at noon, and thus
      through more "turbidity". This is a simple,
      large-scale manifestation of the "archetypal
      phenomenon", and we don't need "refraction" as
      an "explanation" of the red sunset any more
      than we need "Rayleigh scattering" as an
      "explanation" of the blue sky.

      Lehrs puts the matter this way:

      "It is also possible to produce the ur-
      phenomenon experimentally by placing a glass
      jug filled with water before a black ackground,
      illuminating the jug from the side, and
      gradually clouding the water by the admixture
      of suitable substances. Whilst the brightness
      appearing in the direction of the light goes
      over from yellow and orange to an increasingly
      red shade, the darkness of the black background
      brightens to blue, which increases and passes
      over to a milky white.

      "It had already become clear to Goethe in Italy
      that all colour-experience is based on a
      polarity, which he found expressed by painters
      as the contrast between 'cold' and 'warm'
      colours. Now that the coming-into-being of the
      blue of the sky and of the yellow of the sun
      had shown themselves to him as two processes of
      opposite character, he recognized in them the
      objective reason why both colours are
      subjectively experienced by us as opposites.
      Blue is illumined darkness - yellow is darkened
      light' - thus could he assert the urphenomenon,
      while he expressed the relation to Light of
      colours in their totality by saying: 'Colours
      are Deeds and Sufferings of Light.' . . .

      ". . . . Goethe . . . . had learnt from the
      macro-telluric realm that with decreasing
      density of the corporeal medium, the blue sky
      takes on ever deeper tones, while with
      increasing density of the medium, the yellow of
      the sunlight passes over into orange and
      finally red."

      Steve Hale wrote:

      >>In looking at the lunar eclipse of last
      August 28th, I observed that the moon at no
      time goes dark at all. It simply drifts into
      this rather reddish coloring over a period of
      two hours and then comes back out of the shadow
      with its original brilliant glow. Thus, it
      confirmed for me that it is actually the moon
      that illuminates the umbra with its own light
      source . . . .

      >>. . . . the moon is self-shining . . . .<<


      >>. . . . a shroud of sorts that passes across
      the face of the moon, which always bears its
      own light. . . .

      >>. . . . the phases of the moon have nothing
      to do with the sun, but everything to do with a
      shadow-sphere that surrounds the moon as a
      shroud, and actually rotates around it. . . .

      >>The Full Moon is when the shroud has turned
      to move across the opposite side, and is not
      visible. The moon shines in its true Jahve
      brilliance, which it always bears in itself. .
      . .

      >>. . . . this shroud of the moon is in fact
      the Eighth Sphere . . . .

      Robert writes:

      I think I'm starting to get your picture now,
      but I'm far from ready to buy into it. What a
      strange coincidence that this rotating "shroud"
      of the 8th sphere is always placed where the
      dark shadow would be if the moon were
      illuminated only (or mainly) by the sun, and
      what a coincidence that the moon is always
      itself shining exactly where its surface would
      be shining if it were so illuminated by the
      sun! I don't see any easy way to test your
      hypothesis most of the time, but during the
      lunar eclipse the hypothesis breaks down. If
      the usual, (relatively) bright moonlight (that
      most of us take to be reflected from the sun)
      were generated by the moon itself, then it
      shouldn't make any difference when the moon is
      eclipsed. If, as you say, the "shroud" during
      the full moon is turned away from the earth,
      then when the (full) moon is in the sun-shadow
      of the earth (i.e. during a lunar eclipse) the
      lack of direct sunlight on the moon should make
      no difference in the moon's apparent
      brightness; the eclipsed moon should be as
      bright as any full moon, not a dull reddish.
      So it seems to me . . . .

      -- But, given the implausibility of the
      orthodox "explanation" of the color of the
      eclipsed moon, I'm more inclined to suspect
      that Steve's (implied?) hint might be true:
      that the same principle is at work as in the
      phenomenon of "colored shadows". Or at least
      we will need in the end some kind of quasi-
      Goethean explanation. Despite all its
      technological wizardry, orthodox Science is
      far from understanding even the simplest
      principles of light and color.

      Robert Mason

      Be a better friend, newshound, and
      know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
    • carynlouise24
      Steve you are such a Leo! NCAR = Atmospheric Research Centre – thought it meant Centre Astronomy Research – er where are we going again?! I think it would
      Message 62 of 62 , Mar 11, 2008
        Steve you are such a Leo!

        NCAR = Atmospheric Research Centre – thought it meant Centre Astronomy
        Research – er where are we going again?!

        I think it would be good to look at the earth's compass points again.
        We know the pole's shifted after the Atlantis catastrophe, everything
        went topsy turvy and Venus became Mercury and Mercury become Venus –
        does this mean the compass points also became topsy turvy? Also seeing
        that the world is Tetrahedron shaped.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.