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

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

Expand Messages
  • Stephen Hale
    ... Let s start with this: http://wn.rsarchive.org/Lectures/SunMys_index.html It is true that in order to reach inner freedom, it was necessary for men to
    Message 1 of 62 , Feb 2, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In anthroposophy@yahoogroups.com, Robert Mason
      <robertsmason_99@...> wrote:
      > 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

      Let's start with this:


      "It is true that in order to reach inner freedom, it was necessary
      for men to pass through the stage of believing that a globe of gas
      is moving through universal space — but the fact is that physicists
      would be very astonished if they could take a journey in space; they
      would discover that the sun is not a globe of gas giving out light —
      that is nonsense — but that it is a mere reflector which cannot
      itself radiate light but at most throw it back. The truth is that in
      the spiritual sense, light streams out from Saturn, Jupiter,
      Mercury, Venus and the Moon.

      Physically it appears as though the sun gives the planets light, but
      in reality it is the planets that radiate light to the sun and the
      sun is the reflector. As such it was recognized by the wise men of
      ancient Persia with their instinctive wisdom, and in this sense the
      sun was regarded as the earthly source of Light — not indeed as the
      source itself, but as the reflector of the Light. Then, among the
      Egyptians and Chaldeans, the sun became the reflector of Life and
      among the Greeks, the reflector of Love.

      This was the conception that Julian the Apostate wanted to preserve —
      and he was done away with. In order to reach freedom it was indeed
      necessary that men should hold for a time to the superstition of the
      sun as a globe of gas in space, giving out light — a superstition
      enunciated as a categorical truth in every book of physics today.
      But our task must be to penetrate to the reality."

      Steve: My thesis on this subject was formulated years before reading
      the above, which I take as a corroboration of my initiating
      research. Thus, the moon is self-shining in its entirety, and the
      so-called "phases" need a new explanation.


      In reading what you offered above, Robert, I am thinking about
      natural effects vs. artificial effects created in a lab environment
      using such devices as a "turbid" in this case, or say,
      an "inferometer" which captures and splits a beam of light into two
      beams in order to measure the so-called 'interference fringes' which
      then somehow get calculated as the speed of light, i.e., 186,000
      mps. Common sense tells me that there is a difference between the
      results of natural viewing and the views of the lab experiments.

      For example, when sunlight and the moisture contained in clouds
      affect the atmosphere, then we naturally see all seven rays of light
      of the spectrum in the form of the rainbow. Thus, rain is important
      in achieving this prismatic effect, just as lack of moisture
      combined with extraordinary static friction of the atmosphere
      creates lightning.

      In the case of an observable lunar eclipse our vision, of course, is
      undisturbed by clouds, so the three aspects of the red band are
      displayed over the duration of the eclipse. The refracted
      (deflected) light would have to be enlightened by the self-shining
      moon as its passes through the umbra for the simple reason that the
      atmosphere on the darkened side of the earth is too weak to bear the
      light of the sun itself to the naked eye. But, what the naked eye
      is able to view standing in the shadow zone during a lunar eclipse,
      is the moon taking on the color of the deflected light on its face
      as it passes through, making deflected sunlight visible to the eye.
      After passing through the shadow, the atmosphere returns to
      darkness, and the moon's original light is restored.

      The shroud of the moon, which has been given a very clever and
      logical explanation as the phases of the moon, described in the
      second url above, is actually the Eighth Sphere. If you remember
      from the discourse on the ES from last summer, the Eighth Sphere is
      centered in the moon, meaning just that. It follows closely the
      moon's movement as its rotational aspect. The moon is massless,
      owing to the fact that the mineral element was formed and then
      passed over to the earth fifty thousand years ago, when the Moon
      Oracle was effected. So, the idea that the moon rotates on its axis
      at the same rate that it revolves around the earth, thus showing us
      only its one side, is another clever explanation used for the sake
      of logical reasoning.

      The Eighth Sphere was formed when the mineral substance originally
      passing over, and meant for the earth, was wrested from the Exusaia
      Who were controlling this whole operation of the Moon Oracle, and
      taken control of by Lucifer and Ahriman. This enabled them to gain
      control of a small portion of mineral substance for their own use.
      This also gave them the means to enter the human astral body and
      etheric body, where the Exusaia (Spirits of Form) were to be the
      sole spiritual beings affecting these bodies. Thus, human evolution
      has been drastically affected by this occurrence.

      The Eighth Sphere exists where the etheric body of the Old Moon
      would normally have died and passed on. That is why it can be
      described as a shroud. It can be likened to the etheric body that
      stands just inside our physical body. By placing mineral substance
      in a body that is completely devoid of physical substance, the
      phenomena of the Eighth Sphere was born. And it has been steadily
      growing ever since, constantly seeking to enhance its mineral base.

    • 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
      • 0 Attachment
        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.