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

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

Expand Messages
  • Robert Mason
    ... Dear Sheila: Thanx for the tip, but it seems like a long shot, since the problem now is not so much Goethe vs. Newton but Steiner vs. Goethe. So, I don t
    Message 1 of 16 , Nov 16, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, "happypick2000" <happypick@...> wrote:
      > Dear Robert and Friends,
      >
      > I'm not certain, but there may possibly be some explanation of this
      > point in Proskauer's "Zun Studium von Goethe Farbenlehre" [Basel:
      > Zbinden Verlag, 1951] translated into English as "The Rediscovery of
      > Color; Goethe Versus Newton Today" - I apologize for not being able to
      > give a definitive response, Robert, but hopefully this work might
      > prove of value. Years ago in Physics class there was some interest
      > along these lines but nothing concrete seemed to have been presented,
      > sad to say.

      Dear Sheila:

      Thanx for the tip, but it seems like a long
      shot, since the problem now is not so much
      Goethe vs. Newton but Steiner vs. Goethe. So,
      I don't think I want to spring for the $$$ to
      buy the book, but I'll try inter-library loan.

      Thanks again,

      Robert M
    • Robert Mason
      ... Dear Sheila: Thanx for the tip, but it seems like a long shot, since the problem now is not so much Goethe vs. Newton but Steiner vs. Goethe. So, I don t
      Message 2 of 16 , Nov 16, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, "happypick2000" <happypick@...> wrote:
        > Dear Robert and Friends,
        >
        > I'm not certain, but there may possibly be some explanation of this
        > point in Proskauer's "Zun Studium von Goethe Farbenlehre" [Basel:
        > Zbinden Verlag, 1951] translated into English as "The Rediscovery of
        > Color; Goethe Versus Newton Today" - I apologize for not being able to
        > give a definitive response, Robert, but hopefully this work might
        > prove of value. Years ago in Physics class there was some interest
        > along these lines but nothing concrete seemed to have been presented,
        > sad to say.

        Dear Sheila:

        Thanx for the tip, but it seems like a long
        shot, since the problem now is not so much
        Goethe vs. Newton but Steiner vs. Goethe. So,
        I don't think I want to spring for the $$$ to
        buy the book, but I'll try inter-library loan.

        Thanks again,

        Robert M
      • Charlie Morrison
        Hi Robert and all Although I can t answer your question I do have a book written by someone who seems very knowledgeable on the subject: The Inner Nature of
        Message 3 of 16 , Nov 16, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi Robert and all

          Although I can't answer your question I do have a book written by
          someone who seems very knowledgeable on the subject:

          "The Inner Nature of Color - Studies on the Philosophy of the Four
          Elements" by J. L. Benson, Steinerbooks 2004.

          After a quick look through it the only relevant passage I could find
          was the following excerpt:

          "What is a colored shadow and what is its meaning?

          "The colored shadow results from a particular lighting arrangement of
          an object, whereby the shadow of a monocolored light remains without
          direct illumination but is brightened to the status of a half shadow
          indirectly through another neutral light source, or even from a clear
          neutral reflecting light-shield. Therewith the complementary color to
          the light source illuminating the object appears in the main shadow.
          This colored shadow is called in physiology a simultaneous contrast,
          that is, a color arising in the eye. When Goethe discovered the
          phenomenon (12.12.1777) he described it as an objective color (that
          is, arising outside the eye), but shortly thereafter changed his mind.
          However, three years before his death, in a conversation with
          Eckermann he admitted that the color of this phenomenon must after all
          be objective.

          "The colors of the colored shadow represent invariably and with
          exactitude the complementary color of the color illuminating the
          shadowed object. In terms of the doctrine of macrocosm and microcosm
          recognized by the Greeks and by Goethe, the microcosm is involved in
          the after-image and the macrocosm is involved in the colored shadow.
          (See an article by Hetzel: "Der farbige Schatten" in Optometrie 4
          (1987) 177-179)."


          Charlie:
          I did a Google search and found a book by the same author with the
          same passage in it (although the title is different) at :
          http://www.library.umass.edu/benson/jbgctext.html

          Maybe you could get in touch with Leonard Benson and put your question
          to him.

          Slainte
          Charlie M

          ***




          Robert Mason wrote:
          >
          > To All:
          >
          > In Lecture 7 of the *Light Course" RS discusses
          > Goethe's treatment of "colored shadows" and
          > says that Goethe was wrong in saying that the
          > colored shawdows are subjective; RS says they
          > are objective, really "there". In the eLib
          > version there is this note:
          >
          > "† After some careful experiments on a later occasion. Dr.
          > Steiner admitted that there is an error here. (See the
          > Translator's Note on this passage) He also recommended chemical
          > and photographic researches to shew the real nature of coloured
          > shadows."
          >
          > I didn't find this translator's note.
          >
          > In the Steinerbooks version there is this note:
          >
          > "1. 'If you take a small tube and look through it . . . then you
          > will also see it as green':
          > This experiment was repeatedly attempted, always with negative
          > results, by V. C. Bennie, lecturer in physics at that time at
          > Kings College
          > of the University of London, after he had read the transcription
          > of the course by Rudolf Steiner in 1921. Because of this, there
          > were
          > two evenings of experiments in Dornach at the end of September
          > 1922. Rudolf Steiner had wished to be present. The other
          > collaborators
          > were Dr. Ernst Blümel, mathematician, Bennie, and Dr. Oskar
          > Schmiedel, pharmacist and director of courses on Goethe's theory
          > of
          > color. On the first evening, Dr. W. J. Stein also participated.
          > The two
          > evenings did not lead to a confirmation of the experiment with
          > the
          > tube. Incidentally the result was reported differently by the
          > participants.
          > What is important here, however, does not seem to have been
          > discussed at all on the two evenings, namely Rudolf Steiner's
          > intention,
          > as reported by Dr. Blümel, to prove the objectivity of the color
          > in the shadow by photographic or chemical means in the Stuttgart
          > research institute. However, nothing is known of such
          > experiments—
          > and certainly not with positive results—of the research
          > institute at
          > that time. Later, when the first edition of the course was to
          > appear in
          > the Complete Works, there were photographic experiments
          > available
          > with negative results: despite the advances in color photography
          > since
          > the time of Rudolf Steiner, the color in the photographs of the
          > colored
          > shadows was not stable. The whole picture did indeed show the
          > shadow in the required color, but when cut out, it appeared
          > gray.
          > Today that is different. Stable colors result even without
          > special procedures.
          > The starting point of new experiments was a photograph
          > that the professional photographer and elaborator of Goethe's
          > color
          > theory Hans-Georg Hetzel was able to make of an experiment with
          > colored shadow in the Goethe-Color-Studio in Dornach. Besides
          > the
          > usual trinity of demanding color, colored shadow, and brightened
          > color of the surrounding field, the photograph also showed a
          > small
          > technical gray scale. Despite the intense color of the shadow
          > the latter
          > appeared gray, on the same photograph!
          > Today there are series of photographs available of different
          > kinds
          > of colored shadows, which can be reproduced by Hans-Georg
          > Hetzel,
          > each series being photographed on the same film and supplemented
          > for control purposes by interposed photographs of gray shadow.
          > These are slide films. Each film is developed professionally by
          > machine as one among many customer orders. Thus the different
          > colors of a series are produced in one and the same developing
          > process.
          > Even the photographs were taken in a uniform way: in every
          > case the lens was fitted with a transparency of the same
          > color—the
          > color that the color temperature meter indicated for
          > photographing
          > gray so that the gray really turns out gray. If this condition
          > is not fulfilled,
          > then a decision still must made: either all the colored shadows
          > appear as gray, so the colors of the shadows could be
          > subjective, or
          > the shadows appear different from the gray, so a special effect
          > is
          > taking place in that space.
          > That the latter is the case is shown by the
          > special color process of the Polaroid camera, which gives the
          > shadow
          > a strongly green cast, unlike the gray. There cannot be any
          > question
          > of the colored shadows coming out like the gray ones. If it were
          > only
          > a matter of subjective and objective, it could be left at that.
          > However,
          > if we want to come as close as possible to the true colors, it
          > is necessary,
          > of course, for gray to turn out gray. If we describe the best of
          > the
          > resulting series,
          > the gray is a beautiful mouse gray. The blue shadow
          > appears gray with at most a hint of blue. The other shadows are
          > more
          > decidedly colored, all of them with a brownish cast, in
          > comparison
          > with which the color called for is revealed only as a nuance.
          > Even
          > green turns out decidedly different from gray, but in a shade
          > that is
          > difficult to evaluate and that is usually described as brownish.
          > If
          > enlarged in an automatic process and copied onto paper, the
          > series
          > shows blue and green the same, and in the rest the brown shade
          > dominates
          > to the extent that the other nuances disappear. It has already
          > been indicated that the film type plays an important role. It is
          > interesting
          > to note, however, that the quality of lighting is also
          > significant.
          > Diffuse light (e.g., stage lights) provide better colors than
          > harshly
          > focused light. Individual photographs of colored shadows have
          > been
          > gotten with very beautiful, stable color. Their beauty is
          > achieved,
          > however, by means of special treatment of the individual
          > photograph,
          > so that they do not have the same value as evidence. Any
          > photograph,
          > however, that results from procedures that are also routinely
          > employed for photographing ordinary colors can be regarded as
          > evidence,
          > since it shows that the photographic process that was developed
          > for ordinary colors also reacts to colored shadows. Nothing
          > more than this is being asserted here. For the whole question of
          > colored
          > shadows, cf. G. Ott and H. O. Proskauer, "Das Rätsel des
          > farbigen
          > Schattens" (Basel: 1979). A series of the photographs
          > mentioned above is located in the archives of the
          > Rudolf-Steiner-
          > Nachlassverwaltung (Rudolf Steiner Estate Administration),
          > Dornach.
          > More details about the experiments are set out in Beiträgen zur
          > Rudolf Steiner Gesamtausgabe, issue number 97, Michaelmas 1987."
          >
          > -- So apparently, since "the result was reported
          > differently by the participants", maybe RS did
          > not really admit to having made a mistake and/or
          > did not make that "recommendation"?
          >
          > Were there really any "positive results" in later
          > experiments? I find the rest of this Steinerbooks
          > note to be almost unintelligible. Aside from the
          > obscurity of phrases such as *technical gray scale*
          > etc., there is the apparent absurdity of trying
          > to prove or disprove the "objectivity" of
          > the colors by photography. It would seem to me
          > that the reliability of color photography must
          > depend upon its conformity to the colors seen
          > by the healthy eye, not the other way around.
          >
          > It would seem that in the 80+ years since this
          > lecture this relatively simple, straightforward
          > question could have been answered by now. Does
          > anyone know of a clear treatment of this
          > question in English? Is the book and/or the
          > article mentioned in the Steinerbooks note
          > available in English?
          >
          > Any help on this?
          >
          > Robert Mason
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          ____________________________________________________________________________________
          > Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
          > http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
          >
        • Robert Mason
          ... Thanks, Charles. But it looks as though Benson is relying on Hetzel, and I haven t found the Hetzel work in English. Anyway, it seems that Hetzel is
          Message 4 of 16 , Nov 18, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, "Charlie Morrison" <charlie@...> wrote:

            > I did a Google search and found a book by the same author with the
            > same passage in it (although the title is different) at :
            > http://www.library.umass.edu/benson/jbgctext.html
            >
            > Maybe you could get in touch with Leonard Benson and put your question
            > to him.

            Thanks, Charles. But it looks as though Benson is
            relying on Hetzel, and I haven't found the Hetzel
            work in English. Anyway, it seems that Hetzel is
            working mainly with photography, which, as I indicated
            before, confuses the issue. To me, the primary
            question is: what does the eye see when looking
            only at the colored shadow?

            But maybe I will try Mr. Benson eventually.

            Robert M
          • Robert Mason
            To Sheila, Charlie & All: I have skimmed through Heinrich Proskauer s *Rediscovery of Color*. The only mention I see of the problem of colored shadows is near
            Message 5 of 16 , Dec 12, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              To Sheila, Charlie & All:

              I have skimmed through Heinrich Proskauer's
              *Rediscovery of Color*. The only mention
              I see of the problem of colored shadows is
              near the end of the book; he says:

              "Rudolf Steiner indicated . . . 'it would
              now be necessary to derive from Goethe's
              principles the color phenomena unknown in
              his time.'

              "In this direction, meanwhile, some things
              have already been achieved. . . . Also the
              book *Das Rätsel des Farbigen Schattens*
              ('The Riddle of Colored Shadows'), intended
              as a sequel to the present volume, contains
              expostions on the basis of Goethe's principles
              concerning relationships of phenomena not yet
              observed by him {see Bibliography}."

              -- This is puzzling to me, since colored
              shadows were known to Goethe; RS was disputing
              Goethe's explanation of them. Maybe Proskauer
              was saying that the solution to this "riddle"
              entails some phenomenon not known to Goethe?

              I guess the thing to do now is to read that
              other book, but, as far as I know, it has not
              been published in English.

              I just now sent a query to JL Benson; maybe
              he'll make it easy for me.

              Robert Mason


              ____________________________________________________________________________________
              Be a better friend, newshound, and
              know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
            • happypick2000
              ... Dear Robert, I am grateful to you for pointing out this seeming discrepancy - it would seem Steiner would have picked up on this specific point considering
              Message 6 of 16 , Dec 12, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, Robert Mason <robertsmason_99@...> wrote:
                >
                > To Sheila, Charlie & All:
                >
                > I have skimmed through Heinrich Proskauer's
                > *Rediscovery of Color*. The only mention
                > I see of the problem of colored shadows is
                > near the end of the book; he says:
                >
                > "Rudolf Steiner indicated . . . 'it would
                > now be necessary to derive from Goethe's
                > principles the color phenomena unknown in
                > his time.'
                >
                > "In this direction, meanwhile, some things
                > have already been achieved. . . . Also the
                > book *Das Rätsel des Farbigen Schattens*
                > ('The Riddle of Colored Shadows'), intended
                > as a sequel to the present volume, contains
                > expostions on the basis of Goethe's principles
                > concerning relationships of phenomena not yet
                > observed by him {see Bibliography}."
                >
                > -- This is puzzling to me, since colored
                > shadows were known to Goethe; RS was disputing
                > Goethe's explanation of them. Maybe Proskauer
                > was saying that the solution to this "riddle"
                > entails some phenomenon not known to Goethe?
                >
                > I guess the thing to do now is to read that
                > other book, but, as far as I know, it has not
                > been published in English.
                >
                > I just now sent a query to JL Benson; maybe
                > he'll make it easy for me.
                >
                > Robert Mason
                >
                Dear Robert,

                I am grateful to you for pointing out this seeming discrepancy - it
                would seem Steiner would have picked up on this specific point
                considering his 10 years at Goethe's library. I wonder if this
                phenomenon might somehow involve light? It would seem doubtful,
                perhaps given Goethe's writings of the red/green "image" resulting
                from that medium? I wonder if Steiner's "The Light Course" also may be
                of some help? I wish you the best with this and apologize for not
                being of any help.

                Blessings,

                Sheila
                ____________________________________________________________________________________
              • Charlie Morrison
                Hi Robert, Sheila and all, Thanks for keeping us updated on your research Robert, and I hope you will continue to do so, it s a fascinating subject. Going back
                Message 7 of 16 , Dec 13, 2007
                • 0 Attachment
                  Hi Robert, Sheila and all,

                  Thanks for keeping us updated on your research Robert, and I hope you
                  will continue to do so, it's a fascinating subject.

                  Going back to a previous post of yours, from my own point of view, I
                  see no problem in using photography to determine the "objectivity" of
                  colored shadows; as this could be a way of determining whether the
                  colour occurs on the surface on which the shadow falls or if it
                  originates in the eye of the beholder.

                  This problem is very similar to the so called "rotating top illusion"
                  or the "Benham disc(k)" which can be seen (among other places) at:

                  http://www.cut-the-knot.org/Curriculum/Geometry/TopIllusion.shtml

                  They call it an illusion because the colours that are experienced on
                  viewing the spinning disc cannot be explained by the current colour
                  theories based on Newton, so the eye must be tricked into seeing them.
                  So, by this reckoning, the colours aren't actually on the disc but
                  they are produced by the (over)stimulation of the retina, the same way
                  that coloured shadows aren't actually on the surface but are a
                  phenomenon produced in the eye.

                  I would say that both coloured shadows and the colours produced by
                  "Benham's disc are due to the interplay of darkness and light and are
                  objectively real phenomena, just as a rainbow is objectively real or
                  the coloured edges seen through a prism are objectively real.

                  I doubt if this is of any help to you in your research but I think the
                  whole subject is well worth thinking about. Keep us posted.

                  Slainte
                  Charlie M

                  --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, Robert Mason <robertsmason_99@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > To Sheila, Charlie & All:
                  >
                  > I have skimmed through Heinrich Proskauer's
                  > *Rediscovery of Color*. The only mention
                  > I see of the problem of colored shadows is
                  > near the end of the book; he says:
                  >
                  > "Rudolf Steiner indicated . . . 'it would
                  > now be necessary to derive from Goethe's
                  > principles the color phenomena unknown in
                  > his time.'
                  >
                  > "In this direction, meanwhile, some things
                  > have already been achieved. . . . Also the
                  > book *Das R�tsel des Farbigen Schattens*
                  > ('The Riddle of Colored Shadows'), intended
                  > as a sequel to the present volume, contains
                  > expostions on the basis of Goethe's principles
                  > concerning relationships of phenomena not yet
                  > observed by him {see Bibliography}."
                  >
                  > -- This is puzzling to me, since colored
                  > shadows were known to Goethe; RS was disputing
                  > Goethe's explanation of them. Maybe Proskauer
                  > was saying that the solution to this "riddle"
                  > entails some phenomenon not known to Goethe?
                  >
                  > I guess the thing to do now is to read that
                  > other book, but, as far as I know, it has not
                  > been published in English.
                  >
                  > I just now sent a query to JL Benson; maybe
                  > he'll make it easy for me.
                  >
                  > Robert Mason
                • Robert Mason
                  ... Dear Sheila, As I said in my original post, reading the *Light Course* provoked this question for me. The relevant passage is at the beginning of chpt.7:
                  Message 8 of 16 , Dec 13, 2007
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, "happypick2000" <happypick@...> wrote:

                    > I wonder if Steiner's "The Light Course" also may be
                    > of some help?

                    Dear Sheila,

                    As I said in my original post, reading the *Light
                    Course* provoked this question for me. The
                    relevant passage is at the beginning of chpt.7:
                    <http://wn.rsarchive.org/Lectures/19191230p01.html>
                    The Steinerbooks version is at
                    <http://steinerbooks.org/research/archive/light_course/light_course.pdf>

                    It doesn't look as though I'll get *Das Rätsel
                    des Farbigen Schattens*. The only copy my
                    librarian could find is in the Swiss National
                    Library; we can't get ILL from there. Maybe
                    Benson will come through.

                    Robert M
                  • Robert Mason
                    ... view, I see no problem in using photography to determine the objectivity of colored shadows; as this could be a way of determining whether the colour
                    Message 9 of 16 , Dec 13, 2007
                    • 0 Attachment
                      To Charlie M, who wrote:

                      >>Going back to a previous post of yours, from my own point of
                      view, I see no problem in using photography to determine the
                      "objectivity" of colored shadows; as this could be a way of
                      determining whether the colour occurs on the surface on which
                      the shadow falls or if it originates in the eye of the
                      beholder.<<

                      Robert writes:

                      It still seems to me that the primary question
                      is: what does the healthy eye see? The
                      accuracy of color photography is determined by
                      its conformity or non-conformity with the
                      colors seen by healthy human eyesight, not the
                      other way around. Experiments with photography
                      might raise questions that would be interesting
                      for photographers, but these questions seem
                      secondary at best. The objectivity of the
                      colors could be determined by very simple
                      experiments with eyesight, as Steiner suggests.
                      It's really puzzling that those footnotes had
                      conflicting and/or unintelligible info about
                      results of the experiments. It would seem
                      that such experiments must have been done in
                      the last 80-odd years, and that the results
                      should be common knowledge for physicists.
                      Why is this not the case? -- Very puzzling.

                      Charlie wrote:

                      >>This problem is very similar to the so called "rotating top
                      illusion" or the "Benham disc(k)" which can be seen (among other
                      places) at:

                      >>http://www.cut-the-knot.org/Curriculum/Geometry/TopIllusion.shtml<<

                      Robert writes:

                      I couldn't play that applet on the public
                      compters that I use. I could play the graphics
                      here:
                      <http://www.michaelbach.de/ot/col_benham/index.html>,
                      but I didn't see any colors. Maybe something
                      to do with the flicker on the display screen?
                      Anyway ... I'll take it for granted that most
                      people do see colors under the right conditions.

                      Charlie wrote:

                      >I would say that both coloured shadows and the colours produced
                      by "Benham's disc are due to the interplay of darkness and light
                      and are objectively real phenomena, just as a rainbow is
                      objectively real or the coloured edges seen through a prism are
                      objectively real.<<

                      Robert writes:

                      That would be about my guess too. There's
                      likely an interaction of the "visual beam" and
                      the "deeds" of light AT the surfaces in objective
                      space. Have you read Lehrs' *Man or Matter*?
                      -- He makes a very brief, enigmatic comment
                      about colored shadows; as I read it, he seems
                      to assume implicitly the objectivity of the
                      colors. It's a must-read book anyway, and
                      the text is online at Project Gutenberg:
                      <http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/5641>

                      Gotta run,

                      Robert M







                      ____________________________________________________________________________________
                      Be a better friend, newshound, and
                      know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
                    • happypick2000
                      ... Robert, I stand corrected [hiding red face behind book...]. Do you think it might be possible to obtain a copy of *Das Ratsel des Farbigen Schattens* from
                      Message 10 of 16 , Dec 13, 2007
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Mason" <robertsmason_99@...>
                        wrote:
                        >
                        > --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, "happypick2000" <happypick@> wrote:
                        >
                        > > I wonder if Steiner's "The Light Course" also may be
                        > > of some help?
                        >
                        > Dear Sheila,
                        >
                        > As I said in my original post, reading the *Light
                        > Course* provoked this question for me. The
                        > relevant passage is at the beginning of chpt.7:
                        > <http://wn.rsarchive.org/Lectures/19191230p01.html>
                        > The Steinerbooks version is at
                        > <http://steinerbooks.org/research/archive/light_course/light_course.pdf>
                        >
                        > It doesn't look as though I'll get *Das Rätsel
                        > des Farbigen Schattens*. The only copy my
                        > librarian could find is in the Swiss National
                        > Library; we can't get ILL from there. Maybe
                        > Benson will come through.
                        >
                        > Robert M

                        Robert, I stand corrected [hiding red face behind book...]. Do you
                        think it might be possible to obtain a copy of *Das Ratsel des
                        Farbigen Schattens* from a Group - could one who teaches First Class
                        help in this search? I wish you the very best on your journey, with
                        apologies for my faux pas. &:|

                        Blessings,
                        Sheila
                        >
                      • Robert Mason
                        ... eclipse in less than a year, which is quite extraordinary for its occurrence. . . . ... its occurrence that the moon, brightly lit in its own respect,
                        Message 11 of 16 , Jan 30, 2008
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Steve Hale wrote:

                          >>. . . . we are approaching the third lunar
                          eclipse in less than a year, which is quite
                          extraordinary for its occurrence. . . .

                          >>Anyway, it is possible to show by means of
                          its occurrence that the moon, brightly lit in
                          its own respect, actually lights up the umbra,
                          or dark shadow-light of the earth, with a form
                          of brilliance occurring on the opposite side;
                          the reflective side. And this makes the moon
                          take on the orange-brown color of the
                          reflective side.<<

                          Robert writes:

                          I don't get your picture. I don't know what
                          you mean by *the moon, brightly lit in its own
                          respect*. It seems that the moon during a
                          lunar eclipse is not "brightly lit" at all; it
                          is in the earth's shadow and receives no direct
                          sunlight. And I'm not sure what you mean by
                          *the reflective side*. If you mean the earth-
                          side that is facing the sun, I don't think that
                          is orange-brown. The photos that I've seen
                          taken from space show the earth colors as
                          dominated by blue and white; only the desert
                          areas might be close to orange-brown.

                          But, as I think about it, it seems possible
                          that the eclipse colors *might* bear some
                          similarity to the colored shadows that Steiner
                          was talking about in this experimental set-up:
                          <br>
                          <img width="600" height="310"
                          src="http://wn.rsarchive.org/Lectures/LightCrse/images/light7a.gif">
                          <br>
                          (It might not be quite clear from this picture,
                          but only the light from the "left light" passes
                          through the red glass before shining on the
                          pole.)

                          If the orangey color of the moon during a lunar
                          eclipse were to be a "colored shadow" in this
                          sense, then it seems there would have to be a
                          second light source other than the sun.
                          (Assuming the same principle at work, in the
                          case of the eclipse the earth would be the
                          "pole" and the visible side of the moon would
                          be the portion of the screen in the "right
                          shadow".) Since the moon does not appear
                          completely dark during the eclipse, it would
                          seem reasonable to assume that some light is
                          shining on it from somewhere. So, besides the
                          direct sunlight, perhaps there is some other,
                          ambient light, perhaps a combination of
                          starlight and the light from the extended solar
                          "corona"?

                          But to make the analogy fit, this second light
                          in outer space would have to be "white" (i.e.
                          pure light, as is the "right light" in the
                          diagram), and the sunlight would have to be
                          "colored" (as is the "left light" filtered
                          through the "red glass" in the diagram). To
                          complete the analogy, the sunlight would have
                          to be the "complementary color" to the orange-
                          ish of the eclipsed moon; i.e. it would have to
                          be blue-ish. But where in "outer space" is the
                          blue "filter" for the sunlight? -- I don't know
                          of any.

                          So, at first glance the analogy doesn't work.
                          But, at this point, I wouldn't be too quick to
                          conclude that somehow the same principle is not
                          at work in Steiner's experiment and in the
                          lunar eclipse. After all, I still haven't
                          figured out exactly what this "principle" is.
                          I'm still kinda assuming that the colored
                          shadows are "objective" as Steiner said, but I
                          still haven't proven this for myself. I'm
                          somewhat wishing that I had an orderly garage
                          workshop so I could do the experiment for
                          myself, with the narrow tube for viewing as
                          Steiner suggested. Maybe I'll have to break
                          into a high-school physics lab?

                          I'm still very much puzzled by contradictory
                          reports mentioned in the footnotes that I
                          quoted in my first post. This experiment is
                          literally so simple that a child could do it;
                          why hasn't the question of the colored shadows'
                          "objectivity" been settled long ago? -- BTW, I
                          haven't receive a word of reply from JL Benson
                          about this.

                          But maybe some bright, young Goethean physicist
                          will explain the principle at work in colored
                          shadows and go on to apply it to lunar
                          eclipses? Maybe he is reading this thread
                          right now?

                          Robert M





                          ____________________________________________________________________________________
                          Be a better friend, newshound, and
                          know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
                        • happypick2000
                          ... Dear Friends, I am not that bright young Goethean physicist knowledgeable regarding technical/scientific aspects of lunar eclipses, but I can describe in
                          Message 12 of 16 , Jan 30, 2008
                          • 0 Attachment
                            --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, Robert Mason <robertsmason_99@...> wrote:
                            >
                            > Steve Hale wrote:
                            >
                            > >>. . . . we are approaching the third lunar
                            > eclipse in less than a year, which is quite
                            > extraordinary for its occurrence. . . .
                            >
                            > >>Anyway, it is possible to show by means of
                            > its occurrence that the moon, brightly lit in
                            > its own respect, actually lights up the umbra,
                            > or dark shadow-light of the earth, with a form
                            > of brilliance occurring on the opposite side;
                            > the reflective side. And this makes the moon
                            > take on the orange-brown color of the
                            > reflective side.<<
                            >
                            > Robert writes:
                            >
                            > I don't get your picture. I don't know what
                            > you mean by *the moon, brightly lit in its own
                            > respect*. It seems that the moon during a
                            > lunar eclipse is not "brightly lit" at all; it
                            > is in the earth's shadow and receives no direct
                            > sunlight. And I'm not sure what you mean by
                            > *the reflective side*. If you mean the earth-
                            > side that is facing the sun, I don't think that
                            > is orange-brown. The photos that I've seen
                            > taken from space show the earth colors as
                            > dominated by blue and white; only the desert
                            > areas might be close to orange-brown.
                            >
                            > But, as I think about it, it seems possible
                            > that the eclipse colors *might* bear some
                            > similarity to the colored shadows that Steiner
                            > was talking about in this experimental set-up:
                            > <br>
                            > <img width="600" height="310"
                            > src="http://wn.rsarchive.org/Lectures/LightCrse/images/light7a.gif">
                            > <br>
                            > (It might not be quite clear from this picture,
                            > but only the light from the "left light" passes
                            > through the red glass before shining on the
                            > pole.)
                            >
                            > If the orangey color of the moon during a lunar
                            > eclipse were to be a "colored shadow" in this
                            > sense, then it seems there would have to be a
                            > second light source other than the sun.
                            > (Assuming the same principle at work, in the
                            > case of the eclipse the earth would be the
                            > "pole" and the visible side of the moon would
                            > be the portion of the screen in the "right
                            > shadow".) Since the moon does not appear
                            > completely dark during the eclipse, it would
                            > seem reasonable to assume that some light is
                            > shining on it from somewhere. So, besides the
                            > direct sunlight, perhaps there is some other,
                            > ambient light, perhaps a combination of
                            > starlight and the light from the extended solar
                            > "corona"?
                            >
                            > But to make the analogy fit, this second light
                            > in outer space would have to be "white" (i.e.
                            > pure light, as is the "right light" in the
                            > diagram), and the sunlight would have to be
                            > "colored" (as is the "left light" filtered
                            > through the "red glass" in the diagram). To
                            > complete the analogy, the sunlight would have
                            > to be the "complementary color" to the orange-
                            > ish of the eclipsed moon; i.e. it would have to
                            > be blue-ish. But where in "outer space" is the
                            > blue "filter" for the sunlight? -- I don't know
                            > of any.
                            >
                            > So, at first glance the analogy doesn't work.
                            > But, at this point, I wouldn't be too quick to
                            > conclude that somehow the same principle is not
                            > at work in Steiner's experiment and in the
                            > lunar eclipse. After all, I still haven't
                            > figured out exactly what this "principle" is.
                            > I'm still kinda assuming that the colored
                            > shadows are "objective" as Steiner said, but I
                            > still haven't proven this for myself. I'm
                            > somewhat wishing that I had an orderly garage
                            > workshop so I could do the experiment for
                            > myself, with the narrow tube for viewing as
                            > Steiner suggested. Maybe I'll have to break
                            > into a high-school physics lab?
                            >
                            > I'm still very much puzzled by contradictory
                            > reports mentioned in the footnotes that I
                            > quoted in my first post. This experiment is
                            > literally so simple that a child could do it;
                            > why hasn't the question of the colored shadows'
                            > "objectivity" been settled long ago? -- BTW, I
                            > haven't receive a word of reply from JL Benson
                            > about this.
                            >
                            > But maybe some bright, young Goethean physicist
                            > will explain the principle at work in colored
                            > shadows and go on to apply it to lunar
                            > eclipses? Maybe he is reading this thread
                            > right now?
                            >
                            > Robert M
                            >
                            >
                            Dear Friends,

                            I am not that bright young Goethean physicist knowledgeable regarding
                            technical/scientific aspects of lunar eclipses, but I can describe in
                            my own way viewing a total lunar eclipse throughout the moon's full
                            transit about 20 years ago. My son and I watched with telescope and
                            naked eyes the entire wonder, from beginning to end. This moon was
                            copper colored during all phases of its eclipse out here on the coast
                            of central California.

                            Blessings,
                            Sheila
                          • 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 13 of 16 , Feb 2 11:10 AM
                            • 0 Attachment
                              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
                              that.

                              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
                              scr="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Lunar_eclipse_optics.jpg">
                              <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
                              file.

                              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 . . . .<<

                              And:

                              >>. . . . 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
                            • Robert Mason
                              ... entirety, and the so-called phases need a new explanation.
                              Message 14 of 16 , Feb 5 10:33 AM
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Steve wrote:

                                >>. . . . the moon is self-shining in its
                                entirety, and the so-called "phases" need a new
                                explanation.<<

                                Robert writes:

                                It seems to me that Carol was onto something
                                with the first sentence she wrote:

                                >>Notice, the nuances: 'spiritual sense',
                                'physically it appears' and 'in reality'.<<

                                Robert writes:

                                Here are the crucial sentences from the
                                Steiner-said that Steve brought:

                                ". . . . 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 . . . ."

                                Robert continues:

                                It seems to me that Steve is, at the least,
                                confusing these "physical appearances" with
                                light in the "spiritual sense". I started this
                                thread with Steiner's discussion of an aspect
                                of the *physical appearances* of light and
                                color, namely the observable facts of "colored
                                shadows". Colored shadows are physical
                                appearances, and the question I raised was
                                about the physical appearances, nothing more.
                                And when Steve brought the phenomenon of the
                                lunar eclipse into this thread, I thought that
                                he was talking about the physical appearances
                                of lunar eclipses and trying to relate them to
                                the principle at work in the physical
                                appearances of colored shadows. And in my
                                discussion of the scientific theories of
                                eclipses and sunsets I was dealing with the
                                physical phenomena of light and color, not with
                                light in the "spiritual sense".

                                Steve quotes that passage from Steiner as
                                supporting the view that "the moon is self-
                                shining in its entirety", but it is obvious
                                that Steiner was not talking about the moon in
                                its *physical appearance* being "self-shining";
                                RS was talking about light in the *spiritual
                                sense* coming from the moon. He explicitly
                                confirmed the common-sense "physical
                                appearance" that the sun gives light to the
                                planets including the moon. Plainly, Steiner's
                                discussion here does not support the view that
                                ”the moon is self-shining in its entirety" if
                                this "entirety" includes the physical
                                appearances. And apparently to Steve it does
                                include them, an incomprehensible confusion of
                                light in its physical and spiritual aspects.

                                Steve wrote:

                                >>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 .
                                . . Common sense tells me that there is a
                                difference between the results of natural
                                viewing and the views of the lab experiments.<<

                                Robert writes:

                                But no laboratory can violate the "laws of
                                Nature"; nothing "unnatural" in the literal
                                sense can be produced in laboratory
                                experiments, especially such simple ones
                                involved here. What the experiments do, in the
                                Goethean sense, if done properly, is to make
                                the "archetypal phenomena" clear to the mind.

                                Steve wrote:

                                >>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
                                . . . .<<

                                Carol wrote:

                                >>Perhaps the question to be asked is, what is
                                the living nature of the Sun as a mass, as it
                                stands in the sky nowadays?<<

                                Robert writes:

                                In Chapter XVIII of *Man or Matter* Lehrs
                                discusses the rainbow and relates it to
                                "prismatic effects" and to the "nature of the
                                Sun". I can't go through his whole explanation
                                here; one needs to read the whole chapter, but
                                really the whole book. To make a long story
                                short: the Sun, even in its physical nature,
                                is not a "mass" at all; it is a region of
                                "negative density" or "counter-space".
                                (Steiner discusses this principle often, as do,
                                following him, George Adams [Kaufmann] and
                                Olive Whicher; you could do some Googling.)
                                The rainbow appears when atmospheric conditions
                                display an image of the sun; the colors appear
                                as "boundary effect" at the interface of space
                                and the "negative space" of the sun. (Usually
                                the sun-image is incomplete; thus the rainbow
                                is usually only a more-or-less short arc. But
                                sometimes the whole image of the sun-disc is
                                displayeded, and then the rainbow appears as a
                                complete circle, as I have seen.)

                                A few words from Lehrs:

                                "From what we have learnt already we can say at
                                once that the rainbow must represent some sort
                                of border-phenomenon, thus pointing to the
                                existence of a boundary between two space-
                                regions of differing illumination. Our question
                                therefore must be: what is the light-image
                                whose boundary comes to coloured manifestation
                                in the phenomenon of the rainbow? There can be
                                no doubt that the image is that of the sun-
                                disk, shining in the sky. When we see a
                                rainbow, what we are really looking at is the
                                edge of an image of the sun-disk, caught and
                                reflected, owing to favourable conditions, in
                                the atmosphere. (Observe in this respect that
                                the whole area inside the rainbow is always
                                considerably brighter than the space outside.)

                                "Once we realize this to be the true nature of
                                the rainbow, the peculiar order of its colours
                                begins to speak a significant language. The
                                essential point to observe is that the blue-
                                violet part of the spectrum lies on the inner
                                side of the rainbow-arch - the side immediately
                                adjoining the outer rim of the sun-image -
                                while the yellow-red part lies on the outer
                                side of the arch - the side turned away from
                                the sun-image. What can we learn from this
                                about the distribution of positive and negative
                                density inside and outside the realm occupied
                                by the sun-disk itself in the cosmos?

                                "We remember {from Lehrs' discussion of
                                'prismatic effects' -- RM} that along the
                                gradient from blue to violet, negative density
                                (Light) increases and positive density (Dark)
                                decreases, while from yellow to red it is just
                                the reverse-positive density increases and
                                negative density decreases. The rainbow
                                therefore indicates a steady increase of Dark
                                towards the outer rim, and of Light towards the
                                inner. Evidently, what the optical image of the
                                sun in the atmosphere thus reveals concerning
                                the gradation of the ratio between Light and
                                Dark in the radial direction, is an attribute
                                of the entire light-realm which stretches from
                                the sun to that image. And again, the attribute
                                of this realm is but an effect of the dynamic
                                relation between the sun itself and the
                                surrounding cosmic space.

                                "The rainbow thus becomes a script to us in
                                which we read the remarkable fact that the
                                region occupied by the sun in the cosmos is a
                                region of negative density, in relation to
                                which the region surrounding the sun is one of
                                positive density. Far from being an
                                accumulation of ponderable matter in a state of
                                extremely high temperature, as science
                                supposes, the sun represents the very opposite
                                of ponderability."

                                Steve wrote:

                                >>. . . . just as lack of moisture combined
                                with extraordinary static friction of the
                                atmosphere creates lightning.<<

                                Robert writes:

                                But obviously, lightning (usually) occurs where
                                there is a pronounced *lack* of a "lack of
                                moisture".

                                Steve wrote:

                                >>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.<<

                                Robert writes:

                                This paragraph is unintelligible to me. I've
                                already talked about the alleged "refraction"
                                and the allegedly "self-shining moon"; rather
                                than repeat what I've already said, I'll leave
                                it at that.

                                Steve wrote:

                                >>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 . . . .<<

                                Robert writes:

                                Steve, I do remember enough of your "discourse"
                                of last summer to recall that I couldn't make
                                any sense of what you were saying and that I
                                bailed out of the discussion. I'm going to
                                bail out again; just a remark on the way out:
                                I think that once again you are confusing the
                                physical and the non-physical. Your theory
                                requires a physical shroud, but the 8th Sphere
                                is non-physical.

                                Robert M




                                ____________________________________________________________________________________
                                Be a better friend, newshound, and
                                know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.