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
      --- 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 2 of 16 , Nov 16, 2007
        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 3 of 16 , Nov 18, 2007
          --- 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 4 of 16 , Dec 12, 2007
            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 5 of 16 , Dec 12, 2007
              --- 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 6 of 16 , Dec 13, 2007
                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 7 of 16 , Dec 13, 2007
                  --- 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 8 of 16 , Dec 13, 2007
                    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 9 of 16 , Dec 13, 2007
                      --- 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 10 of 16 , Jan 30, 2008
                        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 11 of 16 , Jan 30, 2008
                          --- 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 12 of 16 , Feb 2, 2008
                            Mathew Morrell wrote:

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

                            Carol brought this from Yahoo Answers:

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

                            Robert writes:

                            We might have a tendency go down on our knees
                            before the "explanations" of Science (with the
                            capital *S*). After all, Science builds
                            computers and rockets and nukes, and Scientists
                            have PhDs from prestigious universities and get
                            Nobel Prizes . . . so how could we, mere
                            uneducated peasants and proles that we are,
                            dare to contradict the "explanations" of
                            Science? To do so would show us not only to be
                            uneducated but stupid, and arrogantly stupid at
                            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 13 of 16 , Feb 5, 2008
                              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.