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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 of 16 , Feb 2, 2008
          • 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 5 of 16 , Feb 5, 2008
            • 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.