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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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.