Can photograph effect?

[flume]

I think you all are on the wrong track.

I think (but could be wrong) that Kumar is talking about an idea similar to the idea that a cut off hair can communicate back to the original hair, or that EM waves could travel from the piece of a broken off stone to the original stone. I think the idea is that somehow the reflected photons (e.g. from white light) wander around as a group until they find an item with a similar profile of absorption. Okay, I know this is sounding fuzzy, but he has mentioned something like this before.
So I think his idea is that the photo of the ancestor somehow stores some information about the ancestor which (???) has a connection to the ancestor's spirit? (Kumar didn't say this; I'm guessing). And when the candle light hits the picture it releases this stored information which travels around until it hits the similar face of the descendent, having some kind of effect which I can't imagine at the moment.

(Somewhere there was a link to a homeopathy page where a woman dipped her son's hair into a homeopathic remedy while he was in the other room. It worked to make his nose bleed stop or some such thing - no controls, of course.)

So I think he's looking for a way that visible light can carry information about the person in the photograph to the viewer - not just the stored pattern in the image, but some essence of the person who was photographed. I don't know if it is information from the person as he was in life, or a connetcion to the person's spirit in the (hypothetical) afterlife.

How am I doing?

 

[Chris Haynes]

I think you all are on the wrong track.

...

Perhaps... but I was attempting to post information that had some semblence of "Science, Mathematics, Medicine and Technology", not "General Skepticism and The Paranormal".

Anyway, I am more aghast that someone would burn candles near a photograph than I am that they would actually "worship" the photograph -- which is well, just silly.

 

[Kumar]

It am goodly that ye asked. It is an a priori question that the clours in a dimensions isn't the same as if it were the real persona? I know when I see picture that there isn't any light clours that reflects of an wavelengths. They ways that determistic of depth, i.e. distance or "time" is the parralax between the eyes. If the pictures is two far a whey, than thay cannot be told from a light source at infinite distance. Therefore the two-diementional picture is indistinguishable from a graviton.

A photograph records one instant in time and distorts 3 dimensional space into 2 dimensions. The distortion is especially obvious if there is a tall building or columns in the photo: the edges are parellel only if the film plane is parellel to the building or column edges (there are special cameras for this). Similar distrotions occur when photographing people, especially with wide angle lenses, but are less obvious because people don't have the convenient parellel lines for comparison. A photgraph also distorts colors since it tries to create all possible colors with just 3 dyes. Photo experts deebate endlessly which film is best for skin tones or scenic pictures. And the color balance of the light source also affects the color in the photo. Most people are familiar with the green cast produced with color film under flourescent lights.

Why not include paintings in your question? I have seen oil paintings that look more real than photographs. The artist can correct for perspective distortion and has a far more subtle color palette to work with. But he brings his own interpretation when rendering the subject.

Since photos and paintings are abstractions of reality, why not consider just the name of the person written on a piece of paper? That is equally symbolic.

These two posts makes some sense.

Btw, how photons will be emitted (as colour reflections by any coulered object) when exposed to light(candles,lamps,natural light) by a person AND by his most true colour photo/painting (pls consider colour & dimentions)? How both will effect to a person just in front of him or his photo?

I think you all are on the wrong track.

I think (but could be wrong) that Kumar is talking about an idea similar to the idea that a cut off hair can communicate back to the original hair, or that EM waves could travel from the piece of a broken off stone to the original stone. I think the idea is that somehow the reflected photons (e.g. from white light) wander around as a group until they find an item with a similar profile of absorption. Okay, I know this is sounding fuzzy, but he has mentioned something like this before.
So I think his idea is that the photo of the ancestor somehow stores some information about the ancestor which (???) has a connection to the ancestor's spirit? (Kumar didn't say this; I'm guessing). And when the candle light hits the picture it releases this stored information which travels around until it hits the similar face of the descendent, having some kind of effect which I can't imagine at the moment.

(Somewhere there was a link to a homeopathy page where a woman dipped her son's hair into a homeopathic remedy while he was in the other room. It worked to make his nose bleed stop or some such thing - no controls, of course.)

So I think he's looking for a way that visible light can carry information about the person in the photograph to the viewer - not just the stored pattern in the image, but some essence of the person who was photographed. I don't know if it is information from the person as he was in life, or a connetcion to the person's spirit in the (hypothetical) afterlife.

How am I doing?

flume, you may be thinking somewhat in right direction but your doubts/opposition about me made you 'bit deviated'.

 

[Zep]

Kumar: Btw, how photons will be emitted (as colour reflections by any coulered object) when exposed to light(candles,lamps,natural light) by a person AND by his most true colour photo/painting (pls consider colour & dimentions)? How both will effect to a person just in front of him or his photo?

Translation: If your photographs of grandma fade, will you get the same cosmic vibe out of them?

 

[neutrino_cannon]

"When" a atoms art strickened by phothons, they "increase" in energy elecytron levels. When that happens, a quantum increase uccurs and a nearby malt wormhole is reft for a nother fothon that can reflact; at the same angle, i.e. as though it were a physical/s abject reflacting of of a flat beem. "Ergo"; the praticals on the surface of the picture are exactly like, in a quantum leval, the "real" thing. This are universal in effect, except on mars when an ecclipse blocks out much of the quantum effect. Thusly, whom it concerns, I "think" fish fish that the rest can only be expressed in red latin:


Salve, nec maior intelligentia in capite homo
nec bellis verbis nec ore sicco
nec cogitatione acumene meo
nec sane, nisi nugare, arte.
Tute, sine mente linguaque
infatuaberis a venustiore
neutrino_cannonis, qui te ridit.
Tecum frankone comparatur?
O stolidissime hominum!

 

[Donks]

How both will effect to a person just in front of him or his photo?

The photons coming from the image/person enter the eye through the pupil. An upside down image is formed in the retina. The retina is covered by rods and cones, which take the light information and pass it to the brain. The rest of the skin, hair, and all other exposed surfaces couldn't care less about a picture.

 

[Zep]

"When" a atoms art strickened by phothons, they "increase" in energy elecytron levels. When that happens, a quantum increase uccurs and a nearby malt wormhole is reft for a nother fothon that can reflact; at the same angle, i.e. as though it were a physical/s abject reflacting of of a flat beem. "Ergo"; the praticals on the surface of the picture are exactly like, in a quantum leval, the "real" thing. This are universal in effect, except on mars when an ecclipse blocks out much of the quantum effect. Thusly, whom it concerns, I "think" fish fish that the rest can only be expressed in red latin:


Salve, nec maior intelligentia in capite homo
nec bellis verbis nec ore sicco
nec cogitatione acumene meo
nec sane, nisi nugare, arte.
Tute, sine mente linguaque
infatuaberis a venustiore
neutrino_cannonis, qui te ridit.
Tecum frankone comparatur?
O stolidissime hominum!

Precisely.

 

[Kumar]

The photons coming from the image/person enter the eye through the pupil. An upside down image is formed in the retina. The retina is covered by rods and cones, which take the light information and pass it to the brain. The rest of the skin, hair, and all other exposed surfaces couldn't care less about a picture.

Effects can /should be there on all photons-atoms/molecules interactions with our body. Eyes may be meant to recognise/passing effects inside the body to brain.

We can get two type of effects. One on outer interactions & other on internal interactions via eyes or via absorption by skin other than colour reflected photons.

 

[Donks]

Effects can /should be there on all photons-atoms/molecules interactions with our body. Eyes may be meant to recognise/passing effects inside the body to brain.

What exactly do you propose happens to the skin when light coming from the picture of a person hits it?

 

[Kumar]

Translation: If your photographs of grandma fade, will you get the same cosmic vibe out of them?

Effect may also fade. Everything may fade degrade with time(may be somewhat alike 2nd law of thermodynamics). Anyway we also have to check directions of emitted photons, dimentions & black & white photo's effects. & why we prefer latest photo.

 

[Kumar]

What exactly do you propose happens to the skin when light coming from the picture of a person hits it?

Anything can happen as per photons-atoms/molecules interactions.

 

[Kumar]

Btw, how followings can effect in this respect;

1.Dimentions of person & his photo.

2.Black & white photo.

3.Direction/s of absorbed & emitted photons.

4. Spectrum formed.

5. Outer & internal effects by emitted photons.

6. Distance & positions of light, photo, person & effected person.

 

[Donks]

Kumar: you do realize that photons coming from a person or a photo of that person don't carry the "signature" of that person, right? A photon coming from a person will be identical to all photons of the same wavelength coming from any other source.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

If this isn't just part of Kumar's uber-troll campaign, he should be reminded that the light coming from photographs bears a spectrum that is dictated by the moelcules and atoms of the dye in the paper, which merely happen to be distributed across the paper in a pattern of a 2D projection of some 3D objects that were once in front of the camera.

Kumar, the chemstry of photographic paper has nothing whatsoever to do with the chemistry of the object that was photographed. The red in a person's shirt will be produced by a whole set of different dyes than the red patch of paper in the photograph of that shirt.

p.s. I intend this to be my one and only attempt at a serious reply to this nonsense. Come on, is anyone really this stupid? Doesn't it take a conscious effort of wilful invention to maintain this wall of ignorance and wild fantasy speculation? Where "Kumar" differs from most other trolling exercises we know of is simply in his persistence and longevity.

 

[Zep]

If this isn't just part of Kumar's uber-troll campaign, he should be reminded that the light coming from photographs bears a spectrum that is dictated by the moelcules and atoms of the dye in the paper, which merely happen to be distributed across the paper in a pattern of a 2D projection of some 3D objects that were once in front of the camera.

Kumar, the chemstry of photographic paper has nothing whatsoever to do with the chemistry of the object that was photographed. The red in a person's shirt will be produced by a whole set of different dyes than the red patch of paper in the photograph of that shirt.

p.s. I intend this to be my one and only attempt at a serious reply to this nonsense. Come on, is anyone really this stupid? Doesn't it take a conscious effort of wilful invention to maintain this wall of ignorance and wild fantasy speculation? Where "Kumar" differs from most other trolling exercises we know of is simply in his persistence and longevity.

Booze? Lunacy? Both?

 

[Zep]

Zep: Translation: If your photographs of grandma fade, will you get the same cosmic vibe out of them?

Effect may also fade. Everything may fade degrade with time(may be somewhat alike 2nd law of thermodynamics). Anyway we also have to check directions of emitted photons, dimentions & black & white photo's effects. & why we prefer latest photo.

So the answer is "yes".

OK.

Just MY opinion, of course...

 

[Chris Haynes]

Booze? Lunacy? Both?

Well, today his off the wall tangent has provided an amusing reprieve from the sheer idiocy that I encountered on a disability listserv.

Though I think I need another drink to fully understand what he is trying to say about looking at photos.

 

[Kumar]

Kumar: you do realize that photons coming from a person or a photo of that person don't carry the "signature" of that person, right? A photon coming from a person will be identical to all photons of the same wavelength coming from any other source.

Why, you can't say this. Interactions & effects between two objects can be by photons-atoms/molecules interactions between them(I am not considering other effects).

Any object will reflect wavelength similar to its colour & will absorb other. I can't say about non-visible wave lengths. If colours & dimentions(this can also change colours on photo) are same or somewhat same of photo & person--reflection/ reflected wavelengths will be same or somewhat same of both. Is it wrong?

 

[Kumar]

If this isn't just part of Kumar's uber-troll campaign, he should be reminded that the light coming from photographs bears a spectrum that is dictated by the moelcules and atoms of the dye in the paper, which merely happen to be distributed across the paper in a pattern of a 2D projection of some 3D objects that were once in front of the camera.

Kumar, the chemstry of photographic paper has nothing whatsoever to do with the chemistry of the object that was photographed. The red in a person's shirt will be produced by a whole set of different dyes than the red patch of paper in the photograph of that shirt.

p.s. I intend this to be my one and only attempt at a serious reply to this nonsense. Come on, is anyone really this stupid? Doesn't it take a conscious effort of wilful invention to maintain this wall of ignorance and wild fantasy speculation? Where "Kumar" differs from most other trolling exercises we know of is simply in his persistence and longevity.

Pls study 'how differant objects looks of differant colours to us?

 

[MRC_Hans]

Booze? Lunacy? Both?

No, I don't think Kumar drinks alcohol. His addiction is more to salty snacks. Seriously, I have interacted ....much.. with Kumar, and he has his own screwd logic. Right now, he has convinced himself that photons convey a plethora of informations, between different substances, and between substances and the human organism. So within that pretext, it would make sense if a photo, which shows a similar photon pattern to the motive, would also have a similar effect as the presense of the motive.

This discussion will then lead to Kumar asserting that a hoemopathic remedy somehow being a photograph of the original substance.

Lunacy? I suppose you could use that term, yes.

Hans