Can photograph effect?
- Thread starter Kumar
- Start date
-
- Tags
- effect photograph
PixyMisa
Persnickety Insect
Re: Conclusion
Tanslation: We see stuff.Kumar said:
Translation: Ooh, shiny!
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,961
Here we see how Kumar abuses the information he pretends to gather here. He goes and posts a lot of technobabble on a homeopathic forum, pretending that he has found support for it elsewhere.Kumar said:
Kumar, your dishonesty is bad karma.
Hans
Badly Shaved Monkey
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2004
- Messages
- 5,363
MRC_Hans said:
Kumar,
Hans is right. The degree to which you take information and bend it so far out of shape to fit your preconceived ideas is deceptive and dishonest.
"Noble/logical non-technical views/opinions only" It says in your Sig Line, but your activities are deeply ignoble.
Rolfe
Adult human female
Also quite mind-blowingly illogical, by the way.Badly Shaved Monkey said:
Rolfe.
Anyway, all related should agree & be convinced/satisfied--here & there for 'new informations'.
Do you agree that ' new & proved informations' are made by discussions here which you fear or 'take it otherwise' to be passed here & there? I mean, Should we take those as ' new proved informations' ?
Do you agree that ' new & proved informations' are made by discussions here which you fear or 'take it otherwise' to be passed here & there? I mean, Should we take those as ' new proved informations' ?
Pixy,
I think it is so easy to understand & don't need translation. So study again & tell.
Furthur, there can be one more;
(d) By relesed vibrations. In short, by released energies on exposure to differant energies as light, heat, sound, position etc.
I think it is so easy to understand & don't need translation. So study again & tell.
Furthur, there can be one more;
(d) By relesed vibrations. In short, by released energies on exposure to differant energies as light, heat, sound, position etc.
Re: Conclusion
what kind of an effect?
Does this include an effect on skin of a person near the photo?
You say, "at the same time" - that is a new addition. You are looking at a person and that person's photo at the same time? Why?
An effect on what?
what kind of an effect?
Does this include an effect on skin of a person near the photo?
You say 'looking' in this sentence, so does that mean you are not including an effect on skin in this sentence?
You say, "at the same time" - that is a new addition. You are looking at a person and that person's photo at the same time? Why?
I just read this link, including the post you just made there. After your conversation with Pixymisa, I see you're still talking about part excitation. I think you should paste that last paragraph here too, to be fair to all the people who talked to you about those topics.
flume,
All can read. I just want to understand 'the prime science of 'how potential energy exist,store or persist in any substance'?
You can judge, there will be no point in discussions unless we I can justify-how energy or its information can persist in remedies?
Does it not look bit illogical that we say potential energy is stored/exist without changes in moleculer/atomic structure?
All can read. I just want to understand 'the prime science of 'how potential energy exist,store or persist in any substance'?
You can judge, there will be no point in discussions unless we I can justify-how energy or its information can persist in remedies?
Does it not look bit illogical that we say potential energy is stored/exist without changes in moleculer/atomic structure?
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,961
Kumar, it would be nice if you would try a good deal harder to write intelligible English. But I'll try to answer the questions I think you ask.Kumar said:Anyway, all related should agree & be convinced/satisfied--here & there for 'new informations'.
Do you agree that ' new & proved informations' are made by discussions here which you fear or 'take it otherwise' to be passed here & there? I mean, Should we take those as ' new proved informations' ?
Yes, here, we are very interested in new information. There, (meaning at the homeoathic forums) they are not.
No, our (meaning the ones between you and the rest of us) discussions have not yielded ANY new information except a dizzyingly deep insight into your abysmal ignorance.
No, we do not fear new information. We are, however, annoyed at you when you lie about our discussions here and pretend to others that you have found new information.
You have not. You have been given a lot of information, but you have understood none of it. None of the information we have given you is new. It is basic science, much of it primary school level. You have contributed nothing. - Apart from a certain amount of entertainment, for which I have already thanked you sufficiently.
Hans
As far as I can tell, all Kumar does is post some totally nonsensical claim here, invite discussion as long as it is what he wants to listen to, totally ignore all the discussion and responses anyway, then take the very same topic to Otherhealth or Hpathy and lie to them that he has had discussion here and we agree with him.
In other words, he's blatantly dishonest as well as dim as a blown lightbulb. Is this what passes for a homeopath these days?
In other words, he's blatantly dishonest as well as dim as a blown lightbulb. Is this what passes for a homeopath these days?
Badly Shaved Monkey
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2004
- Messages
- 5,363
Zep said:
Not at all. I suspect it is what has always passed for a homeopath!
Re: Re: Re: Conclusion
If you have a photo (or a person) near to another person, and a light is shining on them, then it is correct that light reflected from the photo (or person) will hit the other person. It is also correct that the light hitting that person (through the eyes or on the skin) will have whatever physical effect its wavelengths can have on the tissues it hits.
If that is all that you mean, then I agree with what you said.
But I have the feeling that you mean more than that. Whether I agree with you depends on what you mean when you use the word "effect".
The eye is complicated so I want to just talk about the skin, since you have included effects on the skin in your other posts.
If reflected light from the photo hits your skin it will interact with the very top part of the skin. Some light will be reflected back from your skin. There will be no information or energy change to your skin from this reflection. When you talk about effects, do you mean this kind of physical interaction?
Some light will be absorbed by molecules in the top part of the skin. If we were plants and had chlorophyll, the absorbed energy from the light could be used to make glucose, but we aren't plants. We don't have that kind of arrangement for taking visible light energy and changing it into chemical bond energy. The energy from absorbed visible light will be transferred into vibrations of the molecules, which is a warming effect only. There is no information being transferred here. So you could call it an effect because the light is absorbed. But it is no different from the usual absorption of visible light by the skin in a lit room. No change happens to the person because of this light being absorbed. So it is not an effect on the person's state of being, health, physiology, mood, etc. When you talk about effects, do you mean this kind of physical interaction (with no other effect on the person) - the absorption of visible light by skin molecules, transferred to heat?
For there to be a physiological effect, you would need some receptor molecule in the skin to respond to some wavelength of visible light and send some kind of signal. There is no system for doing that.
Things I said in other posts:
There is no way the skin can respond to the content of the photo - whether it is a person or landscape or smear of colors. Did you agree with this? There is no way for skin to focus light or to respond to a distribution of different wavelengths spatially. So it would not matter if light reflected off a photo of a person or a photo of a random mix of colors. If you are thinking that the photo can "effect" the skin through its content, you are wrong.
The exact wavelengths of light reflected from a photo will not be the same as the wavelengths reflected from the real person because of the pigments used in photography. Did you agree with this? If you are assuming that a photo can "effect" the skin because of its reflection having identical wavelengths as those reflected from a person, you are wrong.
Suppose you have a real person in the room instead of a photo. the wavelengths best absorbed by that person's skin will be the same ones that are best absorbed by your skin. If there is any change in the light hitting your skin after being reflected from the other person's skin, it will be to decrease the amount of absorbable light to your skin (since more of it will have been absorbed by the other person's skin). There is no reason to think there would be information here. So if you think light reflected from another person's skin would be especially effective at conveying information to your skin, you would be wrong.
However the direct light from the lamp which hits your skin would be much brighter than the small amount of reflected light from a photo (or another person's skin) , and the direct light would have all the wavelengths from the lamp. Any change in the amount of light reflected off of a photo (or another person's skin) onto your skin would be too small to matter in comparison to the direct light from the lamp hitting your skin.
The reflected light in the room would come not just from the photo but from everything in the whole room. It makes no sense to think about just the photo - you would have to think about everything else in the room - the walls, floor, furniture, books, food, piles of laundry. If you are thinking the photo would somehow add light to the skin, that would be wrong. Light is hitting the skin anyway from everything in the room and directly from the lamp. The photo would be insignificant.
But as I said, it doesn't matter anyway because there is no receptor in the skin for visible light which can carry signals or energy for physiological processes. If you are thinking there is an effect on the skin from a reflection from the photo, you would be getting the same effect in a room without the photo. And this effect would be only the physical effect as described between the light and the near surface skin molecules - reflection or absorbtion with conversion to (a very small amount of) heat - a an ongoing process anyway. (And remember, your own body is generating heat all the time; any heat from absorbed visible light to the skin is insignificant compared to your body's heat.) It would not be an interesting physiological effect. It would carry no information. It would not cause chemical changes.
So if you are talking about the physical effect only, then you are correct. But if you are talking about some larger physiological effect or transfer of information, then you are not correct.
If by "All possible energy-cellular/molecular interactions" you mean lots of hypothetical exciting imagined transfers of energy and information, then you are wrong. If you mean it in the simplest way - the simple physical interaction which is the only thing actually possible - then you are correct. All possible interactions in this case are limited to a very few insignificant interactions.
(Sorry, that was long, and may have gotten confusing by the end.)
I can read your words in two ways. One way sounds correct. The other way does not sound correct. This may be a language issue.
If you have a photo (or a person) near to another person, and a light is shining on them, then it is correct that light reflected from the photo (or person) will hit the other person. It is also correct that the light hitting that person (through the eyes or on the skin) will have whatever physical effect its wavelengths can have on the tissues it hits.
If that is all that you mean, then I agree with what you said.
But I have the feeling that you mean more than that. Whether I agree with you depends on what you mean when you use the word "effect".
The eye is complicated so I want to just talk about the skin, since you have included effects on the skin in your other posts.
If reflected light from the photo hits your skin it will interact with the very top part of the skin. Some light will be reflected back from your skin. There will be no information or energy change to your skin from this reflection. When you talk about effects, do you mean this kind of physical interaction?
Some light will be absorbed by molecules in the top part of the skin. If we were plants and had chlorophyll, the absorbed energy from the light could be used to make glucose, but we aren't plants. We don't have that kind of arrangement for taking visible light energy and changing it into chemical bond energy. The energy from absorbed visible light will be transferred into vibrations of the molecules, which is a warming effect only. There is no information being transferred here. So you could call it an effect because the light is absorbed. But it is no different from the usual absorption of visible light by the skin in a lit room. No change happens to the person because of this light being absorbed. So it is not an effect on the person's state of being, health, physiology, mood, etc. When you talk about effects, do you mean this kind of physical interaction (with no other effect on the person) - the absorption of visible light by skin molecules, transferred to heat?
For there to be a physiological effect, you would need some receptor molecule in the skin to respond to some wavelength of visible light and send some kind of signal. There is no system for doing that.
Things I said in other posts:
There is no way the skin can respond to the content of the photo - whether it is a person or landscape or smear of colors. Did you agree with this? There is no way for skin to focus light or to respond to a distribution of different wavelengths spatially. So it would not matter if light reflected off a photo of a person or a photo of a random mix of colors. If you are thinking that the photo can "effect" the skin through its content, you are wrong.
The exact wavelengths of light reflected from a photo will not be the same as the wavelengths reflected from the real person because of the pigments used in photography. Did you agree with this? If you are assuming that a photo can "effect" the skin because of its reflection having identical wavelengths as those reflected from a person, you are wrong.
Suppose you have a real person in the room instead of a photo. the wavelengths best absorbed by that person's skin will be the same ones that are best absorbed by your skin. If there is any change in the light hitting your skin after being reflected from the other person's skin, it will be to decrease the amount of absorbable light to your skin (since more of it will have been absorbed by the other person's skin). There is no reason to think there would be information here. So if you think light reflected from another person's skin would be especially effective at conveying information to your skin, you would be wrong.
However the direct light from the lamp which hits your skin would be much brighter than the small amount of reflected light from a photo (or another person's skin) , and the direct light would have all the wavelengths from the lamp. Any change in the amount of light reflected off of a photo (or another person's skin) onto your skin would be too small to matter in comparison to the direct light from the lamp hitting your skin.
The reflected light in the room would come not just from the photo but from everything in the whole room. It makes no sense to think about just the photo - you would have to think about everything else in the room - the walls, floor, furniture, books, food, piles of laundry. If you are thinking the photo would somehow add light to the skin, that would be wrong. Light is hitting the skin anyway from everything in the room and directly from the lamp. The photo would be insignificant.
But as I said, it doesn't matter anyway because there is no receptor in the skin for visible light which can carry signals or energy for physiological processes. If you are thinking there is an effect on the skin from a reflection from the photo, you would be getting the same effect in a room without the photo. And this effect would be only the physical effect as described between the light and the near surface skin molecules - reflection or absorbtion with conversion to (a very small amount of) heat - a an ongoing process anyway. (And remember, your own body is generating heat all the time; any heat from absorbed visible light to the skin is insignificant compared to your body's heat.) It would not be an interesting physiological effect. It would carry no information. It would not cause chemical changes.
So if you are talking about the physical effect only, then you are correct. But if you are talking about some larger physiological effect or transfer of information, then you are not correct.
If by "All possible energy-cellular/molecular interactions" you mean lots of hypothetical exciting imagined transfers of energy and information, then you are wrong. If you mean it in the simplest way - the simple physical interaction which is the only thing actually possible - then you are correct. All possible interactions in this case are limited to a very few insignificant interactions.
(Sorry, that was long, and may have gotten confusing by the end.)
MRC_Hans said:Kumar, it would be nice if you would try a good deal harder to write intelligible English. But I'll try to answer the questions I think you ask.
Yes, this is badly needed, but I am much overloaded. Anyway, sometimes it helps.
Yes, here, we are very interested in new information. There, (meaning at the homeoathic forums) they are not.
Frankly, I also felt most of homeopaths are not interested in new informations but just want to protect interest of homeopathy in present condition. Few like bach..are interested but of no value there. I bit on both side..Crude+Potencies &TRS, just trying in dark in hope, for curisity & for help--nothing else.
No, our (meaning the ones between you and the rest of us) discussions have not yielded ANY new information except a dizzyingly deep insight into your abysmal ignorance.
I don't find it in this manner atleast from my side. Still, at least, we are trying, discussing, entertaining....means doing something. Something is said to be better than nothing.
No, we do not fear new information. We are, however, annoyed at you when you lie about our discussions here and pretend to others that you have found new information.
Frankly, I want to have differant views from relevant people. But unfortunetely, I get least from there, where I should get the most--as it may also be for them. I just write my newly known views for test & furthur discussions. You people also post here several topics/issues discussed at hpathy/other forum. What & why?
You have not. You have been given a lot of information, but you have understood none of it. None of the information we have given you is new. It is basic science, much of it primary school level. You have contributed nothing. - Apart from a certain amount of entertainment, for which I have already thanked you sufficiently.
I do understand whichever I can follow or finds reasonable. Being non-tecnical, language problems, bit logical based, TRS known & some experiance based , still many things can bounce due to "misses" or/and "weaknesses".
Thanks & best wishes.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Conclusion
flume said:I can read your words in two ways. One way sounds correct. The other way does not sound correct. This may be a language issue.
Yes, it can be being non-tecnical & language problems. But since most of my issues are related to 'know bit new & differantly' several meanings can be thought.
If you have a photo (or a person) near to another person, and a light is shining on them, then it is correct that light reflected from the photo (or person) will hit the other person. It is also correct that the light hitting that person (through the eyes or on the skin) will have whatever physical effect its wavelengths can have on the tissues it hits.
If that is all that you mean, then I agree with what you said.
flume, thanks for long, relevant, clear in my language & informative post. In one part it is perfectly right as you mentioned.
But I have the feeling that you mean more than that. Whether I agree with you depends on what you mean when you use the word "effect".
The eye is complicated so I want to just talk about the skin, since you have included effects on the skin in your other posts.
If reflected light from the photo hits your skin it will interact with the very top part of the skin. Some light will be reflected back from your skin. There will be no information or energy change to your skin from this reflection. When you talk about effects, do you mean this kind of physical interaction?
In case of photo, I am just thinking one way interactions, reflections from photo (of most true colours resembling to person). I am also discussing Person to person interactions but still one way i.e. from person to whom that photo belongs. Two way interactions can be a differant discussions but also applicable--I am now thinking.
Some light will be absorbed by molecules in the top part of the skin. If we were plants and had chlorophyll, the absorbed energy from the light could be used to make glucose, but we aren't plants. We don't have that kind of arrangement for taking visible light energy and changing it into chemical bond energy. The energy from absorbed visible light will be transferred into vibrations of the molecules, which is a warming effect only. There is no information being transferred here. So you could call it an effect because the light is absorbed. But it is no different from the usual absorption of visible light by the skin in a lit room. No change happens to the person because of this light being absorbed. So it is not an effect on the person's state of being, health, physiology, mood, etc. When you talk about effects, do you mean this kind of physical interaction (with no other effect on the person) - the absorption of visible light by skin molecules, transferred to heat?
I am just thinking in terms of direct effects not store of energy. Differant patterns & levels of energies can effect specifically not just heating. You can call it as specific heating. Plants process & store energies into glucose but in case of animals it can be direct effect.
Btw, whether our blood/or other body fluids are circulated regularily, under (very near to) top skin--where some light can penetrate?
For there to be a physiological effect, you would need some receptor molecule in the skin to respond to some wavelength of visible light and send some kind of signal. There is no system for doing that.
Things I said in other posts:
There is no way the skin can respond to the content of the photo - whether it is a person or landscape or smear of colors. Did you agree with this? There is no way for skin to focus light or to respond to a distribution of different wavelengths spatially. So it would not matter if light reflected off a photo of a person or a photo of a random mix of colors. If you are thinking that the photo can "effect" the skin through its content, you are wrong.
Sorry,I have to understand possibility of light effects--bit more & bit dynamically.
The exact wavelengths of light reflected from a photo will not be the same as the wavelengths reflected from the real person because of the pigments used in photography. Did you agree with this? If you are assuming that a photo can "effect" the skin because of its reflection having identical wavelengths as those reflected from a person, you are wrong.
Yes, therefore I mentioned true colour photo & somewhat same effects. Since, our brain can process & recognize any photo(even B&W), it means some specific emissions/pattern should be there.
Suppose you have a real person in the room instead of a photo. the wavelengths best absorbed by that person's skin will be the same ones that are best absorbed by your skin. If there is any change in the light hitting your skin after being reflected from the other person's skin, it will be to decrease the amount of absorbable light to your skin (since more of it will have been absorbed by the other person's skin). There is no reason to think there would be information here. So if you think light reflected from another person's skin would be especially effective at conveying information to your skin, you would be wrong.
I think you are mentioning 'two way interaction' here. All these we have to think in view of 'possible interactions'.
However the direct light from the lamp which hits your skin would be much brighter than the small amount of reflected light from a photo (or another person's skin) , and the direct light would have all the wavelengths from the lamp. Any change in the amount of light reflected off of a photo (or another person's skin) onto your skin would be too small to matter in comparison to the direct light from the lamp hitting your skin.
I think, reflected wavelengths patterns can be cellular molecules composition dependent. Effects can be more or less in quantity. But in quality those can be true colours & dimentions/pattern dependent. JUST try to understand, how our brain can always detect, process any type of photo of a person.
The reflected light in the room would come not just from the photo but from everything in the whole room. It makes no sense to think about just the photo - you would have to think about everything else in the room - the walls, floor, furniture, books, food, piles of laundry. If you are thinking the photo would somehow add light to the skin, that would be wrong. Light is hitting the skin anyway from everything in the room and directly from the lamp. The photo would be insignificant.
True, but it depends upon your position also. Just in front of photo or a person--can mean more direct. Moreover, effects can be mixed also--not completely independent. Photo can also have other backround images.
But as I said, it doesn't matter anyway because there is no receptor in the skin for visible light which can carry signals or energy for physiological processes. If you are thinking there is an effect on the skin from a reflection from the photo, you would be getting the same effect in a room without the photo. And this effect would be only the physical effect as described between the light and the near surface skin molecules - reflection or absorbtion with conversion to (a very small amount of) heat - a an ongoing process anyway. (And remember, your own body is generating heat all the time; any heat from absorbed visible light to the skin is insignificant compared to your body's heat.) It would not be an interesting physiological effect. It would carry no information. It would not cause chemical changes.
I think I explained all the issues in this part in my other replies. We should try to understand direct & some effects--not indirect(as plants) & all. MOREOVER, effects through eyes are still there.
So if you are talking about the physical effect only, then you are correct. But if you are talking about some larger physiological effect or transfer of information, then you are not correct.
I meant any/all effect/s--based on physics & chemistry.
If by "All possible energy-cellular/molecular interactions" you mean lots of hypothetical exciting imagined transfers of energy and information, then you are wrong. If you mean it in the simplest way - the simple physical interaction which is the only thing actually possible - then you are correct. All possible interactions in this case are limited to a very few insignificant interactions.
We have yet to discuss about magnitude of effects. But first we should satisfy ourselves that 'effects are/can be there. In mouth, we may be having differant magnitudes.
(Sorry, that was long, and may have gotten confusing by the end.)
No, it is well balanced posting as you was posting bit earlier. Much thanks again.
Flume, when will you learn? 