lens flare/orbs/radionics/quantum physics...help!

[GT/CS]

That's a crematory? It looks like an industrial HVAC unit.

What an unceremonious way to end one's physical existence on this planet.

There is a new 'green' method but it's even more revolting.

This is a derail so if you're interested let me know and I'll start a new thread.

 

[reaction105]

Thanks for the input, and suggestions on where to start with radionics. Funnily enough, I did initially link to a video of J.J Abrams creating outrageous lens flare for Star Trek, which was ignored. As it seems a lot of you predicted, I'm trying to explain "orbs" now too. You guys must be precogs!

The amount of misdirection you have to wade through to try debate a single idea is really irritating. The whole thing pisses me off, really - I said that it is misleading to use the term interference pattern, and I get this back:

"To say that quantim physics as I have shared regarding interference patterns isn’t relevant, is essentially to imply that quantum physics and interference patterns “are not underlying all physical reality”. That would be incorrect. Quantum means “small or tiny, or minute”, as it pertains to the Newtonian reality of atomic structure and above such as molecules, cells, objects, etc. Vibration of energy and changing energy states are the basis of all existence, including cameras! All energy is interacting in constructive and destructive interference patterns. That’s the very fabric of life itself."

"As for soul orbs, I’m NOT referring to water spots or specks of dust. For one, water spots and specs of dust don’t spontaneously show up on cameras when people are engaging in acts of love and joy. Soul orbs do. Specks of dust and water spots can be seen and imaged by anyone with a camera, soul orbs can generally only be photographed by a limited number of people. The people that do photograph them, in my experience, display high levels of inner-coherence."

How irritating that dust and soul orbs look exactly the same. Curse my inner-incoherence!

"For example, telling me that soul orbs are dust specks or water spots would be like me telling you that I know more about how an iphone takes a photo than you do, which as we now know, isn’t correct."

Sigh.

I wish it was easier to introduce critical thinking to other people.

 

[Learjet]

... For one, water spots and specs of dust don’t spontaneously show up on cameras when people are engaging in acts of love and joy....

Of course they do. Dust particles are everywhere all the time. Wait, what is he up to? And is he implying that spirits like to perv on nookie? Sounds kinda kinky!

My other hobby - high power torches / flashlights clearly demonstrate the amount of dust in the air at all times. Here's a practical experiment to try. If you have a high power torch, take it out at night and see if anything crosses the beam. You should see lots of dust or even the beam itself if the torch / flashlight is strong enough. Light rays are not directly visible to the eye, it's the dust/smoke/water vapor being illuminated in the beam path that we see. Occasionally one or more of these particles are illuminated by the camera flash.

Edit, just found my laser piccy. This demonstrates the same thing. The only reason the beam is visible is due to dust. Looking along the length of the beam larger dust particles can be seen flashing as they cross the beam path.

Not that he would accept any of those explanations. He sounds too far gone lol.

 

[rjh01]

Bow down to this sign, for it is great. Look it even has colour in the radionics, which other pictures do not.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=428&pictureid=5143

 

[Tomtomkent]

Holy crap! My holiday snaps from the last ten years prove i am the most powerful healer ever! Kneel before me world, lest i use my lensflare and dust for evil!


Also, love it when idiots stand infront of an infra red heater, or play with a tv remote and see an amazing light that was not there....

 

[John Albert]

This guy is so wrong about so many things, it's staggering.

"To say that quantim physics as I have shared regarding interference patterns isn’t relevant, is essentially to imply that quantum physics and interference patterns “are not underlying all physical reality”.

That is a straw man argument. Saying quantum interference is not relevant to photographic orbs does not necessarily imply that quantum physics are not underlying all physical reality, and nobody ever argued that.

Part of his own implied argument, that "interference patterns" are "underlying all physical reality" is incorrect also. It's clear this guy hasn't a clue what he's saying about quantum mechanics.

"That would be incorrect. Quantum means “small or tiny, or minute”,

This is also wrong. "Quantum" does not mean "small or tiny, or minute." It literally means a "measure." In other words, a "quantum" is the fundamental, irreducible measurable unit of a discrete instance of energy or matter.

...as it pertains to the Newtonian reality of atomic structure and above such as molecules, cells, objects, etc.

This is also wrong. Quantum mechanics has nothing to do with Newtonian physics.

"Vibration of energy and changing energy states are the basis of all existence, including cameras! All energy is interacting in constructive and destructive interference patterns. That’s the very fabric of life itself."

This is nonsensical pseudoscientific gobbledygook. This guy is bull****ing you. There's absolutely no scientific basis for what he's saying.

"As for soul orbs, I’m NOT referring to water spots or specks of dust."

When he talks about photographic "orbs," he is in fact referring to lumeniferous effects caused by water vapor, mist, dust, or other particulates in the air reflecting and/or refracting light out of focus in such a way to cause effects in photos. That's what they are, lumeniferous orbs. He has only chosen to call his by the New-Agey name of "soul orbs."

Lumeniferous orbs are fully reproducible under controlled conditions, and their effects have been plainly demonstrated as the result of airborne particulates filmed under specific lighting arrangements.

"For one, water spots and specs of dust don’t spontaneously show up on cameras when people are engaging in acts of love and joy."

This is wrong. Orbs have been shown to appear in all kinds of photographs.

"Specks of dust and water spots can be seen and imaged by anyone with a camera, soul orbs can generally only be photographed by a limited number of people. The people that do photograph them, in my experience, display high levels of inner-coherence.[/I]"

This is a laughable special pleading. First, he said these are physical manifestations caused by the fundamental interactions of matter and energy, now he's claiming they only appear magically for certain people including himself and anyone who doesn't see them is somehow spiritually deficient.

If he insists the things he's referring to as "soul orbs" are a different phenomenon, perhaps he can provide proof of their cause? If he's the only one who's able to see them, then there's a simple way for him to prove their existence. Have him look for one and point it out while a photographer with a similar level of "inner-coherence" snaps a picture.

How much do you want to bet he would decline to participate in such a demonstration?

"For example, telling me that soul orbs are dust specks or water spots would be like me telling you that I know more about how an iphone takes a photo than you do, which as we now know, isn’t correct."

Except that you are demonstrably right, and your claim has been proven many times over and well-documented by many different people all over the world, but all he has is a bunch of goofy stories pulled out of his own ass.

 

[reaction105]

You're right on the money sir, and far more eloquent than I. It's good to hear some sanity in the midst of this ridiculousness. Here's what I said:

"Regarding quantum physics: that is not what I said, or what I implied. In physics, “interference” is when two waves combine (and form a third wave of greater or lower amplitude). That’s it. You’re using scientific terminology to add weight to your argument (or to facilitate your own understanding), but you don’t use the actual scientific meanings associated with them – you use your own, flexible, general definition or ideas, and label them with the scientific terms. To someone who doesn’t know any different, that’s misleading."

"If you don’t need a camera to prove what you “see” (not that I was asking you to prove what you see), why do you not consider that what you have taken a photo of may not be the same thing as what you “see”? Even if they appear visually similar, that does not mean they are the same thing. I’m not trying to demonstrate my superior knowledge of how a camera works – I don’t know if I know more about cameras than you, nor does that matter; I tried to provide simple, factual explanations to facilitate discussion and understanding, not to prove something to you."

Thanks for clarifying (to me) what I'm trying to say, and giving me something to follow up with. Are there any problems with my arguments? I need to get better at spotting those fallacies, and that experimental idea is good. So cheers.

 

[Soapy Sam]

Managing to tear my eyes away from hunky shirtless dude, I note that picture 3 is not aimed at the sun, as it seems to be a shot of some river cobbles , presumably in a grave mound or other old structure - yet there is an extremely overexposed light in the shot and is either a double exposure or has been heavily tampered with

 

[reaction105]

Managing to tear my eyes away from hunky shirtless dude, I note that picture 3 is not aimed at the sun, as it seems to be a shot of some river cobbles , presumably in a grave mound or other old structure - yet there is an extremely overexposed light in the shot and is either a double exposure or has been heavily tampered with

Raw masculinity aside, that's a picture of a rock stack, and the sun is shining through a gap in the rocks.

They stack rocks on top of each other which creates circuits because dark stones and yin/yang, polarity, quartz and sunlight into the ground; infinity water charger revitalise! Science!

 

[Fishstick]

They stack rocks on top of each other which creates circuits because dark stones and yin/yang, polarity, quartz and sunlight into the ground; infinity water charger revitalise! Science!

Not sure if Poe.

 

[reaction105]

Not sure if Poe.

I wish I was just joking.

 

[Soapy Sam]

Raw masculinity aside, that's a picture of a rock stack, and the sun is shining through a gap in the rocks.

They stack rocks on top of each other which creates circuits because dark stones and yin/yang, polarity, quartz and sunlight into the ground; infinity water charger revitalise! Science!

You sure about that? It's hard to tell, precisely because of the flare, but it looks to me like there is a very large boulder on the RHS, with smaller rocks piled to its left. I'd have thought where the sun appears to be , we would be looking straight at the large rock. I thought it was either a photoshop job, or someone stuck a laser pointer in a crack and shot straight into it.

 

[dlorde]

A characteristic of the majority of these photos is that the sun is relatively low in the sky (check the shadows). This kind of artifact seems much more likely in early morning or late afternoon where the angle of incidence is low. Photographing over water also provides good conditions when sunlight is reflected at low angles.

 

[dlorde]

... I thought it was either a photoshop job, or someone stuck a laser pointer in a crack and shot straight into it.

The sun seems to be behind or to the left of the photographer, so it could also be reflection from a flat piece of quartz in the rock, or a piece of glass or a small mirror...

 

[rjh01]

A characteristic of the majority of these photos is that the sun is relatively low in the sky (check the shadows). This kind of artifact seems much more likely in early morning or late afternoon where the angle of incidence is low. Photographing over water also provides good conditions when sunlight is reflected at low angles.

You are close. The sun is just out of sight of the photo. Some light gets onto the lens and bent onto the CCD or film.

The sun seems to be behind or to the left of the photographer, so it could also be reflection from a flat piece of quartz in the rock, or a piece of glass or a small mirror...

Actually the rocks are in the shade. This means the sun is in front of the camera. I would suggest a torch or laser as per Soapy Sam's post.

 

[EHocking]

Managing to tear my eyes away from hunky shirtless dude, I note that picture 3 is not aimed at the sun, as it seems to be a shot of some river cobbles , presumably in a grave mound or other old structure - yet there is an extremely overexposed light in the shot and is either a double exposure or has been heavily tampered with

By my reckoning, the sun is directly behind the pile of cobbles/grave mound.

What your seeing is the sun shining through a gap between the cobbles, directly into the camera lens, IMO.

 

[John Albert]

 

[Ray Brady]

That's the thing...he is also enlightened enough that he can see them with his own eyes, apparently.

This is a testable claim. You can have him look at a scene, and simultaneously take a picture of it. If he can tell you exactly what artifacts will appear in the electronic image, then he's got a point.

 

[mike3]

Get a camera and show the dude what happens when you point it at the sun.

 

[reaction105]

This is a testable claim. You can have him look at a scene, and simultaneously take a picture of it. If he can tell you exactly what artifacts will appear in the electronic image, then he's got a point.

Yeah, John Albert had a similar idea. I also suggested maybe he could get a friend, and they both take a photo of the same instance of spirit-whatevers, from opposite angles. He said: "I know for a fact that multiple people in the same location can take photos, yet those that are happier, more loving, or more spiritually evolved people can capture them, while others cannot." (His emphasis).

So I'm sure you'd get a similar response to any other proposed experiment. I'm done talking with this guy anyway; I don't know him personally (so I appreciate his politeness towards me in that regard, at least).