D.S.H. -

Thank you.....thank you......

We needed a good laugh.


-Vasilius

Hey, good morning everyone.

I read through this debate on the debate itself.

I think we should be in agreement in the following on the topic and its rules:

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>
<LI> This topic is about the video.
Dr. Feller has spent time and effort to create a video, that he genuinely believes is a correct scientific explanation that shows clearly that LLLT cannot work and posted it here.
He himself declared this rule on this topic vehemently, so everyone, including himself should stick to that.
Things not directly related to the video should not be discussed in the topic. Such things not are, among other things other circumstancial an especially non-scientific evidence about LLLT not working. I think there are plenty of other topics for that.
I believe -- hope -- that it was not simply put here to collect applaud and cheers from supporters of his cause, but for critique and discussion as well.
It is also irrelevant if I have an interest or I am a payed advocat of the LLLT industry, or I am just a nut debating for the debate, as well as it is irrelevant also the Dr. Feller has an interest or not to discredit LLLT. I myself don't care about it much; since if I am thought to be not from the LLLT industry, the argument was that "but noone is here from the LLLT industry to defend it, that proves the video is correct", and when I was thought to be "well his arguments shouldn't be taken seriously, he is payed to confuse people".

<LI> The issue between me and Dr. Feller is that I believe the video is unscientific and in fact attempt to prove something that's simply not even true. His whole argument is based on the false belief that the laser suddenly gets converted to "regular light" immediately when it hits any (maybe solid?) surface; and therefore any light reaching below the surface of the skin is always the same phyisical quality and therefore incapable if having any physiological effect. This is scientifically ridiculous. Therefore the video -- regardless of good causes, actual truths about LLLT in general, or specifically the laser hair grow industry -- doesn't discredit LLLT, but discredits science and Dr. Feller himself, or anyone who endorses this video in his or her fight against LLLT.[/list]
Now back to the topic. Putting the video through scientific scrutiny, Dr. Feller defended his claims and here is where we are.

It is my understanding that Dr. Feller explained that the way he believes light works is that photons are travelling through air (somehow uninterrupted? pls. clarify), and when they hit a surface (i.e. the first atom, rather molecule of that material?), the molecule will absorb the light and convert it to antother form of energy, most often reemit a new photon, but that no longer has the same properties (wavelength, polarity, phase). This is why laser is "instantly" converted to light when it hits "any surface". To the mistery of glass and mirrors, he explained, that some materials have a unique property that the reemitted photons will "copy" the properties of the one that was absorbed, but we still know somehow that it is not the same photon. He makes it seem that there are transparent materials such as glass, that have this property, and mirror, that does it, but reemits the new photon in a specific direction, and then there are the "regular" materials that don't have this property, none, 0% -- obviously crucial as if the skin could do it even partially, replicating the properties even of a small percentage of photons, some photons with "laser quality", although copied multiple times, could still reach the follicles, breaking the whole argument.

In addition, he believes that coherency is not about the frequencies being synchronized as I explained with the bridge and marching example, but it is simply another fancy word for being parallel, or "columnated", and is a property that can simply be demonstrated by it being seen as a red dot.

Dr. Feller, tell me if and where I misunderstood your explanation of light and transparency in general. From your explanation I see it as in my attachment, but feel free to fix it if it is wrong.

Specifically I am trying to understand where air fits in in this theory, and what do we need to mean when we say "surface". Is air like glass, that it has this magic property, or are photons really going uninterrupted in a "gas"? How does Dr. Feller believe these molecules are spatially? Are they somehow very sparsely in a gas, letting light through uninterrupted as in the attachment, and dense, like a brick wall in "solid material", so that once we hit a "surface", we immediately run into a molecule that absorbs and reemits it?

If the attachment is wrong, and air is more like glass, then what do we mean by "light" at all, if it keeps getting absorbed and reemitted by the "atoms" in air too?

Dr. Feller, I am waiting for the clarifications.

And the bet is still open, let me not forget that.

Attached Images

explained.GIF (8.9 KB, 10 views)

__________________

GreyHunk
-----------------

DISCLAIMER: I am not a doctor. My opinions are mine. If I fight something it doesn't mean I am endorsing the opposite.

GreyHunk

Don't steal my arguments

I was first stating that solids,liquids and gas are consisted of SAME molecules.What makes difference is the relationship between those (on molecular level) and density.
And I said if laser travels through gas (atmosphere retaining as Feller claims 100% "laser quality"-which is power output and coherency)how come "instantly" disperses when hits same molecules in different agregate form
(my example with water ice and clouds.

Here it is any one can see going through the posts:
What is a surface sir? What do you mean when you say surface? Is for an example ice a surface? Water has the ability to exist as liquid, gas or solid. The transformation from liquid to gas is called evaporation; the reverse process, from gas to liquid, is called condensation; from liquid to solid is known as solidification (freezing); and from solid to liquid, fusion (melting). Water can also be transformed directly from solid to gas, or the reverse, through a process called sublimation. ( see these various processes in the formation of clouds.)

Feller wrote When light energy strikes a surface it is absorbed completely by the atoms in that material and then NEW light is produced and radiated outward.

1.Laser travels through cloud (atmosphere).according to Feller Laser retains VIRTUALLY ALL its characteristics
2.Laser travels through air and strikes water (liquid) surface (as Feller understands surface).according to Feller photon strikes a surface it is completely ABSORBED by that surface and then a NEW photon is produced and radiated out from there. meaning it is no longer laser, after that
3.Laser travels through air and strikes ice (solid) surface (as Feller understands surface). according to Feller photon strikes a surface it is completely ABSORBED by that surface and then a NEW photon is produced and radiated out from there. meaning it is no longer laser, after that

But ,sir, The cloud, water and ICE are consisted of the same MOLECULES and same atoms according to you completely ABSORB the (light) photon!!??
Water, cloud and ICE are all the SAME substance .Therefore you can not use the words COMPLETELY ABSORBED and RETAINS VIRTUALLY ALL when referring laser retaining characteristics when colliding with these three (just an example, I have to draw it to you like this I guess so you can understand)

Sir, GAS is a substance ALSO.WE live in gas. WE breathe GAS. ,The earth the solar system, the rocky cores of the earth, all chemical elements existing formed from the accretion of heavier material in the original proto-solar nebulous cloud of gas and dust and acted as the seeds around which the lighter material - primarily hydrogen and helium ??“ became gravitationally bound and formed solids .

I know I am Blonde and all but everyone stop putting me down...make jokes where I make them...in open topic forum I will have some new ones for u guys

Lindsey wrote

I can tell you what happens when you expose human tissue to laser light of sufficient strength. It heats the skin by the light be absorbed by various pigments (blood, tattoo marks) or water.

This is quite effective at VAPORIZING epidermis and dermis and leaving scar tissue; or a raw surface that can heal by the migration of surrounding skin onto the wound surface.


'to laser light of sufficient strength' Sir we are NOT talking about laser light with strength (power output) higher than that of LLLT.What you say is true but Irrelevant to the LLLT and this dispute.

I know that there is lasers with power output to cut STEEL



Lindsey wrote

Now one might argue that lower power laser light may actually heat the target rather than vaporize it. That would make sense, but extrapolated to LLLT, that would suggest that the mechanism for its "effectiveness" is heating the scalp. It would not be the "magic" of the laser whose energy is lost on contact with the scalp...not down several millimeters.

I argue not only that as you say 'that lower power laser light may actually heat the target rather than vaporize it'. I argue that ANY laser, regardless of its power output penetrates mater in ANY aggregate form. Mater as a solid, liquid or gas as I explained into my long post, which WAS on the topic and which was not short. Laser does NOT convert COMPLETELY AND INSTANTLY into radiation and heat. THAT CLAIM SIR IS INVENTED AND FALSE PREMISE IN THE EXPERIMENT.

ALL laser beam is not visible to human eye. Therefore the argument 'look we don't see the laser any more therefore it is gone is FALSE.

And Dr.Lindsey I say to you ,as I said to Feller, ENERGY is never LOST by the laws of PHYSICS. Energy transforms ,just like mater transforms.


Disclaimer

I am not an LLLT proponent ,nor scientists. In fact because I am a girl and blonde, I am not taken seriously by this community .I am not John36. But I want to meet him ,he is hot.

Ok guys/girls Even if this laser hits the follicle how is this suppose to grow hair?
Another question again for you two .
Do you honestly believe lasers help grow hair and why?
If so could you pretty please explain why youve come to that conclusion.
Thanks so very much from the bottom of my heart.
I have a feeling your not a girl or blonde but thanks for keeping the fantasy alive.

1. DSH's post maybe the best of the last 5 pages on this thread.

2. Vallencia, I don't quite get where you stand on all of this. Are you pro-LLLT or anti-LLLT?

3. Vallencia, your take on energy not being lost is ok. Are you saying it, in this application, is being tranformed into anything other than heat?
a: if not, why doesn't applying a warm washcloth regrow hair?

b: if so, what mechanism of action are you proposing is going on?
1. Stimulation of chromophores?
2. energy transfer to the cells' nuclei?

I am not trying to be a smart-a--, I just want to know your thoughts.

Dr. Lindsey McLean VA

__________________
William H. Lindsey, MD, FACS
McLean, VA

Dr. William Lindsey is a member of the Coalition of Independent Hair Restoration Physicians

1. DSH's post maybe the best of the last 5 pages on this thread.

2. Vallencia, I don't quite get where you stand on all of this. Are you pro-LLLT or anti-LLLT?

3. Vallencia, your take on energy not being lost is ok. Are you saying it, in this application, is being tranformed into anything other than heat?
a: if not, why doesn't applying a warm washcloth regrow hair?

b: if so, what mechanism of action are you proposing is going on?
1. Stimulation of chromophores?
2. energy transfer to the cells' nuclei?

I am not trying to be a smart-a--, I just want to know your thoughts.

Dr. Lindsey McLean VA


William H. Lindsey, MD, FACS
McLean, VA


Thank you Dr.Lindsey

You are gentleman, you acknowledged my existence here in a way OTHER than being fift wheel??¦like some other boys do??¦even this GrayHunk person lately

1.I had better than DSH's post but I did not dare put it here so I put it here:

http://hair-restoration-info.c...?r=16710294#16710294


2.I am anti-LLLT, anti HT anti Communist, anti chauvinist??¦not anty Christ yet I hope Bill will let me know when I come close to that.

3. No,I am not saying that. Part gets reflected, part gets absorbed, part MAYBE (I don't know and never thought about it) gets refracted though the object (my guess is that depends on the power output of the laser and resistance of target/object. In that process laser energy colliding with mater produces heat, radiation and destruction (evaporation of the target??¦which is where the HEAT energy comes from).I don't believe it gives life to any hair. But that is a BELIEF.)
3.a) N/A ??¦.I never said laser does so it is N/A
b) N/A
b)1.N/A
b)2 No, cell's nuclei's energy can not be less and not be more,because of any laser. (a propo question for you can nucleus energy be EVER more or less or is it constant....common doc biology )
Does energy cell's ( I assume you refer to human cell) as an entity it self absorbs energy, and if yes how. I don't know. Never thought about it. That is biology you maybe know?

Once more thanks for being a gentleman..

Now what I believe

I BELIEVE that that LLLT laser (Maybe yes)does not penetrate the god damn bacteria sunbathing on our skin left alone the dermus.But that is what I believe,not what video proves.

GrayHunk

I don't like you any more

You don't know how to treat a girl.

Your analogy with soldiers does not suit you and your sharp brain.I can tell you why your analogy is wrong and CAN NOT BE TRUE (like you said to Feller...INTERESTED TO HEAR?)

P.S worst thing you can do to a girl is to put her down...

GrayHunk

I will give you a clue

IF ultraviolet light hits a surface causes electrons to be emitted from the surface.

Einstein's explanation for this was that light was made up of a stream of energy packets called photons.

Modern physicists believe that light can behave as both a particle and a wave, but they also recognize that either view is a simple explanation for something more complex

The wavelengths of the light we can see range from 400 to 700 billionths of a meter. But the full range of wavelengths included in the definition of electromagnetic radiation extends from one billionth of a meter, so the light that we see is one small part of the spectrum.

There are many different ways to produce photons, but all of them use the same mechanism inside an atom to do it. This mechanism involves the energizing of electrons (not the Nucleus it self Dr.Lindsey)orbiting each atom's nucleus. How Nuclear Radiation Works describes protons, neutrons and electrons in some detail. For example, hydrogen atoms have one electron orbiting the nucleus. Helium atoms have two electrons orbiting the nucleus. Aluminum atoms have 13 electrons orbiting the nucleus. Each atom has a preferred number of electrons orbiting its nucleus.
Electrons circle the nucleus in fixed orbits -- a simplified way to think about it is to imagine how satellites orbit the Earth. There's a huge amount of theory around electron orbitals, but to understand light there is just one key fact to understand: An electron has a natural orbit that it occupies, but if you energize an atom you can move its electrons to higher orbitals. A photon of light is produced whenever an electron in a higher-than-normal orbit falls back to its normal orbit. During the fall from high-energy to normal-energy, the electron emits a photon -- a packet of energy -- with very specific characteristics. The photon has a frequency, or color, that exactly matches the distance the electron falls...

Think of this

Then think what you said with your analogy with soldiers and bridge....I will write you tomorrow