GreyHunk

Would have been nicer to make that bet first, remember? but you somehow lost interest in that. I'll check on my end, hopefully I can quickly find someone who more than qualifies and is willing to give a few more words about your video than it deserves. And I do it because I believe it is just another bluff from you like offering the bet was. Nice sophism. When in a corner, you go down the path to make it unnecessarily complex (we could have stayed at simple classic optics and simple transparency, which explains all the phenomenons, you got into the underlying quantum models of photons to try confuse things and look educated in the subject), and when I go down to that complexity, you say "full of disperate information" and "too long" Yeah, right. Nice try. (Probably works for your fans though, I don't doubt that..) P.S. But I do admit I am writing way too much (I read back ). I ain't perfect. I didn't immediately realize that it would have been easier to be said that you confuse light with photons. Light is the whole phenomenon, regardless of photons (think of sound). If some of the PHOTONS are reemitted through stimulated emission, we still call it the same LIGHT. And all materials do that to some extent, it is not all or nothing as you imply, it is called transparency, well explained by Beer's law, and even skin has some transparency. This is all I've been saying or trying to make you realize, just waaaay too long.

It is not at all the same ground. We were talking about whether LIGHT and LASER LIGHT (and I tried to keep saying as we understand it) can penetrate the skin keeping its properties. You then started to talk about PHOTONs. I asked how you think LIGHT travels in air w.r.t how now you said it travels in glass; and what you mean by LIGHT as we clearly didn't seem to understand it the same way. But most importantly, whatever the underlying physics is (about is light really a particle or wave, or both, or none but exhibiting these properties, are photons passing through glass or are photons absorbed and reemitted with the same properties, much of these MODELS are even debated in current science), you are basically basing your argument on saying that something is either fully transparent (air, glass) in the meaning of letting all LIGHT through while keeping some or all its qualities (phase, wavelength, etc.), or fully non-transparent, such as skin or kleenex tissue, where none of this is happening. Easy, to cut it really short: Can you tell me then what the Lambert-Beer law is talking about, on which I based by claim that if 1% gets through the first mm of skin UNABSORBED [that is photons or wave, copied or original, but with the same qualities] then 0.1% would get through the second and so on? And what the absorption coefficient is in physics if not the property of how nontransparent a material is, how much of the light is getting absorbed? Of course in theory skin could have infinite absorption coefficient, but then why are these guys and others measuring it if it is so obviously not letting any light through unabsorbed?

Honestly, I have no clue yet on what all of the above has to do with coherency. If you are trying to get to that it would be a wrong analogy that the synchronized lightwaves could "multiply forces" and cause resonance LIKE the soldiers, yes, true. Sure, analogies can also be misleading -- such as electrons being imagined as tiny tennisballs can work in some cases, and not in others, the microworld is not a very small version of our world. The point was that coherency is about synchronization of the light in its wave-like manifestation, and it is an important and interesting property as shown in the soldier example, and not simply parallel rays simply demonstrateable as producing a small dot. I may be wrong about that too of course, but if so, can we get to the point where and why?

Before I get beaten up for this by valencia . I meant it in the sense that one can model things many ways, but one can't model light going "uninterrupted" in air and absorbed/reemitted in glass, whichever is more convenient to present a theory.

Of course I am interested -- which part are you disagreeing with? There are of course numerous actual differences between the soldiers and light, but the important thing I wanted to stress is the synchronization of the waves (particularly how in space/time, was less relevant)... I can be wrong though. You haven't seen my picture yet

Sorry, I didn't mean to I got there from a different path. I didn't believe he thinks of surface as going from nothing to suddenly a bunch of atoms. I still don't believe it, so I'd like to hear his explanation on how laser can travel in air without hitting atoms and being transformed -- maybe the way he (falsely) believes it gets through glass. PGP, Dr. Lindsey, I wasn't addressed unless you keep thinking valencia and me are the same person, and it is not directly the topic of this thread, but I did give some explanations on what my understanding is (based on scientifically supported claims and studies) on what LLLT in fact can and what I believe it can not do, including some hypothesis by the scientific community about the possible mechanism of action. My primary issue was however that as far as the video goes it is pseudoscientific BS and claims things that are physical nonsense -- regardless of LLLT's efficiency. The video doesn't discredit LLLT, only discredits science, Dr. Feller, and anyone who endorses his video in his or her fight against laser hair therapy. Just because you soooo want a simple proof against the LLLT industry, don't take just any bull. The LLLT for MBP may very well be a scam, but not because laser doesn't penetrate the skin, or cannot have an effect there. Even if the LLLT industry "only" stretches the truth about some actually existing benefits of LLLT and an only scientifically relevant study on mice, and "simply" the actual results specifically for MPB don't exist or remain cosmetically insignificant, it is still a scam. For some reason you are not satisfied with that, you guys want it so much to be something more trivially dismissable... I even believe that Dr. Feller genuinely believes that he is right. When emotionally driven, wanting so much to prove something, you fool yourself into deceptive arguments. Deception starts at first fooling yourself... This has nothing to do with intelligence, it is a psychological phenomenon (not a condition, it is just how we all humans are). In fact, intelligence can negatively effect this, we fool ourselves smarter and in more creative fashion... Dr. Feller is a very intelligent person, who does not have experience in designing and conducting experiments, and performed a perfect example of something known as the experimenter's bias.

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. 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.

Dr. McLean, I must disagree. In addition to those effects at certain wavelengths and applications, etc. light, as well as laser (as laser) does penetrate the skin, and there are physiological effects that I can find very plausible and believable. Search for LLLT with RA, that has numerous publications from respected sources in peer-reviewed publications and repeated studies suggest the benefits. There are a few hypotheses on what the mechanism of action is, and those are also quite plausible, one such example is that it may promote ATP production. I do find it plausible to some extent that it may even slightly stimulate growth of HEALTHY hair, but doubt it at cosmeticly significant levels. I don't believe that treating MBP, especially with cheap lasers in those combs is effective. But the reason for its ineffectiveness is not that laser doesn't penetrate into skin "as laser" or not that it cannot have distinct physiological effects there (as opposed to placebo non-laser lights), there is scientific proof to the contrary with RA.

I can't get past this thing... Shouldn't we then add air to the list of those magic materials? Dr. Feller, are we reading the same posts? You know different molecules and electrons are involved when it gets into your eyes than mine? But we still call the concept of a "post" the information, not the material. Is the sound that gets into your ears the same as the ones said by a friend in your room? You know the wave is transferred through multiple molecules passing the wave. Yet, we model the world by calling "sound" the abstract phenomenon as it carries through this wave. Are you the same person that you were 10 years ago? You know most of your cells and probably all of your atoms and molecules have been replaced; in that sense even the concept that we know as "Dr. Feller" or GreyHunk has more of an informational quality than material. Light itself is unique in having both matter-like and wave-like quality. Even if this photon-theory with "surfaces" stopping light would be valid, you'd have to say the original light is gone when it hits the laser lens, and a new light ray -- same in characteristics -- is created, then on the next molecule of the lens, then on the next, then at the first molecule of the air, and the next, and the next. Yet you call it simply just the same light up till it hits the first "surface" (solid surface? whatever that may mean, I am still not sure); apparently this works fine as the physical concept of "light" even for you. So if we are OK with having this abstract concept of light (unrelated to the actual indistinguishable photons) in air, why don't we just call it the same light also then (like the rest of the world does) when it hits one of them magic solid materials like the "glass"? And if it only keeps some of the more important properties (say, spectrum and phase) -- and only fails to keep the direction and gets say polarized, call it, let me think, let me pick a good word: yes, how about "reflected" or "refracted"? It would be a whole lot easier to not talk past each-other.

Oh I just see this BS here as you apparently realized there is a problem with the surface theory and attempted to fix it. So you say, there are some materials, that transmit all original characteristics of the original photon (such as glass). It is actually indistinguishable from the original photon. You could make a theory like that, which is equivalent in all its consequences with what I am saying, but one of the cornerstones of science is the Occam's razor principle. It is a simpler model to say it is the same light than saying that "in some instances the NEW light is exactly like the old one, totally indistinguishable from it". Science's terminology is that it is the same light as per Occam's razor. As an example: I could say that 3.4 seconds ago I swapped my soul with Britney Spears, but you can't detect that as we also replaced all characteristics, memories, behavior too, so the world's behaviour is exactly the same as if we didn't. You can't falsify that claim, but it is an unscientific theory based on falsifiability and parsimony. But I'm happy to use yours if it helps, although I have to note that at that point it is not scientific anymore: so, rephrasing it to your non-Occam model: How is it that some materials have this magic property that the "new photon will be exactly like the old one" 100%, and other materials have this property as 0%? What do semi-transparent materials do?

No. It is as my drawing shows. Nothing is a complete mirror (both in smoothness and reflectiveness), nothing is a complete absolute black surface, nothing is absolute transparent. You are also confusing reflection/refraction and absorbtion (which can get reemitted as anothe form of energy: heat, another light at a different wavelength, or driving electrons in your solar cell, chemical energy such as in photosynthesis, or actually doing something else physiologically relevant). When light is reflected or refracted, for all practical purposes it is the same light ray, with the same qualities, not a new one. So, can you explain to me what about the glass -- how can laser pass through that surface remaining a laser? What about a partially transparent glass (well, all glasses are partially transparent, but a less transparent one than your window or laser lens)? What about taking the transparency level and making it to be only as transparent as your skin? Where exactly in that point in going from transparent to semi-transparent did we lose suddenly "all" laser quality of the light that can penetrate that material when it hit the surface?

BTW, whatever happened to the bet offer from you? Remember my 3 statements? I am adding a 4th one offered for the bet: 4) GreyHunk is not affiliated with the LLLT industry, as much as it can be proven, doesn't work for, represents, gets payed, or benefits any other way from the LLLT industry or is aware that any of his relatives friends or business partners do. GH doesn't even own any laser hair therapy devices and never used one. So, do we do the bet? As I said, my identity could be withheld with Bill as sort of an escrow, I did send him enough info that should be enough to prove the above and to organize the bet.

OK, I elaborate this. This should be suspicious, of course. This should make you doubt. Many of those logical fallacies have some properties that should cause doubt using common sense -- that's what I call circumstancial evidence, referring to why I am strongly skeptical about LLLT, more skeptical about these commercial devices. But, basing a judgement purely on those are misleading. In fact, that's another reason this video is dangerous, because most people keep thinking that this kind of circumstancial evidence is enough proof. Imagine someone who is not yet convinced either way on the LLLT issue, with minimal knowledge on optics and light and scientific reasoning will see Dr. Feller's video as majorly flawed with this "once a laser hits a surface it is gone, no longer a laser, nada, not there" BS. with this "now you see it, now you don't -- voila" kind of "demonstration", false reasoning, all aiming to "prove" his predefined agenda. So, the same wrong "common sense" reasoning will tell that person that LLLT MUST work, since there is this desperate unscientific attempt to discredit it from someone with a strong interest... So, maybe actually it is Dr. Feller who is payed by the LLLT and was waiting for the naive and genuine independent sucker (me) to spend the time to take this video apart, so now LLLT can use this misleading "common sense" thinking? Just kidding GH

Oh Im not a advocate of lllt. Thats some buuuuuuuuullllllsh*t Ill give you credit though your not as transparent as some of these other fools I am an advocat on logic, not LLT. And I do not use double standards, and expressed the same logic in the other direction too: just because I believe that Dr. Feller's video is majorly unscientific and purely driven by agenda, and he has a vested interest in discrediting LLT also doesn't mean at all that LLT works even a bit. It seems to me that it doesn't work, but it doesn't NOT work because of the reasons in Dr. Feller's video. Dr. Feller's video doesn't discredit LLLT, it discredits science -- which on the long run helps all junk science scams. Is it so hard to understand? I don't believe so. You are smart. Take the emotion driven reasoning out and use your brain.

Shifting subjects? Didn't you say "if the first two sentences don't directly address the video, I don't bother reading it?" OK, the LLLT industry is using deceptive pictures and junk science. Big deal. I believe you. (it is the kind of circumstancial evidence I had in my disclaimer -- but careful: if a detergent is using deceptive advertisment it doesn't *necessarily* mean it doesn't work at all) You can also try to make people believe that I am an advocate of the LLLT industry as a desperate ad hominem effort. Go on. But the bottom line is that doesn't make your video less junk science. Unless you I'm all mistaken and you tell me how does a laser turn into regular light when it hits any surface, such as a glass, one like in your laser device. But stay on the subject.