VIDEO: This video will come as a shock to the LLLT industry. Produced by Dr. Feller of Great Neck, NY

[PLEASE GROW PLEASE]

Well I just did with my laser and my eye is just fine.

What the the next step?

[GreyHunk]

Originally posted by PLEASE GROW PLEASE:

Well I just did with my laser and my eye is just fine.

What the the next step?

 

Not next, the previous steps (of course after you returned the equipment to Dr. Feller). What about the first thought experiment, what would you see if a piece of that black screen in the back would be put in front of the laser instead of the hand or the tissue?

 

What? Small dot, or large circle?

[Dr. Alan Feller]

 

 

 

[GreyHunk]

 

In this last image, are we looking at the back side, or the side the laser strikes? It is not clear from the description. Is it as the second image suggests, right on the laser's lens, and the picture taken from the back side? (that's my guess, but I am not sure)

[Dr. Alan Feller]

The laser lens is recessed into the protective red case approximately 4mm, so it is not directly touching the tissue. The illumination is from the back.

[PLEASE GROW PLEASE]

Not next, the previous steps (of course after you returned the equipment to Dr. Feller).

No just used my laser pointer .

No different then what they sell

[Dr. Alan Feller]

http://hair-restoration-info.c...466060861/m/98710754

 

I saw this thread which is now locked, but I will respond to it shortly. For now, I'd like to say that the red dot on the black cloth is NOT laser light. Once the laser struck the black cloth it collapsed to standard red light, just as it does upon striking any optically dense surface-like skin.

[Dr. Alan Feller]

Greyhunk,

To understand the flaws in your theory you need to learn some basic optical physics.

 

To the uninitiated, the truth about light is counter-intuitive, but I assure you the following is how nature really works:

 

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. While the frequency of the new light is more or less the same as the original, the coherency of that original light energy is completely lost, and the power is attenuated with respect to the brightness of the material.

 

This is the case for ALL light no matter it's frequency, power, polarity, modulation, or other forms including COHERENCY.

 

Coherency is just a fancy word for photons that travel in phase. A device that produces coherent light is called a LASER. Another term for coherent light is 'columnated' light.

 

If the red dot on the black screen you see in my video were actually laser light (coherent), it would continue across the room until it hit the first obstruction and appear as yet another red dot. But that's not what happens. Instead, the light on the black screen simply radiates out as standard, non-coherent, light no different than a red light bulb or LED.

 

Light does NOT bounce off surfaces like a tennis ball does. That is, when light is said to be reflecting off a surface, it's not as if the light struck the surface and then did a 180 degree turnabout like a tennis ball would. That's what intuition tells you is happening, but that's not REALLY what happens.

 

Instead, when a photon strikes a surface it is completely ABSORBED by that surface and then a NEW photon is produced and radiated out from there. Even if the incoming light is coherent (laser) the outgoing light will always be non-coherent UNLESS that surface is mirrored, which scalp skin clearly is no.

 

Your theory is flawed in that you believe that MORE coherent light was absorbed by the black cloth than my white skin. What you don't understand is that it doesn't matter what color the material is, or even if the light source was coherent or not, ALL of the energy will be absorbed by the atoms in the surface. Some of that energy will be converted to brand new photons and radiated out, most of the rest will be converted to heat and radiated out at different frequencies. That's ALL that happens at the atomic level, and none of this conversion, also known as quantum dynamics, has any magical effect on the atoms themselves. None.

 

Dark surfaces simply don't re-radiate light as efficiently as light colored surfaces. But that DOESN'T mean that the coherency quality of the light was 'captured' and absorbed intact. The material has no idea what form the photons entered the material in. Once the first photon encountered the first atom in the surface, the coherency was totally lost.

 

What the LLLT industry and all other LLLT advocates don't understand is that coherent light is only coherent as long as it isn't striking a surface. Coherent light has no magical properties, it is just one of many forms of energy that is only useful to us because light energy in this form doesn't disperse as quickly as standard monochromatic light.

 

Coherent light will not impart 'coherent-ness' to it's target, because in the end it just comes down to the interaction between one atom and one photon. It doesn't matter if the photons came to the dance in an orderly straight line (coherent) or in a disorderly group (non-coherent). The atom has no idea whether the photon came alone or with friends. It doesn't care. It will process one atom at a time and wait for the next one. There is no magical phenomenon created here.

[thanatopsis_awry]

Just when it appears GreyHunk's "uber"-scientific rap might have some bite.....oof.....gauntlet thrown.

[GreyHunk]

I saw this thread which is now locked, but I will respond to it shortly. For now, I'd like to say that the red dot on the black cloth is NOT laser light. Once the laser struck the black cloth it collapsed to standard red light, just as it does upon striking any optically dense surface-like skin.

 

Yes, correct it is the light reflected from the laser beam hitting the black surface. But it is not different from the light (the circle) we see, which is the reflection of the laser light hitting your hand. There is also a little glow around the circle, which is some of the light that entered your skin, bounced around and ended up coming back on this end (as the light enters your hand).

 

Still, you call the circle on your hand as "no longer laser", and when you remove your hand, call the dot on the screen "a laser". It is the very same thing, the laser hitting different surfaces.

 

What we do seem to see is only different in the diameter of that circle. I was wondering about that, and I believe it is probably due to the fact that the laser is actually focused and the beam is a cone as in my diagram. As a matter of fact it does look like a wider circle on the cup too in your attachment here -- since it is closer. But it is possible too that it is in fact parallel, in which case it would be the same size circle on the black screen in the background too, and it is all just the perspective (that is because it is closer to the camera, not that it is closer to the laser).

[Bill - Seemiller]

GreyHunk,

 

Feel free to post the photos on this thread if you'd like to discuss them.

 

I wrote out instructions how to do it on the other post.

 

Bill

[GreyHunk]

Greyhunk,

To understand the flaws in your theory you need to learn some basic optical physics.

 

 

To understand the flaws in your theory you need to learn some basic optical physics.

 

 

You are basically mistaken in that surface thing. As a matter of fact, the lenses of your laser device have a surface -- still, it does come out from your device as a laser, doesn't it? Even though you say early in your long presentation that when laser hits "any surface, even the lens of that camera" it no longer is a laser. FALSE.

 

You are partially right that light can in fact get absorbed and turned into other forms of energy, such as heat or other waveform lights, but also gets refracted (which is NOT reemitting the light!!) and scattered. It is also true, that a lot of that happens at surfaces. But it is not like you suggest that it (and only the first one, reemitting the light) happens instantly once you hit any surface.

 

So, let's get real about how light works. What happens really is shown in this figure I created quickly.

 

(1) First, let's understand, as you correctly noted, we don't see light itself. We see the light source, or we see whe light gets reflected into our eyes -- which happens mostly at surfaces.

 

Light actually already passed through surfaces (inside of laser device/lens then lens/air) when we start calling it the laser beam. Then it travels in air, where ALREADY a small percentage of the "light rays" get already absorbed (and converted to heat or other lightwaves or other forms of energy), refracted and scattered. This is why you actually seem to see the "rays" on laser shows. (see (1))

 

Then if it hits a surface, a considerable percentage of the light gets refracted -- that's why we see surfaces with our eyes as some of that gets into our eyes -- some gets absorbed (and may also get reemitted as a different kind of light, or heat), but others WILL continue. How much does, depends on the material of course;

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>

<LI> if it is glass, MOST will continue uninterrupted (or slightly refracted if not perpendicular). This is why your laser device can actually work despite having a lens [or plain glass] in the front (which itself is a surface) -- and would remain laser if you'd put another glass in there as an "obstacle". [ what's more, it would keep its narrow spectrum and coherence quality too]

<LI> if it is a mirror, all gets reflected (NOT reemitted!) -- a mirrored laser light is STILL laser light [again, w.r.t coherence and spectrum too]! (Actually your laser has a mirror on the back end)

<LI> if it is [theoretically] absolute black, all would be absorbed, and reemitted as heat for example. Much like your dashboard on a summer day...

<LI> in other materials, in between these extremes: some gets reflected, some gets absorbed/reemitted, and some continues to travel along the original path.

 

 

 

Then, after it passed the surface, inside that material, if it is denser optically than air, a much larger percentage is refracted or absorbed, and less and less of the light continues to travel "uninterrupted", along the original line. In a very dense, but not fully non-transparent material it does in fact lose its "unidirectional" quality quickly, as I noted, go to say 10% after 1mm, then 1% after 2mms, then 0.1% after 3mm -- but not at the surface instantly as you claim, but gradually.

 

On the outside again, another surface is hit (now the boundary between the material and back to air again) -- a big percentage is refracted again.

[GreyHunk]

 

So, how does it explain what we see?

 

When you put your hand or tissue as an obstacle in the path of the laser beam, you see a distinct CIRCLE and a glow around it.

 

The CIRCLE is where we intersect the beam, and the light reflects to our eyes directly from a ray in the beam. The beam itself is a cylinder, or if focused, a cone. It produces a circle when cut by a plane. If the device is focused, we have a cone, and the diameter of the circle gets smaller and smaller as we get farther from the device and closer to the focus, making it more of a DOT (then it gets larger again, and probably more 'diffuse' as refractions start to come in).

 

This is all why it is going from "tiny" to "big", and has nothing to do with laser quality or not.

 

Now, what's the glow?

 

The glow comes from the light rays that ended up being refracted inside the material, and then found their way out on either end of the material (back or front).

 

Now, if you see the circle on the back side of the tissue pack, it means that STILL the majority of the light ended up reaching the back side of the tissue pack along the original beam, and the glow is all the rays that "bounced around" and came our on the back end. Basically proving why it can reach deep inside the human tissue, and be used for healing arthritis, and why all this explanation in this video is NOT the reasion why LLLT cannot work.

 

 

GH

[Dr. Alan Feller]

Still, you call the circle on your hand as "no longer laser", and when you remove your hand, call the dot on the screen "a laser". It is the very same thing, the laser hitting different surfaces

 

You are taking parts of the video out of context on purpose, yet again, to confuse people. So I am going to blow holes in your B.S. and then ignore you, you phoney.

 

When I let the laser hit my hand and pointed out the big red dot, it was to show how the laser loses it's coherency and disperses; but I also showed how my hand completely blocked the light from reaching the screen at the far end of the table. When I took the tissue and placed in front of the laser, it was also to show how it too could easily block the laser COMPLETELY from hitting the screen. When I referred to the dot on the screen as "laser" I was just referring to the fact that the laser light made it there without obstruction, but when even the thinnest obstruction was placed in front of the beam, like a tissue, the laser dot disappered.

 

Anyone watching the video knows what I meant by laser, but being the devious anonymous LLLT advocate that you are, you seek to discredit me and the video by disingenuously deconstructing the video to support your B.S. . Your "disclaimer" to the contrary doesn't fool anybody.

 

As for your statment that some of the light refracts, you obviously know nothing about physics and are not willing to learn. Of course not. But for the viewers who might be impressed with your little diagream, refracted light is not like a ball that bounces off a wall as demonstrated in that diagram. Refraction is the absorption and re-emission of light. The more conducive to re-emission, the better the surface like a mirror.

 

There are also materials, like glass, that absorb light and transmit all it's original charachteristics through itself for great distances (think fiber optics). But the skin and scalp are not like mirrors nor glass. So once again Greyhunk is using intellectual dishonesty to B.S. the viewers of this thread.

 

But lying and dishonesty are the creed and code of the LLLT advocate as my next post clearly demonstrates.

[GreyHunk]

And a little discussion about what are the important properties of a laser light.

 

Laser is mostly NOT about being a directed light beam. In fact, you can easily make a directed beam of light from a red bulb, as well as a LED. Still, that would not be called a laser. Your few dollar searchlight produces a decent beam.

 

So what is this about "narrow spectrum" and "coherence? Well, as most of you know, a white light when put through a prism breaks up to the color of rainbows. Even a red lighbulb would break up to a section of that rainbow "spectrum" in the red zone. LEDS and Lasers would get all that frequency concentrated to almost a single frequency -- to a very narrow range.

 

My favorite explanation is the marching soldiers and the bridge. White light is like lot of people walking at any pace they wish. The frequency of their steps is different, some slowly wondering (1 step per second), others hurry at 3 steps a second. A prism separates people out by their step frequencies.

 

A red lightbulb would be all people walking and noone wondering or running. It is now not random, and more confined, but still, some walks at 1.8 steps/sec, some at 2.2 steps/sec. We won't collapse the bridge.

 

A red LED has a narrow spectrum: all people walk at exactly 2 steps a second. Still, they are not SYNCHRONIZED, so the bridge is not in danger.

 

A laser is narrow spectrum, and coherent. All people are walking at exactly 2 steps a second, and they all do it synchronized. All the energy of their walking is now concentrated at that frequency, and concentrated in space/time; the bridge collapses.

 

This is what makes lasers very powerful.

 

In addition, you also want to make the beam concentrated in space (such as all people on one bridge at the same time), so instead of an 8 mm diameter beam, you want a 1mm or less beam to concentrate the energy. You can do that by optical means (two lenses). You could simply use one lens -- and focus to one point to concentrate the energy, or with another lense, you can create a beam. To do physics experiments, or cut material, you don't necesserily need a beam, it is enough to focus to one point. Dr. Feller's device MAY be one with a focus, rather than a fully parallel beam.

[Dr. Alan Feller]

Perhaps a bit off topic. Edited by author.

[GreyHunk]

You are taking parts of the video out of context on purpose, yet again, to confuse people.

 

 

You say things like 'it went from tiny to big, see? it is no longer a laser'. You are implying that this demonstrates being "laser quality" or not to the less educated viewer to CONFUSE them as if you have scientifically proven the impossibility of LLLT. They end up thinking this is science and they won't recognize the next scam either.

 

 

Of course, you don't SEE light on the back screen, it is no longer VISIBLE. I never claimed that it does not lose the "unidirectional" quality quickly. You may end up with only 0.1% or even less of the original laser light to reach 4mm deep in the skin or some material.

 

Great, this 0.1% again hits a surface (back to air), goes to 0.01, then travels through air and hits the back screen -- sure it is not visible there, as the refractions to get to our eyes are not enough to percieve it (even if the room was dark it wouldn't).

[GreyHunk]

Originally posted by Dr. Alan Feller:

Breaking news:

http://hair-restoration-info.c...521087683/m/74110003

 

 

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.

[PLEASE GROW PLEASE]

but careful: if a detergent is using deceptive advertisment it doesn't *necessarily* mean it doesn't work at all

 

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

[GreyHunk]

Originally posted by PLEASE GROW PLEASE:

but careful: if a detergent is using deceptive advertisment it doesn't *necessarily* mean it doesn't work at all

 

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.

[GreyHunk]

but careful: if a detergent is using deceptive advertisment it doesn't *necessarily* mean it doesn't work at all

 

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

[GreyHunk]

With Dr. Mohmand and greyhunk (just one of many aliases I'm sure) as the LLLT industy's online representatives

 

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.

[Bill - Seemiller]

Dr. Feller,

 

This thread that you started is about the mechanics of laser therapy. I don't see what trying to prove GreyHunk is affiliated with the laser industry is trying to accomplish and it's irrelevant to this thread. Either laser therapy works or it doesn't.

 

Anonymous members of our forum are entitled to stay anonymous. Just because someone defends the possibility that lasers may work to stop hair loss isn't enough reason to force someone to identify themselves or call them a shill. In fact, it's almost as if when the going gets tough for you to argue the science and mechanics of lasers, calling someone a shill is your only defense. But it's really sidestepping the issue and weakens your argument.

 

Let's keep the debate on topic instead of making accusations and let adult members draw their own conclusions based on a scientific debate.

 

Additionally, I don't appreciate you bringing Dr. Mohmand into this topic. Please let the moderators of this community investigate what needs to be investigated. Stick to the topic of this discussion which is your video and the mechanices of laser therapy or this topic will be locked.

 

Thank you,

 

Bill

[GreyHunk]

Instead, when a photon strikes a surface it is completely ABSORBED by that surface and then a NEW photon is produced and radiated out from there. Even if the incoming light is coherent (laser) the outgoing light will always be non-coherent UNLESS that surface is mirrored, which scalp skin clearly is no.

 

 

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?

[GreyHunk]

There are also materials, like glass, that absorb light and transmit all it's original charachteristics through itself for great distances (think fiber optics).

 

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?