Bio-luminescent moon and conservation of energy

The FE'ers state that the bioluminescent moon is what causes it to shine. The moon is thus creating light.

However, the law of conservation of energy states that

It states that the total amount of energy in an isolated system remains constant over time (is said to be conserved over time). A consequence of this law is that energy can neither be created nor destroyed: it can only be transformed from one state to another

This means that the light from the moon must be transformed from a previous state. e.g. The moon must receive energy from another source. This other source is undefined in FET.

responses:

"conservation of energy is part of the conspiracy"
This is wrong, as the idea predates NASA, shown here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy#History

"gravity suffers from the same problem"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_energy

"they are eating the moon to create light"
The moon would have an extreme amount of energy density to be shining since the beginning without running out, since ever since ancient times the moon was shining.

"the lunar soil replenishes itself"
self-replenishing lunar soil still violates the law of conservation of energy

EDIT: we have established that it does receive light from the sun. However, it produces much more (dead shrimp, moon rocks) so it still violates conservation of energy as it creates more than it consumes.

The moon is not an isolated system.  Enough photons from the spotlight sun stray\ over to the photo-receptive cells of the glowing biomass to feed it.

The moon would have an extreme amount of energy density

I'm not familiar with this theory, but how do you know that it doesn't have an extreme amount of energy density? Maybe it has.

The moon is not an isolated system.  Enough photons from the spotlight sun stray\ over to the photo-receptive cells of the glowing biomass to feed it.

The spotlight sun is at the same height as the moon, so very little photons can stray over, The moon, however, requires a huge amount of light to be supported like that. remember that it shines brightly (-12.74 according to http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/moonfact.html)

Quote

The moon would have an extreme amount of energy density

I'm not familiar with this theory, but how do you know that it doesn't have an extreme amount of energy density? Maybe it has.

The FAQ states it is made of ordinary matter.

The moon's distance changes. Sometimes it's closer and sometimes it's further. That's why it appears bigger at times. However, its average distance is the same as the sun.

The moon's distance changes. Sometimes it's closer and sometimes it's further. That's why it appears bigger at times. However, its average distance is the same as the sun.

The only time it gets a large amount of sunlight is during a solar eclipse. Anything else would give little light.
However, solar eclipses are too rare.

\
The FAQ states it is made of ordinary matter.

And? Maybe the beings there convert ordinary matter to light somehow.

Quote from: Pongo on December 27, 2010, 10:18:20 AM

The moon's distance changes. Sometimes it's closer and sometimes it's further. That's why it appears bigger at times. However, its average distance is the same as the sun.

The only time it gets a large amount of sunlight is during a solar eclipse. Anything else would give little light.
However, solar eclipses are too rare.

You've measured this light intake have you?

Quote from: wecl0me12 on December 27, 2010, 10:45:10 AM

Quote from: Pongo on December 27, 2010, 10:18:20 AM

The moon's distance changes. Sometimes it's closer and sometimes it's further. That's why it appears bigger at times. However, its average distance is the same as the sun.

The only time it gets a large amount of sunlight is during a solar eclipse. Anything else would give little light.
However, solar eclipses are too rare.

You've measured this light intake have you?

Its not necessary to know the exact amount.

The moon's distance changes. Sometimes it's closer and sometimes it's further. That's why it appears bigger at times. However, its average distance is the same as the sun.

Your source of this information, if you please?

Quote from: wecl0me12 on December 27, 2010, 07:26:30 AM

\
The FAQ states it is made of ordinary matter.

And? Maybe the beings there convert ordinary matter to light somehow.

Like some type of ordanary matter that doesn't exsist on earth? Since there is no matter on earth that does this. All the scientists on earth have not found such a matertial.

If you are going to make claims, please back them up or stop trolling.

Like some type of ordanary matter that doesn't exsist on earth? Since there is no matter on earth that does this. All the scientists on earth have not found such a matertial.

If you are going to make claims, please back them up or stop trolling.

Ordinary matter exists on Earth. Assuming this theory, it's more likely that it's the being creating the bioluminescent light which doesn't exist on Earth.

If you're going to make claims, please spell them properly or stop trolling.

The lunar biomass may be using energetic space particles directly from as yet unknown events in the universe.

The lunar biomass may be using energetic space particles directly from as yet unknown events in the universe.

Or the biomass might not exist and is, in fact, just reflected sunlight.

Have any of you actually looked at the moon through a telescope?

Have any of you actually looked at the moon through a telescope?

Yes. What about it?

Quote from: Horatio on December 27, 2010, 07:35:25 PM

Have any of you actually looked at the moon through a telescope?

Yes. What about it?

Because it becomes clearly evident that the moon has a heavily cratered landscape with no sign of biomass. Certainly not on the scale that would be required for what this, frankly, jackass theory proposes.

Quote from: Ungoliant on December 27, 2010, 07:38:44 PM

Quote from: Horatio on December 27, 2010, 07:35:25 PM

Have any of you actually looked at the moon through a telescope?

Yes. What about it?

Because it becomes clearly evident that the moon has a heavily cratered landscape with no sign of biomass. Certainly not on the scale that would be required for what this, frankly, jackass theory proposes.

Mad James has claimed that the Moon appears to look like a flat metal disc with no craters or other geographical features through his telescope. As yet, it is unclear whether this is because of a problem with his eyes, or a problem with his brain.

Because it becomes clearly evident that the moon has a heavily cratered landscape with no sign of biomass. Certainly not on the scale that would be required for what this, frankly, jackass theory proposes.

You can't see most of the lifeforms in Earth with a naked eye, what makes you think that if there are any in the moon you would be able to see it with a telescope?

Not on the scale required? Think of how much the amazon forest covers, and that phytoplankton covers most of the ocean.

"gravity suffers from the same problem"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_energy

Oh. So you made up a term.
Okay, The Ichimaru bioluminescent potential energy solves your problem.

Quote from: Horatio on December 27, 2010, 07:40:53 PM

Because it becomes clearly evident that the moon has a heavily cratered landscape with no sign of biomass. Certainly not on the scale that would be required for what this, frankly, jackass theory proposes.

You can't see most of the lifeforms in Earth with a naked eye, what makes you think that if there are any in the moon you would be able to see it with a telescope?

Not on the scale required? Think of how much the amazon forest covers, and that phytoplankton covers most of the ocean.

Thank you for proving my point.

The Amazon rainforest would certainly be visible from the distance to the Moon, likewise with extremely large plankton plumes.

Thank you for proving my point.

The Amazon rainforest would certainly be visible from the distance to the Moon, likewise with extremely large plankton plumes.

Such as the light from the moon creatures is visible here, in the theory?

Quote from: Horatio on December 27, 2010, 09:01:21 PM

Thank you for proving my point.

The Amazon rainforest would certainly be visible from the distance to the Moon, likewise with extremely large plankton plumes.

Such as the light from the moon creatures is visible here, in the theory?

Find a cheap telescope and observe the moon.

If it is a creature emitting the light its moon shrimp.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=42779.0

(This is also my all time favorite thread)

Find a cheap telescope and observe the moon.

Did it many times, your point?

I fear you are committing the fallacy of composition.

Quote from: wecl0me12 on December 26, 2010, 01:48:14 PM

"gravity suffers from the same problem"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_energy

Oh. So you made up a term.
Okay, The Ichimaru bioluminescent potential energy solves your problem.

how does this "IBPE" work? What is it's mechanics?

If it is a creature emitting the light its moon shrimp.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=42779.0

(This is also my all time favorite thread)

The moon shrimp is shown to be violating the law of conservation of energy.

The moon's distance changes. Sometimes it's closer and sometimes it's further. That's why it appears bigger at times. However, its average distance is the same as the sun.

Can you please explain the mechanics of that?  When the moon rises above the sun it moving with UA and when it descends below the sun it is moving against UA.  So please enlighten me as to what force is powerful enough to move it against UA and why that force suddenly stops and doesn't push it right down to the earth.

The moon shrimp is shown to be violating the law of conservation of energy.

How did you reach that conclusion?

Quote from: wecl0me12 on December 28, 2010, 07:20:18 AM

The moon shrimp is shown to be violating the law of conservation of energy.

How did you reach that conclusion?

it emits light with no energy source.

Quote from: Danukenator123 on December 28, 2010, 09:53:49 AM

Quote from: wecl0me12 on December 28, 2010, 07:20:18 AM

The moon shrimp is shown to be violating the law of conservation of energy.

How did you reach that conclusion?

it emits light with no energy source.

The sunlight of a solar eclipse is enough to power these shrimp. They are remarkably efficient creatures that surpass all life on earth in terms of energy conservation. Alas, we can't travel into space so we will never study these shrimp and learn their secrets.

Quote from: wecl0me12 on December 28, 2010, 11:29:40 AM

Quote from: Danukenator123 on December 28, 2010, 09:53:49 AM

Quote from: wecl0me12 on December 28, 2010, 07:20:18 AM

The moon shrimp is shown to be violating the law of conservation of energy.

How did you reach that conclusion?

it emits light with no energy source.

The sunlight of a solar eclipse is enough to power these shrimp. They are remarkably efficient creatures that surpass all life on earth in terms of energy conservation. Alas, we can't travel into space so we will never study these shrimp and learn their secrets.

evidence? and why would we not be able to learn their secrets? we have telescopes. We would be able to create (and mass-produce, since they breed) extremely efficient solar panels and solve the world's energy problem. You'll be winning a Nobel prize.

However, such efficient solar panels don't exist yet.