The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth General => Topic started by: Lorddave on May 06, 2010, 04:00:46 PM
-
So, it seems that James and Ichi seem to be the only ones who feel the moon emits harmful rays. James more so than ichi so this is mostly about James...
Do you think it's possible that James has some kind of rare hypersensitivity to moonlight which causes him to be injured when he observes the moon? Kinda like a reverse Vampire?
I ask because it doesn't seem like anyone else has a problem.
-
Why do you persist in ignoring a multitude of peer-reviewed scientific papers, chock full of data which proves your idiotic point flatly wrong?
Truly, the extent of globularist fanaticism never ceases to amaze me.
-
So, it seems that James and Ichi seem to be the only ones who feel the moon emits harmful rays. James more so than ichi so this is mostly about James...
Do you think it's possible that James has some kind of rare hypersensitivity to moonlight which causes him to be injured when he observes the moon? Kinda like a reverse Vampire?
I ask because it doesn't seem like anyone else has a problem.
Last I heard the danger to astronomers was right up there with accountants in the risk employment handbook somewhere. Accountants are known to develop nasty carpal tunnel though.
-
Why do you persist in ignoring a multitude of peer-reviewed scientific papers, chock full of data which proves your idiotic point flatly wrong?
Truly, the extent of globularist fanaticism never ceases to amaze me.
I'm going by my own experience:
Exposure to moonlight for long periods of time have had no effect on me.
And the papers you referenced are two, both saying that animal bites and human violence increase during a full moon. The cause, however, is still unknown.
Personally I think it's psychological but again, more research is required.
However the issue is if moonlight causes blindness or skin damage. I've seen none of these effects.
Oh and BTW:
A dog bite during the full moon isn't the same as moonlight damaging you.
Unless the moon bites you, that is.
-
Why do you persist in ignoring a multitude of peer-reviewed scientific papers, chock full of data which proves your idiotic point flatly wrong?
Truly, the extent of globularist fanaticism never ceases to amaze me.
You use the word "multitude". I asked you months ago to cite any peer reviewed papers which demonstrate evidence of direct harm to individuals proved to be caused (not merely correlated with) moonlight. So far you have cited only papers about animal bites and violence. Neither of these show any evidence of direct harm from moonlight, merely effects correlated to the phase of the Moon with no evidence that the light levels are relevant.
Furthermore, a multitude, by anyone's definition, is more than two.
When you can show more than two peer reviewed papers, which are less than one hundred years old, and which show definite evidence of harm to people or other mammals specifically caused by moonlight (NOT merely a correlation with a phase) then perhaps we might begin taking you seriously.
But to be honest, I don't think that's a challenge you are capable of fulfilling. I don't think those papers exist.
-
Why do you persist in ignoring a multitude of peer-reviewed scientific papers, chock full of data which proves your idiotic point flatly wrong?
Lets have one of them. I won't ignore it. I'll buy it dinner and a movie.
-
Why do you persist in ignoring a multitude of peer-reviewed scientific papers, chock full of data which proves your idiotic point flatly wrong?
Lets have one of them. I won't ignore it. I'll buy it dinner and a movie.
Thakur, C. P., & Sharma, D. (1984) 'Full Moon And Crime'. In British Medical Journal (Clinical Research Edition). Vol. 289, No. 6460. pp. 1789-1791.
-
Why do you persist in ignoring a multitude of peer-reviewed scientific papers, chock full of data which proves your idiotic point flatly wrong?
Lets have one of them. I won't ignore it. I'll buy it dinner and a movie.
Thakur, C. P., & Sharma, D. (1984) 'Full Moon And Crime'. In British Medical Journal (Clinical Research Edition). Vol. 289, No. 6460. pp. 1789-1791.
There's a reason my nephew sneaks into the cookie jar at night. It's dark and he's less likely to get caught. That's not precisely the same thing you're trying to get at, but it shows a strong correlation that has to do with nightly habits.
If you could link an article with direct, traceable evidence of humanly harm then that would be acceptable. For example, you could show that moonlight causes the flu, followed by an explanation as to how it induces such a reaction. If moonlight is as harmful as you say, it should have effects that go beyond the psychological.
So you have to use a paper that shows physical/chemical/biological evidence to explain harmful interactions with the body.
-
Why do you persist in ignoring a multitude of peer-reviewed scientific papers, chock full of data which proves your idiotic point flatly wrong?
Truly, the extent of globularist fanaticism never ceases to amaze me.
I'm going by my own experience:
Exposure to moonlight for long periods of time have had no effect on me.
Neither have the loads of people in times square.
http://www.earthcam.com/usa/newyork/timessquare/
-
Thakur, C. P., & Sharma, D. (1984) 'Full Moon And Crime'. In British Medical Journal (Clinical Research Edition). Vol. 289, No. 6460. pp. 1789-1791.
Nope that's an article discussing the link between crime and moon phases.
Where are the multitude of peer reviewed scientific papers showing the harmful effects of the mons rays?
Try again.
-
Please do not push your luck with moonlight everyone. Head indoors on nights filled with moonlight. I am concerned about you lot and don't want anything bad to happen to anyone that frequents these fora.
Best of health to everyone!
~Ichi
-
Please do not push your luck with moonlight everyone. Head indoors on nights filled with moonlight. I am concerned about you lot and don't want anything bad to happen to anyone that frequents these fora.
Best of health to everyone!
~Ichi
Last I checked your plants grew some cells that made them more wind resistant... So, as a human, perhaps I'll get bulkier? ;)
-
Sadly it was very metabolically costly. Those test groups are sadly all dead now :'(
-
Sadly it was very metabolically costly. Those test groups are sadly all dead now :'(
Well that's no good. Last thing I want is to become a Hulk-like maniac with a drastically reduced lifespan.
-
Please do not push your luck with moonlight everyone. Head indoors on nights filled with moonlight. I am concerned about you lot and don't want anything bad to happen to anyone that frequents these fora.
Best of health to everyone!
~Ichi
Just out of curiosity, how does your plant research apply to humans?
-
Once again - I'm more afraid of a brick that was flung from an airplane hitting me in the face than the "harmful" physical effects of lunar light...... which is just reflected solar light.
So yeah..... this is just another notch on the list of Lolz.
-
Death-T please at least wear protective clothing.
-
Death-T please at least wear protective clothing.
Let me ask you this:
Is the moon more harmful than the sun?
-
Define harmful.
-
Define harmful.
If I spend 8 hours naked and unprotected in the sun and 8 hours naked and unprotected in the full moonlight, which one will do the most damage?
-
Ew!
The Sun and Moon are very different. Both scenarios will have different effects. Both cases may very well turn out harmful but I cannot say which is more harmful since the effects are so different in nature and affect different body parts.
-
Define harmful.
If I spend 8 hours naked and unprotected in the sun and 8 hours naked and unprotected in the full moonlight, which one will do the most damage?
This sounds like a perfect experiment for Ichy to perform himself. He should do this a few times and post his results, complete with pics.
-
Death-T please at least wear protective clothing.
I will go naked. Its America - and I want to watch the moon naked. No matter what the nieghborhood thinks.
Besides, I have spent many a night watching the moon as a joint-hobby with my dad. Guess what was the most harmful effect on my fair-skinned body? Lack of sleep. Nothing more. I have gotten sunburn on several different occasions. I have never..... gotten whatever the hell the "harmful" moonlight is supposed to do.
-
Define harmful.
Umm... Don't you already know? After all, you are the one providing the warnings concerning lunar light. What dangers are you trying to protect us from?
-
Define harmful.
What dangers are you trying to protect us from?
The dangers of lunar light.
Define harmful.
If I spend 8 hours naked and unprotected in the sun and 8 hours naked and unprotected in the full moonlight, which one will do the most damage?
This sounds like a perfect experiment for Ichy to perform himself. He should do this a few times and post his results, complete with pics.
I would need people to join me. The more the better [for better data!]
-
Define harmful.
What dangers are you trying to protect us from?
The dangers of lunar light.
Sooo, nothing then?
-
Define harmful.
What dangers are you trying to protect us from?
The dangers of lunar light.
And what might those dangers be? Pray tell, lives may be at stake.
-
Read my moonlight threads. Others (for example Levee) have shown the specific horrors of lunar light on the human body in particular.
-
Read my moonlight threads.
I'm sorry, but what do your plant experiments have to do with dangers to human physiology?
Others (for example Levee) have shown the specific horrors of lunar light on the human body in particular.
Deliberately search for a Levee post? :o You truly are mad, aren't you?
-
I'm still curious what you guys do during a new moon--the part of the month when it's out during the day instead of at night. Do you become nocturnal, or what? James's best answer was that the dangerous rays from both bodies somehow "cancel each other out" to a certain extent, but since it's obvious that was made-up on the spot, I'd like a logical answer, Ichi.
-
Read my moonlight threads. Others (for example Levee) have shown the specific horrors of lunar light on the human body in particular.
There are no specifics given other than James raising blindness as a possibility, however a thorough search of the literature reveals no definite instances of this. Nobody has shown any proof of any direct harmful effects on animals caused directly by exposure to moonlight.
-
Ew!
The Sun and Moon are very different. Both scenarios will have different effects. Both cases may very well turn out harmful but I cannot say which is more harmful since the effects are so different in nature and affect different body parts.
and what are the different effects exactly?
-
Please do not push your luck with moonlight everyone. Head indoors on nights filled with moonlight.
Pst. We get moonlight during the day as well. How many people have died as a consequence of their ignorance?
-
I believe in a round disc shaped, but not spherical earth,
and i have spent many many of my years under the moon, (i used to sleep under the stars as a youth all the time)
If anything that had a healing power.
Are you saying I am crazy or somehow immune?
-
...and what are the different effects exactly?
Predicted response:
Danger! Just...different kinds of danger.
Edit:
Apparently JD buys into it to some extent as well?
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=38615.20
-
...and what are the different effects exactly?
Predicted response:
Danger! Just...different kinds of danger.
Edit:
Apparently JD buys into it to some extent as well?
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=38615.20
Everyone with half a brain treats the Moon with the respect and fear which it rightly deserves.
I believe in a round disc shaped, but not spherical earth,
and i have spent many many of my years under the moon, (i used to sleep under the stars as a youth all the time)
If anything that had a healing power.
Are you saying I am crazy or somehow immune?
I believe what you have experienced may have been a placebo effect. Obviously I have no clue as to your medical background (nor do I particularly desire one), but I would ask you to question to yourself whether any peculiarities of ill health you have experienced may not be more related to your Moon exposures than you suspect.
-
Everyone with half a brain treats the Moon with the respect and fear which it rightly deserves.
What has the moon done to earn my respect?
I would ask you to question to yourself whether any peculiarities of ill health you have experienced may not be more related to your Moon exposures than you suspect.
Translation: confirmation bias. "Health problems? Blame it on the moon! Get sick after sleeping outside? It certainly couldn't have been the cold. It MUST HAVE been the moon's dangerous wacky radiation that I can't measure or demonstrate in any way."
-
I'm still curious what you guys do during a new moon--the part of the month when it's out during the day instead of at night. Do you become nocturnal, or what? James's best answer was that the dangerous rays from both bodies somehow "cancel each other out" to a certain extent, but since it's obvious that was made-up on the spot, I'd like a logical answer, Ichi.
You have come to the wrong forum if you want logical answers.
-
I'm still curious what you guys do during a new moon--the part of the month when it's out during the day instead of at night. Do you become nocturnal, or what? James's best answer was that the dangerous rays from both bodies somehow "cancel each other out" to a certain extent, but since it's obvious that was made-up on the spot, I'd like a logical answer, Ichi.
You have come to the wrong forum if you want logical answers.
Are you kidding? All we have are logical answers!
-
I'm still curious what you guys do during a new moon--the part of the month when it's out during the day instead of at night. Do you become nocturnal, or what? James's best answer was that the dangerous rays from both bodies somehow "cancel each other out" to a certain extent, but since it's obvious that was made-up on the spot, I'd like a logical answer, Ichi.
You have come to the wrong forum if you want logical answers.
Are you kidding? All we have are logical answers!
... and attack-birds!
-
I believe in a round disc shaped, but not spherical earth,
Nonsense. If the earth was flat, it would be a hexagon. Not a disc.
-
Why do you persist in ignoring a multitude of peer-reviewed scientific papers, chock full of data which proves your idiotic point flatly wrong?
Truly, the extent of globularist fanaticism never ceases to amaze me.
Please link at least FIVE DIFFERENT peer reviewed scientific paper that show moonlight to be harmful. And reports on links between animal bites/moon phases and crime/moon phases do not count. If you cannot supply them, than I am calling you a liar.
-
Please link at least FIVE DIFFERENT peer reviewed scientific paper that show moonlight to be harmful. And reports on links between animal bites/moon phases and crime/moon phases do not count. If you cannot supply them, than I am calling you a liar.
Hell, I'd take just one or two if they furthered his earlier claim about the moon causing "blindness/death."
That would really fascinate me if it existed. Sadly, he has yet to show it does.
-
Oh dear...let me tell everyone a personal story:
I was out camping for a week and my tent was destroyed! An embarrassing accident occurred and my tent suffered a severe tear! So, you probably guessed it, I had to sleep outside with the only roof above me being the glorious heavens themselves....including the moon....
After a week of this I got home and boy was I feeling funny! oh dear me! I had stomach problems with much diahrea coming out of my rectum....it was like a stomach virus! plus a fever! it was a horrible feeling! Now as a wildlife man I know what i am doing and i have to tell u that i was actually being EXTRA careful! no wild plants or berries was I eating!
Ichi: in your expertise on this matter do you think the moon did this to me? Frankly I have held this suspicion for a while. the diahrea that I had was coming out like niagra falls and the fever...it lasted so long! But I am better now. A year later I went camping again and had proper protection (my tent didn't rip) and guess what? It was very close to where I had previously been...and I didn't get sick! Guys pehaps we shuold be looking more into ichi's theory?
All I know is that I don't want to have what looks to be like melted brownies coming out of rear in such a manner!
-
Oh dear...let me tell everyone a personal story:
I was out camping for a week and my tent was destroyed! An embarrassing accident occurred and my tent suffered a severe tear! So, you probably guessed it, I had to sleep outside with the only roof above me being the glorious heavens themselves....including the moon....
After a week of this I got home and boy was I feeling funny! oh dear me! I had stomach problems with much diahrea coming out of my rectum....it was like a stomach virus! plus a fever! it was a horrible feeling! Now as a wildlife man I know what i am doing and i have to tell u that i was actually being EXTRA careful! no wild plants or berries was I eating!
Ichi: in your expertise on this matter do you think the moon did this to me? Frankly I have held this suspicion for a while. the diahrea that I had was coming out like niagra falls and the fever...it lasted so long! But I am better now. A year later I went camping again and had proper protection (my tent didn't rip) and guess what? It was very close to where I had previously been...and I didn't get sick! Guys pehaps we shuold be looking more into ichi's theory?
All I know is that I don't want to have what looks to be like melted brownies coming out of rear in such a manner!
I'm sure there was no way you could have simply picked up a virus. I'm also positive that there is no possible way that something you ate, even food you brought with you, just disagreed with you. I've encountered these same symptoms without sleeping out under the moon, by the way.
-
Oh dear...let me tell everyone a personal story:
I was out camping for a week and my tent was destroyed! An embarrassing accident occurred and my tent suffered a severe tear! So, you probably guessed it, I had to sleep outside with the only roof above me being the glorious heavens themselves....including the moon....
After a week of this I got home and boy was I feeling funny! oh dear me! I had stomach problems with much diahrea coming out of my rectum....it was like a stomach virus! plus a fever! it was a horrible feeling! Now as a wildlife man I know what i am doing and i have to tell u that i was actually being EXTRA careful! no wild plants or berries was I eating!
Ichi: in your expertise on this matter do you think the moon did this to me? Frankly I have held this suspicion for a while. the diahrea that I had was coming out like niagra falls and the fever...it lasted so long! But I am better now. A year later I went camping again and had proper protection (my tent didn't rip) and guess what? It was very close to where I had previously been...and I didn't get sick! Guys pehaps we shuold be looking more into ichi's theory?
All I know is that I don't want to have what looks to be like melted brownies coming out of rear in such a manner!
I'm sure there was no way you could have simply picked up a virus. I'm also positive that there is no possible way that something you ate, even food you brought with you, just disagreed with you. I've encountered these same symptoms without sleeping out under the moon, by the way.
im not so sure. Look this NEVER happened 2 me before! what was going on!
Ok let me try and type as well as possible here: I want Ichi to tell me if he thikns a human being could possibly contract such symptons from the moon?! Im thinking it could have been true! all i know is that with my butt being like a garden hose out of control I am still not convinced what your said is true. i am ultra-careful in the wilderness! i mean that i was eating my own home-prepared food!
-
Oh dear...let me tell everyone a personal story:
I was out camping for a week and my tent was destroyed! An embarrassing accident occurred and my tent suffered a severe tear! So, you probably guessed it, I had to sleep outside with the only roof above me being the glorious heavens themselves....including the moon....
After a week of this I got home and boy was I feeling funny! oh dear me! I had stomach problems with much diahrea coming out of my rectum....it was like a stomach virus! plus a fever! it was a horrible feeling! Now as a wildlife man I know what i am doing and i have to tell u that i was actually being EXTRA careful! no wild plants or berries was I eating!
Ichi: in your expertise on this matter do you think the moon did this to me? Frankly I have held this suspicion for a while. the diahrea that I had was coming out like niagra falls and the fever...it lasted so long! But I am better now. A year later I went camping again and had proper protection (my tent didn't rip) and guess what? It was very close to where I had previously been...and I didn't get sick! Guys pehaps we shuold be looking more into ichi's theory?
All I know is that I don't want to have what looks to be like melted brownies coming out of rear in such a manner!
I'm sure there was no way you could have simply picked up a virus. I'm also positive that there is no possible way that something you ate, even food you brought with you, just disagreed with you. I've encountered these same symptoms without sleeping out under the moon, by the way.
im not so sure. Look this NEVER happened 2 me before! what was going on!
Ok let me try and type as well as possible here: I want Ichi to tell me if he thikns a human being could possibly contract such symptoms from the moon?! Im thinking it could have been true! all i know is that with my butt being like a garden hose out of control I am still not convinced what your said is true. i am ultra-careful in the wilderness! i mean that i was eating my own home-prepared food!
You picked up a stomach virus. Congratulations. There are numerous ways to catch them. Look them up on WebMD. The moon didn't do shit, no pun intended. If the moon was the cause, than every soldier in my platoon from my days in the National Guard would have gotten sick every night we slept outside.
-
Oh dear...let me tell everyone a personal story:
I was out camping for a week and my tent was destroyed! An embarrassing accident occurred and my tent suffered a severe tear! So, you probably guessed it, I had to sleep outside with the only roof above me being the glorious heavens themselves....including the moon....
After a week of this I got home and boy was I feeling funny! oh dear me! I had stomach problems with much diahrea coming out of my rectum....it was like a stomach virus! plus a fever! it was a horrible feeling! Now as a wildlife man I know what i am doing and i have to tell u that i was actually being EXTRA careful! no wild plants or berries was I eating!
Ichi: in your expertise on this matter do you think the moon did this to me? Frankly I have held this suspicion for a while. the diahrea that I had was coming out like niagra falls and the fever...it lasted so long! But I am better now. A year later I went camping again and had proper protection (my tent didn't rip) and guess what? It was very close to where I had previously been...and I didn't get sick! Guys pehaps we shuold be looking more into ichi's theory?
All I know is that I don't want to have what looks to be like melted brownies coming out of rear in such a manner!
I'm sure there was no way you could have simply picked up a virus. I'm also positive that there is no possible way that something you ate, even food you brought with you, just disagreed with you. I've encountered these same symptoms without sleeping out under the moon, by the way.
im not so sure. Look this NEVER happened 2 me before! what was going on!
Ok let me try and type as well as possible here: I want Ichi to tell me if he thikns a human being could possibly contract such symptoms from the moon?! Im thinking it could have been true! all i know is that with my butt being like a garden hose out of control I am still not convinced what your said is true. i am ultra-careful in the wilderness! i mean that i was eating my own home-prepared food!
You picked up a stomach virus. Congratulations. There are numerous ways to catch them. Look them up on WebMD. The moon didn't do shit, no pun intended. If the moon was the cause, than every soldier in my platoon from my days in the National Guard would have gotten sick every night we slept outside.
ya but i slept outside in a grassy field! there were no clouds every night and one night was a FULL MOON!I sleep on my back by the way! And...it was hot so my short was off and I was wearing shorts! im thinking that wat happened was that this exposure, which my body is not used to , caused the moonlight to have a bad reaction to me! mayb some how u were used to the moonlight and had built up an immunity to it?!
-
ya but i slept outside in a grassy field! there were no clouds every night and one night was a FULL MOON!I sleep on my back by the way! And...it was hot so my short was off and I was wearing shorts! im thinking that wat happened was that this exposure, which my body is not used to , caused the moonlight to have a bad reaction to me! mayb some how u were used to the moonlight and had built up an immunity to it?!
For you to honestly question..... that you have happened upon an effect caused by the moon.... that has not been recorded in any scientific journal of repute or is not included in common knowledge. Or not even be hinted upon by barbaric sources (the people who were outside a lot), when those same sources made up stories to explain why they have sunburn..... it utterly laughable.
I have spent a good many times underneath the stars and the moon. The harmful effect? Loss of sleep. Thats it. And for you to conclude that somehow the moon could be dangerous to you, because a second rate scientist decided that his plants were "harmed" by the moon.... there are no words to describe it. It is simply the FES community at large - the source of constant, and well-deserved, ridicule.
If this seems harsh to you, its because it is intended to be. There are people.... all around the world that are subject to the effects of moonlight - and the only really considered "harmful" effect of this is a pychological one.
-
ya but i slept outside in a grassy field! there were no clouds every night and one night was a FULL MOON!I sleep on my back by the way! And...it was hot so my short was off and I was wearing shorts! im thinking that wat happened was that this exposure, which my body is not used to , caused the moonlight to have a bad reaction to me! mayb some how u were used to the moonlight and had built up an immunity to it?!
For you to honestly question..... that you have happened upon an effect caused by the moon.... that has not been recorded in any scientific journal of repute or is not included in common knowledge. Or not even be hinted upon by barbaric sources (the people who were outside a lot), when those same sources made up stories to explain why they have sunburn..... it utterly laughable.
I have spent a good many times underneath the stars and the moon. The harmful effect? Loss of sleep. Thats it. And for you to conclude that somehow the moon could be dangerous to you, because a second rate scientist decided that his plants were "harmed" by the moon.... there are no words to describe it. It is simply the FES community at large - the source of constant, and well-deserved, ridicule.
If this seems harsh to you, its because it is intended to be. There are people.... all around the world that are subject to the effects of moonlight - and the only really considered "harmful" effect of this is a pychological one.
"it utterly laughable"
Look now everyone on this forums been making of my poor grammar.So since they won't listen to what I usually have to say because of it,..well then I cant take tooo seriosly what your saying...
But I was asking ichi if perhaps there is some sort of immunity to moonlight that people bring up. Your post about how many people sleep under the moon is what is laughable. we have to really examine whether or not certain folk can develop an immunity and others cant and if so why?!?! Perhaps a special research institute could be funded in this regard? Ichi u should consider it man!
Also Death-T is putting the cart before the horse! I am NOT a FLAT EARTHER! I almost became one in a conversion thread about why one converts to FET. I said I did but wasn't going the whole way...
I am ESA! Earth shape agnostic. I don't know if the earth is round or flat but some of the FEers here have got good points and I think ive got to take this new point of view seriously and be open-minded and inclusive to all!
-
Oh dear...let me tell everyone a personal story:
I was out camping for a week and my tent was destroyed! An embarrassing accident occurred and my tent suffered a severe tear! So, you probably guessed it, I had to sleep outside with the only roof above me being the glorious heavens themselves....including the moon....
After a week of this I got home and boy was I feeling funny! oh dear me! I had stomach problems with much diahrea coming out of my rectum....it was like a stomach virus! plus a fever! it was a horrible feeling! Now as a wildlife man I know what i am doing and i have to tell u that i was actually being EXTRA careful! no wild plants or berries was I eating!
Ichi: in your expertise on this matter do you think the moon did this to me? Frankly I have held this suspicion for a while. the diahrea that I had was coming out like niagra falls and the fever...it lasted so long! But I am better now. A year later I went camping again and had proper protection (my tent didn't rip) and guess what? It was very close to where I had previously been...and I didn't get sick! Guys pehaps we shuold be looking more into ichi's theory?
All I know is that I don't want to have what looks to be like melted brownies coming out of rear in such a manner!
I'm sure there was no way you could have simply picked up a virus. I'm also positive that there is no possible way that something you ate, even food you brought with you, just disagreed with you. I've encountered these same symptoms without sleeping out under the moon, by the way.
im not so sure. Look this NEVER happened 2 me before! what was going on!
Ok let me try and type as well as possible here: I want Ichi to tell me if he thikns a human being could possibly contract such symptoms from the moon?! Im thinking it could have been true! all i know is that with my butt being like a garden hose out of control I am still not convinced what your said is true. i am ultra-careful in the wilderness! i mean that i was eating my own home-prepared food!
You picked up a stomach virus. Congratulations. There are numerous ways to catch them. Look them up on WebMD. The moon didn't do shit, no pun intended. If the moon was the cause, than every soldier in my platoon from my days in the National Guard would have gotten sick every night we slept outside.
ya but i slept outside in a grassy field! there were no clouds every night and one night was a FULL MOON!I sleep on my back by the way! And...it was hot so my short was off and I was wearing shorts! im thinking that wat happened was that this exposure, which my body is not used to , caused the moonlight to have a bad reaction to me! mayb some how u were used to the moonlight and had built up an immunity to it?!
OK, so you slept in a grassy field under a full moon. That still does not mean the moon made you sick. You caught a virus. These things are everywhere. You should seriously look up the definition of the word, hypochondriac. What's more likely is that an insect climbed into your head through your ear and is currently eating your brain.
-
Oh dear...let me tell everyone a personal story:
I was out camping for a week and my tent was destroyed! An embarrassing accident occurred and my tent suffered a severe tear! So, you probably guessed it, I had to sleep outside with the only roof above me being the glorious heavens themselves....including the moon....
After a week of this I got home and boy was I feeling funny! oh dear me! I had stomach problems with much diahrea coming out of my rectum....it was like a stomach virus! plus a fever! it was a horrible feeling! Now as a wildlife man I know what i am doing and i have to tell u that i was actually being EXTRA careful! no wild plants or berries was I eating!
Ichi: in your expertise on this matter do you think the moon did this to me? Frankly I have held this suspicion for a while. the diahrea that I had was coming out like niagra falls and the fever...it lasted so long! But I am better now. A year later I went camping again and had proper protection (my tent didn't rip) and guess what? It was very close to where I had previously been...and I didn't get sick! Guys pehaps we shuold be looking more into ichi's theory?
All I know is that I don't want to have what looks to be like melted brownies coming out of rear in such a manner!
I'm sure there was no way you could have simply picked up a virus. I'm also positive that there is no possible way that something you ate, even food you brought with you, just disagreed with you. I've encountered these same symptoms without sleeping out under the moon, by the way.
im not so sure. Look this NEVER happened 2 me before! what was going on!
Ok let me try and type as well as possible here: I want Ichi to tell me if he thikns a human being could possibly contract such symptoms from the moon?! Im thinking it could have been true! all i know is that with my butt being like a garden hose out of control I am still not convinced what your said is true. i am ultra-careful in the wilderness! i mean that i was eating my own home-prepared food!
You picked up a stomach virus. Congratulations. There are numerous ways to catch them. Look them up on WebMD. The moon didn't do shit, no pun intended. If the moon was the cause, than every soldier in my platoon from my days in the National Guard would have gotten sick every night we slept outside.
ya but i slept outside in a grassy field! there were no clouds every night and one night was a FULL MOON!I sleep on my back by the way! And...it was hot so my short was off and I was wearing shorts! im thinking that wat happened was that this exposure, which my body is not used to , caused the moonlight to have a bad reaction to me! mayb some how u were used to the moonlight and had built up an immunity to it?!
OK, so you slept in a grassy field under a full moon. That still does not mean the moon made you sick. You caught a virus. These things are everywhere. You should seriously look up the definition of the word, hypochondriac. What's more likely is that an insect climbed into your head through your ear and is currently eating your brain.
yes but what of ichi's research!? the plants appear to have been damaged by the moon! im a little spooked now. after that incident where diahrea was coming out my arse like it was an oil pipe im wondering....
maybe it was the moon! i look forward to ichi and james contributing more research in this field
-
yes but what of ichi's research!? the plants appear to have been damaged by the moon! im a little spooked now. after that incident where diahrea was coming out my arse like it was an oil pipe im wondering....
maybe it was the moon! i look forward to ichi and james contributing more research in this field
Sigh. I give up.
-
yes but what of ichi's research!? the plants appear to have been damaged by the moon! im a little spooked now. after that incident where diahrea was coming out my arse like it was an oil pipe im wondering....
maybe it was the moon! i look forward to ichi and james contributing more research in this field
Sigh. I give up.
dont give up...open your mind...
-
yes but what of ichi's research!? the plants appear to have been damaged by the moon! im a little spooked now. after that incident where diahrea was coming out my arse like it was an oil pipe im wondering....
maybe it was the moon! i look forward to ichi and james contributing more research in this field
Sigh. I give up.
dont give up...open your mind...
You are the one thinking the ONLY thing that could have made you sick was the moon. I already told you to look at WebMD to see all the possible causes for the illness you had. Here, maybe this link (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=known+causes+of+diarrhea) will help you. Look, use that chunk of gray matter inside your skull and ask yourself, "If the moon really caused illnesses like the one you experienced, wouldn't it have been documented by more than just two dude on a FET site?"
-
But I was asking ichi if perhaps there is some sort of immunity to moonlight that people bring up. Your post about how many people sleep under the moon is what is laughable. we have to really examine whether or not certain folk can develop an immunity and others cant and if so why?!?! Perhaps a special research institute could be funded in this regard? Ichi u should consider it man!
Also Death-T is putting the cart before the horse! I am NOT a FLAT EARTHER! I almost became one in a conversion thread about why one converts to FET. I said I did but wasn't going the whole way...
I am ESA! Earth shape agnostic. I don't know if the earth is round or flat but some of the FEers here have got good points and I think ive got to take this new point of view seriously and be open-minded and inclusive to all!
1- The fact is that in prehistory and the times leading up to the medieval period, many people slept outside. These same people relied on the stars to know when to plant and even created extensive stories for constellations. For you to say they wouldn't notice a harmful effect from the moon..... is just plain wrong.
2 - What good points? I haven't seen a single good point for the FET. Not a single one.
- Oh yes, the fact that you think the moon is harmful, because you caught a stomach virus, in the woods non-the-less, is like Chicken Little concluding the sky was falling because he was hit on the head with an acorn. Maybe, just maybe, it was becuase you were not exactly in a clean environment and open to various forms of air-bourne diseases. Hell, even your food could have been easily contaminated without your knowledge.
You don't take a common occurance and instantly jump to the most absurd conclusion.
-
Everytime I go outside during the summer I have an increased amount of trouble breathing and tend to sneeze. This does not happen during the winter, and generally the cold months. This must be directly related to too much sun exposure, because it pretty much always happens when I'm out in the sun.
This is proof that the dangers of the sun light is even greater than reported by many sources.
-
1)We get it,i am sure we have all had dihrea,you don't need to describe its flow.
2)Maybe you overlooked something you ate.As previously stated you might have gotten it another way.
1 or 2 personal incident is not cause for a serious study.
-
Everytime I go outside during the summer I have an increased amount of trouble breathing and tend to sneeze. This does not happen during the winter, and generally the cold months. This must be directly related to too much sun exposure, because it pretty much always happens when I'm out in the sun.
This is proof that the dangers of the sun light is even greater than reported by many sources.
Arguements from authority are the weakest arguments in philosopy! lookee here! you have to prsent your own arguements rather than smply say "alotta scientists [who may or may not be working with a conspiracy if it exists] never noticed this, therefore it doesn't exist!"
-
Everytime I go outside during the summer I have an increased amount of trouble breathing and tend to sneeze. This does not happen during the winter, and generally the cold months. This must be directly related to too much sun exposure, because it pretty much always happens when I'm out in the sun.
This is proof that the dangers of the sun light is even greater than reported by many sources.
Arguements from authority are the weakest arguments in philosopy! lookee here! you have to prsent your own arguements rather than smply say "alotta scientists [who may or may not be working with a conspiracy if it exists] never noticed this, therefore it doesn't exist!"
Whats wrong with what he said?Makes sense to me.
-
Everytime I go outside during the summer I have an increased amount of trouble breathing and tend to sneeze. This does not happen during the winter, and generally the cold months. This must be directly related to too much sun exposure, because it pretty much always happens when I'm out in the sun.
This is proof that the dangers of the sun light is even greater than reported by many sources.
Arguements from authority are the weakest arguments in philosopy! lookee here! you have to prsent your own arguements rather than smply say "alotta scientists [who may or may not be working with a conspiracy if it exists] never noticed this, therefore it doesn't exist!"
Good thing we're talking science and not philosophy.
-
Everytime I go outside during the summer I have an increased amount of trouble breathing and tend to sneeze. This does not happen during the winter, and generally the cold months. This must be directly related to too much sun exposure, because it pretty much always happens when I'm out in the sun.
This is proof that the dangers of the sun light is even greater than reported by many sources.
Arguements from authority are the weakest arguments in philosopy! lookee here! you have to prsent your own arguements rather than smply say "alotta scientists [who may or may not be working with a conspiracy if it exists] never noticed this, therefore it doesn't exist!"
Good thing we're talking science and not philosophy.
Not quite sure if that was a burn or not. Still funny though.
-
Arguements from authority are the weakest arguments in philosopy!
Actually, it's argument from false authority that's a fallacy. Legitimate authorities are perfectly valid sources.
-
Arguements from authority are the weakest arguments in philosopy!
Actually, it's argument from false authority that's a fallacy. Legitimate authorities are perfectly valid sources.
yes but we have to wait until ichis experiments are don! mayb he can be pioneering research into this field. give em time~
-
Arguements from authority are the weakest arguments in philosopy!
Actually, it's argument from false authority that's a fallacy. Legitimate authorities are perfectly valid sources.
yes but we have to wait until ichis experiments are don! mayb he can be pioneering research into this field. give em time~
Yep.
Gotta wait until his experiments are done before you can call him a false authority. :P
-
Arguements from authority are the weakest arguments in philosopy!
Actually, it's argument from false authority that's a fallacy. Legitimate authorities are perfectly valid sources.
yes but we have to wait until ichis experiments are don! mayb he can be pioneering research into this field. give em time~
Yep.
Gotta wait until his experiments are done before you can call him a false authority. :P
people laughed at George washington! they laughed at Caesar! they laughed at Rockerfeller when he rowed people from Staten Island to NY before making it big and making a massive company! they laughed at einstein!
well maybe Ichi is on to something! I am being 100% serious...maybe he will pioneer some brilliant new research!
-
Arguements from authority are the weakest arguments in philosopy!
Actually, it's argument from false authority that's a fallacy. Legitimate authorities are perfectly valid sources.
yes but we have to wait until ichis experiments are don! mayb he can be pioneering research into this field. give em time~
Yep.
Gotta wait until his experiments are done before you can call him a false authority. :P
people laughed at George washington! they laughed at Caesar! they laughed at Rockerfeller when he rowed people from Staten Island to NY before making it big and making a massive company! they laughed at einstein!
well maybe Ichi is on to something! I am being 100% serious...maybe he will pioneer some brilliant new research!
No, people cheered George Washington.
No, people cheered then stabbed Caesar. Then bathed in his blood.
Don't know about Rockefeller.
Maybe, but he's jumping to conclusions by saying moonlight is harmful when all he's proven is that plants react to moonlight when deprived of sunlight.
-
Rockefeller was one of the three great monsters in 20th century history, the other two being Hitler and Stalin.
-
Rockefeller was one of the three great monsters in 20th century history, the other two being Hitler and Stalin.
That I know.
That's what happens when you have a pure (or close to pure) capitalist society.
But anyway...
-
When society mocks someone,they are right 99% of the time.
See:any real life psychic,psuedoscience,etc.
-
When society mocks someone,they are right 99% of the time.
See:any real life psychic,psuedoscience,etc.
People that think we never landed on the moon and are convinced the CIA has tried to kill them three times.
P.S. - If the CIA really tried to kill you. There would be no "try," just "killed."
-
The CIA haven't done such a good job of killing Castro.
-
The CIA haven't done such a good job of killing Castro.
While that is true, Castro is the ruler of an entire country, extremely paranoid, and people would notice if he died. (like the whole world).
James is not the ruler of an entire country, is extremely paranoid, and only a very small group of people would notice if he died (friends, family, and coworkers).
Oh and James doesn't have an army to protect him.
-
I would protect James and he would protect me.
-
I'd protect both of you, and any of my FES brothers.
-
I would protect James and he would protect me.
You'd shelter from the deadly moon rays together under a tin foil golf umbrella. How sweet.
-
I would protect James and he would protect me.
I'll be sure to tell that to the 7.62x54mmR round that would make its way through James' cranial cavity.
-
I would protect James and he would protect me.
I'll be sure to tell that to the 7.62x54mmR round that would make its way through James' cranial cavity.
A flat earth allows people to use the force. Try something else.
-
I would protect James and he would protect me.
I'll be sure to tell that to the 7.62x54mmR round that would make its way through James' cranial cavity.
Please do not make death threats against moderators. Consider this an official warning.
-
I would protect James and he would protect me.
I'll be sure to tell that to the 7.62x54mmR round that would make its way through James' cranial cavity.
Please do not make death threats against moderators. Consider this an official warning.
Not a death threat - a mocking of someone trying to protect another agianst the most powerful spy organization in the world.
-
I would protect James and he would protect me.
I'll be sure to tell that to the 7.62x54mmR round that would make its way through James' cranial cavity.
Please do not make death threats against moderators. Consider this an official warning.
Not a death threat - a mocking of someone trying to protect another agianst the most powerful spy organization in the world.
It would not matter the organization or individual, I would protect him the best I could.
-
I would protect James and he would protect me.
I'll be sure to tell that to the 7.62x54mmR round that would make its way through James' cranial cavity.
Please do not make death threats against moderators. Consider this an official warning.
Not a death threat - a mocking of someone trying to protect another agianst the most powerful spy organization in the world.
It would not matter the organization or individual, I would protect him the best I could.
Fair enough. I admire your commitment to courage.
-
In order for me to believe that moonlight is harmful, a test would have to be done under very controlled conditions. For example, to eliminate any environmental variables, I would measure the light spectrum emitted by the moon and then replicate it exactly using artificial lighting. I would use several variations of types of light exposure (sunlight & moonlight, sunlight and darkness, moonlight and darkness, moonlight only, sunlight only, darkness only), and I would at least perform the experiment on an animal vaguely related to humans. I would then develop some method to quantify the 'damage' caused specifically by the light. It would probably involve comparisons of overall health to that after an equal period of time exposed to normal lighting conditions and performing the same activities as during the tests.
It would all come down to eliminating the extraneous variables and quantifying damage, which none of the studies cited here have done.
-
You would have to take in more than one animal(Just before a FE'er actually takes on the experiment and claims you only stated it was neccesary for one animal)
-
I think it would be adequate if the animal were a species of ape, preferably a chimpanzee as they seem to be the closest related to humans.
Obviously if lower animals were used more than one species would be helpful.
Studies on a plant say absolutely nothing about their results on a mammal.
-
I think it would be adequate if the animal were a species of ape, preferably a chimpanzee as they seem to be the closest related to humans.
Obviously if lower animals were used more than one species would be helpful.
Studies on a plant say absolutely nothing about their results on a mammal.
I was thinking that it's possible the animal could've gotten sick from something unrelated, therefore the need for more healthy animals.
-
Obviously the tests wouldn't be performed on a single animal from a species, you would need a decent sample size, and they should be kept isolated from each other to prevent the possibility of communicable diseases.
-
Obviously the tests wouldn't be performed on a single animal from a species, you would need a decent sample size, and they should be kept isolated from each other to prevent the possibility of communicable diseases.
Ye, that's what I meant, but you know how these FE'ers find loopholes in anything.
-
Great, so animal cruelty is necessary to corroborate an already widely known hypothesis? Why? The scientists on the studies I've already posted didn't have to molest any animals in order to prove their point.
-
Great, so animal cruelty is necessary to corroborate an already widely known hypothesis? Why? The scientists on the studies I've already posted didn't have to molest any animals in order to prove their point.
The scientists you've provided have shown the effects under the moon is only psychological, which has already been stated.
-
Great, so animal cruelty is necessary to corroborate an already widely known hypothesis? Why? The scientists on the studies I've already posted didn't have to molest any animals in order to prove their point.
So you haven't read Itchy's gloating about how he made simple water creatures' tentacles drop off? Why are you defending his experiments if you clearly have no idea he was molesting animals?
-
I was just suggesting a better experiment that could more adequately prove the theory that moonlight is harmful. It is your prerogative to prove the theory or not, just don't expect to be believed until you do.
-
Great, so animal cruelty is necessary to corroborate an already widely known hypothesis? Why? The scientists on the studies I've already posted didn't have to molest any animals in order to prove their point.
I'd volunteer to stand out in the moonlight to prove that it's safe.
-
Great, so animal cruelty is necessary to corroborate an already widely known hypothesis? Why? The scientists on the studies I've already posted didn't have to molest any animals in order to prove their point.
I'd volunteer to stand out in the moonlight to prove that it's safe.
They would say theat you faked the data..... even if you showed a complete video of you stnading in moonlight for hours and avoiding all contact with sunlight. Just sayin'
But if you do have the time, means, and video camera - please do! Could always use another nail for the coffin..... even though we already have about a couple hundred.
-
Great, so animal cruelty is necessary to corroborate an already widely known hypothesis? Why? The scientists on the studies I've already posted didn't have to molest any animals in order to prove their point.
I'd volunteer to stand out in the moonlight to prove that it's safe.
They would say theat you faked the data..... even if you showed a complete video of you stnading in moonlight for hours and avoiding all contact with sunlight. Just sayin'
But if you do have the time, means, and video camera - please do! Could always use another nail for the coffin..... even though we already have about a couple hundred.
I'd fap to it.
-
I don't even understand how moonlight being harmful is even a tenet of FET. It doesn't really make any difference either way and is easily disproved by the billions of people who are exposed to moonlight every night with no ill effects, so why did they come up with this idea in the first place?
-
Great, so animal cruelty is necessary to corroborate an already widely known hypothesis? Why? The scientists on the studies I've already posted didn't have to molest any animals in order to prove their point.
So you haven't read Itchy's gloating about how he made simple water creatures' tentacles drop off? Why are you defending his experiments if you clearly have no idea he was molesting animals?
There's a world of difference between primitive sea life and chimpanzees!
I don't even understand how moonlight being harmful is even a tenet of FET. It doesn't really make any difference either way and is easily disproved by the billions of people who are exposed to moonlight every night with no ill effects, so why did they come up with this idea in the first place?
Because it appears to be true. We haven't just sat down and made up everything so that it fits with our theory, we base our beliefs on what the evidence tells us. There is no reason why moonlight should be harmful, it just is harmful.
-
Great, so animal cruelty is necessary to corroborate an already widely known hypothesis? Why? The scientists on the studies I've already posted didn't have to molest any animals in order to prove their point.
So you haven't read Itchy's gloating about how he made simple water creatures' tentacles drop off? Why are you defending his experiments if you clearly have no idea he was molesting animals?
There's a world of difference between primitive sea life and chimpanzees!
Where do you draw the line? Mice? Rabbits? Dogs? Primates?
-
Because it appears to be true. We haven't just sat down and made up everything so that it fits with our theory, we base our beliefs on what the evidence tells us. There is no reason why moonlight should be harmful, it just is harmful.
Your definition of appears is questionable.
Evidence:
A specific species of plant had more of a stem toughening cell when exposed only to moonlight.
Animal and human attacks are more violent and frequent at night.
A Hydra stopped moving when exposed to sunlight under a microscope.
....
And that's it. That's all you have. Hardly what I'd call evidence. Hell, you haven't even given any symptoms yet.
-
Great, so animal cruelty is necessary to corroborate an already widely known hypothesis? Why? The scientists on the studies I've already posted didn't have to molest any animals in order to prove their point.
So you haven't read Itchy's gloating about how he made simple water creatures' tentacles drop off? Why are you defending his experiments if you clearly have no idea he was molesting animals?
There's a world of difference between primitive sea life and chimpanzees!
There's a world of difference between many animals, they're still animals. They have nerves and feel pain. You condone tormenting primitive fresh water life.
-
There is no reason why moonlight should be harmful, it just is harmful.
It seems you weren't listening. Try again?
Pst. We get moonlight during the day as well. How many people have died as a consequence of their ignorance?
-
I fell asleep by the window last night, when I awoke I realized that moonlight was pouring in on me from my window. What precautions should I take to keep myself safer in the future?
-
I fell asleep by the window last night, when I awoke I realized that moonlight was pouring in on me from my window. What precautions should I take to keep myself safer in the future?
Buy curtains.
-
Pst. We get moonlight during the day as well. How many people have died as a consequence of their ignorance?
From a different thread, James told me the sun's rays mostly "cancel out" those of the moon, though you should still shield yourself from the moon's whenever possible. I really just don't have any words for statements like that. I'm speechless.
-
Pst. We get moonlight during the day as well. How many people have died as a consequence of their ignorance?
From a different thread, James told me the sun's rays mostly "cancel out" those of the moon, though you should still shield yourself from the moon's whenever possible. I really just don't have any words for statements like that. I'm speechless.
If they cancel out each other, then by stopping the moon rays you're actually causing more harm to yourself as there's no longer anything to cancel out the suns.
-
Pst. We get moonlight during the day as well. How many people have died as a consequence of their ignorance?
From a different thread, James told me the sun's rays mostly "cancel out" those of the moon, though you should still shield yourself from the moon's whenever possible. I really just don't have any words for statements like that. I'm speechless.
So..... bad sunlight (which is proven) + "bad" moonlight = just bad sunlight? Cuz.... ya' know.... I still get sunburnt.
-
I actually believe that there's a possibility that cases of so-called "sun poisoning" get more severe when the moon is out during the day.
-
Do you have any evidence, or are you just playing along?
-
Well, I have no evidence, per se, except for the obvious fact that the moon emits harmful rays, hence my use of the word "possibility". If you'd like to test it, be my guest. I'm unfortunately particularly susceptible to sun poisoning so I fear that if I attempted to test it myself, with the sun and the moon together (!), it might kill me.
-
Seeing as the sun is about 449,000 times brighter than the full moon, I really don't see how much damage a new moon can possibly do.
-
I just wanted to point out that nobody has posted any real evidence that Moonlight is harmful to the human body, which is perhaps one of THE MOST RIDICULOUS things I have ever heard in my life. What's even funner: that some people here seem to believe it.
So, anyone have any evidence/proof of the harm Moonlight does to oneself?
-
I just wanted to point out that nobody has posted any real evidence that Moonlight is harmful to the human body, which is perhaps one of THE MOST RIDICULOUS things I have ever heard in my life. What's even funner: that some people here seem to believe it.
So, anyone have any evidence/proof of the harm Moonlight does to oneself?
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=34082.0
-
So, anyone have any evidence/proof of the harm Moonlight does to oneself?
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=34082.0
That's a no, then.
-
I find it quite amusing that you expect everyone else to prove in detail why you are wrong, but are satisfied to give a simple 'no' to support your own arguments.
-
I find it quite amusing that you expect everyone else to prove in detail why you are wrong, but are satisfied to give a simple 'no' to support your own arguments.
Yes, Johannes can be quite amusing that way.
-
I find it quite amusing that you expect everyone else to prove in detail why you are wrong, but are satisfied to give a simple 'no' to support your own arguments.
A simple "no" is quite sufficient as a summary of a thread which has had at least two spin off threads discussing the validity of its results, don't you think? Or would you prefer I started going over old ground?
-
I find it quite amusing that you expect everyone else to prove in detail why you are wrong, but are satisfied to give a simple 'no' to support your own arguments.
A simple "no" is quite sufficient as a summary of a thread which has had at least two spin off threads discussing the validity of its results, don't you think? Or would you prefer I started going over old ground?
Someone asked for EVIDENCE. And I provided a link to a scientific study. You can't just say "no" to evidence.
When I make concise criticisms it is usually because the math is faulty, the premise is faulty, or the application of math (physics) is faulty. I don't want to take the time to explain things when they are already on the internet. It's a waste of my time to explain to someone why you can't accelerate a particle past the speed of light.
-
Someone asked for evidence that moonlight is harmful. You posted a link to a thread that didn't provide any evidence that moonlight is harmful. ::)
-
Pst. We get moonlight during the day as well. How many people have died as a consequence of their ignorance?
From a different thread, James told me the sun's rays mostly "cancel out" those of the moon, though you should still shield yourself from the moon's whenever possible. I really just don't have any words for statements like that. I'm speechless.
If the sun cancelled out the moons rays then we wouldn't be able to see the moon. This thread is excellent btw.
-
I fell asleep by the window last night, when I awoke I realized that moonlight was pouring in on me from my window. What precautions should I take to keep myself safer in the future?
Buy curtains.
I have curtains, they are those cute lacy deals that let dappled light into the room and totally accentuate my pink carpet.
-
I just wanted to point out that nobody has posted any real evidence that Moonlight is harmful to the human body, which is perhaps one of THE MOST RIDICULOUS things I have ever heard in my life. What's even funner: that some people here seem to believe it.
So, anyone have any evidence/proof of the harm Moonlight does to oneself?
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=34082.0
Well, I took a brief look, and I saw this:
Most peculiar is that moonlight exposure causes a rise in blood pressure. It is well-known that some of the most accurate BP readings occur right as someone wakes up and at that event, the BP will be shown for the most part to stay lower than that of a daily average. However, this experiment has shown otherwise and has given evidence that the moonlight causes negative effects on organisms. This includes humans. To say otherwise would be silly and a bit foolish considering the supporting data. However, these experiments and peer-reviewed articles mentioned should not be considered as insight to the extent of damage given from moonlight. The main conclusion is that there is a damaging effect that occurs.
The majority of his evidence is on plants and animals. There are plenty of things that harm plants and animals, but not humans. As for this evidence in a 'rise in blood pressure', spiked blood pressure cannot be attributed to moonlight exposure. It can be the result of many things, most notable among them being STRESS.
As far as I'm concerned, your fear of the moonlight may have very well spiked your blood pressure. The human body's responses to fear and stress are nearly identical; one response is elevated blood pressure.
So as soon as you can eliminate all other variables, or you can come up with a well-documented, long-term study on the risks associated with moonlight exposure, nobody can take your 'research' seriously.
-
As for this evidence in a 'rise in blood pressure', spiked blood pressure cannot be attributed to moonlight exposure.
Source?
-
Edit:
As for this evidence in a 'rise in blood pressure', spiked blood pressure cannot be SOLELY attributed to moonlight exposure.
-
Edit:
As for this evidence in a 'rise in blood pressure', spiked blood pressure cannot be SOLELY attributed to moonlight exposure.
Where does the cited article even imply that, and how is it relevant to the discussion? ???
-
Edit:
As for this evidence in a 'rise in blood pressure', spiked blood pressure cannot be SOLELY attributed to moonlight exposure.
Where does the cited article even imply that, and how is it relevant to the discussion? ???
stress can lead to emotional, psychological, and even physical problems -- including heart disease, high blood pressure, chest pains, or irregular heart beats.
http://www.webmd.com/hypertension-high-blood-pressure/guide/hypertension-easing-stress
It's relevant because I'm trying to show you that Ichi's findings can't be taken seriously.
-
Bloody hell, a slight rise in blood pressure by the person doing the experiment is about as bogus and biased as possible.
Animal Attacks at night are an indirect effect of moonlight and not a direct one. And as Ichi so notably mentioned, a hydra is frozen, indicating less function in moonlight. This contradicts the idea that moonlight causes more active and aggressive behavior.
-
Edit:
As for this evidence in a 'rise in blood pressure', spiked blood pressure cannot be SOLELY attributed to moonlight exposure.
Where does the cited article even imply that, and how is it relevant to the discussion? ???
stress can lead to emotional, psychological, and even physical problems -- including heart disease, high blood pressure, chest pains, or irregular heart beats.
http://www.webmd.com/hypertension-high-blood-pressure/guide/hypertension-easing-stress
Did I, or anyone else, ever argue that stress can't cause a rise in blood pressure?
It's relevant because I'm trying to show you that Ichi's findings can't be taken seriously.
Then your argument is incredibly faulty. How does the fact that other things can cause high blood pressure prove that moonlight can't?
-
Had you actually read what I wrote, I said that the fact that many other things could've caused his raise in blood pressure mean that he cannot argue moonlight raised his blood pressure.
If you had red my quote from Ichi's first post:
Most peculiar is that moonlight exposure causes a rise in blood pressure. It is well-known that some of the most accurate BP readings occur right as someone wakes up and at that event, the BP will be shown for the most part to stay lower than that of a daily average. However, this experiment has shown otherwise and has given evidence that the moonlight causes negative effects on organisms. This includes humans. To say otherwise would be silly and a bit foolish considering the supporting data. However, these experiments and peer-reviewed articles mentioned should not be considered as insight to the extent of damage given from moonlight. The main conclusion is that there is a damaging effect that occurs.
You'd have realized that 'high blood pressure' is the only negative result he observed in humans. All of his findings on other animals and plants are completely irrelevant, regardless of their truth value; humans are not the same as plants or animals. Therefore, the majority of his argument is irrelevant anyway.
Bottom line is, moonlight is perfectly fine for a human being.
-
You'd have realized that 'high blood pressure' is the only negative result he observed in humans. All of his findings on other animals and plants are completely irrelevant, regardless of their truth value; humans are not the same as plants or animals. Therefore, the majority of his argument is irrelevant anyway.
Sure you agree that the correlation is significant. There's no reason to dismiss Ichy's findings out of hand because of the off chance that there might be another cause for his spike in blood pressure, especially given the known negative effect moonlight is found to have in organisms. I'm sure Ichy considers his experiments in this area to be an ongoing process.
Bottom line is, moonlight is perfectly fine for a human being.
Bottom line is, you have yet to support this claptrap.
-
because of the off chance that there might be another cause for his spike in blood pressure
Are you really that thickheaded? You speak as if you think "stress = high blood pressure" is outlandish as I think "moonlight = bad" is. Are you seriously assuming that his high blood pressure (which isn't even significantly higher than it was when he wasn't exposed to moonlight) can be attributed to "moonlight"? If moonlight was dangerous, I would know about it. There are, however, tangible links between stress and high blood pressure, as opposed to a questionable, small-scale observation by a person who may or may not be sane.
Also, once again, all his other findings in plants and other animals must be dismissed and cannot further be used in this argument. Did you know that chocolate is poisonous to dogs? Well it sure as hell isn't to humans. You absolutely cannot simply assume that, because moonlight *may* have had a *slight* negative effect on *SOME* plants and animals, it's the same for humans. That would just be ignorant.
-
because of the off chance that there might be another cause for his spike in blood pressure
Are you really that thickheaded? You speak as if you think "stress = high blood pressure" is outlandish as I think "moonlight = bad" is.
No, I don't. If you're going to try to seriously debate on a forum you might want to look into reading comprehension.
Are you seriously assuming that his high blood pressure (which isn't even significantly higher than it was when he wasn't exposed to moonlight) can be attributed to "moonlight"?
I'm assuming nothing, my position is purely based on the experimental evidence.
If moonlight was dangerous, I would know about it.
How? Scientists are discovering new dangers in things we take for granted every day (and night!) all the time.
There are, however, tangible links between stress and high blood pressure, as opposed to a questionable, small-scale observation by a person who may or may not be sane.
Once again, I never argued that there's no link between stress and high blood pressure.
Also, once again, all his other findings in plants and other animals must be dismissed and cannot further be used in this argument. Did you know that chocolate is poisonous to dogs? Well it sure as hell isn't to humans. You absolutely cannot simply assume that, because moonlight *may* have had a *slight* negative effect on *SOME* plants and animals, it's the same for humans. That would just be ignorant.
Nobody is assuming anything here, except maybe for you.
-
I don't see how anyone is really questioning this hard scientific fact. The moon is clearly dangerous - however how dangerous is the question and how can we protect ourselves.
-
Also, once again, all his other findings in plants and other animals must be dismissed and cannot further be used in this argument. Did you know that chocolate is poisonous to dogs? Well it sure as hell isn't to humans.
Chocolate is poisonous to humans
-
I find it quite amusing that you expect everyone else to prove in detail why you are wrong, but are satisfied to give a simple 'no' to support your own arguments.
A simple "no" is quite sufficient as a summary of a thread which has had at least two spin off threads discussing the validity of its results, don't you think? Or would you prefer I started going over old ground?
Ideally, you'd cover new, relevant and well argued ground, in contrast with your previous efforts.
-
Also, once again, all his other findings in plants and other animals must be dismissed and cannot further be used in this argument. Did you know that chocolate is poisonous to dogs? Well it sure as hell isn't to humans.
Chocolate is poisonous to humans
So is dihydrogen monoxide ::)
-
There's no reason to dismiss Ichy's findings out of hand because of the off chance that there might be another cause for his spike in blood pressure...
Funny, that's pretty much the same reason you give when you dismiss photographs from space.
-
There's no reason to dismiss Ichy's findings out of hand because of the off chance that there might be another cause for his spike in blood pressure...
Funny, that's pretty much the same reason you give when you dismiss photographs from space.
At least Ichy's experiments are repeatable and verifiable. ::)
-
Also, once again, all his other findings in plants and other animals must be dismissed and cannot further be used in this argument. Did you know that chocolate is poisonous to dogs? Well it sure as hell isn't to humans.
Chocolate is poisonous to humans
So is dihydrogen monoxide ::)
Mock all you want, but when you die of chocolate poisoning I will have the last laugh!
-
Also, once again, all his other findings in plants and other animals must be dismissed and cannot further be used in this argument. Did you know that chocolate is poisonous to dogs? Well it sure as hell isn't to humans.
Chocolate is poisonous to humans
So is dihydrogen monoxide ::)
Mock all you want, but when you die of chocolate poisoning I will have the last laugh!
hey now 100's of people die from dihydrogen monoxide every year
http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html
-
There's no reason to dismiss Ichy's findings out of hand because of the off chance that there might be another cause for his spike in blood pressure...
Funny, that's pretty much the same reason you give when you dismiss photographs from space.
At least Ichy's experiments are repeatable and verifiable. ::)
And so are photographs from space.
-
There's no reason to dismiss Ichy's findings out of hand because of the off chance that there might be another cause for his spike in blood pressure...
Funny, that's pretty much the same reason you give when you dismiss photographs from space.
At least Ichy's experiments are repeatable and verifiable. ::)
And so are photographs from space.
Yes, for an extremely select few! Besides, I don't dispute that the flat surface of the Earth might appear round from extremely high altitudes. I just don't think it proves anything.
-
I don't see how anyone is really questioning this hard scientific fact. The moon is clearly dangerous - however how dangerous is the question and how can we protect ourselves.
Hard scientific fact? Nobody has given me a single piece of solid evidence to support this claim. Could you give me some links, evidence, anything? You can't go around saying crap like that without backing it up in some way. Imagine how you'd react if I went around saying, "I can't believe anyone is even on this website anyway. It's a hard, scientific fact that the Earth is round."
Also, Terror, stop trolling. Chocolate is most certainly not poisonous to humans.
Finally, Roundy, I know you never questioned the link betweeen stress and HBP. My point was, none of Ichi's findings are valid, because there are too many other explanations for his results.
Also, noobody’s assuming anything?...
especially given the known negative effect moonlight is found to have in organisms
You just ASSUMED that, because moonlight is apparently known to have a negative affect on organisms, that it’s harmful to humans.
And I’m pretty confident my reading comprehension is just fine.
-
I don't see how anyone is really questioning this hard scientific fact. The moon is clearly dangerous - however how dangerous is the question and how can we protect ourselves.
especially given the known negative effect moonlight is found to have in organisms
You just ASSUMED that, because moonlight is apparently known to have a negative affect on organisms, that it’s harmful to humans.
Most people would agree that humans are organisms.
-
especially given the known negative effect moonlight is found to have in organisms
You just ASSUMED that, because moonlight is apparently known to have a negative affect on organisms, that it’s harmful to humans.
Jesus Christ, here's a link.
www.rif.org
-
Mos tpeople would agree that humans are organisms.
No shit we're organims. My problem is, the only evidence you gave for negative effects to humans was 'elevated blood pressure'. Everything you pointed out concerned other organisms.
And that was really mature, Roundy. How about you actually read what I read and respond? Or did you finally realize how absurd this thread really is?
-
read Levee's additions concerning human effects. Also, others posted links of effects documented by older FE advocates.
-
read Levee's additions concerning human effects. Also, others posted links of effects documented by older FE advocates.
Links?
-
I believe same thread.
-
The only link was to this:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=34082.0
And once again, the only attempts you made at prooving the harmful effects of moonlights are these:
- May be harmful to other organisms
- Appears to elevate blood pressure in humans
Neither of this are proof or evidence at all, for reasons I've already stated.
Anything else?
-
read Levee's additions concerning human effects. Also, others posted links of effects documented by older FE advocates.
-
So you have nothing. You're the one defending your claim, how about you give me some links?
-
omg...you had the link. Try reading it.
-
The only link was to this:
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=34082.0
And once again, the only attempts you made at prooving the harmful effects of moonlights are these:
- May be harmful to other organisms
- Appears to elevate blood pressure in humans
Neither of this are proof or evidence at all, for reasons I've already stated.
Anything else?
That was all the evidence you gave to support your claims.
But you know what, I'm done arguing here. Say what you want, but I know for a fact that the Earth is round, the moon won't hurt you, and man has been into space. I can't stand trying to argue with idiots like you. Goodbye, FES.
-
Another win for FES!
-
Another win for FES!
sounds like a loss to me
i mean if you end game is to change what is "common knowledge" from the earth is round to it is flat
then wouldnt driving people away be counter productive?
-
Another win for FES!
There's a difference between "winning" and driving someone so crazy, they decide to stop wasting their valuable existence on this Round Earth trying to convince a bunch of lunatics of something that's been well known and proven for hundreds of years.
-
Another win for FES!
There's a difference between "winning" and driving someone so crazy, they decide to stop wasting their valuable existence on this Round Earth trying to convince a bunch of lunatics of something that's been well known and proven for hundreds of years.
Or that person really can't come up with any valid evidence or argument.
Another win for FES!
-
Say what you want, the FES will always lose. There's a reason why so few believe in a flat Earth: because the Earth is Round.
And now I go.
-
Another win for FES!
There's a difference between "winning" and driving someone so crazy, they decide to stop wasting their valuable existence on this Round Earth trying to convince a bunch of lunatics of something that's been well known and proven for hundreds of years.
Or that person really can't come up with any valid evidence or argument.
Another win for FES!
he did and has
you just toss them out
ok hot shot try this
http://www.juliantrubin.com/bigten/eratosthenes.html
you dont even need to go any were and you can get every thing need a the dollar store
(http://www.juliantrubin.com/bigten/images/earth_circumference_formula.png)
i think we can all say the math is good on this
all you need to do is get a meter stick and measure its shadow on June 21 and then find out how far from the Tropic of Cancer you are
i think you can handle that seeing as tons of school kids do it every year :D
http://www.ciese.org/curriculum/noonday/
-
Another win for FES!
-
Another win for FES!
Indeed.
-
Another win for FES!
Now if you could only get a map that works! Or explain the conspiracy! Or tell me why the Russian didn't report us when we faked the landing! Etc. Etc. Etc.
Besides - I have trouble taking your results seriously at all. Do you truely believe that you are the only one to do studies in moonlight and have discovered this?
-
Another win for FES!
No.
Pst. We get moonlight during the day as well. How many people have died as a consequence of their ignorance?
But I like how you're all trolling together. It's kinda cute.
-
So you have nothing. You're the one defending your claim, how about you give me some links?
We're defending a widely accepted claim. Why is it that when we want do deny the status quo, the burden of proof is on us, and when we want to affirm the status quo, the burden of proof is still on us? Do you globularists not particularly enjoy proving?
-
You know, with all this celebration going on, you'd think that the danger of exposure to moonlight had something to do with the shape of the earth. It's really too bad that it doesn't.
-
You know, with all this celebration going on, you'd think that the danger of exposure to moonlight had something to do with the shape of the earth. It's really too bad that it doesn't.
Although this website focuses on Flat Earth Theory, we celebrate all zetetic discovery here. It's certainly relevant to FE studies.
-
It proves that the Moon and the Sun shine by their own light.
-
It proves that the Moon and the Sun shine by their own light.
Not really, even if true, it would just show that the light coming from the moon was harmful, nothing more.
-
So you have nothing. You're the one defending your claim, how about you give me some links?
We're defending a widely accepted claim. Why is it that when we want do deny the status quo, the burden of proof is on us, and when we want to affirm the status quo, the burden of proof is still on us? Do you globularists not particularly enjoy proving?
Since when was the moon shining its own light and being harmful to humans the status quo?
As i recall what i learned(as in RE) is the suns light reflecting off the moon.
Who has said that the moon shines its own light and/or its rays are harmful to humans?
-
There's no reason to dismiss Ichy's findings out of hand because of the off chance that there might be another cause for his spike in blood pressure...
Funny, that's pretty much the same reason you give when you dismiss photographs from space.
At least Ichy's experiments are repeatable and verifiable. ::)
You mean the experiments that show plants have a hardening cell develop in the presence of moonlight, which is the same cell that grows naturally and dies in the presence of sunlight to allow the stem of the plant to bend towards the dominate light source for more efficient photosynthesis as well as growing as a reaction to physical stress (such as constant shaking) to keep the plant's stem rigid enough to survive the environment? I fail to see how the development of the cells pose any problem. Even if you want to use it as a reaction to stress, Humans and other animals suffer no ill effects to wind yet the plant will produce these cells in the presence of strong wind.
All he's done is show that a specific species of plant, when exposed to natural moonlight, causes slightly elevated growth of a specific cell type used in stem rigidity. Leaping to "moonlight is harmful" is a leap of faith and not actual science.
It's the same thing as saying dog bites = Harmful moon rays.
-
There's no reason to dismiss Ichy's findings out of hand because of the off chance that there might be another cause for his spike in blood pressure...
Funny, that's pretty much the same reason you give when you dismiss photographs from space.
At least Ichy's experiments are repeatable and verifiable. ::)
You mean the experiments that show plants have a hardening cell develop in the presence of moonlight, which is the same cell that grows naturally and dies in the presence of sunlight to allow the stem of the plant to bend towards the dominate light source for more efficient photosynthesis as well as growing as a reaction to physical stress (such as constant shaking) to keep the plant's stem rigid enough to survive the environment? I fail to see how the development of the cells pose any problem. Even if you want to use it as a reaction to stress, Humans and other animals suffer no ill effects to wind yet the plant will produce these cells in the presence of strong wind.
All he's done is show that a specific species of plant, when exposed to natural moonlight, causes slightly elevated growth of a specific cell type used in stem rigidity. Leaping to "moonlight is harmful" is a leap of faith and not actual science.
It's the same thing as saying dog bites = Harmful moon rays.
Collenchyma grows specifically in response to stress with excess. They were harmed.
-
Collenchyma grows specifically in response to stress with excess. They were harmed.
And how does this equate to potential human physiological harm again?
-
Collenchyma grows specifically in response to stress with excess. They were harmed.
And how does this equate to potential human physiological harm again?
When did I claim it does ??? The experiment in particular shows the danger to plants. I was responding to Lorddave
-
There's no reason to dismiss Ichy's findings out of hand because of the off chance that there might be another cause for his spike in blood pressure...
Funny, that's pretty much the same reason you give when you dismiss photographs from space.
At least Ichy's experiments are repeatable and verifiable. ::)
You mean the experiments that show plants have a hardening cell develop in the presence of moonlight, which is the same cell that grows naturally and dies in the presence of sunlight to allow the stem of the plant to bend towards the dominate light source for more efficient photosynthesis as well as growing as a reaction to physical stress (such as constant shaking) to keep the plant's stem rigid enough to survive the environment? I fail to see how the development of the cells pose any problem. Even if you want to use it as a reaction to stress, Humans and other animals suffer no ill effects to wind yet the plant will produce these cells in the presence of strong wind.
All he's done is show that a specific species of plant, when exposed to natural moonlight, causes slightly elevated growth of a specific cell type used in stem rigidity. Leaping to "moonlight is harmful" is a leap of faith and not actual science.
It's the same thing as saying dog bites = Harmful moon rays.
Collenchyma grows specifically in response to stress with excess. They were harmed.
No, collenchyma grows naturally AND specifically to physical movement, not harm. It's function is to provide a rigidity to the plant to ensure that it gathers the most sunlight.
I would also like to point out that plants don't get harmed when they're shaken. Why? Well let's look at how a plant works shall we? A series of tubes that move nutrients from the roots, through the stem, and into the leaves. These tubes are extremely flexible and resilient. In no way is a plant harmed when it's shaken. It would be like harming a wet noodle by shaking it.
Now, if the collenchyma became broken, THEN I'd say it was harmed.
Unless you can tell me what kind of harm they actually had. And remember, mechanical stress is not harm. If it was, every wind gust would be harmful to plants.
-
Well let's look at how a plant works shall we? A series of tubes that move nutrients from the roots, through the stem, and into the leaves. These tubes are extremely flexible and resilient. In no way is a plant harmed when it's shaken. It would be like harming a wet noodle by shaking it.
Lord Dave it is very clear you do not know your plant biology. The water and basic elemental nutrients (some found in fertilizers) are absorbed through roots but only water travels via "rounded" xylem cells which are NOT tubes. They are either tracheids or Vessel members with respective included pits and pores. They are also very easily destroyed since companion cells and nuclei are not present as in phloem. The main nutrients actually use phloem to travel down the plants. This phloem has sieve cells that contain sieve plates that continue to get built over. Again, NOT tubes.
No, collenchyma grows naturally AND
That's why i said EXCESS. Collenchyma growth is a fixed number without interference from stress. That is because it is extremely expensive metabolically and thus additional collenchhyma growth is bad for the plant. It is only made in excess from mechanical stress. Mechanical stress DOES harm plants. It is only worth noting when it is a present to the degree where plant function is impeded.
-
Well let's look at how a plant works shall we? A series of tubes that move nutrients from the roots, through the stem, and into the leaves. These tubes are extremely flexible and resilient. In no way is a plant harmed when it's shaken. It would be like harming a wet noodle by shaking it.
Lord Dave it is very clear you do not know your plant biology. The water and basic elemental nutrients (some found in fertilizers) are absorbed through roots but only water travels via "rounded" xylem cells which are NOT tubes. They are either tracheids or Vessel members with respective included pits and pores. They are also very easily destroyed since companion cells and nuclei are not present as in phloem. The main nutrients actually use phloem to travel down the plants. This phloem has sieve cells that contain sieve plates that continue to get built over. Again, NOT tubes.
Ok, so I need to brush up on my plant bio. It has been over 10 years since I studied it.
So answer me this...
Was there any evidence of cellular damage directly and not just via the increased collenchyma?
No, collenchyma grows naturally AND
That's why i said EXCESS. Collenchyma growth is a fixed number without interference from stress. That is because it is extremely expensive metabolically and thus additional collenchhyma growth is bad for the plant. It is only made in excess from mechanical stress. Mechanical stress DOES harm plants. It is only worth noting when it is a present to the degree where plant function is impeded.
And what about the movement of the primary light source? Do plants not tend to bend towards the strongest light source to get the most efficient photosynthesis? I wouldn't call that stress.
-
We're defending a widely accepted claim.
Lol. But no, you're not.
Why is it that when we want do deny the status quo, the burden of proof is on us
Because that's how the world works.
-
It proves that the Moon and the Sun shine by their own light.
Save for the fact that the only thing his experiment did was prove that plants need sunlight, which we already knew.
In fact, it has been shown that moonlight is just 13.6% sunlight
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moonlight
So can I quote you that FES believes moonlight is harmful?
-
It proves that the Moon and the Sun shine by their own light.
Save for the fact that the only thing his experiment did was prove that plants need sunlight, which we already knew.
In fact, it has been shown that moonlight is just 13.6% sunlight
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moonlight
So can I quote you that FES believes moonlight is harmful?
Lamp groups would have been affected then
-
It proves that the Moon and the Sun shine by their own light.
Save for the fact that the only thing his experiment did was prove that plants need sunlight, which we already knew.
In fact, it has been shown that moonlight is just 13.6% sunlight
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moonlight
So can I quote you that FES believes moonlight is harmful?
Lamp groups would have been affected then
Wait, why are you assuming that the results are due to stress? Wouldn't phototropism produce similar if not identical effects?
-
It proves that the Moon and the Sun shine by their own light.
Save for the fact that the only thing his experiment did was prove that plants need sunlight, which we already knew.
In fact, it has been shown that moonlight is just 13.6% sunlight
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moonlight
So can I quote you that FES believes moonlight is harmful?
Lamp groups would have been affected then
Wait, why are you assuming that the results are due to stress? Wouldn't phototropism produce similar if not identical effects?
What does phototropism have ANYTHING to do with excess collenchyma
-
It proves that the Moon and the Sun shine by their own light.
Save for the fact that the only thing his experiment did was prove that plants need sunlight, which we already knew.
In fact, it has been shown that moonlight is just 13.6% sunlight
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moonlight
So can I quote you that FES believes moonlight is harmful?
Lamp groups would have been affected then
Wait, why are you assuming that the results are due to stress? Wouldn't phototropism produce similar if not identical effects?
What does phototropism have ANYTHING to do with excess collenchyma
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the elongation cells of a plant that allows phototrophism to occur called Collenchyma?
I did look at your slides and it looked like the heavy layers were to one side, not evenly distributed.
-
That's because that is a slide of one vascular bundle. The many vascular bundles form a circle within the shoot.
-
That's because that is a slide of one vascular bundle. The many vascular bundles form a circle within the shoot.
What about the first question about phototropism and how it occurs using the same cells?
-
It has to do with elongating the cells-not creating excess of them
-
It has to do with elongating the cells-not creating excess of them
Unless there aren't enough cells to elongate enough. Was there any evidence of elongation? Or was that not checked?
I'm also still waiting to know if there was evidence of damage to the cells.
-
It has to do with elongating the cells-not creating excess of them
Unless there aren't enough cells to elongate enough.
Incorrect. Phototropism doesn't cause new excess collenchyma formation ever.
-
Ichi, did you do any tests on moonlight and seed germination? If not and you'd like some amateur input or if you've already done that and would like more input, I'd like to do something like that. I'm thinking it wouldn't necessarily require a lab setup.
-
Are you kidding? All we have are logical answers!
That response is the strongest evidence I have yet seen that you, in particular, are being deliberately facetious!
-
I actually believe that there's a possibility that cases of so-called "sun poisoning" get more severe when the moon is out during the day.
Being facetious again? Of course it is almost impossible to rule any given possibility with absolute, 100% certainty, but I doubt that you really believe that there is anything close to a significant probability that "sun poisoning" gets more severe when the moon is out during the day.
-
Ichi, perhaps I missed it, but I saw no evidence that you compared plants that received no light at all with plants that received only moonlight. I am confident that if you had, you would have found that plants that received no light at all fared at least as badly as (and probably even worse than) plants that were exposed only to moonlight. Did you do a spectrographic comparison between sunlight and moonlight? If you had done that competently and honestly, I am sure that you would have found the spectrum of moonlight is essentially identical to to that of sunlight, as moonlight is nothing more than reflected sunlight, diminished in intensity by the proportion of that light absorbed by the moon's surface.
-
The secret FE motto:
Never do an experiment that could potentially provide evidence against the presupposed outcome.
-
The secret FE motto:
Never do an experiment that could potentially provide evidence against the presupposed outcome.
Also, I think we need to all learn how variables work
-
Ichi, perhaps I missed it, but I saw no evidence that you compared plants that received no light at all with plants that received only moonlight. I am confident that if you had, you would have found that plants that received no light at all fared at least as badly as (and probably even worse than) plants that were exposed only to moonlight. Did you do a spectrographic comparison between sunlight and moonlight? If you had done that competently and honestly, I am sure that you would have found the spectrum of moonlight is essentially identical to to that of sunlight, as moonlight is nothing more than reflected sunlight, diminished in intensity by the proportion of that light absorbed by the moon's surface.
Actually, no light plants don't create excess collenchyma. Strawman argument.
-
Ichi, perhaps I missed it, but I saw no evidence that you compared plants that received no light at all with plants that received only moonlight. I am confident that if you had, you would have found that plants that received no light at all fared at least as badly as (and probably even worse than) plants that were exposed only to moonlight. Did you do a spectrographic comparison between sunlight and moonlight? If you had done that competently and honestly, I am sure that you would have found the spectrum of moonlight is essentially identical to to that of sunlight, as moonlight is nothing more than reflected sunlight, diminished in intensity by the proportion of that light absorbed by the moon's surface.
Actually, no light plants don't create excess collenchyma. Strawman argument.
No strawman found.
where did you test for no light???
and did you test for light with different intensity?
did you do an assay for something in moonlight that is different from sunlight?
-
Yes I did. The lamps accompished ruling out intensity differences. A no light test group is not needed. No light groups never grow excess collenchyma. That never changes since the absence of a light source is always the same. They were all grown in the same green house, over the same week, with the same temperature throughout. Once again, strawman.
-
Yes I did. The lamps accompished ruling out intensity differences. A no light test group is not needed. No light groups never grow excess collenchyma. That never changes since the absence of a light source is always the same. They were all grown in the same green house, over the same week, with the same temperature throughout. Once again, strawman.
No they didn't, all that proved was that plants are fine under the intensity of light from the sun and lamp.
You didn't test if there was a baseline intensity. Ironman.
-
Yes I did. The lamps accompished ruling out intensity differences. A no light test group is not needed. No light groups never grow excess collenchyma. That never changes since the absence of a light source is always the same. They were all grown in the same green house, over the same week, with the same temperature throughout. Once again, strawman.
No they didn't, all that proved was that plants are fine under the intensity of light from the sun and lamp.
You didn't test if there was a baseline intensity. Ironman.
The nigt-glo lamp has the same intensity as moonlight. Strawman.
-
Yes I did. The lamps accompished ruling out intensity differences. A no light test group is not needed. No light groups never grow excess collenchyma. That never changes since the absence of a light source is always the same. They were all grown in the same green house, over the same week, with the same temperature throughout. Once again, strawman.
No they didn't, all that proved was that plants are fine under the intensity of light from the sun and lamp.
You didn't test if there was a baseline intensity. Ironman.
The nigt-glo lamp has the same intensity as moonlight. Strawman.
proof? Also what was the difference in spectrum of lamp light and moonlight of your particular lamp?
you still haven't tested for no intensity.
-
MMM still didn't see any proof for an Anti-moon.
-
The nigt-glo lamp has the same intensity as moonlight.
Perhaps this is evidence that moonlight has insufficient intensity to support healthy plant growth (a.k.a. photosynthesis). Rather than the moonlight directly stressing the plants, perhaps the plants were being stressed by starvation.
-
Yes I did. The lamps accomplished ruling out intensity differences. A no light test group is not needed. No light groups never grow excess collenchyma. That never changes since the absence of a light source is always the same. They were all grown in the same green house, over the same week, with the same temperature throughout. Once again, strawman.
Okay. So what did you find in the spectrum of moonlight that was not in the spectrum of sunlight (or for that matter, not in the spectrum of night-glo lamps)?
How did you determine that the intensity of the night-glo lamps was no greater than that of moonlight? Did you actually measure the difference with a calibrated photometer, or did you just judge that subjectively by eye without the aid of measuring instruments?
Your claim that a no light test group was not needed is complete nonsense! How else could you credibly rule out that deprivation of light was the major (if not the sole) cause of plants' failure to thrive or survive! I submit that the only reason you failed to include a group exposed to no light at all is fear of damaging the credibility of your hypothesis that deprivation of light had little or nothing to do with your results. Your whole experimental procedure and conclusions based on it reeks of confirmation bias and deliberate avoidance of any tests that might possibly cast legitimate doubt on your initial hypothesis!
In Addition, if you admit that you did not have any no light test groups, how can you so confidently assert that "No light groups never grow excess collenchyma."? Besides that, the growth of excess collenchyma (even if true) is no more evidence of harm than is the growth of calluses on the feet of someone who does a lot of walking and running.
-
The nigt-glo lamp has the same intensity as moonlight.
Perhaps this is evidence that moonlight has insufficient intensity to support healthy plant growth (a.k.a. photosynthesis). Rather than the moonlight directly stressing the plants, perhaps the plants were being stressed by starvation.
Mechanical stress is equal to force/surface area i.e. like pressure. like when you keep moving it.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2039767/
And somehow I think we've missed the fact that thicken collenchyma is not a sign of death or harm,
Its just the plants structural support. Further more, If a plant doesn't get adequate light, It can't go through photosynthesis, no matter what Tom Bishop says. photo synthesis uses the plants water, so with that, it retains more water. evidence to this is that the stomata of plants close (preventing the intake of C02) so that they can retain more water.
more water retention= hypotonic solution=pressure=collenchyma thickening
/thread
-
The nigt-glo lamp has the same intensity as moonlight.
Perhaps this is evidence that moonlight has insufficient intensity to support healthy plant growth (a.k.a. photosynthesis). Rather than the moonlight directly stressing the plants, perhaps the plants were being stressed by starvation.
And somehow I think we've missed the fact that thicken collenchyma is not a sign of death or harm,
/thread
Somehow you missed the fact that excess collenchyma is. /thread.
-
The nigt-glo lamp has the same intensity as moonlight.
Perhaps this is evidence that moonlight has insufficient intensity to support healthy plant growth (a.k.a. photosynthesis). Rather than the moonlight directly stressing the plants, perhaps the plants were being stressed by starvation.
And somehow I think we've missed the fact that thicken collenchyma is not a sign of death or harm,
/thread
Somehow you missed the fact that excess collenchyma is. /thread.
I didn't see that in your source. feel free to prove that excess collenchyma caused the organism to die
-
It has to do with elongating the cells-not creating excess of them
Unless there aren't enough cells to elongate enough.
Incorrect. Phototropism doesn't cause new excess collenchyma formation ever.
Really?
Well not being an expert I'll take your word for it.
That still leaves one last question from me... was there any sign of damage to the cells?
Actually I have another question:
What plant species did you use?
-
MMM still didn't see any proof for an Anti-moon.
It's sitting there in the sky - what more proof do you want?
-
MMM still didn't see any proof for an Anti-moon.
It's sitting there in the sky - what more proof do you want?
A picture of it, or you to tell us where to look for it. Durrr.
-
MMM still didn't see any proof for an Anti-moon.
It's sitting there in the sky - what more proof do you want?
A picture of it, or you to tell us where to look for it. Durrr.
He's already posted a picture. Naturally all the REers assumed it was fake, exposing their inbred hypocrisy.
-
MMM still didn't see any proof for an Anti-moon.
It's sitting there in the sky - what more proof do you want?
A picture of it, or you to tell us where to look for it. Durrr.
He's already posted a picture. Naturally all the REers assumed it was fake, exposing their inbred hypocrisy.
What, the photoshopped picture that shows the moon moving infront of the sun?
-
MMM still didn't see any proof for an Anti-moon.
It's sitting there in the sky - what more proof do you want?
A picture of it, or you to tell us where to look for it. Durrr.
He's already posted a picture. Naturally all the REers assumed it was fake, exposing their inbred hypocrisy.
What, the photoshopped picture that shows the moon moving infront of the sun?
???
-
MMM still didn't see any proof for an Anti-moon.
It's sitting there in the sky - what more proof do you want?
A picture of it, or you to tell us where to look for it. Durrr.
He's already posted a picture. Naturally all the REers assumed it was fake, exposing their inbred hypocrisy.
What, the photoshopped picture that shows the moon moving infront of the sun?
???
If I remember correctly, the source itself says it was shooped
-
If I remember correctly, the source itself says it was shooped
I'm not sure what image you're talking about.
-
If I remember correctly, the source itself says it was shooped
I'm not sure what image you're talking about.
I think that he's talking about levee's "black sun" eclipsing the sun in Antarctica photo.
-
If I remember correctly, the source itself says it was shooped
I'm not sure what image you're talking about.
I think that he's talking about levee's "black sun" eclipsing the sun in Antarctica photo.
The picture I'm talking about is a nighttime shot and the sun is nowhere to be seen.
-
If I remember correctly, the source itself says it was shooped
I'm not sure what image you're talking about.
I think that he's talking about levee's "black sun" eclipsing the sun in Antarctica photo.
The picture I'm talking about is a nighttime shot and the sun is nowhere to be seen.
Do you have a link to it? I don't seem to remember that one.
-
If I remember correctly, the source itself says it was shooped
I'm not sure what image you're talking about.
I think that he's talking about levee's "black sun" eclipsing the sun in Antarctica photo.
The picture I'm talking about is a nighttime shot and the sun is nowhere to be seen.
Do you have a link to it? I don't seem to remember that one.
I might take a look around for it tomorrow after work. It's almost bedtime now and I don't know which thread it's in.
-
If I remember correctly, the source itself says it was shooped
I'm not sure what image you're talking about.
I think that he's talking about levee's "black sun" eclipsing the sun in Antarctica photo.
The picture I'm talking about is a nighttime shot and the sun is nowhere to be seen.
Do you have a link to it? I don't seem to remember that one.
I might take a look around for it tomorrow after work. It's almost bedtime now and I don't know which thread it's in.
Thanks, I look forward to it.
-
The picture I'm talking about is a nighttime shot and the sun is nowhere to be seen.
Resisting the urge to move this to Monster Fail...
More of a Redundancy Win, I suppose.
-
The nigt-glo lamp has the same intensity as moonlight.
Perhaps this is evidence that moonlight has insufficient intensity to support healthy plant growth (a.k.a. photosynthesis). Rather than the moonlight directly stressing the plants, perhaps the plants were being stressed by starvation.
And somehow I think we've missed the fact that thicken collenchyma is not a sign of death or harm,
/thread
Somehow you missed the fact that excess collenchyma is. /thread.
No one here is missing or deliberately ignoring the obvious more than you are!
-
MMM still didn't see any proof for an Anti-moon.
It's sitting there in the sky - what more proof do you want?
A picture of it, or you to tell us where to look for it. Durrr.
He's already posted a picture. Naturally all the REers assumed it was fake, exposing their inbred hypocrisy.
I still utterly fail to understand why you argue so strongly for points of view that, by your own admission, you don't really believe yourself. Is it that you feel so sorry for the plight of the "underdogs" that you feel obliged to comfort and support them even when you know they are wrong? How is it a kindness to encourage the deluded to retain their delusions? Perhaps it isn't kindness on your part, but utter contempt for them!
I will grant the possibility, though, that you think most of them are not really as deluded as they pretend to be, and that you are therefore not causing any harm by joining them in their silly little game.
-
MMM still didn't see any proof for an Anti-moon.
It's sitting there in the sky - what more proof do you want?
Third Party source
MMM still didn't see any proof for an Anti-moon.
It's sitting there in the sky - what more proof do you want?
A picture of it, or you to tell us where to look for it. Durrr.
He's already posted a picture. Naturally all the REers assumed it was fake, exposing their inbred hypocrisy.
I thought its already been established that photos aren't valid evidence because you can shop it.
-
MMM still didn't see any proof for an Anti-moon.
It's sitting there in the sky - what more proof do you want?
Third Party source
MMM still didn't see any proof for an Anti-moon.
It's sitting there in the sky - what more proof do you want?
A picture of it, or you to tell us where to look for it. Durrr.
He's already posted a picture. Naturally all the REers assumed it was fake, exposing their inbred hypocrisy.
I thought its already been established that photos aren't valid evidence because you can shop it.
I'm not saying they are. buka was asking for a picture and I merely pointed out that one has been provided.
-
MMM still didn't see any proof for an Anti-moon.
It's sitting there in the sky - what more proof do you want?
Third Party source
Ah yes, I keep forgetting that globularists sooner trust the say-so of some pseudo-scientist quack than they do your own eyes. If you don't believe the things which you can verify by direct experience, I don't know if there is hope for you.
-
Ah yes, I keep forgetting that globularists sooner trust the say-so of some pseudo-scientist quack than they do your own eyes.
Please Read Earth Not a Globe. A link is provided in the FAQ.
-
MMM still didn't see any proof for an Anti-moon.
It's sitting there in the sky - what more proof do you want?
Third Party source
Ah yes, I keep forgetting that globularists sooner trust the say-so of some pseudo-scientist quack than they do your own eyes. If you don't believe the things which you can verify by direct experience, I don't know if there is hope for you.
So basically you can't produce one because it doesn't exisit,thanks.
Also,due to the light pollution in New york you can't see much in the nightsky anyway.
-
To update this: I searched James' posts and cannot find the picture to which I alluded; I can't say for sure (I suppose it's possible I missed it) but it looks like James removed it, making me wonder if perhaps it was a fake after all.
-
Ah yes, I keep forgetting that globularists sooner trust the say-so of some pseudo-scientist quack Ichimaru Gin and James than they do your own eyes.
Fixed. We can't believe the evidence of our own eyes with the antimoon since our eyes appear to be unable to identify it.
-
Ah yes, I keep forgetting that globularists sooner trust the say-so of some pseudo-scientist quack than they do your own eyes.
Now, now James. That's not a nice thing to say about Dr. Birley.
-
MMM still didn't see any proof for an Anti-moon.
It's sitting there in the sky - what more proof do you want?
Third Party source
Ah yes, I keep forgetting that globularists sooner trust the say-so of some pseudo-scientist quack than they do your own eyes. If you don't believe the things which you can verify by direct experience, I don't know if there is hope for you.
Since the Anti-moon is Transparent to starlight and black, how does one find it?
-
MMM still didn't see any proof for an Anti-moon.
It's sitting there in the sky - what more proof do you want?
Third Party source
Ah yes, I keep forgetting that globularists sooner trust the say-so of some pseudo-scientist quack than they do your own eyes. If you don't believe the things which you can verify by direct experience, I don't know if there is hope for you.
Since the Anti-moon is Transparent to starlight and black, how does one find it?
But wouldnt trusting your eyes mean that air is infact not there and that space is blue during the day?
-
MMM still didn't see any proof for an Anti-moon.
It's sitting there in the sky - what more proof do you want?
Third Party source
MMM still didn't see any proof for an Anti-moon.
It's sitting there in the sky - what more proof do you want?
A picture of it, or you to tell us where to look for it. Durrr.
He's already posted a picture. Naturally all the REers assumed it was fake, exposing their inbred hypocrisy.
I thought its already been established that photos aren't valid evidence because you can shop it.
I'd be happy with even a questionable photo. If one can be supplied Im sure the photographer can tell us when it was taken and so we can verify it.
-
MMM still didn't see any proof for an Anti-moon.
It's sitting there in the sky - what more proof do you want?
Third Party source
Ah yes, I keep forgetting that globularists sooner trust the say-so of some pseudo-scientist quack than they do your own eyes. If you don't believe the things which you can verify by direct experience, I don't know if there is hope for you.
Hypocrite. People like you, for example, "Think it's too expppeeennssive or inconveennieeentt to buy/rent/borrow/steal? a GPS...", or that you won't even bother watching a ship sinking into the horizon with your own eyes. Both of those are things you can do with under $10 in your pocket.
There is no hope for you.
-
I have uncovered further evidence that moonlight is harmful.
In the song "Dance of Death" by Iron Maiden, the narrator states that he was "enjoying the bright moonlight", after which he hallucinates a group of dead people and spends the evening with them.
We can therefore conclude that moonlight causes hallucinations.
-
I have uncovered further evidence that moonlight is harmful.
In the song "Dance of Death" by Iron Maiden, the narrator states that he was "enjoying the bright moonlight", after which he hallucinates a group of dead people and spends the evening with them.
We can therefore conclude that moonlight causes hallucinations.
Brother Disarray this is another excellent and insightful post. I will be conducting my own experiments forthwith regarding the nature of the subject which you have just pertained towards insofar as, but I have no doubt that the results will be positive and FET will at last be vindicated. I look forward to reading more of your research valde nunc.
-
My sisters, we cannot rely on musical lyrics for evidence such as typical globularists do. Please follow my lead with scientific evidence!
-
My sisters, we cannot rely on musical lyrics for evidence such as typical globularists do. Please follow my lead with scientific evidence!
When will you get started then?
-
My sisters, we cannot rely on musical lyrics for evidence such as typical globularists do. Please follow my lead with scientific evidence!
When will you get started then?
I know none of you actually have read my experiment (obvious from the many threads littered throughout the fora) so please at least try to!
-
My sisters, we cannot rely on musical lyrics for evidence such as typical globularists do. Please follow my lead with scientific evidence!
When will you get started then?
I know none of you actually have read my experiment (obvious from the many threads littered throughout the fora) so please at least try to!
Oh you know full well I read it. I've commented on it so many times.
While your methods are questionable to some extent, the big issue isn't that, it's your conclusions. Since you only show an increase in the quantity of a specific cell and you don't show any actual damage, the only conclusion is that moonlight alone promotes the production of this cell. It can not be used to denote any harmful effects of moonlight as there was no damage done.
-
I agree; you're essentially saying "Moonlight does SOMETHING to the plants, which MUST mean it's harmful."
-
Excess collenchyma growth means mechanical stress. How is acknowledging stress to the plant a poor conclusion?
-
Excess collenchyma growth means mechanical stress. How is acknowledging stress to the plant a poor conclusion?
Mechanical stress? So the moonlight was thrashing the plants around?
-
Excess collenchyma growth means mechanical stress. How is acknowledging stress to the plant a poor conclusion?
Mechanical stress? So the moonlight was thrashing the plants around?
The moonlight caused mechanical stress on the plants.
-
Excess collenchyma growth means mechanical stress. How is acknowledging stress to the plant a poor conclusion?
Mechanical stress? So the moonlight was thrashing the plants around?
The moonlight caused mechanical stress on the plants.
...so the moonlight thrashed the plants around...?
-
Excess collenchyma growth means mechanical stress. How is acknowledging stress to the plant a poor conclusion?
Mechanical stress? So the moonlight was thrashing the plants around?
The moonlight caused mechanical stress on the plants.
...so the moonlight thrashed the plants around...?
It caused mechanical stress on the plants. There was no visible "thrashing" observable from the unaided eye.
-
Observable from the 'unaided eye'? Implying we could see plants being thrashed around with special instruments?
-
Implying there can stresses impossible to observe with plain eyesight. I do not like using the term thrash since it can be loosely applied.
-
You're saying that light from the moon caused physical/mechanical damage to a plant? That's impossible. Moonlight is exactly that: light. What kind of physical damage could it possibly do to a plant?
-
Such questions are what make it ever the more frightening.
-
Such questions are what make it ever the more frightening.
You are unbelievably stupid sometimes. How do you attribute physical harm to a plant from an increase in a type of cell?
-
Excess collenchyma growth means mechanical stress. How is acknowledging stress to the plant a poor conclusion?
Normally that's what it means. However when no mechanical stress is observed then the only conclusion you can draw is that moonlight caused excess collenchyma growth.
Since the plant didn't seem damaged and wasn't visibly shaken, then it didn't have any mechanical stress thus the excess growth of Collenchyma was due to another factor.
-
Excess collenchyma growth means mechanical stress. How is acknowledging stress to the plant a poor conclusion?
Normally that's what it means. However when no mechanical stress is observed then the only conclusion you can draw is that moonlight caused excess collenchyma growth.
Since the plant didn't seem damaged and wasn't visibly shaken, then it didn't have any mechanical stress thus the excess growth of Collenchyma was due to another factor.
I'm pretty confident moonlight doesn't mechanically stress plants, because last I checked, light couldn't do that.
-
Excess collenchyma growth means mechanical stress. How is acknowledging stress to the plant a poor conclusion?
Normally that's what it means. However when no mechanical stress is observed then the only conclusion you can draw is that moonlight caused excess collenchyma growth.
Since the plant didn't seem damaged and wasn't visibly shaken, then it didn't have any mechanical stress thus the excess growth of Collenchyma was due to another factor.
I'm pretty confident moonlight doesn't mechanically stress plants, because last I checked, light couldn't do that.
Exactly.
So thus the only conclusion is that something else caused the excess growth of collenchyma.
-
Excess collenchyma growth means mechanical stress. How is acknowledging stress to the plant a poor conclusion?
Normally that's what it means. However when no mechanical stress is observed then the only conclusion you can draw is that moonlight caused excess collenchyma growth.
Since the plant didn't seem damaged and wasn't visibly shaken, then it didn't have any mechanical stress thus the excess growth of Collenchyma was due to another factor.
I'm pretty confident moonlight doesn't mechanically stress plants, because last I checked, light couldn't do that.
Exactly.
So thus the only conclusion is that something else caused the excess growth of collenchyma.
Any idea what exactly the FE'ers claim moonlight is? They probably don't agree with RE'ers in that it's just reflected sunlight, I'm guessing.
-
Excess collenchyma growth means mechanical stress. How is acknowledging stress to the plant a poor conclusion?
Normally that's what it means. However when no mechanical stress is observed then the only conclusion you can draw is that moonlight caused excess collenchyma growth.
Since the plant didn't seem damaged and wasn't visibly shaken, then it didn't have any mechanical stress thus the excess growth of Collenchyma was due to another factor.
I'm pretty confident moonlight doesn't mechanically stress plants, because last I checked, light couldn't do that.
Exactly.
So thus the only conclusion is that something else caused the excess growth of collenchyma.
Extremely unlikely since the plants were in a controlled greenhouse. They weren't even touched by anyone during the experiment.
-
Excess collenchyma growth means mechanical stress. How is acknowledging stress to the plant a poor conclusion?
Normally that's what it means. However when no mechanical stress is observed then the only conclusion you can draw is that moonlight caused excess collenchyma growth.
Since the plant didn't seem damaged and wasn't visibly shaken, then it didn't have any mechanical stress thus the excess growth of Collenchyma was due to another factor.
I'm pretty confident moonlight doesn't mechanically stress plants, because last I checked, light couldn't do that.
Exactly.
So thus the only conclusion is that something else caused the excess growth of collenchyma.
Extremely unlikely since the plants were in a controlled greenhouse. They weren't even touched by anyone during the experiment.
So your claiming, then, that light causes mechanical stress to plants? Review carefully before answering lest you sound like an idiot when you respond.
-
Excess collenchyma growth means mechanical stress. How is acknowledging stress to the plant a poor conclusion?
Normally that's what it means. However when no mechanical stress is observed then the only conclusion you can draw is that moonlight caused excess collenchyma growth.
Since the plant didn't seem damaged and wasn't visibly shaken, then it didn't have any mechanical stress thus the excess growth of Collenchyma was due to another factor.
I'm pretty confident moonlight doesn't mechanically stress plants, because last I checked, light couldn't do that.
Exactly.
So thus the only conclusion is that something else caused the excess growth of collenchyma.
Extremely unlikely since the plants were in a controlled greenhouse. They weren't even touched by anyone during the experiment.
It's also extremely unlikely that moonlight caused the stress because, as I recall, you didn't expose the plants to real moonlight. You used a lamp to simulate moonlight, didn't you? Of course you never analyzed the spectrum or intensity of the lamp or real moonlight in order to determine if they were analogs either, so I'm not really sure what conclusions can be properly drawn about the effects of moonlight.
-
Um, yes I did expose a group to only REAL moonlight. Please reread my experiment.
-
Excess collenchyma growth means mechanical stress. How is acknowledging stress to the plant a poor conclusion?
Normally that's what it means. However when no mechanical stress is observed then the only conclusion you can draw is that moonlight caused excess collenchyma growth.
Since the plant didn't seem damaged and wasn't visibly shaken, then it didn't have any mechanical stress thus the excess growth of Collenchyma was due to another factor.
I'm pretty confident moonlight doesn't mechanically stress plants, because last I checked, light couldn't do that.
Exactly.
So thus the only conclusion is that something else caused the excess growth of collenchyma.
Extremely unlikely since the plants were in a controlled greenhouse. They weren't even touched by anyone during the experiment.
Ummm...
I'm implying that Moonlight causes Collenchyma growth without causing mechanical stress.
And, as you said, they were never touched so how can you have mechanical stress on a plant when
a) it requires a physical impact.
b) the light had to go through glass first, which is solid.
c) there was no signs of physical movement
?
Seriously ichi, you're asking us to believe that moonlight caused plants to be hit violently as though by a raging wind yet have no physical injury and be protected by glass. Also that sunlight causes the movement to be nullified AFTER it's occurred.
-
The moonlight caused mechanical stress on the plants.
Moonlight occurs during the day.
Ergo all plant life dies?
-
The moonlight caused mechanical stress on the plants.
Moonlight occurs during the day.
Ergo all plant life dies?
Ergo, moonlight isn't harmful.
-
Excess collenchyma growth means mechanical stress. How is acknowledging stress to the plant a poor conclusion?
Normally that's what it means. However when no mechanical stress is observed then the only conclusion you can draw is that moonlight caused excess collenchyma growth.
Since the plant didn't seem damaged and wasn't visibly shaken, then it didn't have any mechanical stress thus the excess growth of Collenchyma was due to another factor.
I'm pretty confident moonlight doesn't mechanically stress plants, because last I checked, light couldn't do that.
You mean last time you checked your globularist biology textbook?
-
You mean last time you checked your globularist biology textbook?
Feel free to quote any Biology textbook that dictates the shape of the earth.
-
Um, yes I did expose a group to only REAL moonlight. Please reread my experiment.
Well, it took me a while, but I found it.
The experiment took a total of 7 days and nights. It was taken in a climate controlled green house. Temperature data should verify little change at all in environment. As it was inclosed, the space was also from of variance in stress due to wind. (No fans present in building either). Plants were divided into 5 groups of which each had 12 plants. The first was a control group left untouched other than watering and nutrition. the 2nd was subjected to only sunlight by being covered by a pot every night. The 3rd was subject to only moonlight by being covered by a pot every day. The 4th and 5th were isolated in a corner and covered broadly (from a distance though blocking all window views) by a thick screen and only subject to artificial light of a lamp. The 4th was covered with a pot during the day, the 5th during the night. The sunlight only produced the number of rows of collenchyma as the control but were reduced in thickness. The moonlight only had many more rows and the 4th and 5th had similar results to the sun only group however, the thinning was much less noticeable. The plants were developed to have functional emergent cotyledons as photosynthetic functioning rose to optimum levels prior to experimentation (grown on same timetable).
By covering the moonlight only group, you denied that group sunlight that is required to perform photosynthesis. By the way, what phase was the moon during this "experiment"? You do realize that the phase of the moon can change significantly over the course of 7 days, don't you? How much moonlight was filtered or reflected away by the greenhouse glass? Were there any periods when the moon was blocked from the view of the plants by any obstacles? Was there lunar exposure all night, or just part of each night?
I'm sorry, but unless you properly document your experiment, I can't see how you can conclude anything about the moon only group except that you essentially starved those plants for a week by not allowing them to conduct photosynthesis.
-
The Earth's annual orbit around the Sun and its daily rotation on its own axis are also important in determining patterns of solar radiation and their effects on climate (figure 58.1b).
Biology, 8th edition
Raven, Johnson, Losos, Mason, Singer
-
Excess collenchyma growth means mechanical stress. How is acknowledging stress to the plant a poor conclusion?
Normally that's what it means. However when no mechanical stress is observed then the only conclusion you can draw is that moonlight caused excess collenchyma growth.
Since the plant didn't seem damaged and wasn't visibly shaken, then it didn't have any mechanical stress thus the excess growth of Collenchyma was due to another factor.
I'm pretty confident moonlight doesn't mechanically stress plants, because last I checked, light couldn't do that.
You mean last time you checked your globularist biology textbook?
Do you know of any planar biology textbooks that you can recommend?
-
I'm sorry but what does lack of sunlight have to do with excess collenchyma ???.
-
The Earth's annual orbit around the Sun and its daily rotation on its own axis are also important in determining patterns of solar radiation and their effects on climate (figure 58.1b).
Biology, 8th edition
Raven, Johnson, Losos, Mason, Singer
No I said:
Feel free to quote any Biology textbook that dictates the shape of the earth.
Try again?
-
Excess collenchyma growth means mechanical stress. How is acknowledging stress to the plant a poor conclusion?
Normally that's what it means. However when no mechanical stress is observed then the only conclusion you can draw is that moonlight caused excess collenchyma growth.
Since the plant didn't seem damaged and wasn't visibly shaken, then it didn't have any mechanical stress thus the excess growth of Collenchyma was due to another factor.
I'm pretty confident moonlight doesn't mechanically stress plants, because last I checked, light couldn't do that.
You mean last time you checked your globularist biology textbook?
Oof. That one hurt.
You mean you don't believe anything we learn in school is correct? If you wanna attack 'globularist' science textbooks, then okay. But stop pretending that EVERYTHING IS WRONG just because you hate the world.
-
I'm sorry but what does lack of sunlight have to do with excess collenchyma ???.
Everything
-
I'm sorry but what does lack of sunlight have to do with excess collenchyma ???.
You do realize that plants do most of their actual growth in darkness, don't you? Lack of sunlight means that this growth period is uninterrupted. It also means that the plant is unable to conduct photosynthesis in order to make more food. So, essentially you are causing uninterrupted growth in a starving the plant. Sounds pretty stressful to me.
-
That isn't true. It depends on their carbon fixation method, not whether it is day or not (although for C3 plants it can be an indirect effect). If the plant was growing interrupted AND starving in your scenario, making excess collenchyma would be the last thing it would do since it is so metabolically expensive.
-
That isn't true.
So plants don't photosynthesise anymore? Why didn't I get the memo?
-
making excess collenchyma would be the last thing it would do since it is so metabolically expensive.
It's also probably the only thing it can do to stop itself breaking in half and dying.
-
That isn't true.
So plants don't photosynthesise anymore? Why didn't I get the memo?
It isn't true that all of them grow during the night only.
-
making excess collenchyma would be the last thing it would do since it is so metabolically expensive.
It's also probably the only thing it can do to stop itself breaking in half and dying.
Food is more important to the plant and since it is starving, does not have food, then the excess collenchyma could not be grown.
-
That isn't true. It depends on their carbon fixation method, not whether it is day or not (although for C3 plants it can be an indirect effect). If the plant was growing interrupted AND starving in your scenario, making excess collenchyma would be the last thing it would do since it is so metabolically expensive.
To be honest, I'm not that much up on plant metabolism. My concern is more with the conditions under which the experiment was conducted and the lack of proper documentation.
-
That isn't true.
So plants don't photosynthesise anymore? Why didn't I get the memo?
It isn't true that all of them grow during the night only.
That's not what I asked. Thanks for the random trivia though!
-
making excess collenchyma would be the last thing it would do since it is so metabolically expensive.
It's also probably the only thing it can do to stop itself breaking in half and dying.
Food is more important to the plant and since it is starving, does not have food, then the excess collenchyma could not be grown.
I'd rather starve a bit more, strengthen my body, and last another few days than wither and die.
You never know, those extra few days might bring the food I need.
I am a plant.
-
making excess collenchyma would be the last thing it would do since it is so metabolically expensive.
It's also probably the only thing it can do to stop itself breaking in half and dying.
Food is more important to the plant and since it is starving, does not have food, then the excess collenchyma could not be grown.
Wait, then how did it grow the collenchyma if it had no sunlight and was starving? Even WITH mechanical stress, you're saying it shouldn't have grown anyway.