Sirius stuff!

*FACT* Sunlight Warms and Moonlight Cools.

Are you daring to suggest that moonlight is not cooler the being in the "shade" at night. 
Being exposed to direct full moonlight is definitely cooler than being in the "shade" at night.
I have "measured" the temperature of the clear night sky to be around -30°C, while any "shading" objects measured around 5°C.
Many IR thermometers will not read a negative temperature, but mine will read from -50°C to 330°C (-58°F to 625°F).

During the day, being in the shade shields you from the heat of the sun, so is cooler, but
during the night, being in the "shade" shields you from the cold of the night sky (and a clear night sky is very cold), so is warmer.

There is no easy way to expose the thermometer or object to just the moonlight without using a warmer shading object.
But a few have used amateur astronomical telescopes and have some interesting results:The moon increased the reading on his IR thermometer from 19.5°F to 62.5°F. Even then his IR thermometer would be "seeing" the telescope barrel as well.

So measuring the moon's temperature is a matter of stopping radiation from other sources (the sky or surrounding objects) from reaching the IR thermometer.

It's not rocket science, but still miles over the head of most flat earthers.

Here is a relevant writeup: SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, SPACE, Heat from the Moon - a few errors because it is largely a scan of an old document.

If the Earth is stationary, and precession has a very different explanation, then yes both the Stellarium software and the SIMBAD database are simple video games, nothing more.

If the Earth is stationary and Stellarium is wrong then you or someone with your help(you provide equations and data and so on) should be able to make similar program as Stellarium but for flat earth. Its just equations and little programming. I wonder why there isn't yet any such flat earth stellariums out there. All your side seems to be able to achieve is animation of yellow dot circling above flat earth map.

Quote from: RocketSauce on August 21, 2017, 09:18:26 AM

*FACT* Sunlight Warms and Moonlight Cools.

Are you daring to suggest that moonlight is not cooler the being in the "shade" at night. 
Being exposed to direct full moonlight is definitely cooler than being in the "shade" at night.

Of course, being exposed to a clear night sky is very slightly cooler still!

I have "measured" the temperature of the clear night sky to be around -30°C, while any "shading" objects measured around 5°C.
Many IR thermometers will not read a negative temperature, but mine will read from -50°C to 330°C (-58°F to 625°F).

During the day, being in the shade shields you from the heat of the sun, so is cooler, but
during the night, being in the "shade" shields you from the cold of the night sky (and a clear night sky is very cold), so is warmer.

There is no easy way to expose the thermometer or object to just the moonlight without using a warmer shading object.
But a few have used amateur astronomical telescopes and have some interesting results:

[youtube][/youtube]
Moon temperature experiment thru a mirrored telescope. Joel Harris

The moon increased the reading on his IR thermometer from 19.5°F to 62.5°F. Even then his IR thermometer would be "seeing" the telescope barrel as well.

So measuring the moon's temperature is a matter of stopping radiation from other sources (the sky or surrounding objects) from reaching the IR thermometer.

It's not rocket science, but still miles over the head of most flat earthers.

Here is a relevant writeup: SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, SPACE, Heat from the Moon - a few errors because it is largely a scan of an old document.

I'm trying to follow... If you have two 5 gallon buckets of water at (lets say) 12am in your back yard both exposed to the light of a full moon... They should be the same temperature after an hour.

If you cover one bucket with (let say) an umbrella so that it is in the shade from the moonlight... are you telling me that it will gradually warm up and the bucket exposed to the moonlight will gradually cool off?

If you cover one bucket with (let say) an umbrella so that it is in the shade from the moonlight... are you telling me that it will gradually warm up and the bucket exposed to the moonlight will gradually cool off?

Not quite. Covered bucket does not cool so fast as the buckets which are not covered.

have you tested this?

so what is zapping the energy? The Moonlight?

have you tested this?

No need. Others have.

so what is zapping the energy? The Moonlight?

Space. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_cooling

no need? Others have?

Are you serious?

Other people have been to space!

no need? Others have?

Are you serious?

Other people have been to space!

These were answers for two different thing and you put these just together. "No need. Others have." means that I don't have the need to test this bucket thing because others have done it.
And "Space" was answer to your "what is zapping the energy".

Quote from: RocketSauce on August 22, 2017, 07:30:01 AM

If you cover one bucket with (let say) an umbrella so that it is in the shade from the moonlight... are you telling me that it will gradually warm up and the bucket exposed to the moonlight will gradually cool off?

Not quite. Covered bucket does not cool so fast as the buckets which are not covered.

This has nothing to do with the moon. Anyone in the food industry knows if you put a  covered bucket of something hot in the walk in refrigerator the next day it can still be warm and bad. You have to leave it uncovered so the heat can escape easier.
This also applies to left over food at your house. Don't put it in the fridge covered when it's still hot.

I'm trying to follow... If you have two 5 gallon buckets of water at (lets say) 12am in your back yard both exposed to the light of a full moon... They should be the same temperature after an hour.

If you cover one bucket with (let say) an umbrella so that it is in the shade from the moonlight... are you telling me that it will gradually warm up and the bucket exposed to the moonlight will gradually cool off?

Both are hotter than their environment, both in regards to convection, evaporative cooling and radiation.
As such, they will both try to cool down, and one method is radiative cooling where it radiates energy off into space.
All objects do this, and it is why some objects glow red hot, and why the sun warms us.
In equilibrium, it radiates the same amount of energy as it takes in, meaning it wont get hotter or cooler.

If you place an umbrella above it one of 2 things can happen, the umbrella can start reflecting that radiation, some of which is reflected back to the bucket. This results in the bucket effectively not radiating as much energy as some of it just comes straight back.
The other is for the umbrella to absorb it, warm up (it is already warm so it doesn't actually need to warm up) and in turn radiate heat some of which will radiate back down to the bucket.

This is also why it is cooler at night, because Earth radiates away so much energy it cools down.

I think we are discussing different things...

Flat Earth Logic says that the Sunlight Warms things and the Moonlight Cools things...

So, conventional wisdom is that if you put two 5 gallon buckets of water side by side and block the sunlight from hitting one bucket, it will be cooler than the bucket of water in direct sunlight.

What Flat Earth Logic claims, is that if you repeat this at night, the bucket that is in Direct Moonlight will be cooler than the bucket of water right next to it...

.... How are we talking about sealed containers of food in the fridge? How are we talking about radiation escaping into the atmosphere?

Flat Earth Logic says that Moonlight has different properties than Sunlight, most importantly... that it actively cools objects in contact with it...

Silly Inflatearth wants to send me youtube videos as proof of this... But I have youtube videos as well... lets test it in the back yard....

How are we talking about food in a refrigerator? Jesus Christ on a Cross gentlemen... I miss Jane... where is she...

So test a bucket with a full moon, then try to find a night with the same weather conditions and no moon and test it again.  If there is no difference, the moon has nothing to do with it.  The hard part is finding two nights a month apart that share fairly identical weather conditions. 

I think we are discussing different things...

Flat Earth Logic says that the Sunlight Warms things and the Moonlight Cools things...

So, conventional wisdom is that if you put two 5 gallon buckets of water side by side and block the sunlight from hitting one bucket, it will be cooler than the bucket of water in direct sunlight.

What Flat Earth Logic claims, is that if you repeat this at night, the bucket that is in Direct Moonlight will be cooler than the bucket of water right next to it...

.... How are we talking about sealed containers of food in the fridge? How are we talking about radiation escaping into the atmosphere?

Flat Earth Logic says that Moonlight has different properties than Sunlight, most importantly... that it actively cools objects in contact with it...

Silly Inflatearth wants to send me youtube videos as proof of this... But I have youtube videos as well... lets test it in the back yard....

How are we talking about food in a refrigerator? Jesus Christ on a Cross gentlemen... I miss Jane... where is she...

Sealed containers in a fridge is a bit of a seg-way, but the idea is the same.
The night is cold, typically much colder than the water, meaning it would tend to lose energy, i.e. cool down, just like a container in a fridge.

If you put things in the way, such as an umbrella or a lid, you stop various forms of cooling. I just focused on radiative cooling, but there is also the evaporation of the water which the umbrella will hinder to some extent, and a lid certainly would, and convective cooling which again, the umbrella would disrupt and a lid would stop.

So the point is merely putting a bucket of water out an night will result in it cooling down, regardless of if the moon is there or not.
Putting things in the way, even if done to "stop the moon light" will result in that cooling effect being diminished.
Thus if you compare a bucket in the shade to one in direct moonlight with no obstructions, the one in moonlight will get colder. But the same happens if you remove the moonlight (from it being a moonless night) and instead just have a shaded bucket and an exposed bucket.


This is not the same with the day, as now the equilibrium temperature is much hotter and the water is typically cooler.

If you like, you can try the same in the day by getting a piece of red-hot iron and placing one in the shade and one in the sun, and seeing which is cooler. That would have a similar effect, but the radiation from the sun still might win.

So test a bucket with a full moon, then try to find a night with the same weather conditions and no moon and test it again.  If there is no difference, the moon has nothing to do with it.  The hard part is finding two nights a month apart that share fairly identical weather conditions.

What is your highest level of education?  Seriously...

Why would you need to find two separate nights a month apart with EXACTLY the same weather conditions? Wouldn't it make more sense to test the two buckets with a foot or two of distance between them?

Jesus Christ the logic on this site is lacking

Why would you need to find two separate nights a month apart with EXACTLY the same weather conditions? Wouldn't it make more sense to test the two buckets with a foot or two of distance between them?
Jesus Christ the logic on this site is lacking

He actually meant half a month. One with a full moon, and one with no moon (i.e. at the time of the new moon).

This allows you to repeat your simple experiment where you can then attempt to separate the effects of exposing the bucket to the cold night and the exposure to the moon's light.

Your simple experiment applies 2 both these effects to the test bucket. This means you are unable to tell if the cooling is a result of the moon's light or simply exposure to the cold night.

By repeating it half a month later you have one trial where you have your control covered bucket vs the one exposed to the cold night, which allows you to see the effect of exposure to the cold night.
You also get a trial where you have your control bucket vs the one exposed to the cold night and the moon.
By combining the results you can see if there is a significant effect of exposure to the moon.

But it does require getting the 2 nights quite similar. It wont work if one night is very humid at 10 C, while the other night is bone dry at 5 C. The other important part is to make sure the buckets all start the same. Again, it is pointless if one set starts at 30 C while the other starts at 20 C.


My idea overcomes that. Rather than using an umbrella to shade the bucket, you have a tall side wall to shade it from all bar light coming from straight along its axis (if you like you can have an umbrella as another comparison).
You then have 2, both at the same angle of elevation, with one pointing 2 the moon and one pointing away.

This works best away from civilisation so there can't be interference from that, on a cloudless night.

This way your control is now exposed to the cold night while the other is exposed to the cold night and the moon.

Christ on a Cross...

This way your control is now exposed to the cold night while the other is exposed to the cold night and the moon.

If you are testing for the effect of moonlight, wouldn't you want to insulate the samples from everything but moonlight or no moonlight?

 

Quote from: JackBlack on August 23, 2017, 01:57:49 PM

This way your control is now exposed to the cold night while the other is exposed to the cold night and the moon.

If you are testing for the effect of moonlight, wouldn't you want to insulate the samples from everything but moonlight or no moonlight?

No, you want the samples to be as similar as possible such that the only difference is one has moonlight the other doesn't.

That means if you insulate one, you need to insulate the other.
That means if you block radiation from leaving one, you need to do it to the other as well, but if you do that, how do you let the moonlight in?

the dumbness astounds me.

You do the test on the same night so the weather of a clear full moon night is constant between both 5 gallon buckets of water...

One bucket (the control) is filled with water and left alone and exposed to the light of the moon (which according to FE logic will sap away energy by the power of moon light)... 

The other bucket... two feet away (lets say) is put in the shade from the moonlight via umbrella or some other complicated device.... It is important that the umbrella or other complicated device is not touching the bucket but merely blocking the moonlight.

Both buckets have the same access to open ambient air, but one is protected from the energy sapping moonlight that FE lore dictates.

You jerks got me to explain it again... how dare you... No wonder everyone here thinks the earth is flat....

Anyways... IF the bucket that is exposed to the moonlight (after an hour) is cooler than the bucket that is protected by the same moonlight, then the moonlight (the variable, which is what we are measuring) has an energy stealing property....

Or, as InFlatEarth says.... Moonlight Cools, Sunlight Warms...

But instead of trying this backyard science experiment to prove your point, you silly geese would rather debate radiation evaporation into the atmosphere or putting water in a PVC Pipe pointed towards the moon... or site youtube videos from other dumb dumbs that confuse the science in order to make a stupid point.

I would also recommend preforming this experiment during the day to see if the sun does in deed add energy.... who knows, maybe the sunlight cools and the moonlight warms... This is certainly a way to check it out...

My hypothesis is that the moonlight's warmth is too negligible to detect with standard thermometers. But if I do this experiment, i'd be called a liar unless the moon's light saps energy... so I'm not in a rush at the moment. The level of confirmation bias here is... well the reason this site exists! Congrats... 

This experiment should be done on a clear moonless night.  One bucket in the open and one bucket shaded from the sky.  You'll find the bucket in the open will cool more than the shaded bucket.

The second experiment is to place both buckets out in the open on a clear moonlit night.  But, place a barrier that doesn't allow moonlight to one of the buckets but doesn't block it from the open sky.  In this case you'll find both buckets will cool the same amount.

Anybody with an above ground swimming pool knows that on clear cool nights the pool temperature drops more than on cloudy cool night.  It's due to radiational cooling to the open sky that cool exposed things faster than things outside but under cover.  Dew on a car parked in the street but not on the one in the carport. 

Both of these experiments will prove that moonlight has nothing to do with the cooling.  Easily testable and repeatable.  A FEer should do this test and report the results so that nobody can claim a REer lied.

Mike

I just had one of the funniest most offensively non-PC posts ever created... but I'm not here for that.

Consider every ones feelings considered.

You're welcome

the dumbness astounds me.

Do you mean your "dumbness"?

You do the test on the same night so the weather of a clear full moon night is constant between both 5 gallon buckets of water...
One bucket (the control) is filled with water and left alone and exposed to the light of the moon (which according to FE logic will sap away energy by the power of moon light)... 
The other bucket... two feet away (lets say) is put in the shade from the moonlight via umbrella or some other complicated device.... It is important that the umbrella or other complicated device is not touching the bucket but merely blocking the moonlight.
Both buckets have the same access to open ambient air, but one is protected from the energy sapping moonlight that FE lore dictates.
You jerks got me to explain it again... how dare you... No wonder everyone here thinks the earth is flat....
Anyways... IF the bucket that is exposed to the moonlight (after an hour) is cooler than the bucket that is protected by the same moonlight, then the moonlight (the variable, which is what we are measuring) has an energy stealing property....
Or, as InFlatEarth says.... Moonlight Cools, Sunlight Warms...
But instead of trying this backyard science experiment to prove your point, you silly geese would rather debate radiation evaporation into the atmosphere or putting water in a PVC Pipe pointed towards the moon... or site youtube videos from other dumb dumbs that confuse the science in order to make a stupid point.
I would also recommend preforming this experiment during the day to see if the sun does in deed add energy.... who knows, maybe the sunlight cools and the moonlight warms... This is certainly a way to check it out...
My hypothesis is that the moonlight's warmth is too negligible to detect with standard thermometers. But if I do this experiment, i'd be called a liar unless the moon's light saps energy... so I'm not in a rush at the moment. The level of confirmation bias here is... well the reason this site exists! Congrats...

You want it so the only difference between the 2 is that one has the moon the other does not.
Making it so one has the moon and the other has an umbrella does not match that.

You have one with reduced access to ambient air. The umbrella is capable of disrupting the movement of that air.

You also have one protected from the energy sapping empty space.

We aren't the ones that think Earth is flat. We are just opposing your stupid idea which is inherently flawed and the kind of crap which leads to retarded conclusions like the moonlight cools.

If you don't believe us then you go perform the experiment. Basically just like you described, but instead of having it on a full moon so one bucket is exposed to the moon, have it on a moonless night. Go and tell us which bucket is colder. The one exposed, or the one which you seem to think will be shaded from nothing.

Quote from: Bullwinkle on August 29, 2017, 12:25:52 PM

If you are testing for the effect of moonlight, wouldn't you want to insulate the samples from everything but moonlight or no moonlight?

No, you want the samples to be as similar as possible such that the only difference is one has moonlight the other doesn't.

That's what I said.

That's what I said.

My bad, I may have misunderstood you.

The issue is how you would do that, insulate it from everything except moonlight.

Quote from: RocketSauce on August 30, 2017, 08:16:47 AM

the dumbness astounds me.

Do you mean your "dumbness"?

Quote from: RocketSauce on August 30, 2017, 08:16:47 AM

You do the test on the same night so the weather of a clear full moon night is constant between both 5 gallon buckets of water...
One bucket (the control) is filled with water and left alone and exposed to the light of the moon (which according to FE logic will sap away energy by the power of moon light)... 
The other bucket... two feet away (lets say) is put in the shade from the moonlight via umbrella or some other complicated device.... It is important that the umbrella or other complicated device is not touching the bucket but merely blocking the moonlight.
Both buckets have the same access to open ambient air, but one is protected from the energy sapping moonlight that FE lore dictates.
You jerks got me to explain it again... how dare you... No wonder everyone here thinks the earth is flat....
Anyways... IF the bucket that is exposed to the moonlight (after an hour) is cooler than the bucket that is protected by the same moonlight, then the moonlight (the variable, which is what we are measuring) has an energy stealing property....
Or, as InFlatEarth says.... Moonlight Cools, Sunlight Warms...
But instead of trying this backyard science experiment to prove your point, you silly geese would rather debate radiation evaporation into the atmosphere or putting water in a PVC Pipe pointed towards the moon... or site youtube videos from other dumb dumbs that confuse the science in order to make a stupid point.
I would also recommend preforming this experiment during the day to see if the sun does in deed add energy.... who knows, maybe the sunlight cools and the moonlight warms... This is certainly a way to check it out...
My hypothesis is that the moonlight's warmth is too negligible to detect with standard thermometers. But if I do this experiment, i'd be called a liar unless the moon's light saps energy... so I'm not in a rush at the moment. The level of confirmation bias here is... well the reason this site exists! Congrats...

You want it so the only difference between the 2 is that one has the moon the other does not.
Making it so one has the moon and the other has an umbrella does not match that.

You have one with reduced access to ambient air. The umbrella is capable of disrupting the movement of that air.

You also have one protected from the energy sapping empty space.

We aren't the ones that think Earth is flat. We are just opposing your stupid idea which is inherently flawed and the kind of crap which leads to retarded conclusions like the moonlight cools.

If you don't believe us then you go perform the experiment. Basically just like you described, but instead of having it on a full moon so one bucket is exposed to the moon, have it on a moonless night. Go and tell us which bucket is colder. The one exposed, or the one which you seem to think will be shaded from nothing.

nope... I mean you specifically... please wave your hand back and forth as quickly as you can, like you are fanning yourself off after eating a Carolina Reaper (side to side or up and down... doesn't matter) and then move your face forward until the quick succession of slappings you provide yourself for as long as it takes saves you from the obvious over dose of dumb brownies you must must have consumed... 


Umbrella is effecting the ambient Air flow... Jesus H.

For the others, please understand that while it does take some level of intelligence to respond with something on that level of dumb... please do not expect a thought provoking response if your trump card, hammer down, end game critique has gone full retard ... the smart response would be something more along the lines of...  how far away does the umbrella have to be from the bucket in order to effectively block the moonlight (I don't know, lets find out), or how would you ensure that the device you are using does not effect the bucket in any way other than blocking the moonlight... possible ambient air effects might throw off your results if it is too close, much like putting a blanket over it... (Very interesting, we will have to test it to find out)

No... that would have been smart. Instead it was, AMBIENT AIR WILL BE EFFECTED BY THE UMBRELLA I'M SMARTER THAN YOU, YOU ILLUMINATI SHILL... O'DOYLE RULES!!!

Please, at least be proud that you are smart enough to know the English language and that you have a seemingly solid grasp on the correct order to put words in that allows other people to understand what you wish to communicate... but that appears to be the extent of your capabilities.

If you would like a recommendation (I'd prefer to call it a homework assignment) Slap yourself for a good solid 5 minutes... And really go for it... be brave...  Then, Read all of Jane's posts... practice in a mirror responding the way she does.  Continue with the slap fest. Rest... have a snack, converse with your family... Slap yourself some more, Ask if they would be willing to help you with your homework assignment... let them slap you some... Shower, go to sleep, Think about Jane some more...

Then, tell us how you feel the next day... I doubt you'll be any smarter... but maybe you'll be a little less impulsive...

nope... I mean you specifically

Right, so you don't want to admit you were wrong, or just can't understand why you were wrong so you feel you need to just dismiss reality as dumbness.

Umbrella is effecting the ambient Air flow... Jesus H.

Jesus H? Not Jesus C?

Yes, it does. Do you know how convective air currents work?

how would you ensure that the device you are using does not effect the bucket in any way other than blocking the moonlight

I already pointed out that it would effect it and there is no way to stop it unless you set up 2 systems which are effectively identical were the only difference is one is pointing towards the moon the other is not.

No... that would have been smart. Instead it was, AMBIENT AIR WILL BE EFFECTED BY THE UMBRELLA I'M SMARTER THAN YOU, YOU ILLUMINATI SHILL... O'DOYLE RULES!!!

And instead of providing any kind of rational response your response is basically:
"UR RETARD DUH!!! ME RIGHT!!!"

If you would like a recommendation (I'd prefer to call it a homework assignment) Slap yourself for a good solid 5 minutes... And really go for it... be brave...  Then, Read all of Jane's posts... practice in a mirror responding the way she does.  Continue with the slap fest. Rest... have a snack, converse with your family... Slap yourself some more, Ask if they would be willing to help you with your homework assignment... let them slap you some... Shower, go to sleep, Think about Jane some more...

So you want me to blatantly lie, spout pure bullshit and insult those that don't agree with me?



Now that all those insults are out of the way, are you capable of providing a rational argument, actually refuting what has been said? Perhaps you can act like an adult and admit you were wrong?
Perhaps you can do the experiment suggested and see if you are wrong?

i want you to test... not speculate...


Have you completed your homework assignment?

i want you to test... not speculate...


Have you completed your homework assignment?

It isn't speculation. It is simple physics.
It isn't my fault you refuse to accept them.

As for your homework, how about you go fuck yourself instead?

Also, as you pointed out, me doing the experiment would be pointless. You wouldn't accept the result.

If I do this experiment, i'd be called a liar unless physics has magically changed, so I'm not in a rush at the moment.