The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Believers => Topic started by: James on August 27, 2009, 10:57:27 PM

Title: To the Flat Earth Believers - The Sun & Moon
Post by: James on August 27, 2009, 10:57:27 PM
Dear friends and colleagues,

I have recently been investigating the notion that the Sun's surface is a bioluminescent material, and the Moon's too. Since the time of the Ancient Egyptians and Greeks, people have known that the Sun was alive, it is attested in a variety of ancient sources from both these cultures. The Egyptian Atenist movement explicity held this belief to be one of their central doctrines, and the pre-Atenist tradition renders the Sun as a living being, or at least, associated and governed by a living being. In the Odyssey, the hero's crew enrage Hyperion, the manifest intelligence of the Solar body, by eating His cows (a fascinating tradition in antiquity exists between cows and the Sun, returning to Egypt, the shrewd anthropologist, archaeologist or other investigator discovers that the threads of solar-bovine intertwining run deep through the traditions of the archetypal beings Menthu and Apis, but this is another concern for another time). Aristotle considered that there is a grain of truth in all opinions, and perhaps I am about to partially fulfill this observation, though as you are about to find out, I certainly do not think the Sun is a cow.

Above: Apis, the Egyptian Sun-Bull

Science tells us that the celestial bodies are for the most part made of metal, probably iron. What I have been contemplating for a long while, is that the celestial bodies may be more like the Earth than we think. It is clear that they have metallic cores at least, just like the Earth, but it is not unreasonable to suspect that over these cores are areas of biomass. This is certainly what we find when we examine the Earth, and while it is not right to make inductions about the celestial bodies based on observation of the Earth, it renders the notion within the scope of proper investigation.

What Science Tells Us About the Lights of the Celestial Bodies

I probably need scarcely remind my colleagues of the manifold proofs that the Moon shines by her own light. I provide a sample of them here only in order that they may be readily referenced and fresh in the minds of inquirers. To this end, I replicate here a posting which I made a number of months ago, which I feel covers a range of these arguments and in which I have cited a number of reputable sources.

Experiments involving concentrated Moonlight have been performed and revealed that it cannot warm an object. It simply is not attended by heat.

Quote from: (Lardner: 1854-6, 115)
Now this question has been submitted to the test of direct experiment, and the result has been directly opposite to such a notion.  The bulb of a thermometer sufficiently sensitive to render apparent a change of temperature amounting to the thousandth part of a degree, was place in the focus of a concave reflector of vast dimension, which being directed to the moon, the lunar rays were collected with great power upon it.  Not the slightest change, however, was produced in the thermometric column, proving that a concentration of rays sufficient to fuse gold, if thy proceeded from the sun, does not produce a change of temperature so great as the thousandth part of a degree when they proceed from the moon.

Another characteristic of Moonlight which distinguishes it from Sunlight is its putrefying effect on plants.

Oh, now this is a new one to me, please do tell us about this. I'm sure you have a link somewhere...

Its night time and my plants in the garden and greenhouse are OK out there.

That's because it's now June. During the spring, if you've been an irresponsible gardener, some of your plants may have sustained uncharacteristic damage at night.

Quote from: (Lardner: 1854-6, 115)
Gardeners give the name of Red Moon to that moon which is full between the middle of April and the close of May.  According to them the light of the moon at that season exercises an injurious influence upon the young shoots of plants. They say that when the sky is clear the leaves and buds exposed to the lunar light redden and are killed as if by frost, at a time when the thermometer exposed to the atmosphere stands at many degrees above the freezing point. They say, also, that if a clouded sky intercept the moon's light it prevents these injurious consequences to the plants, although the circumstances of temperature are the same in both cases.

I have personally experienced Red Moon Syndrome on a number of my own plants in the past, though this year and the last few years they have been spared thanks to my careful precautions. Furthermore, the topic can again be put to direct experiment. Take two identical plants in the same soil, and give them the same amount of water, but expose one to moonlight and one to sunlight. This can be effected by placing a pot over the sunlight control at night to protect it from moonlight, and the same pot over the other during the day such that it is exposed to moonlight during the night. I assure you beyond a shadow of a doubt that the plant exposed to moonlight will die promptly and grotesquely.

Direct Sunlight also has a diminishing effect on fire, Moonlight has no such effect.

Don't you think its the brightness of the sun just drowning out the fires light? OK, thats too obvious and I'm sure you have an answer to that one.

No, and if you were at all proficient in cooking and the culinary arts you would be well aware of this. When cooking with a gas stove or any open flame, it is customary to keep curtains closed during the day in order that the flame not be extinguished or diminished by the sunlight.

Quote from: (Rowbotham: 1881, 142)
It is a well known fact, that if the sun is allowed to shine strongly upon a common coal, coke, wood, or charcoal fire, the combustion is greatly diminished; and often the fire is extinguished. It is not an uncommon thing for cooks, housewives, and others to draw down the blinds in summer time to prevent their fires being put out by the continued stream of sun-light pouring through the windows.

Oh, and "positive amount of heat". As opposed to a "negative amount of heat"? :)


Quote from: (Lardner: 1854-6, 115)
According to the notions of these agriculturists the rays of lunar light are endowed with a certain frigorific property, in the same manner as those of solar light are endowed with a calorific virtue; and that as the latter raise the temperature of objects upon which they are directed, the former, on the contrary, lower their temperature.


Lardner, D. (1854-6) 'The Museum of Science and Art', London: Walton and Maberly

Rowbotham, "Parallax", S. B. (1881) 'Earth Not a Globe...', Third Edition, London: Simpkin, Marshall & Co.

A Summary of the Salient Facts So Far Established

* The light produced by the Moon is of a different character to that of the Sun:
* Sunlight is attended always by a great heat, Moonlight by none (this proven in Dickens, again by Lardner)
* Moonlight is highly injurous to plants, animals and humans (this attested by Lardner, subjected to empirical experiment by myself)
* Sunlight is essential to plants, &c., &c.
* Sunlight tends to extinguish fires, despite its great heat, Moonlight to exasperate them (this attested by Parallax and easily confirmed by observation).
* From the above we infer that the Moon is an independant light source.

To me it is the different properties of the lights which seems most important as I apprehend it with regard to the question of whether the bodies are alive and are shining by bioluminescent means. Scarcely do we find such a variety of qualitatively different light sources than in the animal kingdom, such as are found in the bodies and appendages of deep-sea fishes, eels, &c.

As to the notion that the Sun (and perhaps the Moon) are lit by way of nuclear processes, this I discount by virtue of the size of them being incompatible with their apparent longevity, since such processes would devour the substance of those bodies at a considerable rate. Were the light constantly renewed by biological propagation, the apparent longevity of those bodies' lights would be obviously explained.

The effects of Moonlight on living things, the putrefication of plants under the Red Moon, its disturbing of fishes and wildlife, and its propensity to cause blindness and insanity in humans too long exposed to it, while well-documented, have remained so far completely unexplained in their underlying causality. Consider this: within the animal kingdom, we find very many bizarre and wonderful contrivances for the defense of particular animals and plants, such as crabs with electrical claws, eels which are also electrical, plants with teeth and resins to capture and consume insects, all manner of camouflages, poisons, and vectors of violence and irritation by which to defend against other animals. And the effects attendent of Moonlight, to my mind, are very typical of the biological defense responses evolved in the plants and animals of Earth. The ability to ward off predation by plants, fish and animals has found all manner of expression in biology and botany, and this ability is just what the Moon seems to possess. When we consider the terrestrial origin of the Moon, it does not seem unlikely that some algae or insect or other with these properties found its way onto the Moon before the Moon seperated from the prehistoric surface.

Biological defense mechanisms in terrestrial animals are as numerous and astounding as the human imagination can countenance

Feeding from soil on the Lunar surface, and in dying, excreting or other activities replenishing that soil, a colony of luminescent creatures could well subsist. So much of their energy dedicated to producing their defensive rays, it is hardly surprising at all that they cannot shine with very much brightness, nor wastefully expend themselves in producing even the slightest bodily heat.

I also believe that one of the great mysteries of the Universe is brought into clarity by this discovery. The regular monthly motions of the illuminated portions of the Moon has been somewhat of an uncertainty to our body of science for a long time. What I now consider to be the cause of these is none other than the migrations of luminescent biomass (be it animal or vegetable, or some other kind of classification entirely), by necessity in the face of some peculiarity of their feeding patterns, or else by some breeding ritual or even by some other of the many cyclical activities of living things.

The Sun, we know to possess none of the aggressive defenses of the Moon (more accurately, perhaps, LESSER defenses, as its cancerous tendencies have been recently discovered, and I suppose on reflection that a nasty Sun-burn is reminiscent of being stung by a nettle, or by wasps, bees, hornets, &c., and certainly these are biological defenses among those animals). In any case, the lesser complexity and severity of its biological defenses make its ability to produce a much greater illumination hardly a surprise, as well as affording its abundant excretion of heat, such as the bodies of many animals can afford to do in the biodiversity of Earth. The absences of much discernable migration of biomass, as we see on the Moon, is perhaps attributable to a greater density of the Solar life, or simply to a higher level of stability in terms of the habits which compel the seasonal migration of the Lunar. HOWEVER - the existence and motion of Sun Spots testifies further to the notion that some migratory activity is occuring on the Sun, though less noticable to the unobservant eye because of the Sun's brightness and the density of its biological coverage.


Continually observing the Sun and the Moon and the behaviours of their surfaces, I am ever more convinced of the likelyhood of these suspicions, and I believe the same may be true of other Flat Earth investigators, whom I invite to perform some reflection and investigation, and to share their observations, opinions and other information regarding this discovery.

I trust that these revelations will enable to you to view the celestial bodies in a new... light.

Your faithful servant,
James McIntyre
Title: Re: To the Flat Earth Believers - The Sun & Moon
Post by: John Davis on August 28, 2009, 12:47:36 AM
Interesting, I remember proposing an idea similar years ago.  I forget the details, and yours is certainly better thought out.  Good job, I'll give it a thought or two and post some feedback later.
Title: Re: To the Flat Earth Believers - The Sun & Moon
Post by: John Davis on August 28, 2009, 12:59:30 AM
What causes such regular rigid fading in the lunar luminescence?  Such as moon phases.

I still have to hold that it must be some rigid weather system that floats above a luminescent material partially blocking it.  With a low atmosphere, eventually given the cyclical nature of movement between the earth, sun and moon and heavens it would certainly form together if it was made of something with the right properties.  We see it all the time in nature - crystals forming, water coming together in a certain way, etc.

Of course this pattern could be made by a bioluminescent flock of creatures (bugs perhaps?)  However, I'm not sure yet that I could buy that.

Anyways, your theory certainly gives a source for said luminescence and a possible explanation of its effects.

Would you mind if I use an edited version for the .net news site thats coming up?
Title: Re: To the Flat Earth Believers - The Sun & Moon
Post by: James on September 04, 2009, 11:51:55 AM
You may feel free, John.

As for the regularity of the change, in the case of a primitive life-form such as a kind of mold or plant, one might expect such regularity from the presence (or at least luminosity) of the Lunar life in accordance with whatever it is which is the source of their food, or else the conditions suitable to their mating.

Consider that on Earth, all unimpeded Salmon, without exception, will migrate to their spawning grounds. Such biological "clockwork" is not inconceivable on the Moon either.