Never did get a straight answer on that one... go figure. :)The clear night sky is what is so cold, not the moonlight!
Well, Lane County Flat Earth Research in Eugene, Oregon got together on a clear night with a full moon in a public park with infrared thermometers which measure the surface temperatures of objects.Never did get a straight answer on that one... go figure. :)The clear night sky is what is so cold, not the moonlight!
Repeat the same experiment when there is no moon! You'll get the same results! The object in the shade is protected from the cool air and absorbs the heat stored in the material of the shade.Well, Lane County Flat Earth Research in Eugene, Oregon got together on a clear night with a full moon in a public park with infrared thermometers which measure the surface temperatures of objects.Never did get a straight answer on that one... go figure. :)The clear night sky is what is so cold, not the moonlight!
We took two at least two temperatures of each of each object: one in direct moonlight and the second in the shade.
The result was consistently that the part of any object in the shade was hotter than the area of the same object in the moonlight. I appreciate that group’s organiser as I was unaware of that hitherto.
And considering that, I don’t have any respect for statements by anyone arguing moonlight is not cold which are devoid of any evidence.
I dare you to try the same experiment with just one difference - a clear moonless night. I've done that many times.Well, Lane County Flat Earth Research in Eugene, Oregon got together on a clear night with a full moon in a public park with infrared thermometers which measure the surface temperatures of objects.Never did get a straight answer on that one... go figure. :)The clear night sky is what is so cold, not the moonlight!
We took two at least two temperatures of each of each object: one in direct moonlight and the second in the shade.
The result was consistently that the part of any object in the shade was hotter than the area of the same object in the moonlight. I appreciate that group’s organiser as I was unaware of that hitherto.
And considering that, I don’t have any respect for statements by anyone arguing moonlight is not cold which are devoid of any evidence.
We took two at least two temperatures of each of each object: one in direct moonlight and the second in the shade.But the "things shading" your "object", be they trees or roofs, are much less cold than the night sky.
The result was consistently that the part of any object in the shade was hotter than the area of the same object in the moonlight. I appreciate that group’s organiser as I was unaware of that hitherto.
If you COMPARE THE MOONLIGHT TO THE AREA THAT IS SHADED FROM THE MOONLIGHT (you're still with me right? Haven't lost 'ya yet? Good). MOONLIGHT IS COLD.Now do exactly the same experiment on a night with no moon and see what you get.
It's not "some thing shading the moonlight which is like... another temperature or something like that". It's not "the wind" (lol).No it's not the wind.
The moon is emitting COLD light.If you get the same effect with just the cold night sky it is not caused by any "COLD light" from the moon.
It's kind of hard to do the experiment in the dark though, since there isn't any moon... light... to do the experiment with (face palm).Tough, because moonlight has nothing to do with the case.
I know I'm a terrible skeptic, but I'm afraid I do not accept "cooling" radiation, there ain't no such thing.
There is quote a lot on this topic, with quite a bit in Flat Earth Follies: Moonlight is cold light. (https://flatearthinsanity.blogspot.com.au/2016/08/flat-earth-follies-moonlight-is-cold.html)
It does seem strange that only flat earthers seem to make this claim.
Here is a video that aims a 17" telescope at the moon itself:
Moon temperature experiment thru a mirrored telescope. Joel Harris
So, having a good infra-red thermometer (reads to 0.1C anyway), I thought that I would give it a go.
I had one end of a plank in the shade and one end expose to the sky and
sure enough under the open sky is was about 2C and under the shade up to 6C, maybe I've proved it!
I would not put a lot of weight into my rough set-up, but still it might mean something.
By the way, did I mention that it is a cold, perfectly clear moonless night!
Yes, at night the open sky is much colder than any shading material. All the shading material does is to stop some the heat from the object being lost by radiation to the cold sky.
Pointing the infra-red thermometer directly at the sky gave a temperature of -32C, just a might cold!
So I really have doubts that it is the moonlight doing the cooling.
PAPA LEGBA IS BACK!!!Nope, there's no cursing swearing and no Toodle Pip.
The lit side of the moon always points to the sun. Solar eclipses only happen durning new moon phase. Lunar eclipses only happen during full moon phase. Full moons always rise at sunset and set at sunrise.
Do I need to say more?
It's actually not. Moonlight is just reflected sunlight. Unlike when sunlight hits a mirror, most of the sunlight is absorbed on the moon. The remaining reflected sunlight is not enough to maintain warming of the earth, thus the earth "cools".Luckily we had 1969 moonsuits, enhanced with (currently) unknown or ‘lost’ technologies.
First: Moonlight is not cold.The lit side of the moon always points to the sun. Solar eclipses only happen durning new moon phase. Lunar eclipses only happen during full moon phase. Full moons always rise at sunset and set at sunrise.Yea, why is moonlight cold? Say some more about that... LOL.
Do I need to say more?
Provide an answer to that one first.Answered.
THEN we can move on to why the lunar cycles are BACKWARDS from what they should be on a round earthSecond: Lunar cycles are NOT backwards from what they should be on the Globe earth.
and why there is that mysterious shadow on the moon in broad daylight. :)Third: If you claim thst there is any mysterious shadow on the moon in broad daylight because I've seen none.
Try again with something relevant.It's actually not. Moonlight is just reflected sunlight. Unlike when sunlight hits a mirror, most of the sunlight is absorbed on the moon. The remaining reflected sunlight is not enough to maintain warming of the earth, thus the earth "cools".<< Totally irrelevant to the topic, the OP and the posts so far. >>
Trying to delete exhibit A ?Try again with something relevant.It's actually not. Moonlight is just reflected sunlight. Unlike when sunlight hits a mirror, most of the sunlight is absorbed on the moon. The remaining reflected sunlight is not enough to maintain warming of the earth, thus the earth "cools".<< Totally irrelevant to the topic, the OP and the posts so far. >>
First: Moonlight is not cold.The lit side of the moon always points to the sun. Solar eclipses only happen durning new moon phase. Lunar eclipses only happen during full moon phase. Full moons always rise at sunset and set at sunrise.Yea, why is moonlight cold? Say some more about that... LOL.
Do I need to say more?Quote from: nnnoooiiissseeeProvide an answer to that one first.Answered.Quote from: nnnoooiiissseeeTHEN we can move on to why the lunar cycles are BACKWARDS from what they should be on a round earthSecond: Lunar cycles are NOT backwards from what they should be on the Globe earth.
If you disagree, please explain with good clear diagrams.Quote from: nnnoooiiissseeeand why there is that mysterious shadow on the moon in broad daylight. :)Third: If you claim thst there is any mysterious shadow on the moon in broad daylight because I've seen none.(https://www.dropbox.com/s/urcg0mjohlaiga6/20170306%2016-29%20EAST%208.3%20days%20old%2060%20Waxing%20Gibbous.jpg?dl=1)Where is there any mysterious shadow on that daylight photo of the moon
March 6, 2017 at 16:29 EAST 8.3 days old Waxing Gibbous - taken from about 20 km S of Brisbane
If you disagree, please show some photos with clear information about the location, date and time they were taken.
Now, please confirm that you are not a troll trying to make the flat earth look (more) ridiculous.
Well, I did annotate the photo with "March 6, 2017 at 16:29" so daytime is a fair guess.In fact the moon would have been roughly 34° about the NE horizon.This photo was apparently taken in the day time? Correct?Quote from: nnnoooiiissseeeand why there is that mysterious shadow on the moon in broad daylight. :)Third: If you claim thst there is any mysterious shadow on the moon in broad daylight because I've seen none.(https://www.dropbox.com/s/urcg0mjohlaiga6/20170306%2016-29%20EAST%208.3%20days%20old%2060%20Waxing%20Gibbous.jpg?dl=1)Where is there any mysterious shadow on that daylight photo of the moon
March 6, 2017 at 16:29 EAST 8.3 days old Waxing Gibbous - taken from about 20 km S of Brisbane
If you disagree, please show some photos with clear information about the location, date and time they were taken.
Now, please confirm that you are not a troll trying to make the flat earth look (more) ridiculous.
OK. If you're standing on the Earth and the sun is HIGH UP IN THE SKY one side and the moon is HIGH UP IN THE SKY on the other side WHERE IS THE SHADOW COMING FROM? It sure isn't coming from the Earth. Do you need me to draw you a cartoon? If you have a BASIC understanding of how shadow work, you should be able to figure it out. I have faith in you.The only "shadow" on the moon is part of the unlit half of the moon. There is no shadow of the earth or any other object on the moon.
Now back to the cold moonlight. You seem to have given up trying to spin your way out of that one I see... LOL.No! That's been dealt with. There is no such thing as "cold moonlight" so why should I humour you with more.
Debunking Flat Earthers Cold Moonlight Theory | Does Moonlight Makes Things Colder? |
It was nice of you to come to the defense of flat earthers BTW. You're my new hero. Looks like you've turned over a new leaf. LOL.Sure I'll defend flat earthers when they are unfairly targeted and flat earthers have no monopoly on ignorance and bad science.
No, there's no monkey wrench there! The earth doesn't rotate once in 24 hours. It rotates once in approximately 23.934 hours so try again!(https://flatearthperspectives.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/13237652_1175190822512445_4629818277803849545_n.jpg?w=682&h=682)Oh, and here's the monkey wrench you were looking for.
I would have used an actual photo of a round earth but NASA doesn't have any... ;DI do not like people claiming ignorant things like that! Try a photo from a Russian satellite with a 121 Megapixel camera
Russian Satellite's 121-Megapixel Image Of Earth Is Most Detailed YetNote that the image above is not the full resolution - that would be a massive file.
This perspective is quite different from NASA's pictures, Elektro-L No.1 Russian weather satellite generated 121-megapixel images that seize spectacular view of Earth.(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-PeM0T4POA20/WEAieq9WO0I/AAAAAAAAICw/MpFoIHGut6wg6xRzfSK18TASSavoswgOgCLcB/s640/earth-russia.jpg)The image definitely appears different than what we're used to seeing, and the reason behind this is the sensor added to the weather satellite chains data from three observable and one infrared wavelengths of light, a technique that turns vegetation into the rust color that overlooks the shot.
Russia Elektro-L No.1 Earth image
It captured the spectacular view of Earth in one shot instead of a collection of images from numerous flybys stitched together. The outcome is the highest-resolution solitary portrait of Earth yet.
Physics Astronomy, Russian Satellite's 121-Megapixel Image Of Earth Is Most Detailed Yet (http://www.physics-astronomy.com/2016/12/russian-satellites-121-megapixel-image.html#.W1t7XriYOQo)
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/k0puori7rfe55sy/eclipse_epc_2016068.gif?dl=1) Eclipse from the EPIC on DSCOVR | (http://www.eclipsewise.com/solar/SEping/2001-2100/SE2016-03-09T.gif) |
A simple thermometer proves that moonlight is indeed cold.No it doesn't. All it proves is that the night sky, moon or no moon is very, very cold.
Never did get a straight answer on that one... go figure. :)
No, there's no monkey wrench there! The earth doesn't rotate once in 24 hours. It rotates once in approximately 23.934 hours so try again!(https://flatearthperspectives.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/13237652_1175190822512445_4629818277803849545_n.jpg?w=682&h=682)Oh, and here's the monkey wrench you were looking for.
There have been plenty of observations made but most fail to do the same measurement when there is no moon visible.Never did get a straight answer on that one... go figure. :)
There should be enough observations to understand and explain the reason of this event. but this has not been done yet.
The main problem here that we have to stand on it: is this cooling the same for different colors and phases of the moon?. for example, the red moon, the blue moon and the white moon, full or crescent, have they same cooling?. Or are they different? this gives us a mind about it. the moon lights of different colors cool down at the same or different value. This works provide us to know that this cooling is independent of the moonlight color and phase of it or not.It's all the same moon. It can look red at times but only because of the atmosphere we are looking through.
the fact that the cooling is independent or not of the moonlight color will give us more healthy information about the actual source of this cooling.There is no cooling due to moonlight. The cooling occurs just as effectively whether to moon is in the sky or not.
I have not seen observations made for different moon colors and positions until now. this cooling may be has a single explanation, or there may be different explanations for different phases/colors of the moon.
We can not be sure the main reason of this event, before we see enough and comparative experiments depends on colors and phases of the moon.
The other problem is; the cooling being related with distance or not. For understand this, we have to do an experiment depends on distance of the moon with same shape. For example, two obversations should be made, one of them should be in time while moon is near and the other should be far, but with same color and phase. The difference of temperature works we to understand is the source of cooling depends on moonlight, or only existance of the moon.Again, there is no cooling effect due to moonlight and that has been demonstrated numerous times.
Mostly in this site we are people who think scientifically, but not soothsayers. it may be wrong to provide information on this issue while there are not enough observations, measurements, researches and experiments.Sure "think scientifically" and I personally have done "observations, measurements, researches and experiments" and I know that it is the sky, with or without the moon that is so cold.
Before do these experiments, all theories are in vain. These experiments are not done.I have been writing the truth! And that truth is that moonlight is not cooling in any way at all.Quote from: wiseIncorrect! I repeat that I and many others have done sufficient experiments to verify that the cooling has nothing to do with the moon.The members here are generally researchers or scientists generally writes after a research or observations. So that all commenters are writing here vast in vain. There is nothing surprise here.
But if you want some theory. Moonlight is simply reflected sunlight, with direct full moonlight reduced to about 1/360,000 in intensity.
Now various estimates of the heating of a metal plate in direct sunlight indicate that it would heat about 60° above ambient.
Hence the "heating" due to full direct moonlight would be about 60/360,000 = 0.00017° above ambient - quite negligible.
But the sub-zero night sky is a totally different matter. Here on a clear dry night, as I have said, it measures around -34° and that does cool ojects exposed to it.
Here we go again. I don't reply seperated posts. Its not a behaviour but generally phsical hardnesses. But if you write in Turkish, then I reply your post by seperating it to thousands of parts.Well, that's your problem. Others can read what I write and judge accordingly.
Here we go again. I don't reply seperated posts. Its not a behaviour but generally phsical hardnesses. But if you write in Turkish, then I reply your post by seperating it to thousands of parts.
(https://flatearthperspectives.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/13237652_1175190822512445_4629818277803849545_n.jpg?w=682&h=682)
Oh, and here's the monkey wrench you were looking for. I would have used an actual photo of a round earth but NASA doesn't have any... ;D
Here we go again. I don't reply seperated posts. Its not a behaviour but generally phsical hardnesses. But if you write in Turkish, then I reply your post by seperating it to thousands of parts.Well, that's your problem. Others can read what I write and judge accordingly.
If you write long posts there is little option but to split them up. Keep your posts short and I might not find the need.
Here we go again. I don't reply seperated posts. Its not a behaviour but generally phsical hardnesses. But if you write in Turkish, then I reply your post by seperating it to thousands of parts.
Since you said you have changed, why don't you make the effort and change this not reading separated quotes.
Repeat the same experiment when there is no moon! You'll get the same results! The object in the shade is protected from the cool air and absorbs the heat stored in the material of the shade.Well, Lane County Flat Earth Research in Eugene, Oregon got together on a clear night with a full moon in a public park with infrared thermometers which measure the surface temperatures of objects.Never did get a straight answer on that one... go figure. :)The clear night sky is what is so cold, not the moonlight!
We took two at least two temperatures of each of each object: one in direct moonlight and the second in the shade.
The result was consistently that the part of any object in the shade was hotter than the area of the same object in the moonlight. I appreciate that group’s organiser as I was unaware of that hitherto.
And considering that, I don’t have any respect for statements by anyone arguing moonlight is not cold which are devoid of any evidence.
I would welcome and be happy and ready to do what you recommend except that this involves two temperature readings - one in the light and the other in the shade.Well, Lane County Flat Earth Research in Eugene, Oregon got together on a clear night with a full moon in a public park with infrared thermometers which measure the surface temperatures of objects.Repeat the same experiment when there is no moon! You'll get the same results! The object in the shade is protected from the cool air and absorbs the heat stored in the material of the shade.
We took two at least two temperatures of each of each object: one in direct moonlight and the second in the shade.
The result was consistently that the part of any object in the shade was hotter than the area of the same object in the moonlight. I appreciate that group’s organiser as I was unaware of that hitherto.
And considering that, I don’t have any respect for statements by anyone arguing moonlight is not cold which are devoid of any evidence.
Therefore, I am at a loss as to what should be used as the light source for such an experiment during a new moon at night.
So I’m still left concluding that sunlight is hot and moonlight is cold. I can dig it. Why do some folks have such a hang up with that conclusion? Just respectfully asking.
Repeat the same experiment when there is no moon! You'll get the same results! The object in the shade is protected from the cool air and absorbs the heat stored in the material of the shade.Well, Lane County Flat Earth Research in Eugene, Oregon got together on a clear night with a full moon in a public park with infrared thermometers which measure the surface temperatures of objects.Never did get a straight answer on that one... go figure. :)The clear night sky is what is so cold, not the moonlight!
We took two at least two temperatures of each of each object: one in direct moonlight and the second in the shade.
The result was consistently that the part of any object in the shade was hotter than the area of the same object in the moonlight. I appreciate that group’s organiser as I was unaware of that hitherto.
And considering that, I don’t have any respect for statements by anyone arguing moonlight is not cold which are devoid of any evidence.
I would welcome and be happy and ready to do what you recommend except that this involves two temperature readings - one in the light and the other in the shade.
Therefore, I am at a loss as to what should be used as the light source for such an experiment during a new moon at night.
Forgive me for stating the obvious, but if I make the same experiment using the sun as the light source (i.e. making the same dual temperature readings during daytime/ one in direct sunlight & one in the shade), then I’m thinking the results will be the opposite of what I found in the case of a full moon.
So I’m still left concluding that sunlight is hot and moonlight is cold. I can dig it. Why do some folks have such a hang up with that conclusion? Just respectfully asking.
I would welcome and be happy and ready to do what you recommend except that this involves two temperature readings - one in the light and the other in the shade.The sky is a "light source". And it is very cold - even in the daytime.
Therefore, I am at a loss as to what should be used as the light source for such an experiment during a new moon at night.
Forgive me for stating the obvious, but if I make the same experiment using the sun as the light source (i.e. making the same dual temperature readings during daytime/ one in direct sunlight & one in the shade), then I’m thinking the results will be the opposite of what I found in the case of a full moon.But repeatedly people have been asked to do exactly the same experiments in the same location when there is no moon in the sky.
So I’m still left concluding that sunlight is hot and moonlight is cold. I can dig it. Why do some folks have such a hang up with that conclusion? Just respectfully asking.I took two containers filled with water and placed one in a location shaded from the sky (under a verandah roof or under a shrub, it moade little difference).
Date and Time | Sky Temp | Shade Temp | Exposed Temp | |||
Aug 10 06:40 | 7.1°C | 3.2°C | ||||
09:00 | -21°C | 11.1°C | 7.3°C | |||
16:00 | -20°C | 17.8°C | 16.5°C | |||
19:45 | -24°C | 12.0°C | 10.3°C | |||
Aug 11 07:00 | -21°C | 8.4°C | 5.7°C | |||
Bright Sun: 11:35 | -16°C | 20.2°C | 34.2°C | |||
After dawn, still in shade: Aug 12 06:40 | -18°C | 10.2°C | 6.82°C | |||
After dawn, still in shade: Aug 13 07:00 | -40°C | 1.5°C | -3.0°C |
So I’m still left concluding that sunlight is hot and moonlight is cold. I can dig it. Why do some folks have such a hang up with that conclusion? Just respectfully asking.
Why is moonlight cold/ not cold even part of FE?
Why does Spotlight moon require to have a cooling effect?
What "problem" does this solve in FE?
AndWhy is moonlight cold/ not cold even part of FE?
Why does Spotlight moon require to have a cooling effect?
What "problem" does this solve in FE?
No, not really. There may be some FE out there on YouTube saying it, but I hardly ever watch FE videos.
Forgive me for stating the obvious, but if I make the same experiment using the sun as the light source (i.e. making the same dual temperature readings during daytime/ one in direct sunlight & one in the shade), then I’m thinking the results will be the opposite of what I found in the case of a full moon.
So I’m still left concluding that sunlight is hot and moonlight is cold. I can dig it. Why do some folks have such a hang up with that conclusion? Just respectfully asking.
Seriously - how on flat Earth did you come up with such nonsense. Just take IR camera, go to a road, find a spot that is half in moonlight and half in tree shadow.
Seriously - how on flat Earth did you come up with such nonsense. Just take IR camera, go to a road, find a spot that is half in moonlight and half in tree shadow.
Seriously, how did you come up with such nonsense?
So i did some thought experiments. If there was a thing like cold light a.k.a. heat sucking rays - it would have marvelous applications. You could produce light bulbs that emit cold light - all air conditioning manufacturers would go bankrupt as everyone would switch to cooling light bulbs in summer. No need for liquid helium and nitrogen to cool things down. Quantum computers for everyone. No new fridges - just switch a light bulb to new cooling one. Superconductors in sidewalks and in roads that actually levitate things - almost no need for power. Why use watercooling in cars when you can have coldray cooling? You know those IR gas heaters they put up in winter near pubs? Hey, we have a portable CR(cold ray) cooler for summer. Experiments with Einsten-Bose condensate at home. Yes. I always wanted some of these. Ah, and the murders when they find someone cooled to absolute zero. Yes, it has wonderful applications :D
On the other hand frostbites would probably get most often treated wounds :)
Seriously - how on flat Earth did you come up with such nonsense. Just take IR camera, go to a road, find a spot that is half in moonlight and half in tree shadow. Actually, don't do that and rather read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light That should be sufficient to stop making youknowwhat from yourself.
Seriously - how on flat Earth did you come up with such nonsense. Just take IR camera, go to a road, find a spot that is half in moonlight and half in tree shadow.
Seriously, how did you come up with such nonsense?
Simply - got this phone https://www.catphones.com/en_gb/cat-s60-smartphone.html
Edit: Also, why wouldn't it work? If the moonlight was cold, as in reducing temperature cold, it should cool down areas exposed to moonlight.
What do you imagine the temperature resolution of the phone is versus the temperature change you're trying to measure versus the uncontrolled thermodynamic conditions of a road with a tree shadow?Surprisingly good. Yeah, it's the least expensive model by flir and when something has say 10C, than without calibration(and sometimes even with that) you get readings anywhere between 0 and 20C(bit exagaratting), but it shows temperature differences surprisingly well. Wanted to say i could provide proof, but i have rather made one right away...
What do you imagine the temperature resolution of the phone is versus the temperature change you're trying to measure versus the uncontrolled thermodynamic conditions of a road with a tree shadow?Surprisingly good. Yeah, it's the least expensive model by flir and when something has say 10C, than without calibration(and sometimes even with that) you get readings anywhere between 0 and 20C(bit exagaratting), but it shows temperature differences surprisingly well. Wanted to say i could provide proof, but i have rather made one right away...
https://vimeo.com/288388384
Haven't figured out how to insert preview, so just click that. Won't take much of your time, whole video has about 30 seconds.
What do you imagine the temperature resolution of the phone is versus the temperature change you're trying to measure versus the uncontrolled thermodynamic conditions of a road with a tree shadow?Still saying sufficient. Don't shout at me - i know what they will see - exactly same temperatures.
Not exactly the same. At least not consistently. A surface under the night sky radiates heat more efficiently. A surface under a tree will radiate less heat, thus having a slightly higher temperature. I doubt you’ll be able to catch that with your phone.What do you imagine the temperature resolution of the phone is versus the temperature change you're trying to measure versus the uncontrolled thermodynamic conditions of a road with a tree shadow?I know what they will see - exactly same temperatures.
What do you imagine the temperature resolution of the phone is versus the temperature change you're trying to measure versus the uncontrolled thermodynamic conditions of a road with a tree shadow?Still saying sufficient. Don't shout at me - i know what they will see - exactly same temperatures.
Got where you heading - though radiation is still the same, some heat gets back because of radiation of the tree. But 5 centimeters in shade versus 5 centimeters on lit area will have negligible(horrible word, had to google it :) ) effect. But it should make difference for magic cold light.
Not exactly the same. At least not consistently. A surface under the night sky radiates heat more efficiently. A surface under a tree will radiate less heat, thus having a slightly higher temperature. I doubt you’ll be able to catch that with your phone.
The phone itself is pretty neat though.