The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: ALS6 on February 05, 2020, 04:11:37 PM

Title: Dark Moon
Post by: ALS6 on February 05, 2020, 04:11:37 PM
I know this has likely been discussed elsewhere in these forums. However, I am confused as to how where the light from the moon comes from. According to Real Earthers, which I am one, the light is reflected from the sun. However, this doesn't work as with the Flat Earth theory, because to my understanding Flat-Earthers believe the sun acts more as a spotlight. Otherwise, it would light up the entire Earth. Then, you might say, that the moon gives off its own light. Sure, then why are there phases of the moon? The best answer I could come up with thinking from a Flat Earther's perspective is that there is another "Dark Moon" that we are unable to see, and that rotates around the moon we can see. Then again, wouldn't that block out the stars surrounding the moon? The best explanation I could then think of is that this Dark Moon is also flat, same as our Earth according to the FE theory. The Dark Moon would rotate around the moon and by the time the moon wasn't obscured at all by it, and we could see the regular moon in full, the Dark Moon wouldn't obscure any of the stars, because, well... it's thin, to our point of view.
 :P
This just sorta become ridiculous. Can a Flat Earther please explain?

EDIT: As another replier noted, I completely forgot the fact that the shadows are also concave and flat at some points: (https://c.tadst.com/gfx/750x500/moon-phases-together.jpg?1)

So, this actually makes the theory easier. The Dark Moon would be like a bowl that orbits the moon, massaging the curvature it's curvature. And it wouldn't obscure the surrounding stars because it would be very close to moon. Sorta like the way these little things hold eggs, if they didn't have the little stand. (http://i.ebayimg.com/images/i/361564596066-0-1/s-l1000.jpg)
But it's still sort of a preposterous theory.

Or, you could even borrow from the Concave Earth Theory. Maybe the Moon really does spin; just the back half of the moon is dark. This doesn't explain why we see the same side always, though...
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: MouseWalker on February 05, 2020, 09:42:10 PM
I know this has likely been discussed elsewhere in these forums. However, I am confused as to how where the light from the moon comes from. According to Real Earthers, which I am one, the light is reflected from the sun. However, this doesn't work as with the Flat Earth theory, because to my understanding Flat-Earthers believe the sun acts more as a spotlight. Otherwise, it would light up the entire Earth. Then, you might say, that the moon gives off its own light. Sure, then why are there phases of the moon? The best answer I could come up with thinking from a Flat Earther's perspective is that there is another "Dark Moon" that we are unable to see, and that rotates around the moon we can see. Then again, wouldn't that block out the stars surrounding the moon? The best explanation I could then think of is that this Dark Moon is also flat, same as our Earth according to the FE theory. The Dark Moon would rotate around the moon and by the time the moon wasn't obscured at all by it, and we could see the regular moon in full, the Dark Moon wouldn't obscure any of the stars, because, well... it's thin, to our point of view.

 :P

This just sorta become ridiculous. Can a Flat Earther please explain?
Don't give them ideas
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: JackBlack on February 05, 2020, 11:45:28 PM
A setup like that doesn't actually help.
The phases of the moon is vastly different from an object blocking the view.
A better idea would be one (or multiple) very small spotlights (too small to see or obscure the moon) pointing at the moon and circling it.
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: markjo on February 06, 2020, 06:53:11 AM
One theory (if you want to call it that) presented some years ago was that the changes in the moon's illumination is the result of the migration patterns of bioluminescent lunar fauna akin to trigger shrimp and sometimes sarcastically referred to as "moon shramp". 
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: EvolvedMantisShrimp on February 06, 2020, 10:14:03 AM
I know this has likely been discussed elsewhere in these forums. However, I am confused as to how where the light from the moon comes from. According to Real Earthers, which I am one, the light is reflected from the sun. However, this doesn't work as with the Flat Earth theory, because to my understanding Flat-Earthers believe the sun acts more as a spotlight. Otherwise, it would light up the entire Earth. Then, you might say, that the moon gives off its own light. Sure, then why are there phases of the moon? The best answer I could come up with thinking from a Flat Earther's perspective is that there is another "Dark Moon" that we are unable to see, and that rotates around the moon we can see. Then again, wouldn't that block out the stars surrounding the moon? The best explanation I could then think of is that this Dark Moon is also flat, same as our Earth according to the FE theory. The Dark Moon would rotate around the moon and by the time the moon wasn't obscured at all by it, and we could see the regular moon in full, the Dark Moon wouldn't obscure any of the stars, because, well... it's thin, to our point of view.

 :P

This just sorta become ridiculous. Can a Flat Earther please explain?

And sometimes concave?

(https://live.staticflickr.com/2779/5837032132_ed57457874_b.jpg)
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: Platonius21 on February 06, 2020, 11:39:09 AM
Can a Flat Earther please explain?
No.
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: magellanclavichord on February 06, 2020, 01:27:04 PM
Since nobody has offered a FE hypothesis for phases of the moon...

I believe they claim the moon is basically a lamp, like the sun. So instead of one big incandescent light bulb, the moon could be an LED display, like a TV or one of those electronic billboards. Then "they" could make it look like whatever they want. This would explain all the features on the moon as well. It's all just a flat-screen display.

Really, though, what's the point of asking looney birds to "explain" anything? FET is not about what is. FET is about raging against the establishment, and denying everything the establishment says. What matters is not the shape of the Earth: What matters is finding the most obvious and self-evident truths and denying them. If they could find a fact more obvious and self-evident than the rotundity of the world, they would deny that and make that their emblem.

You can't really argue with them because they will make up any answer, shout "Liar, liar, pants on fire!" when presented with any evidence, and happily accept fifteen contradictory things before breakfast, as long as they all oppose the establishment. They disagree among themselves on every detail of their conspiracy theories, and yet accept each other as sisters and brothers as long as the person who totally opposes their own theories is excoriating the establishment.

It's raining here today and I'm bored. I like the rain, though. We need it. It makes things smell nice. It's fun to sit and look out at it. But I don't like going out in it, so here I am, on the FES where the looney birds are. I actually like crazy people. They're so much more interesting than us normals.
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: ALS6 on February 07, 2020, 06:03:12 PM
I know this has likely been discussed elsewhere in these forums. However, I am confused as to how where the light from the moon comes from. According to Real Earthers, which I am one, the light is reflected from the sun. However, this doesn't work as with the Flat Earth theory, because to my understanding Flat-Earthers believe the sun acts more as a spotlight. Otherwise, it would light up the entire Earth. Then, you might say, that the moon gives off its own light. Sure, then why are there phases of the moon? The best answer I could come up with thinking from a Flat Earther's perspective is that there is another "Dark Moon" that we are unable to see, and that rotates around the moon we can see. Then again, wouldn't that block out the stars surrounding the moon? The best explanation I could then think of is that this Dark Moon is also flat, same as our Earth according to the FE theory. The Dark Moon would rotate around the moon and by the time the moon wasn't obscured at all by it, and we could see the regular moon in full, the Dark Moon wouldn't obscure any of the stars, because, well... it's thin, to our point of view.

 :P

This just sorta become ridiculous. Can a Flat Earther please explain?

And sometimes concave?

(https://live.staticflickr.com/2779/5837032132_ed57457874_b.jpg)

Yeah, I'm sorta embarrassed I didn't even think of that. That does clear up some stuff even more though. Because then, the Dark Moon would just be behind the regular one when we couldn't see it. Still, this is kind of a ridiculous belief... a giant, concave, flat "Dark Moon" massaging the curvature of the regular moon.
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: Solarwind on February 10, 2020, 05:07:52 AM
To reply #6, surely FET is not just about "raging against the establishment, and denying everything the establishment says."

That is just be like being a rebellious, adolescent teenager who thinks he knows better than anyone else just because it makes him feel important. However this 'dark Moon' idea is pretty far fetched I must say. 

When you look at an image of the Moon such as that posted, what explanation could you possibly give for its illumination that is better than some thing very bright and distant (such as the Sun for example) shining on the Moon from the direction (as portrayed in the photo) of lower left?
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on February 10, 2020, 05:22:33 AM
Since nobody has offered a FE hypothesis for phases of the moon...

I believe they claim the moon is basically a lamp, like the sun. So instead of one big incandescent light bulb, the moon could be an LED display, like a TV or one of those electronic billboards. Then "they" could make it look like whatever they want. This would explain all the features on the moon as well. It's all just a flat-screen display.
At this point, the only remaining question would be, why have they not started playing adverts on it 24/7.
Need to pay for the conspiracy somehow.
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: magellanclavichord on February 10, 2020, 11:13:12 AM
To reply #6, surely FET is not just about "raging against the establishment, and denying everything the establishment says."

That is just be like being a rebellious, adolescent teenager who thinks he knows better than anyone else just because it makes him feel important.

Just look at all the other stuff they have to believe in order to maintain that the Earth is flat: They need to think that all world governments, which are constantly fighting wars and killing each other, are cooperating in a huge conspiracy. They need to deny the moon landings and the very existence of space (though when I was playing the FE game I tried to advocate for a science-positive FET). They need to deny GPS and satellite TV. One of them even claimed that nobody has ever seen a satellite, but I've seen the ISS, and there are web sites that will tell you exactly when it will be visible from your location. They need to call every astronaut a liar. They need to call all airlines liars and they need to call everyone who's ever flown or sailed between Australia and South Africa a liar.

And then they go off onto stuff that is entirely unrelated to the shape of the Earth, like ranting against doctors, or blathering about so-called "chemtrails," or 9/11, or Barak Obama's citizenship.

Flat Earth really is just the wackiest, most ridiculous way they could find of claiming that "the establishment" is evil. Otherwise what's the purpose? When I first discovered this forum I asked the question: What would be the purpose of a conspiracy to deny that the Earth was flat, if it actually was? Who would benefit by such a conspiracy? Nobody here had any answer to that. Flat Earth is just a way of raging against everything the establishment says.

Since nobody has offered a FE hypothesis for phases of the moon...

I believe they claim the moon is basically a lamp, like the sun. So instead of one big incandescent light bulb, the moon could be an LED display, like a TV or one of those electronic billboards. Then "they" could make it look like whatever they want. This would explain all the features on the moon as well. It's all just a flat-screen display.
At this point, the only remaining question would be, why have they not started playing adverts on it 24/7.
Need to pay for the conspiracy somehow.

It would kind of give away the whole thing.  ;)
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: Solarwind on February 10, 2020, 02:14:57 PM
I hear what you are saying (interpret that as you will) but I would be careful if I were you otherwise the next time I log on this discussion will have been moved to AR if the mods are watching.... just saying!
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: magellanclavichord on February 10, 2020, 04:09:28 PM
I hear what you are saying (interpret that as you will) but I would be careful if I were you otherwise the next time I log on this discussion will have been moved to AR if the mods are watching.... just saying!

Thanks. I tend not to pay attention to which forum a thread is in. If I was a mod here, every forum would be a sub-forum of CN.  ;)
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: ALS6 on February 10, 2020, 07:19:55 PM
Since nobody has offered a FE hypothesis for phases of the moon...

I believe they claim the moon is basically a lamp, like the sun. So instead of one big incandescent light bulb, the moon could be an LED display, like a TV or one of those electronic billboards. Then "they" could make it look like whatever they want. This would explain all the features on the moon as well. It's all just a flat-screen display.
At this point, the only remaining question would be, why have they not started playing adverts on it 24/7.
Need to pay for the conspiracy somehow.

That would be kinda hilarious, if that were at all plausible. At that point, wouldn't the FE'ers have to start calling all the pre-modern accounts that the Moon, and it's phases, exist? And aren't "old maps" one of the things they use as evidence? Still. If that were true, say it was a TV screen like you mentioned, then I would love to see some dude hack whatever is controlling this "TV" screen and start making it project funny stuff on it. Maybe he would write:
"Flat Earther's were correct!"
 ;D
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on February 10, 2020, 09:30:19 PM
Since nobody has offered a FE hypothesis for phases of the moon...

I believe they claim the moon is basically a lamp, like the sun. So instead of one big incandescent light bulb, the moon could be an LED display, like a TV or one of those electronic billboards. Then "they" could make it look like whatever they want. This would explain all the features on the moon as well. It's all just a flat-screen display.
At this point, the only remaining question would be, why have they not started playing adverts on it 24/7.
Need to pay for the conspiracy somehow.

That would be kinda hilarious, if that were at all plausible. At that point, wouldn't the FE'ers have to start calling all the pre-modern accounts that the Moon, and it's phases, exist? And aren't "old maps" one of the things they use as evidence? Still. If that were true, say it was a TV screen like you mentioned, then I would love to see some dude hack whatever is controlling this "TV" screen and start making it project funny stuff on it. Maybe he would write:
"Flat Earther's were correct!"
 ;D
But seriously, on a practical point. Who ever is running the round earth conspiracy needs a reality check. The global marketing budget is massive. Using the moons LED technology to display ads is worth trillions. There are only two surfaces that have so much exposure (the other surface is kinda hard to look at), the ad revenue potential is enormous. Financially worth dropping the conspiracy theory, because lets just be honest, thats a black hole for money.
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: Ichimaru Gin :] on February 11, 2020, 09:23:34 PM
Bioluminescent organisms cause the light we see when looking to the moon. The change in patterns happen with such regularity that it closely follows the internal clock seen on luminescent beings in our own earth. It is well established that not only is moonlight independent of sunlight but that it also affects living creatures differently, even when accounting for differences in intensity.


For those that doubt these findings, I challenge you to very closely examine the ovaries of the mussels found within our oceans and honestly try to argue otherwise. The speculum of truth lies beneath your sandy feet.
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on February 11, 2020, 10:09:52 PM
Moonshramp
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: rabinoz on February 11, 2020, 10:13:19 PM
Bioluminescent organisms cause the light we see when looking to the moon.
And I suppose that these bioluminescent lunar mussels are anaerobic and feed on green cheese :o.

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :
The change in patterns happen with such regularity that it closely follows the internal clock seen on luminescent beings in our own earth.
How strange ???! Or might these "luminescent beings in our own earth" simply be following the phases of the moon - just a thought.

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :
It is well established that not only is moonlight independent of sunlight but that it also affects living creatures differently, even when accounting for differences in intensity.
"It is well established" is such a wonderful way of saying nothing! Evidence thank you!

I could just as easily say that:
"It is well established that not only is the spectrum of moonlight almost the same shape as that of sunlight but is also shows the same absorption lines".
That seems good evidence that moonlight is simply reflected sunlight.

Quote from: Ichimaru Gin :
For those that doubt these findings, I challenge you to very closely examine the ovaries of the mussels found within our oceans and honestly try to argue otherwise. The speculum of truth lies beneath your sandy feet.
I seriously doubt those "findings" but I fail to see the relevance of "the ovaries of the mussels found within our oceans :o".

But if you present the spectra of light emitted from these bioluminescent mussels we can compare them.

Besides why do lunar eclipses occur precisely at the time we'd expect a perfect full moon.
And why are solar eclipses always precisely at the time we'd expect a perfect new moon.
Are they just coincidences?
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: rabinoz on February 11, 2020, 10:15:02 PM
Moonshramp
That feed on green cheese?
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: Ichimaru Gin :] on February 11, 2020, 10:19:06 PM
Rab, if only I could accompany you on a trip to explore the ovaries of mussels and to observe the pulsations felt within equally intense moonlight and control sources.

Until you dive into the responses of ovaries, I'm afraid you will clam up when it comes to moonlight's effect on organisms!
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: rabinoz on February 11, 2020, 10:27:17 PM
Rab, if only I could accompany you on a trip to explore the ovaries of mussels and to observe the pulsations felt within equally intense moonlight and control sources.

Until you dive into the responses of ovaries, I'm afraid you will clam up when it comes to moonlight's effect on organisms!
So you have no answers relevant to my post. Thought not.
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: Ichimaru Gin :] on February 11, 2020, 10:33:48 PM
Rab, if only I could accompany you on a trip to explore the ovaries of mussels and to observe the pulsations felt within equally intense moonlight and control sources.

Until you dive into the responses of ovaries, I'm afraid you will clam up when it comes to moonlight's effect on organisms!
So you have no answers relevant to my post. Thought not.
I apologise that I have no response to your ridiculous green cheese theories
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: Ichimaru Gin :] on February 11, 2020, 10:38:52 PM
One fact that the Flat earth theory and Wrong earth theory seem to agree on is that the moon harbors dynamic pockets of water welled in local clustering.

Pretty convenient that these phases of migration and an actual chemical byproduct of microbial bioluminescent is in fact water. We have an explanation for water on the moon. Globularists don't.
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: rabinoz on February 11, 2020, 10:46:03 PM
One fact that the Flat earth theory and Wrong earth theory seem to agree on is that the moon harbors dynamic pockets of water welled in local clustering.

Pretty convenient that these phases of migration and an actual chemical byproduct of microbial bioluminescent is in fact water. We have an explanation for water on the moon. Globularists don't.
So these microbial bioluminescent beings produce water from what source? Green cheese?

I see more fairytales being written without a trace of evidence.

By the way I can find nothing on the spectra of your bioluminescent mussels but almost all bioluminescence is nearly monochrome as shown for the zooplankton in this paper.
Bioluminescence spectra of shallow and deep-sea gelatinous zooplankton: Ctenophores, medusae and siphonophores (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225533119)
But the spectrum of moonlight is very similar to that of sunlight, just a little redder.
(https://i.postimg.cc/XNC8YQqQ/Comparison-of-Sunlight-and-Moonlight-Spectra.png) (https://postimages.org/)
I've yet to see bioluminecence with a spectrum like that.
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: Ichimaru Gin :] on February 11, 2020, 10:50:23 PM
One fact that the Flat earth theory and Wrong earth theory seem to agree on is that the moon harbors dynamic pockets of water welled in local clustering.

Pretty convenient that these phases of migration and an actual chemical byproduct of microbial bioluminescent is in fact water. We have an explanation for water on the moon. Globularists don't.
So these microbial bioluminescent beings produce water from what source? Green cheese?

I see more fairytales being written without a trace of evidence.
We can directly observe bacterial microbes releasing water when undergoing the reactions required for bioluminescence. Hardly a shocking revelation!
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: JackBlack on February 12, 2020, 12:12:38 AM
The change in patterns happen with such regularity that it closely follows the internal clock seen on luminescent beings in our own earth.
Care to provide such an example (with reference) of this being on Earth that has a roughly 28 day cycle?
And then some times every 6 months, either once or twice (or nonce) in that period, they go dark and red, to different extents?

Also, is it a change in pattern or a migration?

It is well established that not only is moonlight independent of sunlight
No, it has been quite firmly established that moonlight is reflected sunlight. That is what all the available evidence indicates.

but that it also affects living creatures differently, even when accounting for differences in intensity.
It is quite difficult to account for intensity properly in the case of something like that.
Especially considering some will respond drastically different to light of different intensity.
Tell me, how was that difference in intensity accounted for when determining that living creatures are affected differently?
What was used as a control? How did they determine the difference during daytime illumination by both?

We can directly observe bacterial microbes releasing water when undergoing the reactions required for bioluminescence. Hardly a shocking revelation!
They don't just magically produce the water from nothing.
It is a chemical reaction which takes in some reactants to produce some products, one of which may be water.
I also find that claim quite hard to believe considering they would almost certainly be in a water based system to begin with and thus wouldn't easily see them release water. So I wouldn't say it is directly observed.
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on February 12, 2020, 12:51:18 AM
One fact that the Flat earth theory and Wrong earth theory seem to agree on is that the moon harbors dynamic pockets of water welled in local clustering.

Pretty convenient that these phases of migration and an actual chemical byproduct of microbial bioluminescent is in fact water. We have an explanation for water on the moon. Globularists don't.
I dont think Mr Moonshrimp is well versed in chemistry.

So your theory is that Moonshrimp eat rocks? and then produce water?
Or where they in the water already?

We have a pretty good idea of where the water on the moon comes from seeing that its one of the most abundant molecules in the universe.
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: Ichimaru Gin :] on February 12, 2020, 04:36:01 AM
One fact that the Flat earth theory and Wrong earth theory seem to agree on is that the moon harbors dynamic pockets of water welled in local clustering.

Pretty convenient that these phases of migration and an actual chemical byproduct of microbial bioluminescent is in fact water. We have an explanation for water on the moon. Globularists don't.
I dont think Mr Moonshrimp is well versed in chemistry.

So your theory is that Moonshrimp eat rocks? and then produce water?
Or where they in the water already?

We have a pretty good idea of where the water on the moon comes from seeing that its one of the most abundant molecules in the universe.
There is no moonshrimp in my theory. We are talking about microbes. There is a big difference.
All that is required is for oxidation to occur.

The enzymes involved with the reaction are in the Lucifer system. For example, the Indian ocean houses such bacteria in the oceanic sediment which is relies on the confirmation change of the enzyme luciferase.

It is no coincidence that this enzyme is named after Lucifer , the most evil of all biblical figures. Scientists know that the moonlight is also of an evil quality. It is clearly harmful (See the stickied moonlight thread or the metabolic FEB thread). Only deniers of truth and devil worshippers would think otherwise.
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: JackBlack on February 12, 2020, 05:01:58 AM
All that is required is for oxidation to occur.
Oxidation of a specific enzyme in a specific manner.

It is no coincidence that this enzyme is named after Lucifer
Yes because it means "light bringer", like the good deity in the Bible that brought man kind into the light and exposed the lies of "God".

the most evil of all biblical figures.
No, no where in the Bible does it call God lucifer, and God is certainly the most evil character in the Bible.

Scientists know that the moonlight is also of an evil quality. It is clearly harmful
It is no more harmful than light in general. There is nothing evil about it.

Now can you actually address the issues raised?
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: Ichimaru Gin :] on February 12, 2020, 05:10:56 AM
All that is required is for oxidation to occur.
Oxidation of a specific enzyme in a specific manner.

It is no coincidence that this enzyme is named after Lucifer
Yes because it means "light bringer", like the good deity in the Bible that brought man kind into the light and exposed the lies of "God".

the most evil of all biblical figures.
No, no where in the Bible does it call God lucifer, and God is certainly the most evil character in the Bible.

Scientists know that the moonlight is also of an evil quality. It is clearly harmful
It is no more harmful than light in general. There is nothing evil about it.

Now can you actually address the issues raised?
So Jackblack has admitted to being a devil worshipper. A sad revelation. I will pray for you.
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on February 12, 2020, 05:12:37 AM
There is no moonshrimp in my theory. We are talking about microbes. There is a big difference.
All that is required is for oxidation to occur.

The enzymes involved with the reaction are in the Lucifer system. For example, the Indian ocean houses such bacteria in the oceanic sediment which is relies on the confirmation change of the enzyme luciferase.

It is no coincidence that this enzyme is named after Lucifer , the most evil of all biblical figures. Scientists know that the moonlight is also of an evil quality. It is clearly harmful (See the stickied moonlight thread or the metabolic FEB thread). Only deniers of truth and devil worshippers would think otherwise.
A lot of things cause oxidation to occur. Almost none of those things glow when it happens.

Oxidation is also very far from proof that enzymes exist on the moon.
Just because things happen in the ocean, does not mean they happen on the moon, I dont even know how you are drawing the parallels.
Are there whales on the moon too?

The rest of the stuff you say is just things you find spooky and fantastical without any influence on the actual topic
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: JackBlack on February 12, 2020, 05:19:04 AM
So Jackblack has admitted to being a devil worshipper. A sad revelation. I will pray for you.
No, why would I worship a fictional character?
I'm just not foolish enough to think that God is the good one in the Bible.

Now again, care to address the problems with your bioluminescence idea?
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: Ichimaru Gin :] on February 12, 2020, 05:31:41 AM
There is no moonshrimp in my theory. We are talking about microbes. There is a big difference.
All that is required is for oxidation to occur.

The enzymes involved with the reaction are in the Lucifer system. For example, the Indian ocean houses such bacteria in the oceanic sediment which is relies on the confirmation change of the enzyme luciferase.

It is no coincidence that this enzyme is named after Lucifer , the most evil of all biblical figures. Scientists know that the moonlight is also of an evil quality. It is clearly harmful (See the stickied moonlight thread or the metabolic FEB thread). Only deniers of truth and devil worshippers would think otherwise.
A lot of things cause oxidation to occur. Almost none of those things glow when it happens.

Oxidation is also very far from proof that enzymes exist on the moon.
Just because things happen in the ocean, does not mean they happen on the moon, I dont even know how you are drawing the parallels.
Are there whales on the moon too?

The rest of the stuff you say is just things you find spooky and fantastical without any influence on the actual topic
I did not mean to spook or scare you my dear globularists. But it is useful to understand the connection scientists (GLOBULARIST SCIENTISTS mind you) can draw between the evils of Lucifer, Luciferase, and the danger of moonlight.

Yes I agree with you. Oxidation has many wonderful examples. In this case it occurs and gives off a water byproduct. The mechanism is there, the bioluminescence is observable, and we have an answer to our water distribution. Everything is very neatly tied in a bow. I think you may become a flat earthers yet :)
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on February 12, 2020, 05:54:22 AM
I did not mean to spook or scare you my dear globularists. But it is useful to understand the connection scientists (GLOBULARIST SCIENTISTS mind you) can draw between the evils of Lucifer, Luciferase, and the danger of moonlight.
I would love to see the published papers you may have on this!

Quote
Yes I agree with you. Oxidation has many wonderful examples. In this case it occurs and gives off a water byproduct. The mechanism is there, the bioluminescence is observable, and we have an answer to our water distribution. Everything is very neatly tied in a bow.
Bio-Luminescence suggests that there is life (Bio) on the moon.
Citation please.
What is your evidence of this?
Why are there not whales on the moon too?
Why cant it just be a giant LED screen controlled by someones iPad?
Back up your claims.
Quote
I think you may become a flat earthers yet :)
We have clearly never met
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: sokarul on February 12, 2020, 06:40:37 AM
Shadows on the moon deflate the bioluminescent idea.
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: magellanclavichord on February 12, 2020, 07:05:33 AM
It is true that some animals react to moonlight. And it is true that some animals are bioluminescent. But the water on the moon is almost entirely under the surface. And light does not penetrate rock. So for us to see biologically-created light on the moon it would have to be on the surface.

And there is no life on the surface of the moon because we've sent astronauts there, and there's no life on the surface of the moon!

But you cannot argue with people who will just deny all facts because there's no basis for the discussion. That's why you cannot argue with flat-Earthers or Republicans: They just deny the facts and call everybody liars.
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: Ichimaru Gin :] on February 12, 2020, 10:31:00 AM
And there is no life on the surface of the moon because we've sent astronauts there, and there's no life on the surface of the moon!
That's not really a justifiable claim now is it. I don't accept that astronauts have visited the moon. But even if they did- how would their short walks eliminate any possibility of life being present? Remember we're talking microflora.
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: JackBlack on February 12, 2020, 12:10:36 PM
I did not mean to spook or scare you my dear globularists. But it is useful to understand the connection scientists (GLOBULARIST SCIENTISTS mind you) can draw between the evils of Lucifer, Luciferase, and the danger of moonlight.
You mean no connection at all?
There are evils of lucifer. Lucifer refers to 2 separate fictional characters.
Its literal meaning is light bringing. It was the name given to the morning star before the evil Christians tried to sully it by linking it to Satan which they pretend is evil while worshipping a far more evil being.

The only real connection is that scientists seem to like using Latin for lots of things, and lucifer or light bringing is Latin. And what would be a better Latin name for something bringing forth light?

Now how about you cut the religious BS and instead deal with the massive failings of your wild speculation?

You claim it mirrors the patterns of bioluminescent creatures on Earth. Again, what creatures on Earth have a bioluminescent cycle that lasts for approximately 28 days, and then every 6 months, instead of being fully bright, they will some times dim, in a complex pattern?

In this case it occurs and gives off a water byproduct. The mechanism is there, the bioluminescence is observable
No, it isn't.

We know the mechanism on Earth, where there are the reactants for the chemical reaction. You have nothing more than wild speculation.
No bioluminescence is observable.
Instead we see the moon brightly illuminated, lit up by another object.
With bioluminescence we observe relatively sharp peaks in the emission spectra, based upon the enzyme and conditions.
For the moon, we see much closer to a black body radiation source.

This all points to the moon being illuminated by another bright object and it merely reflecting light.
Unlike your wild speculation, that actually wraps everything up in a nice little bow.

That's not really a justifiable claim now is it. I don't accept that astronauts have visited the moon.
You not liking the evidence/reality and wanting to reject it doesn't magically make the claim unjustifiable.
Do you know what is an unjustifiable claim? That the moon is lit up by bioluminescent organisms.

But even if they did- how would their short walks eliminate any possibility of life being present? Remember we're talking microflora.
Remember, you are talking about creatures which allegedly produce water from their bioluminescence.
The Astronauts went to an illuminated section of the moon, one which would be producing light and thus water if your wild speculation was true.
They didn't find water there.
Instead they notice the moon being illuminated by the sun, even having shadows cast.
They even brought back samples of the "dirt" from the moon.

So how about you try justifying your own claim?
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: Ichimaru Gin :] on February 12, 2020, 12:42:47 PM
So Jackblack, by walking around a landscape I can rule out that microflora live there or not?

Sorry but that's essentially what you are saying by disagreeing with my point that "astronauts" cannot make that determination from their space walks.

Unlike the wrong Earth theory, flat earthers rely on evidence.
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: rabinoz on February 12, 2020, 12:58:13 PM
I have shown you the spectra of sunlight and moonlight in here:
I see more fairytales being written without a trace of evidence.

By the way I can find nothing on the spectra of your bioluminescent mussels but almost all bioluminescence is nearly monochrome as shown for the zooplankton in this paper.
Bioluminescence spectra of shallow and deep-sea gelatinous zooplankton: Ctenophores, medusae and siphonophores (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225533119)
But the spectrum of moonlight is very similar to that of sunlight, just a little redder.
(https://i.postimg.cc/XNC8YQqQ/Comparison-of-Sunlight-and-Moonlight-Spectra.png) (https://postimages.org/)
I've yet to see bioluminecence with a spectrum like that.
Would you now show the spectra of the light from your bioluminescent mussels so that we may compare?

The mechanism is there, the bioluminescence is observable, and we have an answer to our water distribution. Everything is very neatly tied in a bow. I think you may become a flat earthers yet :)

Unlike the wrong Earth theory, flat earthers rely on evidence.
Where have you presented any evidence that there are any bioluminescent mussels on the Moon - or any living thing on the Moon?
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: magellanclavichord on February 12, 2020, 01:02:08 PM
And there is no life on the surface of the moon because we've sent astronauts there, and there's no life on the surface of the moon!
That's not really a justifiable claim now is it. I don't accept that astronauts have visited the moon. But even if they did- how would their short walks eliminate any possibility of life being present? Remember we're talking microflora.

You claim it gives off enough light to be seen from the Earth, almost 239 thousand miles away. Certainly the astronauts would have seen it while they were there. As for your belief they were not, well, reality is that which does not go away just because you don't believe in it. But I know that you're joking, because nobody who actually knows how to type on a computer could possibly be so dense as to disbelieve in the moon landings.

And microbes cannot live without water, and there is no water on the surface of the moon. Again, we know that from the astronauts who were there and from many unmanned landers. There is no life on or anywhere near the surface of the moon. And almost certainly none below, though that's not relevant to the question of moonlight visible from the Earth.
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: Ichimaru Gin :] on February 12, 2020, 01:13:26 PM
I went to Africa and didn't see any squirrels. Therefore there are no squirrels there.

See the flaw in logic?
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: sokarul on February 12, 2020, 01:28:11 PM
Shadows on the moon.


See the flaw in your “logic”?
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: JackBlack on February 12, 2020, 01:48:36 PM
So Jackblack, by walking around a landscape I can rule out that microflora live there or not?
Sorry but that's essentially what you are saying
No, it is nothing like what I am saying.

I am saying what they have done can conclusively rule out the moon being illuminated by bioluminescent organisms which give off water.
What they observed was that the moon was dry and illuminated by the sun which cast shadows.

I understand that you can't honestly respond to that, but don't lie about what I am saying.

Unlike the wrong Earth theory, flat earthers rely on evidence.
That sentence makes no sense. It directly contradicts itself.
Flat Earthers support wrong Earth nonsense, and outright reject evidence.

You are doing that right here, rejecting the evidence obtained by going to the moon and instead appealing to wild speculation supported by literally nothing.

Now again, care to deal with the massive flaws in your nonsense?
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: rabinoz on February 12, 2020, 02:10:57 PM
I went to Africa and didn't see any squirrels. Therefore there are no squirrels there.

See the flaw in logic?
Where have you presented any evidence that there are any bioluminescent organisms on the Moon - or any living thing on the Moon?

<< changed "mussels" to "organisms" :o >>
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: magellanclavichord on February 12, 2020, 02:49:29 PM
I went to Africa and didn't see any squirrels. Therefore there are no squirrels there.

See the flaw in logic?

But you didn't fly over Africa taking high-resolution pictures of every square meter to see if there were any trees for squirrels to live in or any nuts for squirrels to eat. You didn't take any soil samples to determine that there is no water or take measurements to determine that there's no air for them to breathe.

Remember, you're not just saying that there may be an isolated microbe here and there. You are saying that the entire visible surface of the moon is completely covered with microbes plentiful enough to illuminate the entire surface, including the places the astronauts visited.

If I had said that every square inch of the entire surface of Africa was coated in squirrels, your visit would have been sufficient to debunk my squirrel theory. You are claiming the entire surface of the moon is covered in bioluminescent microbes. The astronauts merely needed so show there is a small area without them to debunk your theory.

But let me congratulate you on drawing me in to debunk a theory you yourself do not believe. Like Wise, you are writing utter drivel to see how many people will come in to point out how idiotic that drivel is, and I've fallen for it also.
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: Ichimaru Gin :] on February 12, 2020, 03:45:53 PM
I have certainly not said that there are moon mussels!!! However rab, I would be more than happy to go in a sea faring voyage together to examine different mollusks. 

In fact the Great Clamality of the Gulf of the Caribbean is quite interesting. Mytilidae are unique in that they have both maternally and paternally inherited mitochondrial DNA which puts scientists in a unique position to study their cryptic complex and genome divergence. On the Western Atlantic shores and just South of Florida the family split off into distinct species with different mitogenomes we have sequenced.

Was their an environmental push towards this divergence? One theory is that a great hurricane system in the past disrupted not only where they resided but the bioluminescent patterns different animals use. In fact, the very Spectra of light seen by mollusks and their response to it very likely changed. What we see today is not the bioluminescence of old.  Brachidontes exustus responds to different wavelengths than its other related nominal species. Wavelength emissions and the reaction from organisms can change and why wouldn't it be different on the moon? Heck, the moon is a greater environmental difference than one hurricane!

As for claiming they only needed to show a small area....that doesn't even make sense on Earth. Bioluminescent organisms are not contiguously like a glowing blanket? Ever look to the see and observe a large glowing formation. It appears to be solid and without gaps. But when you look closer, there are gaps in the light. Does that mean suddenly you proved the organisms actually aren't present? Of course not!

Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: Stash on February 12, 2020, 03:59:32 PM
I have certainly not said that there are moon mussels!!! However rab, I would be more than happy to go in a sea faring voyage together to examine different mollusks. 

In fact the Great Clamality of the Gulf of the Caribbean is quite interesting. Mytilidae are unique in that they have both maternally and paternally inherited mitochondrial DNA which puts scientists in a unique position to study their cryptic complex and genome divergence. On the Western Atlantic shores and just South of Florida the family split off into distinct species with different mitogenomes we have sequenced.

Was their an environmental push towards this divergence? One theory is that a great hurricane system in the past disrupted not only where they resided but the bioluminescent patterns different animals use. In fact, the very Spectra of light seen by mollusks and their response to it very likely changed. What we see today is not the bioluminescence of old.  Brachidontes exustus responds to different wavelengths than its other related nominal species. Wavelength emissions and the reaction from organisms can change and why wouldn't it be different on the moon? Heck, the moon is a greater environmental difference than one hurricane!

As for claiming they only needed to show a small area....that doesn't even make sense on Earth. Bioluminescent organisms are not contiguously like a glowing blanket? Ever look to the see and observe a large glowing formation. It appears to be solid and without gaps. But when you look closer, there are gaps in the light. Does that mean suddenly you proved the organisms actually aren't present? Of course not!

Interesting info about bioluminescent organisms in the Caribbean, but what does any of this have to do with the predictable phases of the moon?
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: magellanclavichord on February 12, 2020, 05:03:29 PM
I have certainly not said that there are moon mussels!!! However rab, I would be more than happy to go in a sea faring voyage together to examine different mollusks. 

In fact the Great Clamality of the Gulf of the Caribbean is quite interesting. Mytilidae are unique in that they have both maternally and paternally inherited mitochondrial DNA which puts scientists in a unique position to study their cryptic complex and genome divergence. On the Western Atlantic shores and just South of Florida the family split off into distinct species with different mitogenomes we have sequenced.

Was their an environmental push towards this divergence? One theory is that a great hurricane system in the past disrupted not only where they resided but the bioluminescent patterns different animals use. In fact, the very Spectra of light seen by mollusks and their response to it very likely changed. What we see today is not the bioluminescence of old.  Brachidontes exustus responds to different wavelengths than its other related nominal species. Wavelength emissions and the reaction from organisms can change and why wouldn't it be different on the moon? Heck, the moon is a greater environmental difference than one hurricane!

As for claiming they only needed to show a small area....that doesn't even make sense on Earth. Bioluminescent organisms are not contiguously like a glowing blanket? Ever look to the see and observe a large glowing formation. It appears to be solid and without gaps. But when you look closer, there are gaps in the light. Does that mean suddenly you proved the organisms actually aren't present? Of course not!



The difference is that on the moon there are none of the elements needed for life. Ergo, no life. All your speculations about divergence and wavelengths and clumping or non-clumping are moot in an environment where there is no life and can be no life. Your information about mussels is actually fascinating. Thanks for posting that. But it's irrelevant on the moon where no life can exist.
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: rabinoz on February 12, 2020, 09:32:28 PM
I have certainly not said that there are moon mussels!!! However rab, I would be more than happy to go in a sea faring voyage together to examine different mollusks. 
OK. Where have you presented any evidence that there are any bioluminescent organisms on the Moon - or any living thing on the Moon?

A "a sea faring voyage" on Earth would be quite irrelevant.
I already know that there are plenty of bioluminescent organisms: some fly, some set traps for flying things and many live in the ocean.

That bears no relation to what might be found on the moon.
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on February 12, 2020, 10:19:15 PM
Unlike the wrong Earth theory, flat earthers rely on evidence.
I have asked before, but you seemed to have ignored that post.
Can you please provide me with a research paper that the moon produces harmful rays

And then can you provide me with some of this evidence that the moon whales and moon unicorns have not eaten all of the moonshrimp up.
I mean, there are no moon oceans, as we would see it, so the moon shrimp would have no place to live.
Easy pickings for the moon unicorns to just eat them all up.
After that you have to prove to me how the moon lions dont eat all the moon unicorns.

But really, all I want is any shred of evidence for what you are saying.
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: JackBlack on February 13, 2020, 12:08:56 AM
As for claiming they only needed to show a small area....that doesn't even make sense on Earth.
That has already been explained, we aren't trying to just go out in ignorance trying to see if there is any life on the moon.

You are claiming that there are bioluminescent organism which cycle their illumination to produce their phases of the moon, and which produce water in the process.
That means all they need to do is go to a region which is illuminated and inspect it.
If they don't find any water, your claims are wrong.
If they find the moon illuminated by the sun with shadows cast onto it, your claims are wrong.

If your claims are correct they should fine the moon brightly illuminated with shadows being cast upwards from the surface, and find water on the surface.

Now again, can you actually address the issues raised.
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: stankann on February 13, 2020, 12:59:52 AM
But you cannot argue with people who will just deny all facts because there's no basis for the discussion. That's why you cannot argue with flat-Earthers or Republicans: They just deny the facts and call everybody liars.

Well said.
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: markjo on February 13, 2020, 07:04:06 AM
One fact that the Flat earth theory and Wrong earth theory seem to agree on is that the moon harbors dynamic pockets of water welled in local clustering.
Too bad none of that water is in liquid form.

We have an explanation for water on the moon. Globularists don't.
The same way scientists think that earth got its water: comets.
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: John Davis on February 13, 2020, 11:45:47 AM
It is well established that the moon is teaming with both life and that this life poses a risk to man through its defensive mechanism of bioluminescence. I find it hard to believe anyone should take the opposing stance as this has been known since antiquity. Further, Ichi has provided us with the results of several studies on bioluminescence that confirm our already well supported knowledge on the subject.

I'd like to understand exactly what is so unbelievable here. It is clear the light from the moon is of a distinctly different nature than those given off by the greater luminary Sol. It is even more clear that it poses risk to us.

You are a fool to think otherwise, and you put your mind and reason at risk by ignoring the obvious signs of danger.

Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: John Davis on February 13, 2020, 11:53:39 AM
The Society officially wipes its hands of responsibility for any globularist foolish enough to wander in the light of the lesser luminary.

One easy to note evidence of our luna friends is the fact moon light is polarized - much like many other forms of bioluminescence. It is as obvious as day is day and night is night that this polarized light poses a danger to many animal, insect, and beast - and yes to man itself.

Recall the warnings from the Giants upon whom you have propped up your false earth model. It is expected of all good forum goers to be aware of classical works such as On the Face on the Orb of the Moon so that they do not spread disinformation and fake news that can be of danger to our members. After all, Salus populi suprema lex esto!
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: wise on February 13, 2020, 11:57:51 AM
People have avoided moonlight for centuries. these people must were  knowing something. Unless otherwise scientifically proven, moonlight is harmful. Those who claim to always behave scientifically throw aside scientific thinking when it comes to moonlight, and deny the harm of moonlight even though they don't have any data.

They deny the harmless of the moonlight without any evidence that accepted from years ; but we are denying their globalist theory with some evidences then they blaim us to not act scientific. What a hypocrisy. They are who acting unscientific and hypocritical clearly.
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: JackBlack on February 13, 2020, 12:34:53 PM
It is well established that the moon is teaming with both life and that this life poses a risk to man through its defensive mechanism of bioluminescence.
Since when?
I have seen no evidence of that at all.

I'd like to understand exactly what is so unbelievable here.
Then read what has been said.
What bioluminescent creatures have the patterns of light observed, which are far more consistent with an object being illuminated by the sun.
What bioluminescent creatures produce the spectrum of light observed from the moon, which is far more consistent with a black body?

It is clear the light from the moon is of a distinctly different nature than those given off by the greater luminary Sol. It is even more clear that it poses risk to us.
No, it isn't clear at all.
If you think it is, how about providing some evidence showing it is?

People have avoided moonlight for centuries. these people must were  knowing something. Unless otherwise scientifically proven, moonlight is harmful. Those who claim to always behave scientifically throw aside scientific thinking when it comes to moonlight, and deny the harm of moonlight even though they don't have any data.
That isn't how science works.
Those who claim moonlight is harmful with no evidence are the ones throwing aside scientific thinking.
Without that evidence there is no basis for the claim that moonlight is harmful.
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: rabinoz on February 13, 2020, 12:40:30 PM
It is well established that the moon is teaming with both life and that this life poses a risk to man through its defensive mechanism of bioluminescence.
(https://i.postimg.cc/BZRwhH39/Oh-sure-sure-Whatever-you-say.gif) (https://postimages.org/)
"It is well established" is about the weakest argument :o I could think of.
Would care to provide evidence showing that "the moon is teaming with life ;D", that "this life poses a risk to man >:D" and that this life has any "defensive mechanism of bioluminescence 8)"?
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: John Davis on February 13, 2020, 01:07:43 PM
There is plenty of evidence of the harmful nature of moonlight.

Oh where to begin, for in all directions it is so plentiful one must wonder if your tin foil hat has fallen over your eyes on this point.

Acomys cahirnus can be noted to have a drop in body temperature and activity during the full moon. He is not alone in this as it affects much of the animal kingdom and other kingdoms. Bats for instance tend to reduce hunting to avoid the harmful polarized light of the moon; lions take advantage of the weakness of other animals during the moon by increasing their hunting rates. Human doctor visits increase during the full moon as do pet vet visits. Corals go into a mating frenzing due to the lack of smaller biological enemies subdued by the full moon. Some scorpians even glow blue due to it attacking certain proteins. Even man sleeps worse in the full moon. Fish rots faster when left out in moonlight. Man has often put out laws dictating that one should harvest during certain moons - and stay out of contact with others. These included laws around preventing sailors from sleeping on decks in the moonlight.

Any man who has owned a horse and seen it afflicted with the terrible disease of moonblindness can attest that the intermittency of the blindness is dictated by the lesser luminary. Lyme disease is worsened by the full moon. As is Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, arthritis, and many other ailments. Parasites are also more active during the full moon, taking advantage of their weakened hosts.


Some studies show an astonishing 80% of emergency department nurses and 64% of emergency physicians believed the moon affects patients. I'm sure these experts are all idiots and superstitious.


More than this, it has been firmly established by Rowbotham and others on both sides of the aisle, such as Plutarch's treatise, that fish rot when left out in moonlight. How can you even hope to topple the truth of the Flat Earth if you are not even familiar with the greatest work of scientific literature known to man?


Its ludicrous to say the moon is not dangerous and you know it. Every culture on earth has known it. Animals know it. Primates know it. Lions know it. Doctors, Nurses, Psychiatric professionals all will attest to the moons dangerous affects. And even you, yes you, know it somewhere buried deep below the piles of rotund mess they threw in your head. You just have to let it shine through.


As Shakespeare once warned:
"It is the very error of the moon, She comes more near the earth than she was wont, And makes men mad."

And Hippocrates confirms: "no physician should be entrusted with the treatment of disease who was ignorant of the science of astronomy."

And Pliny the Elder reports that it led to the brain to be 'unnaturally moist' leading to madness.

And, again, we see the truth through Paracelsus
"mania has the following symptoms: frantic behaviour, unreasonableness, constant restlessness and mischievousness. Some patients suffer from it depending on the phases of the moon."

German psychologist Ewald Hering: "with full moon, increasing mania."


Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: John Davis on February 13, 2020, 01:25:27 PM
There is plenty of evidence of the harmful nature of moonlight.

Oh where to begin, for in all directions it is so plentiful one must wonder if your tin foil hat has fallen over your eyes on this point.

Acomys cahirnus can be noted to have a drop in body temperature and activity during the full moon. He is not alone in this as it affects much of the animal kingdom and other kingdoms. Bats for instance tend to reduce hunting to avoid the harmful polarized light of the moon; lions take advantage of the weakness of other animals during the moon by increasing their hunting rates. Human doctor visits increase during the full moon as do pet vet visits. Corals go into a mating frenzing due to the lack of smaller biological enemies subdued by the full moon. Some scorpians even glow blue due to it attacking certain proteins. Even man sleeps worse in the full moon. Fish rots faster when left out in moonlight. Man has often put out laws dictating that one should harvest during certain moons - and stay out of contact with others. These included laws around preventing sailors from sleeping on decks in the moonlight.

Any man who has owned a horse and seen it afflicted with the terrible disease of moonblindness can attest that the intermittency of the blindness is dictated by the lesser luminary. Lyme disease is worsened by the full moon. As is Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, arthritis, and many other ailments. Parasites are also more active during the full moon, taking advantage of their weakened hosts.


Some studies show an astonishing 80% of emergency department nurses and 64% of emergency physicians believed the moon affects patients. I'm sure these experts are all idiots and superstitious.


More than this, it has been firmly established by Rowbotham and others on both sides of the aisle, such as Plutarch's treatise, that fish rot when left out in moonlight. How can you even hope to topple the truth of the Flat Earth if you are not even familiar with the greatest work of scientific literature known to man?


Its ludicrous to say the moon is not dangerous and you know it. Every culture on earth has known it. Animals know it. Primates know it. Lions know it. Doctors, Nurses, Psychiatric professionals all will attest to the moons dangerous affects. And even you, yes you, know it somewhere buried deep below the piles of rotund mess they threw in your head. You just have to let it shine through.


As Shakespeare once warned:
"It is the very error of the moon, She comes more near the earth than she was wont, And makes men mad."

And Hippocrates confirms: "no physician should be entrusted with the treatment of disease who was ignorant of the science of astronomy."

And Pliny the Elder reports that it led to the brain to be 'unnaturally moist' leading to madness.

And, again, we see the truth through Paracelsus
"mania has the following symptoms: frantic behaviour, unreasonableness, constant restlessness and mischievousness. Some patients suffer from it depending on the phases of the moon."

German psychologist Ewald Hering: "with full moon, increasing mania."



Even rock stars know it: https://idobi.com/podcast/053-john-eric-davis-flat-earth-society/
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: Yes on February 13, 2020, 01:28:23 PM
For those that doubt these findings, I challenge you to very closely examine the ovaries of the mussels found within our oceans and honestly try to argue otherwise. The speculum of truth lies beneath your sandy feet.
I feel like this needs further elaboration.
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: magellanclavichord on February 13, 2020, 01:29:56 PM
Doris Day. By the Light of the Moon.


Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: JackBlack on February 13, 2020, 01:37:36 PM
Acomys cahirnus can be noted to have a drop in body temperature and activity during the full moon.
Which is "harmful" to the predators which would rather eat it.
That isn't a harmful effect of the moon light.
Most of what you are saying in that section is describing different behaviour during the full moon rather than any indication of actual harm from the moon light.
The only times you go into harm it is just making baseless assertions.

Some make no sense at all.
If the moonlight causes so much harm that it weakens things, why would lions go hunting in this weakened state?

Some studies show an astonishing 80% of emergency department nurses and 64% of emergency physicians believed the moon affects patients.
Yes, believes. So no indication of any actual harmful effect.

More than this, it has been firmly established by Rowbotham
I wouldn't say anything has been firmly established by Row Boat except his lack of integrity.

fish rot when left out in moonlight.
Fish rot in general.

Its ludicrous to say the moon is not dangerous and you know it.
No, it isn't.
There is nothing more than wild speculation including superstitious nonsense claiming it to be harmful, combined with different behaviours due to a difference in light level.
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: rabinoz on February 13, 2020, 01:44:44 PM
There is plenty of evidence of the harmful nature of moonlight.

Oh where to begin, for in all directions it is so plentiful one must wonder if your tin foil hat has fallen over your eyes on this point.

Acomys cahirnus can be noted to have a drop in body temperature and activity during the full moon. He is not alone in this as it affects much of the animal kingdom and other kingdoms. Bats for instance tend to reduce hunting to avoid the harmful polarized light of the moon; lions take advantage of the weakness of other animals during the moon by increasing their hunting rates. Human doctor visits increase during the full moon as do pet vet visits. Corals go into a mating frenzing due to the lack of smaller biological enemies subdued by the full moon. Some scorpians even glow blue due to it attacking certain proteins. Even man sleeps worse in the full moon. Fish rots faster when left out in moonlight. Man has often put out laws dictating that one should harvest during certain moons - and stay out of contact with others. These included laws around preventing sailors from sleeping on decks in the moonlight.

Any man who has owned a horse and seen it afflicted with the terrible disease of moonblindness can attest that the intermittency of the blindness is dictated by the lesser luminary. Lyme disease is worsened by the full moon. As is Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, arthritis, and many other ailments. Parasites are also more active during the full moon, taking advantage of their weakened hosts.


Some studies show an astonishing 80% of emergency department nurses and 64% of emergency physicians believed the moon affects patients. I'm sure these experts are all idiots and superstitious.


More than this, it has been firmly established by Rowbotham and others on both sides of the aisle, such as Plutarch's treatise, that fish rot when left out in moonlight. How can you even hope to topple the truth of the Flat Earth if you are not even familiar with the greatest work of scientific literature known to man?


Its ludicrous to say the moon is not dangerous and you know it. Every culture on earth has known it. Animals know it. Primates know it. Lions know it. Doctors, Nurses, Psychiatric professionals all will attest to the moons dangerous affects. And even you, yes you, know it somewhere buried deep below the piles of rotund mess they threw in your head. You just have to let it shine through.


As Shakespeare once warned:
"It is the very error of the moon, She comes more near the earth than she was wont, And makes men mad."

And Hippocrates confirms: "no physician should be entrusted with the treatment of disease who was ignorant of the science of astronomy."

And Pliny the Elder reports that it led to the brain to be 'unnaturally moist' leading to madness.

And, again, we see the truth through Paracelsus
"mania has the following symptoms: frantic behaviour, unreasonableness, constant restlessness and mischievousness. Some patients suffer from it depending on the phases of the moon."

German psychologist Ewald Hering: "with full moon, increasing mania."

Even rock stars know it: https://idobi.com/podcast/053-john-eric-davis-flat-earth-society/
Sure, evidence right up there with Rowbotham's evidence for a flat Earth.
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: sokarul on February 13, 2020, 02:47:19 PM
There is plenty of evidence of the harmful nature of moonlight.

Oh where to begin, for in all directions it is so plentiful one must wonder if your tin foil hat has fallen over your eyes on this point.

Acomys cahirnus can be noted to have a drop in body temperature and activity during the full moon. He is not alone in this as it affects much of the animal kingdom and other kingdoms. Bats for instance tend to reduce hunting to avoid the harmful polarized light of the moon; lions take advantage of the weakness of other animals during the moon by increasing their hunting rates. Human doctor visits increase during the full moon as do pet vet visits. Corals go into a mating frenzing due to the lack of smaller biological enemies subdued by the full moon. Some scorpians even glow blue due to it attacking certain proteins. Even man sleeps worse in the full moon. Fish rots faster when left out in moonlight. Man has often put out laws dictating that one should harvest during certain moons - and stay out of contact with others. These included laws around preventing sailors from sleeping on decks in the moonlight.

Any man who has owned a horse and seen it afflicted with the terrible disease of moonblindness can attest that the intermittency of the blindness is dictated by the lesser luminary. Lyme disease is worsened by the full moon. As is Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, arthritis, and many other ailments. Parasites are also more active during the full moon, taking advantage of their weakened hosts.


Some studies show an astonishing 80% of emergency department nurses and 64% of emergency physicians believed the moon affects patients. I'm sure these experts are all idiots and superstitious.


More than this, it has been firmly established by Rowbotham and others on both sides of the aisle, such as Plutarch's treatise, that fish rot when left out in moonlight. How can you even hope to topple the truth of the Flat Earth if you are not even familiar with the greatest work of scientific literature known to man?


Its ludicrous to say the moon is not dangerous and you know it. Every culture on earth has known it. Animals know it. Primates know it. Lions know it. Doctors, Nurses, Psychiatric professionals all will attest to the moons dangerous affects. And even you, yes you, know it somewhere buried deep below the piles of rotund mess they threw in your head. You just have to let it shine through.


As Shakespeare once warned:
"It is the very error of the moon, She comes more near the earth than she was wont, And makes men mad."

And Hippocrates confirms: "no physician should be entrusted with the treatment of disease who was ignorant of the science of astronomy."

And Pliny the Elder reports that it led to the brain to be 'unnaturally moist' leading to madness.

And, again, we see the truth through Paracelsus
"mania has the following symptoms: frantic behaviour, unreasonableness, constant restlessness and mischievousness. Some patients suffer from it depending on the phases of the moon."

German psychologist Ewald Hering: "with full moon, increasing mania."

https://thedo.osteopathic.org/2015/10/full-moon-madness-in-the-er-myth-or-reality/

The evidence is there is no correlation. They are mistaken.
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: Stash on February 13, 2020, 02:51:32 PM
There is plenty of evidence of the harmful nature of moonlight.

Oh where to begin, for in all directions it is so plentiful one must wonder if your tin foil hat has fallen over your eyes on this point.

Acomys cahirnus can be noted to have a drop in body temperature and activity during the full moon. He is not alone in this as it affects much of the animal kingdom and other kingdoms. Bats for instance tend to reduce hunting to avoid the harmful polarized light of the moon;

Light reflected off the moon and direct sunlight are both not polarized, but both can gain polarization through the atmosphere and reflected off of surfaces and such.

lions take advantage of the weakness of other animals during the moon by increasing their hunting rates.

It's not weakness in prey animals caused by moonlight, it's purely a visibility issue; prey is more easily seen in the light.
"Some animals, especially nocturnal species, have adapted their hunting and mating activities to the light of the moon. Some animals simply see better at night or are aided by the light of the moon. In contrast, prey animals know that to be seen means to be eaten, so it's prudent to hide when the moon is bright."

There's no evidence that moonlight causes 'weakness' in the animal kingdom

Some scorpians even glow blue due to it attacking certain proteins.

Again, a visibility issue between predator and prey:
"SCORPIONS may use the mysterious green glow they emit in ultraviolet light as a crude tool for deciding when the night is too bright for them to go out safely."


Even man sleeps worse in the full moon.

I don't.

Fish rots faster when left out in moonlight.

Faster than what?

Man has often put out laws dictating that one should harvest during certain moons - and stay out of contact with others. These included laws around preventing sailors from sleeping on decks in the moonlight.

Laws? I have found no laws.

Any man who has owned a horse and seen it afflicted with the terrible disease of moonblindness can attest that the intermittency of the blindness is dictated by the lesser luminary.

Equine Moonblindness (or Equine Recurrent Uveitis):
"We now know that moon blindness can occur over a period of days, weeks, months or years and has nothing to do with the moon...Bacteria, fungus, viruses, parasites, pollen, vitamin deficiencies, autoimmune deficiencies and physical injury all may be a cause of moon blindness."

Lyme disease is worsened by the full moon.

Lyme bacteria asexually reproduces on a 4 week cycle not attributed to the moon.

As is Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, arthritis, and many other ailments.

Referred to as "Sundowning: Late-day confusion". Moon or no moon, doesn't matter.

Some studies show an astonishing 80% of emergency department nurses and 64% of emergency physicians believed the moon affects patients. I'm sure these experts are all idiots and superstitious.

"During thirteen months, 58000 trauma patients admitted in three hospitals that had the highest load of trauma patients in Tehran were studied...In our study the number of trauma patients was not increased during the full moon days against other days of lunar month."
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: rabinoz on February 13, 2020, 03:25:14 PM
Fish rots faster when left out in moonlight.

Faster than what?

This I can even answer! "Fish rots faster when left out in moonlight" than when kept in a refrigerator (https://i.postimg.cc/3wrJgNQS/Einstein-Duh.jpg) (https://postimages.org/).
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: magellanclavichord on February 13, 2020, 04:05:44 PM
... Man has often put out laws dictating that one should harvest during certain moons ...

This is not true. In fact, while there are no laws one way or the other, farmers used to harvest during the full moon:

In grain-growing regions such as the American great plains, rain is common in summer. Rain on ripe wheat can spoil it. So it is critical that it be harvested as quickly as possible once it is ripe. Before farmers had tractors with electric lights the light of the moon made it possible to harvest the grain non-stop, day and night until it was all harvested. Nowadays this is easier because tractors have headlights and farmers can work all night. But before there were electric lights, farmers would plant their grain at a certain phase of the moon (depending on the length of time it took a particular kind of grain to grow and ripen) timing the planting so that the grain would ripen at the full moon, so that they could harvest all night (and all day) long.

Farmers routinely and always harvested during the full moon. You've got it completely upside down and backwards, just as all your arguments for FET are upside down and backwards.
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: magellanclavichord on February 13, 2020, 04:10:11 PM
Fish rots faster when left out in moonlight.

Faster than what?

This I can even answer! "Fish rots faster when left out in moonlight" than when kept in a refrigerator (https://i.postimg.cc/3wrJgNQS/Einstein-Duh.jpg) (https://postimages.org/).

Because the refrigerator keeps out the moonlight. Sorry. I just had to say that before Wise or John Davis beat me to it.  ;) O:-) ;D  FE is so frigging stupid sometimes I just can't resist .
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: rabinoz on February 13, 2020, 05:06:02 PM
Fish rots faster when left out in moonlight.

Faster than what?

This I can even answer! "Fish rots faster when left out in moonlight" than when kept in a refrigerator (https://i.postimg.cc/3wrJgNQS/Einstein-Duh.jpg) (https://postimages.org/).
Because the refrigerator keeps out the moonlight.
Why didn't I think of that? But then again so many videos claim that moonlight cools, see:

Magnified moonlight seems to have cooling effect,

unlike reflected sunlight.
     
Cold Moonlight? Yes moonlight definitely cools.

Any explanations?

That last  video asks "Any explanations?" so try this one Why is moonlight cold? (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=77257.msg2088183#msg2088183)
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: magellanclavichord on February 13, 2020, 05:18:21 PM
So you need to put the fish in the refrigerator and the refrigerator in the moonlight. ;D

And just because I like it, here's the Doris Day song again, proving that moonlight is romantic and is not harmful unless falling in love is a bad thing.

Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: Ichimaru Gin :] on February 13, 2020, 05:28:41 PM
So you need to put the fish in the refrigerator and the refrigerator in the moonlight. ;D

And just because I like it, here's the Doris Day song again, proving that moonlight is romantic and is not harmful unless falling in love is a bad thing.


I know you enjoy heckling flat earthers like myself, but please heed our warning when it comes to moonlight. You and rab seem like decent enough fellas and I don't want you two ending up sick and hurt.

Please review how startling the dangerous effects of moonlight on plants can be. My experiment is data driven and can be replicated. My only regret is having to purposefully stress and harm plant life in the pursuit of truth.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=36906.0
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: John Davis on February 13, 2020, 06:21:51 PM
So far the complaints to my above posts have been an exercise in cherry picking and google dicking.

Man sleeps worse in full moon:
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-23405941
Interestingly, this is not the case when placed in a room with protection from moonlight.

Again, the Alzheimer’s Association relates a study by Dr. Alan Beck which concluded wandering, agitation, physical aggression, and verbal confrontation were increased and lasted longer in Alzheimer's patients during the full moon. The results were said to be "largely significant." This is not the only study of this nature.

I suggest you take appropriate precautions: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66597.120

Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: Stash on February 13, 2020, 06:26:30 PM
So you need to put the fish in the refrigerator and the refrigerator in the moonlight. ;D

And just because I like it, here's the Doris Day song again, proving that moonlight is romantic and is not harmful unless falling in love is a bad thing.


I know you enjoy heckling flat earthers like myself, but please heed our warning when it comes to moonlight. You and rab seem like decent enough fellas and I don't want you two ending up sick and hurt.

Please review how startling the dangerous effects of moonlight on plants can be. My experiment is data driven and can be replicated. My only regret is having to purposefully stress and harm plant life in the pursuit of truth.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=36906.0

Interesting research. Everything I've read about the properties of moonlight (the moon itself) and it's effects on plant life/vegetation, specifically agriculture, has been the exact opposite. Healthy, not harmful.
Mostly how moisture content is moved throughout the structure of the plant life, to the benefit of growth. It's no mystery that plant life has evolved to depend upon light from a photosynthetic perspective. The moon provides a reflected light that works in harmony with nature just as the sun does directly. Again, no mystery.

To say that moonlight is harmful is dubious at best and contrary to science, aside from dismembering your Hydras.
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: rabinoz on February 13, 2020, 06:30:52 PM
Man sleeps worse in full moon:
I am a man and I do not sleep worse at a time of a full moon!
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: rabinoz on February 13, 2020, 06:31:48 PM
You and rab seem like decent enough fellas and I don't want you two ending up sick and hurt.
I'm still waiting for any evidence that there is any sign of bioluminescent matter, living or otherwise, on the Moon. So far your have provided none.
For those that doubt these findings, I challenge you to very closely examine the ovaries of the mussels found within our oceans and honestly try to argue otherwise. The speculum of truth lies beneath your sandy feet.
This is all about bioluminescent organisms on Earth and so is quite irrelevant.

And, I should point out that correlation is not proof nor even good evidence of causation.
Quote from:  Ky Harlin, BuzzFeed: Director of Data Science
The 10 Most Bizarre Correlations (https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/kjh2110/the-10-most-bizarre-correlations)
A pirate shortage caused global warming.
(https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/enhanced/webdr05/2013/4/9/15/enhanced-buzz-1129-1365534361-10.jpg?downsize=700%3A%2A&output-quality=auto&output-format=auto)

Eating organic food causes autism
(https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/enhanced/webdr01/2013/4/9/15/enhanced-buzz-orig-5157-1365534704-6.jpg?downsize=800:*&output-format=auto&output-quality=auto)

Using Internet Explorer leads to murder
(https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/enhanced/webdr02/2013/4/9/15/enhanced-buzz-orig-25474-1365534595-29.jpg?downsize=800:*&output-format=auto&output-quality=auto)

Mexican lime imports prevent highway deaths
(https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/enhanced/webdr01/2013/4/9/16/enhanced-buzz-29559-1365540224-3.jpg?downsize=800:*&output-format=auto&output-quality=auto)
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: John Davis on February 13, 2020, 06:32:29 PM
You must be a fool then.

Any knowledged man will readily acknowledge that the lesser luminary's light will beg at man's will and sanity. To think that the moon's light affects not a single part of man is a modern novelty. Something about the mindset of modern man seems to deem that "lunar madness" is a non-scientific phenomenae and of superstition, and thus those that follow orthodoxy fall in line.

The modern scientist cares far more for coherency with fashion than he does with Truth.
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: John Davis on February 13, 2020, 06:34:33 PM
And to the moon: you might sleep worse and not know it. Its well established. Here's I don't know. A bbc on it. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-43960958

Because you can't be bothered to consult the infinite knowledge at your fingertips before disagreeing with a flatist.
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: John Davis on February 13, 2020, 06:36:20 PM
Rest well in your convictions, but please. For the sake of goodness cover your blinds at the least. I have suffered the malaise of the moon and it is not something you should wish upon your enemies.
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: Stash on February 13, 2020, 06:42:36 PM
So far the complaints to my above posts have been an exercise in cherry picking and google dicking.

Your complaints about the moon and its 'harmful' effects are just as much, if not more, of an exercise in cherry picking and google dicking?

Man sleeps worse in full moon:
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-23405941
Interestingly, this is not the case when placed in a room with protection from moonlight.

Interesting results regarding the 33 participants in the study. Things like, "During a full moon, it took participants 5 minutes longer to fall asleep..." Like I said, I am not personally sleep affected by the moon cycle, but perhaps I don't notice the 5 minute difference.

Again, the Alzheimer’s Association relates a study by Dr. Alan Beck which concluded wandering, agitation, physical aggression, and verbal confrontation were increased and lasted longer in Alzheimer's patients during the full moon. The results were said to be "largely significant." This is not the only study of this nature.

All I could find about Dr. Beck's study was: "During the full moon, Alzheimer's patients displayed a significant increase in wandering, anxiety, physical aggression and verbal confrontation. The full moon also appeared to significantly affect the activities of daily living for the Alzheimer's patients." I couldn't find 'largely' anywhere.

Though interesting, saying moonlight is 'harmful' is just clickbait at this point and doesn't address the fact that moonlight is reflected from the sun and not from some zero-evidence notion that there are bioluminescent creatures up there lighting themselves up in a highly predictable, clock-like manner to present the phases to us.
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: Stash on February 13, 2020, 06:45:22 PM
Rest well in your convictions, but please. For the sake of goodness cover your blinds at the least. I have suffered the malaise of the moon and it is not something you should wish upon your enemies.

You are so channeling Leo Ferrari right now. It's impressive, really.
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: rabinoz on February 13, 2020, 06:47:09 PM
You must be a fool then.

Any knowledged man will readily acknowledge that the lesser luminary's light will beg at man's will and sanity.
He will?

Quote from: John Davis
To think that the moon's light affects not a single part of man is a modern novelty.
The light of a full moon is simply reflected sunlight and with almost identical properties other than being greatly reduced in intensity.

Hence any rational man would regard your claims as simply superstitions and psychological effects.
 
Quote from: John Davis
Something about the mindset of modern man seems to deem that "lunar madness" is a non-scientific phenomena and of superstition.
That seems to sum it up.
 
Quote from: John Davis
and thus those that follow orthodoxy fall in line.
and those that follow logic and what fits with their own experience.
Orthodoxy is not incorrect simply because it is orthodoxy. Some of orthodoxy might be incorrect because it was based on inadequate evidence.

Quote from: John Davis
The modern scientist cares far more for coherency with fashion than he does with Truth.
I would say that is totally false in many disciplines of science. Many scientists would dearly love to prove Einstein's relativity "wrong".


Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: Ichimaru Gin :] on February 13, 2020, 06:48:00 PM
Rest well in your convictions, but please. For the sake of goodness cover your blinds at the least. I have suffered the malaise of the moon and it is not something you should wish upon your enemies.

You are so channeling Leo Ferrari right now. It's impressive, really.
How dare you compare John to that pestiferous perjurer.
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: Stash on February 13, 2020, 06:55:01 PM
Rest well in your convictions, but please. For the sake of goodness cover your blinds at the least. I have suffered the malaise of the moon and it is not something you should wish upon your enemies.

You are so channeling Leo Ferrari right now. It's impressive, really.
How dare you compare John to that pestiferous perjurer.

Actually Leo was more in it from the satirical standpoint and the effects of which upon the intellect, psyche, and philosophical nature of humanity; Make outlandish claims and examine how the gentry react.

JD is Leo Ferrari incarnate.
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: John Davis on February 13, 2020, 07:04:38 PM
How dare you accuse the most prominent scientist of 2019 of being a peddler of archaic beliefs and philosophical fancies. I hold respect for him only because he showed the way to the non-euclidean flat earth and his work towards his actual studies. As time progresses, there is a humour that must be had by taking the piss from our detractors. What, do you want me to explain this joke to you? To others?

He is a part of our history, and having had the mantle passed to me as Secretary, I have a solemn and holy duty to appropriately represent our history. But that charlatan is not my namesake and you are at most an errand naysayer to think as much.
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: John Davis on February 13, 2020, 07:06:46 PM
I have never been more insulted.
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: John Davis on February 13, 2020, 07:14:08 PM
I must rest. This insult has worn my soul, and I must spend time towards my mysticism. It is a shame it has come to this. Shame on all of you. Shame.
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: rabinoz on February 13, 2020, 07:14:57 PM
I must rest. This insult has worn my soul, and I must spend time towards my mysticism. It is a shame it has come to this. Shame on all of you. Shame.
:o
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: Ichimaru Gin :] on February 13, 2020, 07:15:56 PM
Name calling is all globularists have when they cannot refute our evidence. The harmfulness of moonlight is damning.
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: Stash on February 13, 2020, 07:43:24 PM
I have never been more insulted.

I'm surprised you would be insulted, he was a genius:

"Nowadays if you say that God is dead, the general reaction is “so what?” but if you say that the earth is flat, then God help you. Even in the days of its greatest power, the Church was more tolerant than our modern scientific establishment. The Church at least allowed for one dissenting viewpoint : the devil’s.”
- Leo Ferrari

Let your soul rest under the moonlight. And wake reaffirmed in your torture of science and mysticism and be it but a speck upon the landscape of humanity that you, of among the greatest scientists the world has ever known, goes unrecognized and defaulted. Instead you should be lauded and applauded for a performance unforgiving, sacrificial, and unyielding. Enjoy your happenstance as a leader in the cause and continue to imbue those that pass by with your wisdom and guidance.
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: John Davis on February 13, 2020, 07:53:47 PM
Even your smallest sigh leaves a far greater impact than you will ever be able to quantify.

I am insulted by his theory; his method was pretty spot on. He had something to say, and yes I agree with his method of saying it; his theory was insulting to our cause. It insulted us and might as well have been an SNL skitch(sic). It had the good bits and the bad bits. We stand on the shoulders of giants, but they seem like dwarves from here. Quantum Ab Hoc!

But that's discussion. It goes here and there.

You don't get to choose the medium.

Happenstance had nothing to do with it. That part took the most work.
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: John Davis on February 13, 2020, 07:54:55 PM
Happenstance is harder than it looks...
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: Stash on February 13, 2020, 11:21:51 PM
Happenstance is harder than it looks...

Agreed. It takes vigilance to make happenstance adhere.

Leo Ferrari was a master at quantum ad hoc endeavors. You have big shoes to fill, as it were. But you are moving and leading in the right direction. He would be proud of your continued work within the realm.
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on February 13, 2020, 11:40:01 PM
This thread went down the gutter fast.

If bio-luminescence is so dangerous, why does it not effect all the moon-whales and moon-unicorns up there.
It has clearly been established through the ages that is where unicorns come from.

Check mate.

Also, John, If the moon is so dangerous, why do millions of different species of insect only come out to navigate in moonlight and no other night?

here, I found 2770 scholar articles that you can look at
https://scholar.google.co.za/scholar?q=insect+navigation+moonlight&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart (https://scholar.google.co.za/scholar?q=insect+navigation+moonlight&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart)
but this one is more specific
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rsbl.2014.0993 (https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rsbl.2014.0993)


Also, if the old people where so wise, why did many tribes around the world celebrate the full moon by dancing under it?  This was big in Africa too.
Here, read a book
https://books.google.co.za/books?hl=en&lr=&id=a4DetfLW-0cC&oi=fnd&pg=PR5&dq=tribal+moon&ots=SWgY5JShk7&sig=a6O4MvbbUud1UoWKGCeYsUvgXg4#v=onepage&q=moon&f=false (https://books.google.co.za/books?hl=en&lr=&id=a4DetfLW-0cC&oi=fnd&pg=PR5&dq=tribal+moon&ots=SWgY5JShk7&sig=a6O4MvbbUud1UoWKGCeYsUvgXg4#v=onepage&q=moon&f=false)

The thing you mention about lions hunting at night is load of crap.
Lions actually have a reduced chance to bring a kill home during full moon, which is not what popular culture would tell you.
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/5847/35f4994de42b3d2e800426f67385fa01f0cf.pdf (https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/5847/35f4994de42b3d2e800426f67385fa01f0cf.pdf)
Id give you a better study, but dont have access to it right now.

Also, I sleep like shit if there is any light outside. What surprise is there that people sleep better when it is dark.
People also sleep like shit when there is no moon, but a full sun out.

Also, citations please!
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on February 13, 2020, 11:56:41 PM
Oh, just because of how badly John understands wild life, and that I have spent more time in the bush than he has in the sun, I feel like I need to add this fun fact.


A lot of nocturnal predictors have slight white fur directly under their eyes to help reflect more light into their eyes.
Its not a lot, but you almost always see it nocturnal mammals.
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: JackBlack on February 14, 2020, 01:09:55 AM
Please review how startling the dangerous effects of moonlight on plants can be. My experiment is data driven and can be replicated. My only regret is having to purposefully stress and harm plant life in the pursuit of truth.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=36906.0
Your experiment does not demonstrate that moonlight is harmful.

The ones you shielded from the moonlight (group 2) do not display any significant difference to the ones that were not shielded (group 1).
Instead it is shielding it from the sun (group 3) without providing another decent light source which seems to be the issue.

So instead of demonstrating that moonlight is harmful, you demonstrate that it needs the sun.

So far the complaints to my above posts have been an exercise in cherry picking and google dicking.
You mean they have been objecting to your baseless claims and in some cases providing evidence which refutes it.

Man sleeps worse in full moon:
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-23405941
Interestingly, this is not the case when placed in a room with protection from moonlight.
Did you even read your link?
It claims the effect still occurs when in a darkened room with no view to the moon.
The study itself also discusses causes unrelated to the moon.

No where do they link it to the moon light.

relates a study by Dr. Alan Beck
Care to provide a link? Or at least a proper reference to it?

Any knowledged man will readily acknowledge that the lesser luminary's light will beg at man's will and sanity.
Some might, but not all.
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: Ichimaru Gin :] on February 14, 2020, 04:39:39 AM
Please review how startling the dangerous effects of moonlight on plants can be. My experiment is data driven and can be replicated. My only regret is having to purposefully stress and harm plant life in the pursuit of truth.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=36906.0
Your experiment does not demonstrate that moonlight is harmful.

The ones you shielded from the moonlight (group 2) do not display any significant difference to the ones that were not shielded (group 1).
Instead it is shielding it from the sun (group 3) without providing another decent light source which seems to be the issue.

So instead of demonstrating that moonlight is harmful, you demonstrate that it needs the sun.

So far the complaints to my above posts have been an exercise in cherry picking and google dicking.
You mean they have been objecting to your baseless claims and in some cases providing evidence which refutes it.

Man sleeps worse in full moon:
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-23405941
Interestingly, this is not the case when placed in a room with protection from moonlight.
Did you even read your link?
It claims the effect still occurs when in a darkened room with no view to the moon.
The study itself also discusses causes unrelated to the moon.

No where do they link it to the moon light.

relates a study by Dr. Alan Beck
Care to provide a link? Or at least a proper reference to it?

Any knowledged man will readily acknowledge that the lesser luminary's light will beg at man's will and sanity.
Some might, but not all.
JackBlack, literally in results of group 1 vs group 2, the first mentioned:
Quote
Group   N    Missing    Median      25%        75%     
Col 1   21   0   16.000   15.000   17.000   
Col 2   21   0   13.000   12.000   14.000   

Mann-Whitney U Statistic= 9.000

T = 663.000  n(small)= 21  n(big)= 21  (P = <0.001)

The difference in the median values between the two groups is greater than would be expected by chance; there is a statistically significant difference
.
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: Yes on February 14, 2020, 05:22:32 AM
I'm curious about your thoughts on lunar eclipse.  What do you think is going on there?
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: magellanclavichord on February 14, 2020, 06:04:19 AM
Name calling is all globularists have when they cannot refute our evidence.

Sadly, name-calling is universal. No group has a monopoly on it.

The moon and its light clearly do have effects. That's because when present it's the brightest thing in the night sky. Some people need a fully-darkened room in order to sleep well. The full moon is bright enough to disturb that, just as any light would. Other people sleep just fine when there is light. Of course popular culture is full of myths and superstitions about the full moon. It was believed (in some times and places) that some people would turn into a wolf or other ravenous beast during the full moon. (Some folks here make fun of that belief with a game where they pretend that certain individuals turn into penguins.) It is true that some night nurses believe there are more accidents and assaults during the full moon. This has been demonstrated to be false, but the erroneous belief persists.

In fact, the moon is beautiful and its light is entrancing, sitting as it does against the black background of the night sky. For ages, couples in the first throes of love have enjoyed making out and even having sex under the full moon.

What truly mystifies me is why flat-Earthers should so passionately defend nonsensical claims that actually have nothing to do with the shape of the Earth. But in the end, the idea that the Earth is flat is so patently and obviously idiotic that it deprives any of their other claims of any credibility whatsoever.
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: John Davis on February 14, 2020, 07:42:56 AM
So far the complaints to my above posts have been an exercise in cherry picking and google dicking.
You mean they have been objecting to your baseless claims and in some cases providing evidence which refutes it.
I have yet to see any evidence provided.

Quote
Man sleeps worse in full moon:
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-23405941
Interestingly, this is not the case when placed in a room with protection from moonlight.
Did you even read your link?
It claims the effect still occurs when in a darkened room with no view to the moon.
The study itself also discusses causes unrelated to the moon.

No where do they link it to the moon light.
No I read the original study. That said, it makes no claim that they were shielded from the rays of the moon. Only that they were not aware of its phase and could not "see" it directly. This is a wildly different claim than what you are putting forward. They clearly were not wearing the appropriate protection.

Quote
relates a study by Dr. Alan Beck
Care to provide a link? Or at least a proper reference to it?
I'm afraid the results were reported at a conference.
Quote
Any knowledged man will readily acknowledge that the lesser luminary's light will beg at man's will and sanity.
Some might, but not all.
I would posit such a man is not knowledged if he has no knowledge of astronomy. One who does not know the dangers of the moon clearly is ignorant of astronomy and medicine.
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: John Davis on February 14, 2020, 07:56:04 AM
Name calling is all globularists have when they cannot refute our evidence.

Sadly, name-calling is universal. No group has a monopoly on it.

The moon and its light clearly do have effects. That's because when present it's the brightest thing in the night sky. Some people need a fully-darkened room in order to sleep well. The full moon is bright enough to disturb that, just as any light would. Other people sleep just fine when there is light. Of course popular culture is full of myths and superstitions about the full moon. It was believed (in some times and places) that some people would turn into a wolf or other ravenous beast during the full moon. (Some folks here make fun of that belief with a game where they pretend that certain individuals turn into penguins.) It is true that some night nurses believe there are more accidents and assaults during the full moon. This has been demonstrated to be false, but the erroneous belief persists.
From what I've seen, the results of said studies are inconsistent at best. Something about the idea of lunancy simply does not appeal to the modern scientist, and as such it has been studied over and over again with attempts to prove it wrong. Rather than listen to their data, they tend to falsify and smudge their reports by adjusting the definition of "full moon" so that it makes their thesis correct and they don't have to publish a paper stating something that would make them look unfashionable.

Quote
In fact, the moon is beautiful and its light is entrancing, sitting as it does against the black background of the night sky. For ages, couples in the first throes of love have enjoyed making out and even having sex under the full moon.

What truly mystifies me is why flat-Earthers should so passionately defend nonsensical claims that actually have nothing to do with the shape of the Earth. But in the end, the idea that the Earth is flat is so patently and obviously idiotic that it deprives any of their other claims of any credibility whatsoever.
The nature of the moons light is well studied in zetetic literature. I suggest you review Earth: Not A Globe and similar texts.
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: John Davis on February 14, 2020, 07:57:02 AM
In fact, it has been well studied since antiquity and even round earth books will talk to it. It is only recently that man has gotten so silly about the whole matter.
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: sokarul on February 14, 2020, 07:58:33 AM
“Well studied” doesn’t mean look at one book from the 1800’s.
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: John Davis on February 14, 2020, 08:19:30 AM
Its a good thing that wasn't done then sokarul. It has literally been looked at for hundreds of years. Difficulty arises in the notion that it is unpopular for a scientist to believe in such things as well as the difficulty of pinning down this behavior to be able to properly define it; as one study puts it "ce concept n'est peut-être pas défini d'une manière assez adéquate pour permettre une telle démonstration." Others have noted the varying definitions in "full moon" used in studies. It seems modern science has failed us where proper science has appropriately warned us of the dangers.

It is indeed as Charles Fort would put it a "Damned Fact."
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: John Davis on February 14, 2020, 08:24:15 AM
Oh, just because of how badly John understands wild life, and that I have spent more time in the bush than he has in the sun, I feel like I need to add this fun fact.


A lot of nocturnal predictors have slight white fur directly under their eyes to help reflect more light into their eyes.
Its not a lot, but you almost always see it nocturnal mammals.
As it turns out, madness, agitation and rage is quite useful to predators. Like previously mentioned, many beasts have adapted to try to make the moons harmful rays a benefit.
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: John Davis on February 14, 2020, 08:43:36 AM
Parasites are another easy to see proof of the moons dangers. When their hosts are weakened by the full moon, parasites are able to take advantage of this.

Man also tends to produce less melotonin and more serotonin during the full moon.

It seems the posters in this thread want to admit that moonlight affects animals behaviors, yet they don't want to concede the point that moonlight affects animals behaviors. How silly! The mental gymnastics involved surely put the Ringling Brothers to shame.
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: JackBlack on February 14, 2020, 01:30:42 PM
JackBlack, literally in results of group 1 vs group 2

You seemed to make quite a big emphasis on the number of rows in your opening post, rather than its thickness.
And you shows no significant difference there.
With your thickness data, it seems everything is significantly different to everything else, with the exception of groups 4 and 5.
For your data to actually support damage from the moon it should be the case of set 1 and 3 being different to the others, with no differences between the others.


Looking at more of your results, a big problem I find with that is that while you have 3 decimal places you do not use them for the vast majority of results. Why is that? Then you only declare 2 values to not be statistically significant if they are identical, with the exception of temperature, where you do use the extra decimal places.

I have yet to see any evidence provided.
It is quite easy to not see it when you ignore it.

No I read the original study.
Which still makes no link to the moonlight and it indicates they tried to exclude the effects of moonlight.
Quote
We attempted to exclude confounders such as increased light at night, potential bias in perception regarding a lunar influence on sleep, and temporal information about the 24 hr day

So where is the link to the harmful effects of moonlight?

Even looking at the data, it doesn't even directly link full moon to effect of sleep. Instead it links lunar phase with sleep, with several measures being comparable for full and new moon.
For example, with REM sleep latency you have the lowest values round 9 days from the full moon, and the highest values within 4 days or at 14 days, with the full moon being slightly higher.

Meanwhile if the effect was due to the moonlight magically penetrating the facility you would expect the most extreme difference to be between the new and full moon.


I would posit such a man is not knowledged if he has no knowledge of astronomy.
I wouldn't call the effect of moonlight on people as astronomy.
But I guess that means you postit that no FEer is knowledged.

Regardless, as there is no clear evidence of the effect of moonlight on people it isn't knowledge they are lacking but superstition.

Parasites are another easy to see proof of the moons dangers. When their hosts are weakened by the full moon, parasites are able to take advantage of this.
Again, where is the evidence?
Not just a difference in activity, but evidence that there is a weakening effect.
Again, how does this make sense at all? why are the hosts harmed, but not the parasite itself?

Man also tends to produce less melotonin and more serotonin during the full moon.
And during the day.
Light is an issue.

It seems the posters in this thread want to admit that moonlight affects animals behaviors, yet they don't want to concede the point that moonlight affects animals behaviors.
No, it seems posters in this thread want to admit that changes in light level can effect animal behaviour, and that this does not indicate that the light from the moon is harmful nor that it is fundamentally different from light from the sun.

Meanwhile, some posters in this thread want to claim that the moonlight harms creatures and makes them weak, but that it doesn't harm creatures and instead makes them strong.
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: Ichimaru Gin :] on February 14, 2020, 02:10:05 PM
Ok so I going to safely disregard your criticisms, especially the use of decimal places. You're not even making any sense.

It's obvious you are compelled to reply to posts without researching before replying. Otherwise you would have answered your own questions including the earlier mentioned group 1 vs group 2 which is found in literally the beginning data.

Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: rabinoz on February 14, 2020, 02:51:28 PM
Parasites are another easy to see proof of the moons dangers. When their hosts are weakened by the full moon, parasites are able to take advantage of this.

Man also tends to produce less melotonin and more serotonin during the full moon.
And quite independent of any actual exposure to full moonlight giving the lie to that as evidence full moonlight is dangerous!

Quote from: John Davis
It seems the posters in this thread want to admit that moonlight affects animals behaviors, yet they don't want to concede the point that moonlight affects animals behaviors. How silly! The mental gymnastics involved surely put the Ringling Brothers to shame.
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: Stash on February 14, 2020, 03:47:45 PM
Parasites are another easy to see proof of the moons dangers. When their hosts are weakened by the full moon, parasites are able to take advantage of this.

Man also tends to produce less melotonin and more serotonin during the full moon.

It seems the posters in this thread want to admit that moonlight affects animals behaviors, yet they don't want to concede the point that moonlight affects animals behaviors. How silly! The mental gymnastics involved surely put the Ringling Brothers to shame.

Interesting article on how light affects the circadian rhythm in humans. More specific to the introduction of artificial light, but interesting how light in general, whether from the Sun, moon, or even a streetlight, impacts our state of being. Light is light, moon reflected or otherwise.

Timing of light exposure affects mood and brain circuits
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5299389/

"The introduction of electric light was a pivotal moment in history, finally allowing humans greater flexibility in controlling the environment. It led to safer, wealthier, more productive societies. Unfortunately, the field of circadian biology lagged behind the widespread adoption of electric light. Only now are we learning about the effects of artificial light at night on the brain and body.”

(https://i.imgur.com/BxukhRa.png)
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: JackBlack on February 14, 2020, 05:45:08 PM
Ok so I going to safely disregard your criticisms
You mean you will disregard things which point massive flaws with your claims?

especially the use of decimal places. You're not even making any sense.
You were measuring thickness.
You used 3 decimal places, which should indicate that you are confident in the measurement to that value, yet the value you report for the median, in all cases, is a whole number.
This makes no sense at all.

And as I pointed out, For the thickness, unless they are identical, you declare them to have a statistically significant difference.
Even with significant overlap and a relatively small sample size, you still declare it to be statistically significant.
And with 2 seemingly identical sets of data, you produce different statistical results.

So that "experiment" of yours is quite suspect, and in no way demonstrates any harmful nature of moon light.

If you want me to take it seriously, post the raw data.
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: rabinoz on February 14, 2020, 05:56:01 PM
<< Irrelevant to the basic claim you made! >>
I'm waiting for direct evidence supporting your original claim:
Bioluminescent organisms cause the light we see when looking to the moon.
So far all there seems to have been findings about "bioluminescent organisms" in the oceans.
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on February 17, 2020, 01:14:22 AM
Oh, just because of how badly John understands wild life, and that I have spent more time in the bush than he has in the sun, I feel like I need to add this fun fact.


A lot of nocturnal predictors have slight white fur directly under their eyes to help reflect more light into their eyes.
Its not a lot, but you almost always see it nocturnal mammals.
As it turns out, madness, agitation and rage is quite useful to predators. Like previously mentioned, many beasts have adapted to try to make the moons harmful rays a benefit.
What non-sense are you talking about. I have more than once seen predators hunt at night under full moon (how we managed to spot them). They are no more or less "enraged" than when they hunt during the day.

Also, I would like to see one modern study of the dangers of moon light please.

Turn some gobbledygook into fact, provide some citations.
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: Yes on February 17, 2020, 06:59:23 AM
It's just shtick - he's been trotting this stuff out for years.  John likes to role play a 19th century quack scientist.
This is correct.



However, I'd still like to understand what mussel ovaries have to do with lunar light.
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: rabinoz on February 17, 2020, 12:26:10 PM
It's just shtick - he's been trotting this stuff out for years.  John likes to role play a 19th century quack scientist.
This is correct.

However, I'd still like to understand what mussel ovaries have to do with lunar light.
Ski simply refuses to respond to requests for the slightest evidence connecting them.
And refuses to provide spectra of their light so it can be compared to the spectrum of full moonlight, which I have provided.

I did post a reference detailing the peak wavelengths and line widths of other bioluminecent ocean organisms but that was ignored.

It seems that evidence is not high on flat-Earthers' agendas - so much seems to be based on unfounded hypotheses.
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: John Davis on February 17, 2020, 12:41:29 PM
Oysters close their shells to shield themselves from the harmful effects of the full moon.
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: Stash on February 17, 2020, 01:37:23 PM
Oysters close their shells to shield themselves from the harmful effects of the full moon.

Please cite the research stating that there are harmful effects and that oysters are shielding themselves because of said harmful effects.
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: rabinoz on February 17, 2020, 03:05:06 PM
Oysters close their shells to shield themselves from the harmful effects of the full moon.
You have provided no evidence that:This seems far more plausible:
Quote from: Jason Daley, SMITHSONIANMAG.COM
Oysters Open and Close Their Shells as the Moon Wanes and Waxes (https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/oysters-sync-lunar-cycle-180971230/)
A new study suggests the mollusks may widen and narrow their shells depending on movement of plankton, which shifts with the lunar cycle.

 a new study published in the journal Biology Letterssuggests oysters are one of the creatures that keep tabs on the moon, and that the lunar cycle influences how widely they open their shells.

Nicola Davis at The Guardian reports that researchers discovered the oysters’ lunar love affair after tracking 12 Pacific oysters, Crassostrea gigas, that they submerged along the French coast. They then watched them carefully through three lunar cycles, each of which lasts 29.5 days. Using electrodes, they measured how widely the oysters opened their shells every 1.6 seconds, then compared that data with data about the moon’s cycle.

They found the oysters paid attention to the phases of the moon: as the moon was waxing, or growing fuller, the oysters narrowed their shells—never closing them completely. And when the moon started waning, or receding to the new moon phase, they widened their shells back up.

What that suggests is the oysters may rely on a internal lunar clock rather than direct cues, like the intensity of the moonlight. If that was the case, they would open their shells equally during the first quarter moon and the last quarter moon since the intensity of the light would be similar. But the oysters reacted differently to those phases suggesting they are following an internal calendar rather than reacting to the moonlight itself.
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: Ichimaru Gin :] on February 17, 2020, 06:51:32 PM
Looking at the gonads is the key
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: sokarul on February 17, 2020, 07:11:58 PM
What about looking at the wavelength?
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: Ichimaru Gin :] on February 17, 2020, 08:12:31 PM
I've already explained how bio-luminescent wavelengths were different in Earth's own history. Why would the moon be exactly the same if not even earth's are identical?
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: sokarul on February 17, 2020, 08:33:09 PM
The EM spectrum is known.

You never answered my other question why are there shadows?

(https://i.redd.it/ng0jg4ycpkh41.jpg)

Doesn’t look like bio luminescent.
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: rabinoz on February 17, 2020, 11:20:24 PM
I've already explained how bio-luminescent wavelengths were different in Earth's own history. Why would the moon be exactly the same if not even earth's are identical?
Nobody suggested that the spectra of the light from your hypothesised bio-luminescent organisms on the Moon would be exactly the same.

You have yet to show the spectra of the light from any bio-luminescent organisms of earth or on the Moon.

The massive difference that I can see is that the spectrum of moonlight is continuous but with absorption lines for many known elements but
the light from bio-luminescent organisms of earth seems to be confined to single comparatively narrow band - almost mono-chromatic.

Now what about some answers or should we accept the obvious explanation that moonlight is reflected sunlight?
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: Yes on February 18, 2020, 05:43:44 AM
Now what about some answers or should we accept the obvious explanation that moonlight is reflected sunlight?
Maybe the moonlight is the moon organisms' reflection of sunlight.  That would also explain why fish rot in both moonlight and sunlight.
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: rabinoz on February 18, 2020, 06:51:03 AM
Now what about some answers or should we accept the obvious explanation that moonlight is reflected sunlight?
Maybe the moonlight is the moon organisms' reflection of sunlight.  That would also explain why fish rot in both moonlight and sunlight.
Maybe it's this, maybe it's that seems to be the usual flat Earth answer.
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: EvolvedMantisShrimp on February 18, 2020, 10:10:52 AM
Now what about some answers or should we accept the obvious explanation that moonlight is reflected sunlight?
Maybe the moonlight is the moon organisms' reflection of sunlight.  That would also explain why fish rot in both moonlight and sunlight.

Regardless of whether it is the moon's surface reflecting sunlight or some sort of creatures on the moon's surface reflecting sunlight, it still amounts to the same thing: The moon is reflecting sunlight.
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: John Davis on February 18, 2020, 01:18:57 PM
Oysters close their shells to shield themselves from the harmful effects of the full moon.
You have provided no evidence that:
  • "Oysters" do "close their shells" at "the full moon" (But I have quoted a report that they are "more closed".) nor that
  • even If they do "close their shells" at "the full moon" the the reason is "to shield themselves from the harmful effects of the full moon."
This seems far more plausible:
Quote from: Jason Daley, SMITHSONIANMAG.COM
Oysters Open and Close Their Shells as the Moon Wanes and Waxes (https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/oysters-sync-lunar-cycle-180971230/)
A new study suggests the mollusks may widen and narrow their shells depending on movement of plankton, which shifts with the lunar cycle.

 a new study published in the journal Biology Letterssuggests oysters are one of the creatures that keep tabs on the moon, and that the lunar cycle influences how widely they open their shells.

Nicola Davis at The Guardian reports that researchers discovered the oysters’ lunar love affair after tracking 12 Pacific oysters, Crassostrea gigas, that they submerged along the French coast. They then watched them carefully through three lunar cycles, each of which lasts 29.5 days. Using electrodes, they measured how widely the oysters opened their shells every 1.6 seconds, then compared that data with data about the moon’s cycle.

They found the oysters paid attention to the phases of the moon: as the moon was waxing, or growing fuller, the oysters narrowed their shells—never closing them completely. And when the moon started waning, or receding to the new moon phase, they widened their shells back up.

What that suggests is the oysters may rely on a internal lunar clock rather than direct cues, like the intensity of the moonlight. If that was the case, they would open their shells equally during the first quarter moon and the last quarter moon since the intensity of the light would be similar. But the oysters reacted differently to those phases suggesting they are following an internal calendar rather than reacting to the moonlight itself.

Yes clearly they learned the schedule and know when to expect danger.
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: Stash on February 18, 2020, 02:32:36 PM
Oysters close their shells to shield themselves from the harmful effects of the full moon.
You have provided no evidence that:
  • "Oysters" do "close their shells" at "the full moon" (But I have quoted a report that they are "more closed".) nor that
  • even If they do "close their shells" at "the full moon" the the reason is "to shield themselves from the harmful effects of the full moon."
This seems far more plausible:
Quote from: Jason Daley, SMITHSONIANMAG.COM
Oysters Open and Close Their Shells as the Moon Wanes and Waxes (https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/oysters-sync-lunar-cycle-180971230/)
A new study suggests the mollusks may widen and narrow their shells depending on movement of plankton, which shifts with the lunar cycle.

 a new study published in the journal Biology Letterssuggests oysters are one of the creatures that keep tabs on the moon, and that the lunar cycle influences how widely they open their shells.

Nicola Davis at The Guardian reports that researchers discovered the oysters’ lunar love affair after tracking 12 Pacific oysters, Crassostrea gigas, that they submerged along the French coast. They then watched them carefully through three lunar cycles, each of which lasts 29.5 days. Using electrodes, they measured how widely the oysters opened their shells every 1.6 seconds, then compared that data with data about the moon’s cycle.

They found the oysters paid attention to the phases of the moon: as the moon was waxing, or growing fuller, the oysters narrowed their shells—never closing them completely. And when the moon started waning, or receding to the new moon phase, they widened their shells back up.

What that suggests is the oysters may rely on a internal lunar clock rather than direct cues, like the intensity of the moonlight. If that was the case, they would open their shells equally during the first quarter moon and the last quarter moon since the intensity of the light would be similar. But the oysters reacted differently to those phases suggesting they are following an internal calendar rather than reacting to the moonlight itself.

Yes clearly they learned the schedule and know when to expect danger.

No where is there any indication of expected 'danger'. You literally just made that up.
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: rabinoz on February 18, 2020, 05:08:38 PM
Looking at the gonads is the key
Stare at them as long as you like but it doesn't answer the question.
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: John Davis on February 19, 2020, 11:34:51 AM
Oysters close their shells to shield themselves from the harmful effects of the full moon.
You have provided no evidence that:
  • "Oysters" do "close their shells" at "the full moon" (But I have quoted a report that they are "more closed".) nor that
  • even If they do "close their shells" at "the full moon" the the reason is "to shield themselves from the harmful effects of the full moon."
This seems far more plausible:
Quote from: Jason Daley, SMITHSONIANMAG.COM
Oysters Open and Close Their Shells as the Moon Wanes and Waxes (https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/oysters-sync-lunar-cycle-180971230/)
A new study suggests the mollusks may widen and narrow their shells depending on movement of plankton, which shifts with the lunar cycle.

 a new study published in the journal Biology Letterssuggests oysters are one of the creatures that keep tabs on the moon, and that the lunar cycle influences how widely they open their shells.

Nicola Davis at The Guardian reports that researchers discovered the oysters’ lunar love affair after tracking 12 Pacific oysters, Crassostrea gigas, that they submerged along the French coast. They then watched them carefully through three lunar cycles, each of which lasts 29.5 days. Using electrodes, they measured how widely the oysters opened their shells every 1.6 seconds, then compared that data with data about the moon’s cycle.

They found the oysters paid attention to the phases of the moon: as the moon was waxing, or growing fuller, the oysters narrowed their shells—never closing them completely. And when the moon started waning, or receding to the new moon phase, they widened their shells back up.

What that suggests is the oysters may rely on a internal lunar clock rather than direct cues, like the intensity of the moonlight. If that was the case, they would open their shells equally during the first quarter moon and the last quarter moon since the intensity of the light would be similar. But the oysters reacted differently to those phases suggesting they are following an internal calendar rather than reacting to the moonlight itself.

Yes clearly they learned the schedule and know when to expect danger.

No where is there any indication of expected 'danger'. You literally just made that up.
I assume then you think these oysters close their shells for fun?
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: magellanclavichord on February 19, 2020, 11:41:42 AM
I assume then you think these oysters close their shells for fun?

The article makes it clear that the oysters are not trying to avoid moon light. Whatever causes them to open and close their shells, is clearly not a fear of any danger in the light. It could easily be something as simple as more abundant food during the full moon, and less abundant during new moon, and they need to open wider when there's less food. There's zero evidence that they're afraid of moon light. And there's abundant evidence that people expose themselves to moon light with no ill effects.

Anomaly-hunting is not science.
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: John Davis on February 19, 2020, 11:51:45 AM
I assume then you think these oysters close their shells for fun?

The article makes it clear that the oysters are not trying to avoid moon light. Whatever causes them to open and close their shells, is clearly not a fear of any danger in the light. It could easily be something as simple as more abundant food during the full moon, and less abundant during new moon, and they need to open wider when there's less food. There's zero evidence that they're afraid of moon light. And there's abundant evidence that people expose themselves to moon light with no ill effects.

Anomaly-hunting is not science.
It makes no such thing clear. It simply says that lack of the light does not affect them; this would make sense if it was a learned behavior or if it developed due to a queue that the danger would be likely to present itself. Perhaps tides.

And yes, anomaly hunting is science. It's called "normal science." You can read about it in Thomas Kuhn's "Structure of Scientific Revolutions." But of course you know more about science than all of us dumb flat earthers right?

You make a lot of "It could be as simple as" and very little evidence to support these wild claims. On the other hand there is a direct relationship between the full moon and this behavior.
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: Stash on February 19, 2020, 12:21:50 PM
I assume then you think these oysters close their shells for fun?

The article makes it clear that the oysters are not trying to avoid moon light. Whatever causes them to open and close their shells, is clearly not a fear of any danger in the light. It could easily be something as simple as more abundant food during the full moon, and less abundant during new moon, and they need to open wider when there's less food. There's zero evidence that they're afraid of moon light. And there's abundant evidence that people expose themselves to moon light with no ill effects.

Anomaly-hunting is not science.
It makes no such thing clear. It simply says that lack of the light does not affect them; this would make sense if it was a learned behavior or if it developed due to a queue that the danger would be likely to present itself. Perhaps tides.

The article states:

"So why would the oysters care about the phases of the moon? Laura Payton, a co-author of the study from the University of Bordeaux, tells Davis at The Guardian she has a guess. “We know that oysters open their valves when there is food,” she says, and previous research has shown that the movement of plankton, which oysters filter out of seawater and consume, is influenced by moonlight."

It mentions nothing about 'danger', 'harmful', whatever. You literally are making up the notion that "oysters are afraid of moonlight..." or the like based upon nothing.
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: JackBlack on February 19, 2020, 12:25:28 PM
I assume then you think these oysters close their shells for fun?
Not closing for fun doesn't equate to closing to avoid danger of the moonlight.

You make a lot of "It could be as simple as" and very little evidence to support these wild claims. On the other hand there is a direct relationship between the full moon and this behavior.
No, there isn't.
There is a correlation between the period of the cycle of the moon and the period of the behaviour.

That doesn't make it a direct relationship to the full moon, and far more importantly, it doesn't make it a relationship or correlation to moonlight.

It in no way shows that moonlight is dangerous.

It would be like saying people going inside and sleeping at night shows that the darkness of night is somehow intrinsically dangerous and harming us all.
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: John Davis on February 19, 2020, 12:46:07 PM
I assume then you think these oysters close their shells for fun?

The article makes it clear that the oysters are not trying to avoid moon light. Whatever causes them to open and close their shells, is clearly not a fear of any danger in the light. It could easily be something as simple as more abundant food during the full moon, and less abundant during new moon, and they need to open wider when there's less food. There's zero evidence that they're afraid of moon light. And there's abundant evidence that people expose themselves to moon light with no ill effects.

Anomaly-hunting is not science.
It makes no such thing clear. It simply says that lack of the light does not affect them; this would make sense if it was a learned behavior or if it developed due to a queue that the danger would be likely to present itself. Perhaps tides.

The article states:

"So why would the oysters care about the phases of the moon? Laura Payton, a co-author of the study from the University of Bordeaux, tells Davis at The Guardian she has a guess. “We know that oysters open their valves when there is food,” she says, and previous research has shown that the movement of plankton, which oysters filter out of seawater and consume, is influenced by moonlight."

It mentions nothing about 'danger', 'harmful', whatever. You literally are making up the notion that "oysters are afraid of moonlight..." or the like based upon nothing.
It does mention nothing about that. But I am making up my "guess" as much so as she made up her "guess." Mine obviously fits within the argument I am making, and hers her argument. Funny enough, the fact that plankton is influenced by moonlight also supports my general hypothesis. As things are stated, we seem to be on even ground.
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: Crutchwater on February 19, 2020, 12:58:54 PM
I assume then you think these oysters close their shells for fun?

The article makes it clear that the oysters are not trying to avoid moon light. Whatever causes them to open and close their shells, is clearly not a fear of any danger in the light. It could easily be something as simple as more abundant food during the full moon, and less abundant during new moon, and they need to open wider when there's less food. There's zero evidence that they're afraid of moon light. And there's abundant evidence that people expose themselves to moon light with no ill effects.

Anomaly-hunting is not science.
It makes no such thing clear. It simply says that lack of the light does not affect them; this would make sense if it was a learned behavior or if it developed due to a queue that the danger would be likely to present itself. Perhaps tides.

The article states:

"So why would the oysters care about the phases of the moon? Laura Payton, a co-author of the study from the University of Bordeaux, tells Davis at The Guardian she has a guess. “We know that oysters open their valves when there is food,” she says, and previous research has shown that the movement of plankton, which oysters filter out of seawater and consume, is influenced by moonlight."

It mentions nothing about 'danger', 'harmful', whatever. You literally are making up the notion that "oysters are afraid of moonlight..." or the like based upon nothing.
It does mention nothing about that. But I am making up my "guess" as much so as she made up her "guess." Mine obviously fits within the argument I am making, and hers her argument. Funny enough, the fact that plankton is influenced by moonlight also supports my general hypothesis. As things are stated, we seem to be on even ground.

Plankton are believed to recede to deeper water during brighter lunar phases because they are food, so, in that sense you may be correct in saying that moonlight is dangerous.
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: magellanclavichord on February 19, 2020, 01:02:43 PM
I assume then you think these oysters close their shells for fun?

The article makes it clear that the oysters are not trying to avoid moon light. Whatever causes them to open and close their shells, is clearly not a fear of any danger in the light. It could easily be something as simple as more abundant food during the full moon, and less abundant during new moon, and they need to open wider when there's less food. There's zero evidence that they're afraid of moon light. And there's abundant evidence that people expose themselves to moon light with no ill effects.

Anomaly-hunting is not science.
It makes no such thing clear. It simply says that lack of the light does not affect them; this would make sense if it was a learned behavior or if it developed due to a queue that the danger would be likely to present itself. Perhaps tides.

The article states:

"So why would the oysters care about the phases of the moon? Laura Payton, a co-author of the study from the University of Bordeaux, tells Davis at The Guardian she has a guess. “We know that oysters open their valves when there is food,” she says, and previous research has shown that the movement of plankton, which oysters filter out of seawater and consume, is influenced by moonlight."

It mentions nothing about 'danger', 'harmful', whatever. You literally are making up the notion that "oysters are afraid of moonlight..." or the like based upon nothing.
It does mention nothing about that. But I am making up my "guess" as much so as she made up her "guess." Mine obviously fits within the argument I am making, and hers her argument. Funny enough, the fact that plankton is influenced by moonlight also supports my general hypothesis. As things are stated, we seem to be on even ground.

Not at all. You are claiming that moonlight is dangerous to people, and supporting this with an observation about bivalve mollusks.

However, I applaud your honesty in admitting that you are just guessing. One of the hallmarks of pseudoscience is to make an observation for which there is not a clear understanding, and concluding that some explanation out of left field with no evidence at all must be the true one. The classic example is, "I saw a light in the sky. If you can't tell me exactly what it was, then it must have been a flying saucer from the planet Bogash 12 with extraterrestrial squirrels who are here to steal coconuts."

In this case, you note a correlation between oysters and the phases of the moon, and you assert that it must mean that moon light is harmful. A thousand other explanations are more likely.

You also employ the false-equivalents fallacy when you say that your theory that oysters are afraid of moon light is equal to Payton's theory that they respond to the presence of plankton.
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: Stash on February 19, 2020, 01:09:58 PM
I assume then you think these oysters close their shells for fun?

The article makes it clear that the oysters are not trying to avoid moon light. Whatever causes them to open and close their shells, is clearly not a fear of any danger in the light. It could easily be something as simple as more abundant food during the full moon, and less abundant during new moon, and they need to open wider when there's less food. There's zero evidence that they're afraid of moon light. And there's abundant evidence that people expose themselves to moon light with no ill effects.

Anomaly-hunting is not science.
It makes no such thing clear. It simply says that lack of the light does not affect them; this would make sense if it was a learned behavior or if it developed due to a queue that the danger would be likely to present itself. Perhaps tides.

The article states:

"So why would the oysters care about the phases of the moon? Laura Payton, a co-author of the study from the University of Bordeaux, tells Davis at The Guardian she has a guess. “We know that oysters open their valves when there is food,” she says, and previous research has shown that the movement of plankton, which oysters filter out of seawater and consume, is influenced by moonlight."

It mentions nothing about 'danger', 'harmful', whatever. You literally are making up the notion that "oysters are afraid of moonlight..." or the like based upon nothing.
It does mention nothing about that. But I am making up my "guess" as much so as she made up her "guess." Mine obviously fits within the argument I am making, and hers her argument. Funny enough, the fact that plankton is influenced by moonlight also supports my general hypothesis. As things are stated, we seem to be on even ground.

I hardly think you are on even ground with Dr Laura Payton, Postdoctoral researcher, Alfred Wegener Institute (AWI), her bio:
I am a postdoctoral researcher based at the University of Oldenburg and the Alfred Wegener Institute (AWI). I work on biological rhythms and endogenous molecular clocks in marine organisms, i.e. how organisms are adapted to their cyclic ecosystem and temporally organize accordingly.

Her 'guess' is based upon previous scientific research/studies and her own work as a Phd in the field.

Your 'guess' is based upon making things up that don't appear in the research presented.

Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: JackBlack on February 19, 2020, 01:36:15 PM
It does mention nothing about that. But I am making up my "guess" as much so as she made up her "guess." Mine obviously fits within the argument I am making, and hers her argument. Funny enough, the fact that plankton is influenced by moonlight also supports my general hypothesis. As things are stated, we seem to be on even ground.
No, it isn't.
That is because you ignore something she focuses on.
It is not based upon the moonlight itself, as if it was it would be symmetric about the full moon.
It in no way demonstrates any danger of moonlight.
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: John Davis on February 19, 2020, 01:41:14 PM
My so called "guess" is nothing of the sort. It is categorically the same as hers. I am an expert in the field of astronomy; my work is reviewed by my peers, and I work for a research organization (The Flat Earth Society.)

A PhD is meaningless. I've met so many useless PhDs that knew little of their own fields. The academic establishment is a joke that barely can sustain itself financially, feeding off the working class by putting them in debt and making them essentially slaves while failing to provide them with the basic skills to excel in their fields. They should be ashamed of what they are doing to society.
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: magellanclavichord on February 19, 2020, 04:57:01 PM
Calling the Flat Earth Society a "research organization" is the funniest thing I've ever seen. The FES does no original research and has never had anything published in a peer-reviewed journal. Individuals in the FES watch crackpot YouTube videos and call it "research." Having work by a flat-Earther "reviewed" by members of the FES is like having the ravings of a lunatic in a mental hospital reviewed by his "peer" inmates in the asylum.

I'll say it again: It is just not possible for anybody to actually believe that the Earth is flat. Go to the sea, you can see that the Earth is round, take an airplane flight from Australia to either South America or southern Africa and you can see the Earth is round. Look up in the sky and see the ISS flying over, you can see that the Earth is round. Shove a stick in the ground, you can see that the Earth is round. It's just not possible to believe it's flat.
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: John Davis on February 19, 2020, 04:58:52 PM
Odd you mention that, because the Flat Earth Society published a peer reviewed journal.
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: John Davis on February 19, 2020, 04:59:03 PM
Quite a few really.
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: John Davis on February 19, 2020, 04:59:38 PM
Of course, if we had to pick from the globularists - it would be hard to find a peer amongst them.
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: rabinoz on February 19, 2020, 05:31:59 PM
Odd you mention that, because the Flat Earth Society published a peer reviewed journal.
Odd you mention that, because you say "the Flat Earth Society published a peer reviewed journal" but don't even give a link to it.
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: MouseWalker on February 19, 2020, 07:57:05 PM
I assume then you think these oysters close their shells for fun?

The article makes it clear that the oysters are not trying to avoid moon light. Whatever causes them to open and close their shells, is clearly not a fear of any danger in the light. It could easily be something as simple as more abundant food during the full moon, and less abundant during new moon, and they need to open wider when there's less food. There's zero evidence that they're afraid of moon light. And there's abundant evidence that people expose themselves to moon light with no ill effects.

Anomaly-hunting is not science.
It makes no such thing clear. It simply says that lack of the light does not affect them; this would make sense if it was a learned behavior or if it developed due to a queue that the danger would be likely to present itself. Perhaps tides.

And yes, anomaly hunting is science. It's called "normal science." You can read about it in Thomas Kuhn's "Structure of Scientific Revolutions." But of course you know more about science than all of us dumb flat earthers right?

You make a lot of "It could be as simple as" and very little evidence to support these wild claims. On the other hand there is a direct relationship between the full moon and this behavior.
And there is a direct correlation with the full moon and tides.
Do the oysters open when there is a heavy overcast.
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: John Davis on February 19, 2020, 08:39:06 PM
Odd you mention that, because the Flat Earth Society published a peer reviewed journal.
Odd you mention that, because you say "the Flat Earth Society published a peer reviewed journal" but don't even give a link to it.
Shit you might have to pick up a book or go to a library. If you can't find it.

Here's some Daniel digitalized. https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/home/index.php/flat-earth-library/pamphlets-and-journals

Of course this is just what we managed to get. The entire ouvre is quite a bit larger.
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: John Davis on February 19, 2020, 08:39:36 PM
The fire and all.
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: rabinoz on February 19, 2020, 11:43:32 PM
Odd you mention that, because the Flat Earth Society published a peer reviewed journal.
Odd you mention that, because you say "the Flat Earth Society published a peer reviewed journal" but don't even give a link to it.
Shit you might have to pick up a book or go to a library. If you can't find it.

Here's some Daniel digitalized. https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/home/index.php/flat-earth-library/pamphlets-and-journals

Of course this is just what we managed to get. The entire ouvre is quite a bit larger.
And what book or library might have copies of The Flat Earth Society Library: Pamphlets & Journals Collection (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/home/index.php/flat-earth-library/pamphlets-and-journals)?

And where is there any evidence of peer review?

I've read some and find this sort of thing:
The Sea-Earth Globe and and its Monstrous Hypothetical Motions by Albert Smith (Zetetes) (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/library/books/Sea-Earth%20Globe,%20The%20(Zetetes).pdf)

It does have some interesting claims:
"(7). The distant horizon being always on a level with the eye, whatever be the altitude of the observer, it seems to rise, or to fall, with the observer; but he never has occasion to depress his vision to look downwards towards it, nor upwards !"

Really? Does everyone agree.

And the section starting on page 31 on "TWO POLES." is quite "instructive" with this on page 33:
"It then goes round with the southern currents, daily, contracting its circle in a fine spiral until it arrives at 231/2°S. when, having lost its further southern tendency or swirl, electrical and magnetic forces, doubtless under intelligent supervision, drive it again northwards. Similar explanations apply to the moon, and to the planets, but with different periods, owing to their different altitudes, as already explained in a former article."


Maybe you can suggest something that fits what we can more easily see without those bendy light and "doubtless under intelligent supervision" hypotheses.
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on February 20, 2020, 12:56:01 AM
Odd you mention that, because the Flat Earth Society published a peer reviewed journal.
This is the most recent publication I could find
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/library/pamphlets/Bulletin%20of%20the%20Tychonian%20Society%20(Number%2044%20-%20July%201987).pdf

Its old, very old. published in 1984, its essentially trying to prove that ancient Christians and Jews believed the earth to be flat because of quotes he finds in the bible. Also, not peer reviewed.

Its proving the earth is flat the same way you prove that your car can fly because you watched "back to the future".

So are there any actual science publications where the authors are still alive?
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: rabinoz on February 20, 2020, 03:18:56 AM
Odd you mention that, because the Flat Earth Society published a peer reviewed journal.
This is the most recent publication I could find
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/library/pamphlets/Bulletin%20of%20the%20Tychonian%20Society%20(Number%2044%20-%20July%201987).pdf

Its old, very old. published in 1984, its essentially trying to prove that ancient Christians and Jews believed the earth to be flat because of quotes he finds in the bible. Also, not peer reviewed.

Its proving the earth is flat the same way you prove that your car can fly because you watched "back to the future".

So are there any actual science publications where the authors are still alive?
Since you quote that paper you might be interested in these comments about Robert Schadewald
Quote
The Flat-Earth Bible (https://lockhaven.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm)
© 1987, 1995 by Robert J. Schadewald
Reprinted from The Bulletin of the Tychonian Society #44 (July 1987)

Some readers have misinterpreted this document, supposing that Bob Schadewald is defending the idea that the earth is flat. That was not his intent. Some fundamentalist Christians are uncomfortable with the many passages in the Old Testament that seem to support the flat earth model, clearly contradicting abundant scientific evidence that the earth is a round and spinning ball. See: Is the earth a round, spinning ball. So they rationalize and re-interpret these passages to defend their faith that their Bible is without error. Bob, in this essay, tries to show that they can't get away with this cheap trick, for the writers of the Bible really did believe the earth to be flat. After all, the Old Testament was written by people with little interest in or knowledge of even the rudimentary scientific knowledge of their neighbors. They borrowed their myths and misinformation, without understanding.

The founders of the flat earth movement supported their ideas by reference to Biblical authority. But so did the defenders of the Koreshan Cosmogony, which modeled the earth as an unmoving hollow ball, with us walking on its inner surface and the entire universe also within it.

                        —Donald Simanek.

Robert Schadenfreude was no believer in the flat Earth but he does show that Old Testament is a "flat Earth book".
See  the book of his writings Worlds of Their Own: A Brief History of Misguided Ideas: Creationism, Flat Earthism, Energy Scams and the Velikovsky Affair By Robert J. Schadewald (https://books.google.com.au/books?id=m9BM6DzFGGwC&pg=PT12&lpg=PT12&dq=Robert+Schadewald+writings&source=bl&ots=2TvqALCbnt&sig=ACfU3U3Pm4SxATcRVPmWCAfSvKTHBwb0xA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiI1tGZ9t_nAhUMWX0KHSADBzEQ6AEwCHoECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q=Robert%20Schadewald%20writings&f=false).
Sample pages can be read on-line at that link but to download needs the purchase of the eBook.
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: magellanclavichord on February 20, 2020, 06:46:12 AM
The Earth does appear flat on a very small local scale. The authors of the books that were collected into the Bible had no knowledge of geography outside of their own very local piece of it. They knew nothing of the wider world.

And the people who standardized the canon didn't even consider these books to be literally true. They merely authorized them as appropriate books to read. They regarded them as allegory and as testaments to the faith of the authors and the authors' communities. It wasn't until a millennium and a half later, in reaction to the corruption of the Church and the Pope, that Martin Luther decided that the Bible (rather than the Pope) should be the ultimate authority, and therefore should be taken literally.

So the Bible is not an authority on the shape of the world, or even on what people of the time believed about the shape of the world. Two centuries before the time of Jesus, the Greeks already know that the Earth is a sphere, and they knew with surprising accuracy how big it is.
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on February 20, 2020, 07:36:48 AM
Robert Schadenfreude was no believer in the flat Earth but he does show that Old Testament is a "flat Earth book".
See  the book of his writings Worlds of Their Own: A Brief History of Misguided Ideas: Creationism, Flat Earthism, Energy Scams and the Velikovsky Affair By Robert J. Schadewald (https://books.google.com.au/books?id=m9BM6DzFGGwC&pg=PT12&lpg=PT12&dq=Robert+Schadewald+writings&source=bl&ots=2TvqALCbnt&sig=ACfU3U3Pm4SxATcRVPmWCAfSvKTHBwb0xA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiI1tGZ9t_nAhUMWX0KHSADBzEQ6AEwCHoECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q=Robert%20Schadewald%20writings&f=false).
Sample pages can be read on-line at that link but to download needs the purchase of the eBook.

Ah, what I figured, because the Author never seemed to make the claim the earth was flat.

But seeing as this is the Flat Earth Society, I figure that any publication with the word "Flat" in it; proves that the world is flat.
The crazy amount of mental gymnastics that people go through to make people "say" what they want them to say is incredible.
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: John Davis on February 20, 2020, 11:02:50 AM
Truth doesn't have an expiration date. That is some weak research. Even with it, 1984 is not "very very old." And it is peer reviewed. Why do you think its not?
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: magellanclavichord on February 20, 2020, 11:47:56 AM
Truth doesn't have an expiration date. That is some weak research. Even with it, 1984 is not "very very old." And it is peer reviewed. Why do you think its not?

And the book doesn't say what you claim it says. It doesn't say that the Earth is flat. It says that the authors of the Bible, who knew nothing about either geography or physics, and who knew nothing but a tiny patch of the Earth, thought it was flat. Of course, by the time of the New Testament, every educated person in the civilized world knew it is round, but the authors of the N.T. didn't care about anything but arguing about the nature of Jesus, and killing each other for holding different opinions about him. And arguing about and killing each other over the question of whether God was one person (Unitarians), three persons (Trinitarians) or many persons (Gnostics), or where there were two entirely separate Gods (Marcionites).
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: rabinoz on February 20, 2020, 01:56:28 PM
Truth doesn't have an expiration date. That is some weak research. Even with it, 1984 is not "very very old." And it is peer reviewed. Why do you think its not?
Who claimed otherwise?

But claiming that Robert Schadewald believed he was publishing "THE TRUTH" in his article:
The Flat-Earth Bible (https://lockhaven.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm) could hardly be further from the truth.

If he did consider it the truth he would hardly have included it in his book Worlds of Their Own: A Brief History of Misguided Ideas: Creationism, Flat Earthism, Energy Scams and the Velikovsky Affair by Robert J. Schadewald (https://books.google.com.au/books?id=m9BM6DzFGGwC&pg=PT12&lpg=PT12&dq=Robert+Schadewald+writings&source=bl&ots=2TvqALCbnt&sig=ACfU3U3Pm4SxATcRVPmWCAfSvKTHBwb0xA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiI1tGZ9t_nAhUMWX0KHSADBzEQ6AEwCHoECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q=Robert%20Schadewald%20writings&f=false).

Robert J. Schadewald obviously regards "Flat Earthism" along with "Energy Scams" as one of the "Misguided Ideas".
So it is interesting "The Flat-Earth Bible" is included in you list of pamphlets and books.

Those interested in Robert Schadewald's thoughts on "flat Earthism" might read Bob Schadewald, The Plane Truth (http://www.cantab.net/users/michael.behrend/ebooks/PlaneTruth/pages/index.html) which can be read in its entirety on-line or purchased as an eBook.

So, where are these peer-reviewed papers supporting the modern flat Earth?
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on February 21, 2020, 01:50:12 AM
Truth doesn't have an expiration date. That is some weak research. Even with it, 1984 is not "very very old." And it is peer reviewed. Why do you think its not?
I cant find it cited anywhere, meaning either its not been peer reviewed or its been reviewed without being published.
But I am also not sure why anyone would want to peer review this, you just just read it and say, "okay sure". There is not much to review.
Not saying its junk, just not peer reviewed. A lot of papers that dont have much scientific impact are not peer reviewed. And any scientific paper talking about the flat earth will have zero scientific relevance.

Truth does not have an expiration date, but truth stays the Truth no matter what year it is. And for there not to be any modern studies providing evidence of a Flat Earth means that whatever claims where made before I was born are not being made now.
If Truth cant be backed up and repeatedly tested, it means its probably not the truth. This is the way of science.

So just on the basis that there are no scientific studies that you can show that is less than 10 years old proving the earth is Flat should raise quite a few eyebrows even for you. Surely there are crazy enough people out there with enough scientific literacy to be able to publish an actual Flat Earth study? But apparently not.
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: John Davis on February 21, 2020, 08:24:09 AM
Truth doesn't have an expiration date. That is some weak research. Even with it, 1984 is not "very very old." And it is peer reviewed. Why do you think its not?

And the book doesn't say what you claim it says. It doesn't say that the Earth is flat. It says that the authors of the Bible, who knew nothing about either geography or physics, and who knew nothing but a tiny patch of the Earth, thought it was flat. Of course, by the time of the New Testament, every educated person in the civilized world knew it is round, but the authors of the N.T. didn't care about anything but arguing about the nature of Jesus, and killing each other for holding different opinions about him. And arguing about and killing each other over the question of whether God was one person (Unitarians), three persons (Trinitarians) or many persons (Gnostics), or where there were two entirely separate Gods (Marcionites).
I never claimed it said anything. I'm not the one that provided that book.

Where did I make such a claim?
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: rabinoz on February 21, 2020, 06:43:21 PM
Truth doesn't have an expiration date. That is some weak research. Even with it, 1984 is not "very very old." And it is peer reviewed. Why do you think its not?
I cant find it cited anywhere, meaning either its not been peer reviewed or its been reviewed without being published.
But I am also not sure why anyone would want to peer review this, you just just read it and say, "okay sure". There is not much to review.
Not saying its junk, just not peer reviewed. A lot of papers that dont have much scientific impact are not peer reviewed. And any scientific paper talking about the flat earth will have zero scientific relevance.

Truth does not have an expiration date, but truth stays the Truth no matter what year it is. And for there not to be any modern studies providing evidence of a Flat Earth means that whatever claims where made before I was born are not being made now.
If Truth cant be backed up and repeatedly tested, it means its probably not the truth. This is the way of science.

So just on the basis that there are no scientific studies that you can show that is less than 10 years old proving the earth is Flat should raise quite a few eyebrows even for you. Surely there are crazy enough people out there with enough scientific literacy to be able to publish an actual Flat Earth study? But apparently not.
Robert Schadewald present a good argumentt that the Old Testament is a flat Earth book i've never heard him claim that this proves that the Earth is flat.

To find Robert Schadewald's thoughts on "modern flat Earthism" might read Bob Schadewald, The Plane Truth. (http://www.cantab.net/users/michael.behrend/ebooks/PlaneTruth/pages/index.html)
To read his opinion of Samuel Birley Rowbotham see his
Chapter 1: The Founding Father (http://www.cantab.net/users/michael.behrend/ebooks/PlaneTruth/pages/Chapter_01.html).
I'm surprised this Society and the one at TFES.org dares keep any of his work in their library - maybe no one's read "The Plane Truth".
Bulletin of the Tychonian Society (Number 44) Robert Schadewald (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/library/pamphlets/Bulletin%20of%20the%20Tychonian%20Society%20(Number%2044%20-%20July%201987).pdf)

The Flat-Earth Bible
© 1987, 1995 by Robert J. Schadewald
Reprinted from The Bulletin of the Tychonian Society #44 (July 1987)
(http://library.tfes.org/library/the_flat_earth_bible.html)
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: John Davis on February 21, 2020, 07:39:08 PM
Does truth does not stay true whatever year it is? Is it a ridiculous claim?

Defend it.

It's very bold to say Truth is not temporal. Or is it just that truth is "true" for its time, letting on another layer of abstraction; this is "true" now; that was then. Overall, the Truth then would be the description of these changes - again making time a dimension to Truth. To me, it must at least be examined as a function of time, if inevitably it turns out it is not - all the easier.
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: JackBlack on February 21, 2020, 08:24:51 PM
That depends on who you ask.

If you were in Middle Earth, then that truth doesn't stay true all the time.

For Middle Earth, Earth started flat, then the mortals pissed off the gods and they made Earth round.

Lots of truths are quite temporal, based upon the time they were made.

Who knows? I can only speak of personal observations from after I was born. Maybe Earth was flat in the time of the high prophet Row Boat and now it is curved.
According to some people, Earth is expanding, with it originally being quite small and now being quite large. That would also explain some of the claims of being able to see further than we should as Earth has now expanded and thus the curvature is smaller than it once was...

But more importantly, our knowledge and understanding changes over time. What some people think is true (with little or no evidence to support it) can later be shown to be wrong as we get a better understanding or more evidence.

For example, some ancient cultures had a fairly good FE model, which worked to explain the observations they made. You can get this model back by making a few simplifications to the current RE model, with perhaps the most significant being ignoring the vast majority of Earth.
So they thought Earth was flat.
But then with more "exchange" between cultures and more importantly regions, this stopped being such a good model as the larger the area used, the worse the FE model approximation becomes.

It isn't so much that the truth changes, but our understanding of the world does and it shows that what we previously thought of as a truth is only an approximation which has potentially outlived its usefulness.
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: Timeisup on February 22, 2020, 02:22:16 AM
One fact that the Flat earth theory and Wrong earth theory seem to agree on is that the moon harbors dynamic pockets of water welled in local clustering.

Pretty convenient that these phases of migration and an actual chemical byproduct of microbial bioluminescent is in fact water. We have an explanation for water on the moon. Globularists don't.
I dont think Mr Moonshrimp is well versed in chemistry.

So your theory is that Moonshrimp eat rocks? and then produce water?
Or where they in the water already?

We have a pretty good idea of where the water on the moon comes from seeing that its one of the most abundant molecules in the universe.
There is no moonshrimp in my theory. We are talking about microbes. There is a big difference.
All that is required is for oxidation to occur.

The enzymes involved with the reaction are in the Lucifer system. For example, the Indian ocean houses such bacteria in the oceanic sediment which is relies on the confirmation change of the enzyme luciferase.

It is no coincidence that this enzyme is named after Lucifer , the most evil of all biblical figures. Scientists know that the moonlight is also of an evil quality. It is clearly harmful (See the stickied moonlight thread or the metabolic FEB thread). Only deniers of truth and devil worshippers would think otherwise.

A quick examination of the light from the moon via spectral analysis puts paid to your wild light emitting shrimp based explanation.
Your glowing bacterial marine creature based explanation has many many flaws the main one being the lack of any liquid water on the moon, the prime ingredient for any life, as far as we know.
It is all very well coming up with alternate ideas for natural phenomena but to explain away moonlight as something other than reflected sunlight is rather bonkers.
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: Bullwinkle on February 22, 2020, 05:17:32 AM

Your glowing bacterial marine creature based explanation has many many flaws the main one being the lack of any liquid water on the moon, the prime ingredient for any life, as far as we know.

1000 years ago bad weather was caused
by no enough virgins being thrown into volcanoes,
as far as we knew.

Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: magellanclavichord on February 22, 2020, 06:36:01 AM

Your glowing bacterial marine creature based explanation has many many flaws the main one being the lack of any liquid water on the moon, the prime ingredient for any life, as far as we know.

1000 years ago bad weather was caused
by no enough virgins being thrown into volcanoes,
as far as we knew.



Are you suggesting that the solution to global climate change might be to start throwing virgins into volcanoes? Maybe they don't have to be virgins. I mean, did the people who used to throw virgins into volcanoes ever try, for example, throwing presidents into volcanoes? It certainly couldn't hurt to try. Even if it didn't fix global warming it would help in other ways.  8)
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: Bullwinkle on February 23, 2020, 08:30:06 PM

Are you suggesting that the solution to global climate change might be to start throwing virgins into volcanoes?

I am afraid that if I continue to explore the joke potential of this premise I will need to send myself a warning.  ;)
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: John Davis on February 23, 2020, 09:49:57 PM
Has anyone every noticed how these positivists talk?

"A quick examination shows;" dot dot dot. ...

"A simple google search says ...."

"Of course it is that way, because of .:"

Its a bit foolish. We as we, tend to put the cart well fore the horse; so much so most days after. What would the Giants say? On whom we stand?

Obviously the horse of engineering should not come first in the search for knowledge.

I think they are having a bit of a piss about it. The orthodoxy has never led to the advance of any of their ideas. Newton, Galileo, any of those hallmarks. It has always, in anyway notable been against those ideas that stood for reason or coherency - and yet with it tongue in cheek. This provides even more in their existence against it proof of its immediate worth.
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on February 24, 2020, 01:42:49 AM
Does truth does not stay true whatever year it is? Is it a ridiculous claim?

Defend it.

It's very bold to say Truth is not temporal. Or is it just that truth is "true" for its time, letting on another layer of abstraction; this is "true" now; that was then. Overall, the Truth then would be the description of these changes - again making time a dimension to Truth. To me, it must at least be examined as a function of time, if inevitably it turns out it is not - all the easier.
Truth stays the truth, but our abilities to test things improve dramatically over time.
And if we dont test things the whole time then we wont know what old beliefs where wrong.

People believed that disease comes from "Bad air" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miasma_theory
until someone actually showed that you could reduce infection by washing your hands https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis

Truth always stays truth, unless it was never the truth to start off with.
And that is why you cant find moderns scientific literature that proves the world flat, because any real testing shows it to be round.
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: magellanclavichord on February 24, 2020, 06:05:16 AM

Are you suggesting that the solution to global climate change might be to start throwing virgins into volcanoes?

I am afraid that if I continue to explore the joke potential of this premise I will need to send myself a warning.  ;)

 ;D

Does truth does not stay true whatever year it is? Is it a ridiculous claim?

Defend it.

It's very bold to say Truth is not temporal. Or is it just that truth is "true" for its time, letting on another layer of abstraction; this is "true" now; that was then. Overall, the Truth then would be the description of these changes - again making time a dimension to Truth. To me, it must at least be examined as a function of time, if inevitably it turns out it is not - all the easier.
Truth stays the truth, but our abilities to test things improve dramatically over time.
And if we dont test things the whole time then we wont know what old beliefs where wrong.

People believed that disease comes from "Bad air" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miasma_theory
until someone actually showed that you could reduce infection by washing your hands https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis

Truth always stays truth, unless it was never the truth to start off with.
And that is why you cant find moderns scientific literature that proves the world flat, because any real testing shows it to be round.

Exactly. And science progresses by replication and consensus. There are usually a few people with fringe ideas, and they turn out to be right only about one time out of a million. And even that happens less and less as science has matured from its early days when Galileo observed the largest of the moons around Jupiter and the phases of Venus. The rotundity of the Earth is backed by mountains of unassailable evidence and all the flat-Earthers have are a few easily-explainable anomalies.

One of the hallmarks of pseudoscience is that it starts with the conclusion and hunts for bits of evidence that seem consistent with its conclusion. This description fits FE to a T. Though it puzzles me that the proponents of FE also insist on a lot of points that have nothing to do with the shape of the Earth. Such as denying space flight or even space itself, as if space flight were impossible from a flat Earth; or insisting that moon light is dangerous, as if that were relevant to the shape of the Earth; or denying gravity, as if a flat Earth couldn't have gravity; or even claiming that rockets would not work in a vacuum.

FE is not so much about the shape of the Earth as it is about denying science itself, rejecting everything science has learned about the world, and setting itself up as an alternative "science." Make a YouTube video claiming that telephone poles are made of cheese and if you can get enough hits the flat-Earthers will welcome you as a fellow traveller.

The claim that moon light is dangerous is a perfect example of this. It's easy to find examples of people who had something bad happen to them after they were exposed to moon light, and then all you have to do is ignore all the people who spent time in moon light and nothing bad happened to them. Or better yet, since bad things happen all the time, you can always find something. So-and-so went out in moon light and two weeks later he stubbed his toe on a table leg. Must have been the moon light!
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: Timeisup on February 24, 2020, 11:46:29 PM
Does truth does not stay true whatever year it is? Is it a ridiculous claim?

Defend it.

It's very bold to say Truth is not temporal. Or is it just that truth is "true" for its time, letting on another layer of abstraction; this is "true" now; that was then. Overall, the Truth then would be the description of these changes - again making time a dimension to Truth. To me, it must at least be examined as a function of time, if inevitably it turns out it is not - all the easier.

What would you say to this observation if you care to make it as it’s there for all to see if you care to look? The moon and Venus meet in the evening sky this week.The moon will be only 14% illuminated and so will appear as a slender crescent in the twilight sky. As the evening becomes fully dark, keep a lookout for the whole disc of the moon suddenly become visible! This is known as “earthshine” and is created by sunlight bouncing off Earth back up onto the moon’s dark side. If you care to think about it it’s simple physics/ geometry just like the normal phases of the moon. A truth observed and accepted by every astronomer. A truth that you alone are unwilling to accept.

Venus is now approaching its highest visible altitude in the evening sky for this apparition. It will remain there until the beginning of April. After that it will nose-dive towards the horizon, and by the end of May it will have disappeared into the glare. On 3 June, unseen from Earth, it will pass between our planet and the sun. It will then reappear low in the morning sky by the end of the month.
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: Unconvinced on February 25, 2020, 01:50:04 AM
Has anyone every noticed how these positivists talk?

"A quick examination shows;" dot dot dot. ...

"A simple google search says ...."

"Of course it is that way, because of .:"

Its a bit foolish. We as we, tend to put the cart well fore the horse; so much so most days after. What would the Giants say? On whom we stand?

Obviously the horse of engineering should not come first in the search for knowledge.

I think they are having a bit of a piss about it. The orthodoxy has never led to the advance of any of their ideas. Newton, Galileo, any of those hallmarks. It has always, in anyway notable been against those ideas that stood for reason or coherency - and yet with it tongue in cheek. This provides even more in their existence against it proof of its immediate worth.

You might find that the amount of effort people put into refuting something depends greatly on the amount of effort you put into justifying your claims in the first place.

If you make some wild claim that pops into your head with absolutely nothing to back it up, then a quick google search for how things really work is all the response you deserve.  On the other hand, if you feel like presenting observations and analysis, to support your claim we can treat it a bit more seriously.  The clear pattern is you writing a couple of sentences of nonsense, then whinging that rebuttals don’t meet your oh so exacting standards.
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: magellanclavichord on February 25, 2020, 07:24:30 AM
Does truth does not stay true whatever year it is? Is it a ridiculous claim?

Defend it.

It's very bold to say Truth is not temporal. Or is it just that truth is "true" for its time, letting on another layer of abstraction; this is "true" now; that was then. Overall, the Truth then would be the description of these changes - again making time a dimension to Truth. To me, it must at least be examined as a function of time, if inevitably it turns out it is not - all the easier.

What would you say to this observation if you care to make it as it’s there for all to see if you care to look? The moon and Venus meet in the evening sky this week.The moon will be only 14% illuminated and so will appear as a slender crescent in the twilight sky. As the evening becomes fully dark, keep a lookout for the whole disc of the moon suddenly become visible! This is known as “earthshine” and is created by sunlight bouncing off Earth back up onto the moon’s dark side. If you care to think about it it’s simple physics/ geometry just like the normal phases of the moon. A truth observed and accepted by every astronomer. A truth that you alone are unwilling to accept.

Venus is now approaching its highest visible altitude in the evening sky for this apparition. It will remain there until the beginning of April. After that it will nose-dive towards the horizon, and by the end of May it will have disappeared into the glare. On 3 June, unseen from Earth, it will pass between our planet and the sun. It will then reappear low in the morning sky by the end of the month.

So, on the one side we have every single astronomer in the world, both professional and amateur, with telescopes ranging from little things you can carry out into the back yard all the way up to humongous things many meters in diameter, plus radio telescopes ranging all the way up to 500 meters in diameter, and linked arrays, and gravity-wave detectors, and neutrino detectors; and on the other side of the issue we have Samuel Rowbotham, who made one measurement along a waterway and thought he detected no curvature.

I wonder which side carries more weight?

Rowbotham thought he had found an anomaly. Anomaly-hunting is exactly what pseudoscientists do. Typically, like him, they have no formal education in the field they are engaging in, and they present their anomalies without understanding the mechanisms behind what they are observing, or even how to use their equipment properly. They claim there is no value in education, and that all they need is their "common sense."

Call me a fool, but I'll believe a million astronomers on a question of astronomy before I believe one guy who thinks he's proved them all wrong.

We see the moon because it reflects the light of the sun, and to a much lesser degree, because it reflects the sunlight reflected off the Earth. There is nothing harmful in this light. The sun shines because of thermonuclear reactions in its core, and its light is dangerous because it can cause sunburns and skin cancer, though proper precautions can mitigate the risk down to acceptable levels.
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: rabinoz on February 25, 2020, 01:42:13 PM
Does truth does not stay true whatever year it is? Is it a ridiculous claim?

Defend it.

It's very bold to say Truth is not temporal. Or is it just that truth is "true" for its time, letting on another layer of abstraction; this is "true" now; that was then. Overall, the Truth then would be the description of these changes - again making time a dimension to Truth. To me, it must at least be examined as a function of time, if inevitably it turns out it is not - all the easier.
"Truth" is permanent but who dares to claim that they and they alone have "THE TRUTH" - not the scientific community!
They leave that to the "TRUTHERS" and then show with evidence that the so-called "TRUTH" claimed by these "TRUTHERS" is not and never was "THE TRUTH".
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: magellanclavichord on February 25, 2020, 02:12:41 PM
Does truth does not stay true whatever year it is? Is it a ridiculous claim?

Defend it.

It's very bold to say Truth is not temporal. Or is it just that truth is "true" for its time, letting on another layer of abstraction; this is "true" now; that was then. Overall, the Truth then would be the description of these changes - again making time a dimension to Truth. To me, it must at least be examined as a function of time, if inevitably it turns out it is not - all the easier.
"Truth" is permanent but who dares to claim that they and they alone have "THE TRUTH" - not the scientific community!
They leave that to the "TRUTHERS" and then show with evidence that the so-called "TRUTH" claimed by these "TRUTHERS" is not and never was "THE TRUTH".

As I just pointed out in another thread, the claim to have The One And Only Truth™, and a refusal to be swayed by evidence, are characteristics of some religious cults. I think that maybe Flat Earth could qualify to be considered a religious cult.
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: John Davis on February 25, 2020, 02:16:54 PM
Does truth does not stay true whatever year it is? Is it a ridiculous claim?

Defend it.

It's very bold to say Truth is not temporal. Or is it just that truth is "true" for its time, letting on another layer of abstraction; this is "true" now; that was then. Overall, the Truth then would be the description of these changes - again making time a dimension to Truth. To me, it must at least be examined as a function of time, if inevitably it turns out it is not - all the easier.
"Truth" is permanent but who dares to claim that they and they alone have "THE TRUTH" - not the scientific community!
They leave that to the "TRUTHERS" and then show with evidence that the so-called "TRUTH" claimed by these "TRUTHERS" is not and never was "THE TRUTH".

As I just pointed out in another thread, the claim to have The One And Only Truth™, and a refusal to be swayed by evidence, are characteristics of some religious cults. I think that maybe Flat Earth could qualify to be considered a religious cult.
Odd; I find that to be true of the globularist community. On the other hand, there are a plethora of flat earth world views.
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: rabinoz on February 25, 2020, 03:17:53 PM
As I just pointed out in another thread, the claim to have The One And Only Truth™, and a refusal to be swayed by evidence, are characteristics of some religious cults. I think that maybe Flat Earth could qualify to be considered a religious cult.
Odd; I find that to be true of the globularist community. On the other hand, there are a plethora of flat earth world views.
Funny that! And why are there all these "plethora of flat earth world views"? Possibly because all are provably wrong.

But there is essentially one Heliocentric Solar System theory and it does explain what we observe. There is no need for "modern science" to explain it.
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: Xphilll on February 25, 2020, 03:43:23 PM
Does truth does not stay true whatever year it is? Is it a ridiculous claim?

Defend it.

It's very bold to say Truth is not temporal. Or is it just that truth is "true" for its time, letting on another layer of abstraction; this is "true" now; that was then. Overall, the Truth then would be the description of these changes - again making time a dimension to Truth. To me, it must at least be examined as a function of time, if inevitably it turns out it is not - all the easier.
"Truth" is permanent but who dares to claim that they and they alone have "THE TRUTH" - not the scientific community!
They leave that to the "TRUTHERS" and then show with evidence that the so-called "TRUTH" claimed by these "TRUTHERS" is not and never was "THE TRUTH".

As I just pointed out in another thread, the claim to have The One And Only Truth™, and a refusal to be swayed by evidence, are characteristics of some religious cults. I think that maybe Flat Earth could qualify to be considered a religious cult.
Odd; I find that to be true of the globularist community. On the other hand, there are a plethora of flat earth world views.
One would think you could come up with something a little more elaborate than a " celui qui le dit est celui qui l'est"
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: magellanclavichord on February 25, 2020, 06:40:29 PM
Does truth does not stay true whatever year it is? Is it a ridiculous claim?

Defend it.

It's very bold to say Truth is not temporal. Or is it just that truth is "true" for its time, letting on another layer of abstraction; this is "true" now; that was then. Overall, the Truth then would be the description of these changes - again making time a dimension to Truth. To me, it must at least be examined as a function of time, if inevitably it turns out it is not - all the easier.
"Truth" is permanent but who dares to claim that they and they alone have "THE TRUTH" - not the scientific community!
They leave that to the "TRUTHERS" and then show with evidence that the so-called "TRUTH" claimed by these "TRUTHERS" is not and never was "THE TRUTH".

As I just pointed out in another thread, the claim to have The One And Only Truth™, and a refusal to be swayed by evidence, are characteristics of some religious cults. I think that maybe Flat Earth could qualify to be considered a religious cult.
Odd; I find that to be true of the globularist community. On the other hand, there are a plethora of flat earth world views.

If "globularism" is a religion, it is one that encompasses 99.999993% of the people in the world. There are a plethora of FE world views because no two flat-Earthers can agree with each other on just how the Earth is flat. Even flat-Earthers cannot agree on FET.
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: Yes on February 26, 2020, 06:25:30 AM
Even flat-Earthers cannot agree on FET.
Or even the ratio between the circumference and diameter of a circle  ;D
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: magellanclavichord on February 26, 2020, 09:29:12 AM
Even flat-Earthers cannot agree on FET.
Or even the ratio between the circumference and diameter of a circle  ;D

Good one!  ^-^
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: Yes on March 02, 2020, 09:47:18 AM
Hey wait a sec.  If the moon is a ball (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=84932.msg2237495#msg2237495), and the moon hosts dangerous bioluminescent life that migrates around its entire surface, why doesn't this life fall down off the ball?  Does gravity apply to the moon?
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: Karen-The-Boomer on March 02, 2020, 12:15:28 PM
Plot twist! the moon is a giant hologram and the earth is a square and you cannot fall off the edge because of a force field and ender pearls will not work because life is a lie and Jesus is alive now. ☭☭🤡
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: wise on March 02, 2020, 12:24:37 PM
Plot twist! the moon is a giant hologram and the earth is a square and you cannot fall off the edge because of a force field and ender pearls will not work because life is a lie and Jesus is alive now. ☭☭🤡

I guess rectangle 1x2 but not square.
Title: Re: Dark Moon
Post by: magellanclavichord on March 02, 2020, 12:52:32 PM
Plot twist! the moon is a giant hologram and the earth is a square and you cannot fall off the edge because of a force field and ender pearls will not work because life is a lie and Jesus is alive now. ☭☭🤡

Clarification please: When you say the Earth is square, do you mean it's a flat square like a shower tile, or do you mean a cube?

Thanks.

As for Jesus being alive now, there are millions of Jesus's alive now. It's a very popular name in Latin America. They pronounce it something like "hay SOOS."

And welcome to the FES.