MOON shines by her own LIGHT.

The MOON doesn't shine yellow like the Sun.



If the Moon truly reflected the "sunshine" the light reflected would shine the color of the Sun, yellow. Just like the reflection of the sun's light on the snow, or on the clouds.



The light reflected depends on the color of the source.
 


The moon doesn't reflect the "sunshine" the MOON shines with the same light of the Stars, same color, her light, silver white!

Paging Moonlit to this thread.

Please read up on color theory and stop spamming the serious discussion fourms.

2. Color as Pigment (Reflected Color)

Pigments are opaque (not transparent) paints or inks placed onto opaque surfaces. These pigments absorb and reflect different amounts of color from white light. Most of the colored objects we see on earth are made up of combinations of reflected wavelengths. Surfaces or objects illuminated by white light absorb differing proportions of visible wavelengths and reflect the remainder.

at certain elevations, the moon does shine yellow, just like the sun.

Also, the moon does not reflect 100% of the incomming rays anyway.  I dont think it's even close to 100% like mirrors and stuff.

this photo looks like a photoshoped one!

When the sun shines on my car it's red, not yellow like the sun.

You're not suggesting my cars body panels glow by their own light are you?

Duh.

VinDino, you are partly correct. The Moon certainly does shine by her own light, but we can't tell this based on colours alone. The colour of light is liable to change when it reflects off different mediums, which means the globularist theory would still fit all colour-related observation.

However, we can determine the different source of Moonlight from Sunlight based on the other properties of each. Temperature is a good indication, because the Moon's light has literally no warming power whatsoever, whereas the Sun's light is absolutely always attended by a positive amount of heat, no matter how small.

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

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

Temperature is a good indication, because the Moon's light has literally no warming power whatsoever, whereas the Sun's light is absolutely always attended by a positive amount of heat, no matter how small.

So would showing a thermometer's temperature increasing from exposure to concentrated moonlight shatter FE then?  If so, I know for a fact this will happen because I've felt the warmth of concentrated moonlight projected on my hand before.  Apparently all I have to do is measure this warming with a thermometer, post the video, and FE goes poof.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By the FAQ, yes.
"The sun and moon, each 32 miles in diameter, circle Earth at a height of 3000 miles at its equator. They are located midway between the North Pole and the ice wall. Each functions similar to a "spotlight," with the sun radiating "hot light" and the moon "cold light." "
Thus, showing that moonlight can warm things would shatter the theory being put forth here.  Ridiculous, isn't it?

Yes, mad eh? Hmmm, the light bulb I have on is putting out cold light, but its yellow like the sun, how can that be?! But if I get close to it, its warm, hot even. A single light source thats both hot and cold? But wouldnt that break FET? Argh, even the light bulb companies are in on the conspiracy, making their light hot and cold just to confuse us.

Althought the idea sounds retarded to me, it also seems that the moonlight might be warming people.
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Bathing-in-Moonlight-72881.shtml

Why don't you go out there and check it out.

However, we can determine the different source of Moonlight from Sunlight based on the other properties of each. Temperature is a good indication, because the Moon's light has literally no warming power whatsoever, whereas the Sun's light is absolutely always attended by a positive amount of heat, no matter how small.

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

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

You spew these phrases as facts when they aren't. You can't throw out opinion as fact.
The intensity of moonlight is so low that massive mirrors are required to focus sufficient light for heating. Putrefying effects? Where did you read that rubbish?
Diminishing effect on fire?
Where did you come up with this stuff?
Same place as the boat building dinosaurs and genetically engineered man-made penguins?

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

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

Quote from: Dogplatter on June 03, 2009, 02:53:43 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: Dogplatter on June 03, 2009, 02:53:43 PM

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

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

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

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

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

Yes.

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

References

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

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

You clown.
You've just told me that stopping sunlight reaching a plant will kill it. Of course it will. Photosynthesis can't occur without sunlight(or an atrifical source with the same intensity).

It's not spring her. My entire garden cops the moonlight all the time and it looks just fine. Same as all of the plants in Australia.
Do you have to replant the entire country every morning?

Do you have details of the thermometer? The size of the mirror? He says vast but it isn't quantified. Given the intensity difference between the sun and moon, work should be performed to make comparitive measurements of equivalent intensity focused beams. An arbitrarily chosen mirror doesn't help here. From your quote is sounds like he used the same mirror on the sun as he did on the moon. A shamefully foolish action if so.

Keeping the curtains closed? Who does that? Again, a simply rediculous statement. If there was a reason to do so in the past it was probably because they didn't have windows and closing shutters stopped the wind blowing out the flame. Or maybe it was to do with observing the blue flame as it is less luminous. I've managed to cook on outdoor gas grills and fires without incident.

These quotes keep using "well known fact". They aren't well known at all. In fact apart from the few of you that spew them continuously, I doubt they have been uttered in the last century.

Don't you imagine that a magnifying glass would have difficulty starting a fire if the sun's rays depressed flames?

Good lord man, don't you think?

You clown.
You've just told me that stopping sunlight reaching a plant will kill it. Of course it will. Photosynthesis can't occur without sunlight(or an atrifical source with the same intensity).

But globularists claim that the light coming from the Moon is reflected Sunlight! Exposing a plant to moonlight ought to slightly nourish plants, not kill them!

You can even have it, though, so that the Moon-exposed plant and the control both experience the same sunlight if you want. The moonlit one will still sustain damage if the Moon is visible and full enough.

Why do you think daisies and other delicate plants have evolved a complicated system for closing their petal at night? What would be the evolutionary advantage in such an energy-expensive system unless there were a good reason for the delicate parts of plants to avoid direct exposure to moonlight?

It's not spring her. My entire garden cops the moonlight all the time and it looks just fine. Same as all of the plants in Australia.
Do you have to replant the entire country every morning?

Well then you won't be experiencing Red Moon right now. As the source I cited indicates, it is most egregious during the spring.

Do you have details of the thermometer? The size of the mirror? He says vast but it isn't quantified. Given the intensity difference between the sun and moon, work should be performed to make comparitive measurements of equivalent intensity focused beams. An arbitrarily chosen mirror doesn't help here. From your quote is sounds like he used the same mirror on the sun as he did on the moon. A shamefully foolish action if so.

Specific, quantified details of the thermometer are provided in the write-up. Read it again. The thermometer used was accurate to within 1/1000 of a degree. The reflectory apparatus was of a design such that the concentration of sunlight through it was enough to fuse gold.

Increasing the intensity of the moonlight would be pointless - it's not as if there was just very little heat attending the moonlight, there was LITERALLY NONE. Do you have any idea how minute one thousandth of a degree is? To the highest level of accuracy, Lardner and his associates showed that moonlight is not attended by even the slightest quantum of heat.

Keeping the curtains closed? Who does that? Again, a simply rediculous statement. If there was a reason to do so in the past it was probably because they didn't have windows and closing shutters stopped the wind blowing out the flame. Or maybe it was to do with observing the blue flame as it is less luminous. I've managed to cook on outdoor gas grills and fires without incident.

I routinely do this when cooking during the day, otherwise my food cooks much slower than I expect and I can't complete recipes correctly.

I too have cooked on gas stoves outdoors, and have invariably found (as you will have) that bringing water to the boil takes a great deal longer because the flame's intensity is diminished by sunlight.

These quotes keep using "well known fact". They aren't well known at all. In fact apart from the few of you that spew them continuously, I doubt they have been uttered in the last century.

But I've also referenced formal, published accounts of scientific experimentation.

Besides, just because you happen to not be particularly well-versed in cooking and gardening, does not mean these phenomena are not well known within those respective industries and even by successful amateurs.

Don't you imagine that a magnifying glass would have difficulty starting a fire if the sun's rays depressed flames?

Good lord man, don't you think?

We've established, though, that focussed sunlight produces heat, which in sufficient quantity will overcome the fire-retardant properties associated with sunlight. A magnifying lense is only used to initially start a fire, it is generally not kept in place once the very first flame has been produced.

Quote from: dyno on June 04, 2009, 02:51:17 AM

You clown.
You've just told me that stopping sunlight reaching a plant will kill it. Of course it will. Photosynthesis can't occur without sunlight(or an atrifical source with the same intensity).

But globularists claim that the light coming from the Moon is reflected Sunlight!

Globularists also claim that the light from the sun is 449,000 times brighter than the light from the full moon.  Don't you suppose that this little tidbit of information might have the slightest bit of relevance?

But globularists claim that the light coming from the Moon is reflected Sunlight! Exposing a plant to moonlight ought to slightly nourish plants, not kill them!

If I leave in a room with just a tiny flow of oxygen, say 10% of the normal amount, will you be slightly nourished or will you die?

Quote from: Dogplatter on June 04, 2009, 03:20:53 AM

Quote from: dyno on June 04, 2009, 02:51:17 AM

You clown.
You've just told me that stopping sunlight reaching a plant will kill it. Of course it will. Photosynthesis can't occur without sunlight(or an atrifical source with the same intensity).

But globularists claim that the light coming from the Moon is reflected Sunlight!

Globularists also claim that the light from the sun is 449,000 times brighter than the light from the full moon.  Don't you suppose that this little tidbit of information might have the slightest bit of relevance?

No, because the Moonlight ought at least be attended by some small fraction of the heat which attends Sunlight. It isn't, as evidenced by Dionysius Lardner's experimentation.

Quote from: markjo on June 04, 2009, 06:27:12 AM

Quote from: Dogplatter on June 04, 2009, 03:20:53 AM

Quote from: dyno on June 04, 2009, 02:51:17 AM

You clown.
You've just told me that stopping sunlight reaching a plant will kill it. Of course it will. Photosynthesis can't occur without sunlight(or an atrifical source with the same intensity).

But globularists claim that the light coming from the Moon is reflected Sunlight!

Globularists also claim that the light from the sun is 449,000 times brighter than the light from the full moon.  Don't you suppose that this little tidbit of information might have the slightest bit of relevance?

No, because the Moonlight ought at least be attended by some small fraction of the heat which attends Sunlight. It isn't, as evidenced by Dionysius Lardner's experimentation.

Perhaps moonlight is attended by 1/449,000^th of the sun's heat.

Perhaps moonlight is attended by 1/449,000^th of the sun's heat.

But it isn't, because massively accurate thermometers have measured massively concentrated moonlight and shown that no such heat is in attendance.

Quote from: markjo on June 04, 2009, 09:51:19 AM

Perhaps moonlight is attended by 1/449,000^th of the sun's heat.

But it isn't, because massively accurate thermometers have measured massively concentrated moonlight and shown that no such heat is in attendance.

Possibly due to the moon only reflecting mostly visible light, and not enough infra red light to affect the temperature of the Earth?

I've conducted a search throughout the whole of this site and have only found weak references to this, so I'm going to put it forward as a serious and comprehensive theory.

Why couldn't the moons light be chemiluminescence?

My previous post on the matter in "The notsoflat earth" brought this to my attention.

The wavelength of light emmited from the radiation would be towards the high energy end of the visible spectrum (giving the moon its bluey grey colour) as is emitted by the luminescent dye 9,10-Diphenylanthracene; and therefore would not contain any infra red... thus no heat. The light emitted also does not extend into the UV range of spectra. This wavelength will probably be in the region 425-450nm as is shown by the emission spectra of
9,10-Diphenylanthracene here:     http://macromolecules.case.edu/images/Upconversion.jpg
 
(9,10-Diphenylanthracene is the highly conjugated structure on the left)

I'm not necessarily saying that 9,10-Diphenylanthracene would have to be the dye under question, it could be any number of them, let alone ones that have not been discovered yet!

I'm open to discussion here, so give me and ideas/queries you can think of and I'll see what I can do!

Rogherio

The mechanism of the moon's self-luminescence isn't the problem.  The problem is that the moon experiences regular phases that are quite easily explained by RET.  FET has no such mechanism to explain this readily observable phenomenon.

Quote from: turtles on June 03, 2009, 03:18:34 PM

Quote from: Dogplatter on June 03, 2009, 02:53:43 PM

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

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

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

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

Yes, we call it "frost damage" here. It tends to happen when its frosty.

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

An experiment from 150 years ago?  We can do much better than that with modern instrumentation, I assure you.  Moonlight's energy may be weak, but it is detectable when adequately concentrated and sensitively measured.  By my math, I should see about a .2 degree rise (celsius) in the air temperature per hour within a calorimeter cup placed at the focal plane of my own scope.  If I still had access to the giant research telescope I used in college I could do much better, but even mine should achieve a positive result under optimal conditions given enough time.

I didn't realise the truth had an expiry date. Mind explaining to me exactly how many years it takes for something to automatically become false? What's that? There is no such number?

I didn't realise the truth had an expiry date.

I didn't realize we reached the peak of telescope and thermometer design 150 years ago.  Explain to me why they would have been better at avoiding false negative results back then.  What's that?  They weren't better?

I didn't realize we reached the peak of telescope and thermometer design 150 years ago.  Explain to me why they would have been better at avoiding false negative results back then.  What's that?  They weren't better?

Actually neither refractor telescopes or mercury thermometers have improved significantly over the last 150 years. The 1800's has always been considered the golden age of telescopes and glass-making.

Quote from: messierhunter on June 04, 2009, 02:06:28 PM

I didn't realize we reached the peak of telescope and thermometer design 150 years ago.  Explain to me why they would have been better at avoiding false negative results back then.  What's that?  They weren't better?

Actually neither refractor telescopes or mercury thermometers have improved significantly over the last 150 years. The 1800's has always been considered the golden age of telescopes and glass-making.

Refractor telescopes or mercury thermometers were not specifically defined. There are other types of either device in existance which have had significant improvements or didnt even exist in the 1800's.

Otherwise are you saying that this http://www.birrcastle.com/telescopeConstruction.asp is as good as this http://www.eso.org/sci/facilities/eelt/owl/OWL_design.html ?

Quote from: markjo on June 04, 2009, 06:27:12 AM

Quote from: Dogplatter on June 04, 2009, 03:20:53 AM

Quote from: dyno on June 04, 2009, 02:51:17 AM

You clown.
You've just told me that stopping sunlight reaching a plant will kill it. Of course it will. Photosynthesis can't occur without sunlight(or an atrifical source with the same intensity).

But globularists claim that the light coming from the Moon is reflected Sunlight!

Globularists also claim that the light from the sun is 449,000 times brighter than the light from the full moon.  Don't you suppose that this little tidbit of information might have the slightest bit of relevance?

No, because the Moonlight ought at least be attended by some small fraction of the heat which attends Sunlight. It isn't, as evidenced by Dionysius Lardner's experimentation.

I believe Lardner was mistaken when he said his thermometer was accurate to within 1/1000 of a degree. That kind of accuracy is now achieved in controlled environments with electrical instruments. Accurate glass thermometers typically achieve no greater than 1/10 of a degree. Do you have any details on the equipment he used?

It is of great significance that he used the same mirror to melt gold when the sun is ~500,000 times brighter than the full moon. He should have been comparing the same amount of light. He should have used a dentists mirror or something even smaller probably.

Dionysius Lardner either chose to perform experiments in a fashion where he knew he could interpret them the way he wanted, or he was a fool.

Some plants close due to nyctinasty. You should publish a paper on this since the jury is still out. I've seen numerous ideas but yours is the only one about deadly moon beams.