Is there a FE consensus on Moon shape?

I suppose someone in the FE ranks must be a very intelligent biologist to assert that the moon's light is caused by bioluminescence. What sort of diet do these things have? The moon is completely devoid of organic matter... or obviously an atmosphere... what kind of chemistry is involved here? Because, quite frankly, none of it holds up.

It's also, as James points out, somehow able to continually feed on its own waste products and eat indefinitely, yet still put out a constant assload of energy in the form of light.  Where's the extra energy coming from?  What chemical bonds is it breaking to get all this energy, exactly?

Forgot to add:

Amazingly, the moon reflects light of precisely the same wavelengths as various types of basaltic rock if it is bombarded with blackbody radiation. With standard University equipment and possibly a college degree, you can test this out yourself. Right... the sun emits blackbody radiation. You can test this too. A spherical sun... with photons being absorbed/reflected by the moon's spherical surface... hard to think of a simpler solution. It even holds up to experiment/observation!

What else would the Moon eat? The crater is living matter, it moves predictably in its hunt for food.

Craters move? 

If anyone could show that these organisms that somehow periodically fall to earth are indeed bioluminescent and emit the precise wavelengths of light that we see from the moon, then the theory has some chance of being believed. Too bad this has never been done.

What else would the Moon eat? The crater is living matter, it moves predictably in its hunt for food.

Well that's odd, because leaving aside the stupid non-answer "The Moon eats itself because what else would it eat", the statement that "the crater moves" needs further explanation of why everything else on the Moon moves exactly in sync with the crater, and what's more, in accordance with the laws of perspective as they would apply to a spherical object. Is this just coincidence? Or is James completely wrong?

If anyone could show that these organisms that somehow periodically fall to earth are indeed bioluminescent and emit the precise wavelengths of light that we see from the moon, then the theory has some chance of being believed. Too bad this has never been done.

We are working on it I assure you.

Quote from: James on May 05, 2010, 12:28:56 AM

What else would the Moon eat? The crater is living matter, it moves predictably in its hunt for food.

Well that's odd, because leaving aside the stupid non-answer "The Moon eats itself because what else would it eat", the statement that "the crater moves" needs further explanation of why everything else on the Moon moves exactly in sync with the crater, and what's more, in accordance with the laws of perspective as they would apply to a spherical object. Is this just coincidence? Or is James completely wrong?

The Moon is a harmonious presence in an otherwise corrupt and disparate universe, the Moon came from a simpler time before all this pointless conflict and thus is able to conduct itself in an organised and orderly manner, unlike most humans.

Quote from: General Disarray on May 05, 2010, 07:14:10 AM

If anyone could show that these organisms that somehow periodically fall to earth are indeed bioluminescent and emit the precise wavelengths of light that we see from the moon, then the theory has some chance of being believed. Too bad this has never been done.

We are working on it I assure you.

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on May 05, 2010, 01:07:20 PM

Quote from: James on May 05, 2010, 12:28:56 AM

What else would the Moon eat? The crater is living matter, it moves predictably in its hunt for food.

Well that's odd, because leaving aside the stupid non-answer "The Moon eats itself because what else would it eat", the statement that "the crater moves" needs further explanation of why everything else on the Moon moves exactly in sync with the crater, and what's more, in accordance with the laws of perspective as they would apply to a spherical object. Is this just coincidence? Or is James completely wrong?

The Moon is a harmonious presence in an otherwise corrupt and disparate universe, the Moon came from a simpler time before all this pointless conflict and thus is able to conduct itself in an organised and orderly manner, unlike most humans.

Your science is all wrong. You don't try to prove something is right. You do the experiment then draw conclusions. You've already drawn your conclusions (the existence of light giving organisms) and now you're trying to prove it right! You make no concession that this idea has any fallacy to it! You make no effort to even indicate that it my be a null hypothesis. That's completely backwards!

What's is this harmonious comment based on?

Quote from: James on May 05, 2010, 01:42:19 PM

Quote from: General Disarray on May 05, 2010, 07:14:10 AM

If anyone could show that these organisms that somehow periodically fall to earth are indeed bioluminescent and emit the precise wavelengths of light that we see from the moon, then the theory has some chance of being believed. Too bad this has never been done.

We are working on it I assure you.

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on May 05, 2010, 01:07:20 PM

Quote from: James on May 05, 2010, 12:28:56 AM

What else would the Moon eat? The crater is living matter, it moves predictably in its hunt for food.

Well that's odd, because leaving aside the stupid non-answer "The Moon eats itself because what else would it eat", the statement that "the crater moves" needs further explanation of why everything else on the Moon moves exactly in sync with the crater, and what's more, in accordance with the laws of perspective as they would apply to a spherical object. Is this just coincidence? Or is James completely wrong?

The Moon is a harmonious presence in an otherwise corrupt and disparate universe, the Moon came from a simpler time before all this pointless conflict and thus is able to conduct itself in an organised and orderly manner, unlike most humans.

Your science is all wrong. You don't try to prove something is right. You do the experiment then draw conclusions. You've already drawn your conclusions (the existence of light giving organisms) and now you're trying to prove it right! That's completely backwards!

Please read chapter one of Earth Not a Globe, 'Zetetic and Theoretic Compared and Defined'. It will explain to you why you, are in fact the backward one, for embracing a faulty scientific method dogmatically and denying the basics of practical reason.

What's is this harmonious comment based on? Sounds like poorly thought out philosophy to me.

Do you consider the Moon to be not harmonious?

The Moon is a harmonious presence in an otherwise corrupt and disparate universe, the Moon came from a simpler time before all this pointless conflict and thus is able to conduct itself in an organised and orderly manner, unlike most humans.

This is another ridiculous non-answer. Why does the rest of the surface move in sync with the crater? Why does it appear to obey the laws of spherical perspective when it's a flat disc? If it eats itself, how harmonious can it be - you say parts of it are hunting other parts.
Sorry James, but your statements are full of so much cobblers they could almost have been written by Raa or Levee.
I also asked in the other thread for your evidence of how you know what rate the Moon is consuming itself ("with gusto" you say) and what scientific measurements or experiments have been done to demonstrate this. I have waited for days for you to answer this and you steadfastly ignore it. Is this because there is no evidence at all that it happens?

James has actually been worse than levee lately, and levee seem to have improved massively with his recent posts.

This is another ridiculous non-answer. Why does the rest of the surface move in sync with the crater?

Because the Moon itself is harmonious.

Why does it appear to obey the laws of spherical perspective when it's a flat disc?

Does it?

If it eats itself, how harmonious can it be - you say parts of it are hunting other parts.

Do you consider eating to be not harmonious?

Sorry James, but your statements are full of so much cobblers they could almost have been written by Raa or Levee.

Raa and Levee are both respected contributors to this website. I am flattered to be compared with either of them.

I also asked in the other thread for your evidence of how you know what rate the Moon is consuming itself ("with gusto" you say) and what scientific measurements or experiments have been done to demonstrate this. I have waited for days for you to answer this and you steadfastly ignore it. Is this because there is no evidence at all that it happens?

I am not sure what exactly you mean by rate. What sort of a rate are you looking for? Kilos per minute? Meals per day?

James has actually been worse than levee lately, and levee seem to have improved massively with his recent posts.

James' argument is almost as bad as the "1 raindrop + 1 raindrop = 1 raindrop, therefore the earth is flat" argument.

Well, James, how old is the Moon? Where does it keep getting it's own matter to continue feeding itself?

Surely it would have consumed itself by now.

Mr. James, kindly leave the pretentious and wholly vague vocabulary to junior high English papers. That sort of garbage isn't fooling anyone. We're talking specifics here, not metaphysics.

Referring to your earlier post, I'm not certain I see how proving your own ideology without experimental evidence manages to have any merit. Or adding in new, unconfirmed processes to explain phenomenon to cover holes from the first adds credibility to your cause. Could you explain why I'm so backwards and foolish for accepting the Scientific Method? Or why it is foolish to base interpretations only after the data has been gathered and processes have been predictably explained?

But back on track, the characteristics of the moon's craters, the way in which the moon appears to 'wobble' in space, the phases and lighting, etc, all point to a barren, spherical moon with not so much as the slighest hint of an atmosphere or organics on the surface. When you decide to add light-emmiting organisms to the model, you just compound the nonsense with more baseless claims, with the only purpose being an attempt to explain why there are moon phases. No proof of an actual lunar organism, or how it could possibly survive has been explained on this forum.

Where's the rim to hold in the atmosphere? What's the diet of these organisms? Why do the moon's surface features appear to shift despite no change in the shape of the disk?

None of us are convinced that the moon has the shape of a disk because no evidence has been cited that supports such a shape coherently. This realization becomes all the more obvious when you watch the moon with a telescope for any length of time.

Well, James, how old is the Moon? Where does it keep getting it's own matter to continue feeding itself?

Surely it would have consumed itself by now.

The Earth does not seem to be running out of biomass to recycle, why would the Moon?

Referring to your earlier post, I'm not certain I see how proving your own ideology without experimental evidence manages to have any merit. Or adding in new, unconfirmed processes to explain phenomenon to cover holes from the first adds credibility to your cause. Could you explain why I'm so backwards and foolish for accepting the Scientific Method? Or why it is foolish to base interpretations only after the data has been gathered and processes have been predictably explained?

As I have suggested, you ought to read the book chapter I have referenced so that you may understand the difference between zetetic and theoretic investigation, I think it would save us a lot of trouble in these arguments if we were both fully informed about the epistemic basis for eachother's claims.

But back on track, the characteristics of the moon's craters, the way in which the moon appears to 'wobble' in space, the phases and lighting, etc, all point to a barren, spherical moon with not so much as the slighest hint of an atmosphere or organics on the surface. When you decide to add light-emmiting organisms to the model, you just compound the nonsense with more baseless claims, with the only purpose being an attempt to explain why there are moon phases. No proof of an actual lunar organism, or how it could possibly survive has been explained on this forum.

Since ancient history it has been known that the Sun and the Moon are alive, this is not an innovation of mine, it is a canonical piece of human knowledge.

Where's the rim to hold in the atmosphere? What's the diet of these organisms? Why do the moon's surface features appear to shift despite no change in the shape of the disk?

We don't know that there is an atmolayer on the Moon. Besides, these animals are on the underside of the Moon. If there were air on the underside of the Moon, it would surely fall to Earth, wouldn't it? I think I've made it plain that they are in some respect eating eachother, and migrating on a regular basis.

None of us are convinced that the moon has the shape of a disk because no evidence has been cited that supports such a shape coherently. This realization becomes all the more obvious when you watch the moon with a telescope for any length of time.

You should be careful of watching the Moon to regularly or for too long, especially when it is near full or highly visible. The Moon's rays are injurious to human health. Looking at the Moon is more dangerous than smoking.

Besides, these animals are on the underside of the Moon. If there were air on the underside of the Moon, it would surely fall to Earth, wouldn't it?

Way to contradict yourself. Why would air fall to Earth, but animals wouldn't? By that I mean why wouldn't all of these animals fall to Earth, not just the few that form this manna that only you seem to have seen?

Since ancient history it has been known that the Sun and the Moon are alive, this is not an innovation of mine, it is a canonical piece of human knowledge.

You should be careful of watching the Moon to regularly or for too long, especially when it is near full or highly visible. The Moon's rays are injurious to human health. Looking at the Moon is more dangerous than smoking.

We don't know that there is an atmolayer on the Moon. Besides, these animals are on the underside of the Moon. If there were air on the underside of the Moon, it would surely fall to Earth, wouldn't it? I think I've made it plain that they are in some respect eating eachother, and migrating on a regular basis.

.... Wow... just wow.

If it's so obvious then you should not have any trouble explaining how the ancients reached their conclusions, and simultaneously discredit not just a spherical moon model, but the idea that the sun's light cannot be reflected off the moon and onto the earth when such configurations permit. With even moderately powerful telescopes this should be all the more easy to explain. Unless you are accepting ancient 'wisdom' at face value, which actually seems to the case.

Exposure to any sort of radiation beyond a certain energy level is harmful. Exposure to too much sunlight is harmful. In fact, too little sunlight is also detrimental to your health. But these have all been established by by modern science. Ichi's experiment has already been torn apart by his unwillingness to isolate multiple variables. His plant experiment did not show that moon light is harmful. In fact, it didn't show anything, particularly an understanding of the electromagnetic spectrum. Assuming that's what you're citing. The other experiments that manage to satisfy this harmful moonlight hypothesis only show that certain organism change behaviors when the day/night cycle is messed around with.

Extremely abundant cellular life on the moon was pushing it. But now we have full fledged animals running around? Why can't ANY these animals be seen with a telescope, including the luminescent lichen or bacteria or whatever? Why can these larger animals only exist on the underside, when you make the claim that the light of the moon is caused by some other form of organism? How does the visible side manage to survive, when it's food source is supposedly on the opposite side? Again, you have no direct evidence support this claim. This is literally the tiger behind the office room door analogy that was in the Burden of Proof thread. There just isn't a shred of evidence to support that life exists on the moon, likewise, there is no shred of evidence to support that life even could live on the moon in the first place.

Powerful telescopes are extremely cheap and available nowadays. Go get one!

Quote from: flyingmonkey on May 05, 2010, 08:33:49 PM

Well, James, how old is the Moon? Where does it keep getting it's own matter to continue feeding itself?

Surely it would have consumed itself by now.

The Earth does not seem to be running out of biomass to recycle, why would the Moon?

Quote from: Deceiver on May 05, 2010, 09:50:08 PM

Referring to your earlier post, I'm not certain I see how proving your own ideology without experimental evidence manages to have any merit. Or adding in new, unconfirmed processes to explain phenomenon to cover holes from the first adds credibility to your cause. Could you explain why I'm so backwards and foolish for accepting the Scientific Method? Or why it is foolish to base interpretations only after the data has been gathered and processes have been predictably explained?

As I have suggested, you ought to read the book chapter I have referenced so that you may understand the difference between zetetic and theoretic investigation, I think it would save us a lot of trouble in these arguments if we were both fully informed about the epistemic basis for eachother's claims.

Quote from: Deceiver on May 05, 2010, 09:50:08 PM

But back on track, the characteristics of the moon's craters, the way in which the moon appears to 'wobble' in space, the phases and lighting, etc, all point to a barren, spherical moon with not so much as the slighest hint of an atmosphere or organics on the surface. When you decide to add light-emmiting organisms to the model, you just compound the nonsense with more baseless claims, with the only purpose being an attempt to explain why there are moon phases. No proof of an actual lunar organism, or how it could possibly survive has been explained on this forum.

Since ancient history it has been known that the Sun and the Moon are alive, this is not an innovation of mine, it is a canonical piece of human knowledge.

Quote from: Deceiver on May 05, 2010, 09:50:08 PM

Where's the rim to hold in the atmosphere? What's the diet of these organisms? Why do the moon's surface features appear to shift despite no change in the shape of the disk?

We don't know that there is an atmolayer on the Moon. Besides, these animals are on the underside of the Moon. If there were air on the underside of the Moon, it would surely fall to Earth, wouldn't it? I think I've made it plain that they are in some respect eating eachother, and migrating on a regular basis.

Quote from: Deceiver on May 05, 2010, 09:50:08 PM

None of us are convinced that the moon has the shape of a disk because no evidence has been cited that supports such a shape coherently. This realization becomes all the more obvious when you watch the moon with a telescope for any length of time.

You should be careful of watching the Moon to regularly or for too long, especially when it is near full or highly visible. The Moon's rays are injurious to human health. Looking at the Moon is more dangerous than smoking.

Two questions, James.  What drugs are you using, and why aren't you sharing?

The Earth does not seem to be running out of biomass to recycle, why would the Moon?

Since ancient history it has been known that the Sun and the Moon are alive, this is not an innovation of mine, it is a canonical piece of human knowledge.


 Looking at the Moon is more dangerous than smoking.

Earth has energy imparted to it from the Sun. The Moon according to you has no source of incoming energy.
Wheres your data and evidence for the second two items there? Just because people thought the Moon and Sun were alive because they had no way of understanding them doesnt mean they were rigjht. Cretin. Where are the facts and figures from doctors showing the Moon is more dangerous than smoking? Data, data, data please. Oh you havent got any because youre talking shit.

Quote

Besides, these animals are on the underside of the Moon. If there were air on the underside of the Moon, it would surely fall to Earth, wouldn't it?

Way to contradict yourself. Why would air fall to Earth, but animals wouldn't? By that I mean why wouldn't all of these animals fall to Earth, not just the few that form this manna that only you seem to have seen?

Have you ever seen a spider or an ant crawling on the ceiling? Why didn't it fall to the Earth?

If it's so obvious then you should not have any trouble explaining how the ancients reached their conclusions, and simultaneously discredit not just a spherical moon model, but the idea that the sun's light cannot be reflected off the moon and onto the earth when such configurations permit. With even moderately powerful telescopes this should be all the more easy to explain. Unless you are accepting ancient 'wisdom' at face value, which actually seems to the case.

I support the truth wherever I find it. The oldness of a belief is not evidence of its being incorrect, or else simple arithmetic would be one of the most faulty bodies of knowledge around! In this instance, the ancient world reached their conclusion by careful empirical observation. Since my own careful empirical observation is in congruence with theirs, I happen to accept the same view. If I had discovered something different, I would not.

Exposure to any sort of radiation beyond a certain energy level is harmful. Exposure to too much sunlight is harmful. In fact, too little sunlight is also detrimental to your health. But these have all been established by by modern science. Ichi's experiment has already been torn apart by his unwillingness to isolate multiple variables. His plant experiment did not show that moon light is harmful. In fact, it didn't show anything, particularly an understanding of the electromagnetic spectrum. Assuming that's what you're citing. The other experiments that manage to satisfy this harmful moonlight hypothesis only show that certain organism change behaviors when the day/night cycle is messed around with.

Your chauvanism against independent research is abhorent, but in this instance of no relevance - it turns out I can cite a number of peer-reviewed globularist studies which also demonstrate the harmful effects of the Moon. Here is some basic reading material to get you started - there is plenty more!

Bhattacharjee, C., Bradley, P. et al. (2000) 'Do Animals Bite More During A Full Moon? Retrospective Observational Analysis'. In BMJ: British Medical Journal, Vol. 321, No. 7276. pp. 1559-1561.

Thakur, C. P., & Sharma, D. (1984) 'Full Moon And Crime'. In British Medical Journal (Clinical Research Edition). Vol. 289, No. 6460. pp. 1789-1791.

That ought to get you started as well, 'Skeleton'. It pays to read extensively on topics you want to start a debate over!

Extremely abundant cellular life on the moon was pushing it. But now we have full fledged animals running around? Why can't ANY these animals be seen with a telescope, including the luminescent lichen or bacteria or whatever? Why can these larger animals only exist on the underside, when you make the claim that the light of the moon is caused by some other form of organism? How does the visible side manage to survive, when it's food source is supposedly on the opposite side? Again, you have no direct evidence support this claim. This is literally the tiger behind the office room door analogy that was in the Burden of Proof thread. There just isn't a shred of evidence to support that life exists on the moon, likewise, there is no shred of evidence to support that life even could live on the moon in the first place.

You've heavily misinterpreted my writings. I have never claimed that there is not also life on the upward side of the Moon, but given current technology that hypothesis is completely untestable anyway. Nor have I ever claimed that food is exclusive to the upward side of the Moon. I can confirm that I believe food is available all over the Moon.

Quote from: General Disarray on May 06, 2010, 06:57:51 AM

Quote

Besides, these animals are on the underside of the Moon. If there were air on the underside of the Moon, it would surely fall to Earth, wouldn't it?

Way to contradict yourself. Why would air fall to Earth, but animals wouldn't? By that I mean why wouldn't all of these animals fall to Earth, not just the few that form this manna that only you seem to have seen?

Have you ever seen a spider or an ant crawling on the ceiling? Why didn't it fall to the Earth?

You're kidding, right?

Spider Feet
Many spiders have special adaptations that allow them to walk easily along relatively smooth or vertical surfaces. The end of each leg is covered with thick brushes of hair, and the end of each hair is covered in tiny microscopic "feet." All the tiny feet grip the small bumps on whatever the spider is walking on, allowing the spider to move easily over most terrain (the smooth surface of the bathtub being a notable exception for many species).

Quote from: Deceiver on May 06, 2010, 08:01:11 AM

The other experiments that manage to satisfy this harmful moonlight hypothesis only show that certain organism change behaviors when the day/night cycle is messed around with.

Your chauvanism against independent research is abhorent, but in this instance of no relevance - it turns out I can cite a number of peer-reviewed globularist studies which also demonstrate the harmful effects of the Moon. Here is some basic reading material to get you started - there is plenty more!

Bhattacharjee, C., Bradley, P. et al. (2000) 'Do Animals Bite More During A Full Moon? Retrospective Observational Analysis'. In BMJ: British Medical Journal, Vol. 321, No. 7276. pp. 1559-1561.

Thakur, C. P., & Sharma, D. (1984) 'Full Moon And Crime'. In British Medical Journal (Clinical Research Edition). Vol. 289, No. 6460. pp. 1789-1791.

That ought to get you started as well, 'Skeleton'. It pays to read extensively on topics you want to start a debate over!

The study says animals get more aggresive during a full moon, and mentions humans are effected as well. It adds nothing more or nothing less. I don't understand why you wanted Deceiver to read it? It added absolutely nothing to what he said.

The Earth does not seem to be running out of biomass to recycle, why would the Moon?

The Earth is eating itself unlike the Moon, apparently.

Quote from: James on May 06, 2010, 11:59:25 AM

Quote from: General Disarray on May 06, 2010, 06:57:51 AM

Quote

Besides, these animals are on the underside of the Moon. If there were air on the underside of the Moon, it would surely fall to Earth, wouldn't it?

Way to contradict yourself. Why would air fall to Earth, but animals wouldn't? By that I mean why wouldn't all of these animals fall to Earth, not just the few that form this manna that only you seem to have seen?

Have you ever seen a spider or an ant crawling on the ceiling? Why didn't it fall to the Earth?

You're kidding, right?

Quote from: http://animals.howstuffworks.com/arachnids/spider1.htm

Spider Feet
Many spiders have special adaptations that allow them to walk easily along relatively smooth or vertical surfaces. The end of each leg is covered with thick brushes of hair, and the end of each hair is covered in tiny microscopic "feet." All the tiny feet grip the small bumps on whatever the spider is walking on, allowing the spider to move easily over most terrain (the smooth surface of the bathtub being a notable exception for many species).

Why do you suppose that lunar animals do not have similar adaptions?

Quote from: James on May 06, 2010, 06:51:37 AM

The Earth does not seem to be running out of biomass to recycle, why would the Moon?

The Earth is eating itself unlike the Moon, apparently.

What happens when you eat a burger? Where did the burger come from? Where did you come from?

Quote from: markjo on May 06, 2010, 12:21:07 PM

Quote from: James on May 06, 2010, 11:59:25 AM

Quote from: General Disarray on May 06, 2010, 06:57:51 AM

Quote

Besides, these animals are on the underside of the Moon. If there were air on the underside of the Moon, it would surely fall to Earth, wouldn't it?

Way to contradict yourself. Why would air fall to Earth, but animals wouldn't? By that I mean why wouldn't all of these animals fall to Earth, not just the few that form this manna that only you seem to have seen?

Have you ever seen a spider or an ant crawling on the ceiling? Why didn't it fall to the Earth?

You're kidding, right?

Quote from: http://animals.howstuffworks.com/arachnids/spider1.htm

Spider Feet
Many spiders have special adaptations that allow them to walk easily along relatively smooth or vertical surfaces. The end of each leg is covered with thick brushes of hair, and the end of each hair is covered in tiny microscopic "feet." All the tiny feet grip the small bumps on whatever the spider is walking on, allowing the spider to move easily over most terrain (the smooth surface of the bathtub being a notable exception for many species).

Why do you suppose that lunar animals do not have similar adaptions?

Quote from: flyingmonkey on May 06, 2010, 03:28:29 PM

Quote from: James on May 06, 2010, 06:51:37 AM

The Earth does not seem to be running out of biomass to recycle, why would the Moon?

The Earth is eating itself unlike the Moon, apparently.

What happens when you eat a burger? Where did the burger come from? Where did you come from?

Burgers come from cows and various plants. The cows biomass is created by absorption of certain proteins and such from other plants. The plants get their energy from sugars created by sunlight induced reactions that combine specific molecules. These molecules come from the atmosphere mostly, the rest coming from degraded organic material in the soil.

The moon, lacking an atmosphere (no detectable haze) and no free organic molecules (just basaltic rock, which can't sustain diddly squat) cannot naturally host any sort of life for any length of time. Even extremophiles require basic free elements/molecules and energy (such as heat thermal vents) to survive.

Burgers come from cows and various plants. The cows biomass is created by absorption of certain proteins and such from other plants. The plants get their energy from sugars created by sunlight induced reactions that combine specific molecules. These molecules come from the atmosphere mostly, the rest coming from degraded organic material in the soil.

Isn't this how the Earth eats itself?

The moon, lacking an atmosphere (no detectable haze) and no free organic molecules (just basaltic rock, which can't sustain diddly squat) cannot naturally host any sort of life for any length of time. Even extremophiles require basic free elements/molecules and energy (such as heat thermal vents) to survive.

This seems like spurious conjectural assertion.

Do you have any evidence to support your outlandish claims?

Quote from: Deceiver on May 06, 2010, 04:11:51 PM

Burgers come from cows and various plants. The cows biomass is created by absorption of certain proteins and such from other plants. The plants get their energy from sugars created by sunlight induced reactions that combine specific molecules. These molecules come from the atmosphere mostly, the rest coming from degraded organic material in the soil.

Isn't this how the Earth eats itself?

Quote from: Deceiver on May 06, 2010, 04:11:51 PM

The moon, lacking an atmosphere (no detectable haze) and no free organic molecules (just basaltic rock, which can't sustain diddly squat) cannot naturally host any sort of life for any length of time. Even extremophiles require basic free elements/molecules and energy (such as heat thermal vents) to survive.

This seems like spurious conjectural assertion.

Do you have any evidence to back up your outlandish claims?

Negative. The earth doesn't eat itself. It recycles organic molecules that mostly exist in the air or water. Rocks do not have these useful molecules, as they generally consist of the heavier elements. The rest remain locked in an unusable form. EDIT: carbonate sedimentary rocks do have readily available elements, but only under the condition that there is meteoric water or some other acid to free them. Also... But before these rocks can be used, a carbon lifeform has to die so it's skeleton/shell remains can form into a limestone. Another last thing... these 'organic rocks' can only form in the ocean. Fresh water is too acidic so it dissolves the microfossils before they become compacted into a rock-like medium. There is no evidence to suggest that this type of rock can form in any other type of environment.

As far as my outlandish claims, there is a wealth of information on the geochemistry of the moon. Likewise, there are very detailed explanations regarding the methods of how to find it's geochemistry without using physical hand samples. In fact, when NASA was finally able to collect moon rocks, their findings confirmed what scientists had already predicted.

I had the extreme honor of working with one of the pioneers who started this sort of work. In a related research topic prior to his retirement, we were doing geochemical analysis to constrain certain models further. [There is still lots of great research going on about the nuances of the Moon, by the way.] As someone who works intensely with geochemistry analysis of the outer planet's moons, the methods we used/I use now, have been verified by other scientists prior to publication. and repeated by others in my department and Universities. These independent verifications and additional insights have been especially helpful in constraining models further, and have on many occasions been able to show some models as invalid or requiring revision as more data is collected to restrict the range of certain parameters.

I think Deciever scores a point and James loses utterly after that. James's only response would be to employ reality denial.

Quote from: markjo on May 06, 2010, 12:21:07 PM

Quote from: James on May 06, 2010, 11:59:25 AM

Quote from: General Disarray on May 06, 2010, 06:57:51 AM

Quote

Besides, these animals are on the underside of the Moon. If there were air on the underside of the Moon, it would surely fall to Earth, wouldn't it?

Way to contradict yourself. Why would air fall to Earth, but animals wouldn't? By that I mean why wouldn't all of these animals fall to Earth, not just the few that form this manna that only you seem to have seen?

Have you ever seen a spider or an ant crawling on the ceiling? Why didn't it fall to the Earth?

You're kidding, right?

Quote from: http://animals.howstuffworks.com/arachnids/spider1.htm

Spider Feet
Many spiders have special adaptations that allow them to walk easily along relatively smooth or vertical surfaces. The end of each leg is covered with thick brushes of hair, and the end of each hair is covered in tiny microscopic "feet." All the tiny feet grip the small bumps on whatever the spider is walking on, allowing the spider to move easily over most terrain (the smooth surface of the bathtub being a notable exception for many species).

Why do you suppose that lunar animals do not have similar adaptions?

Lunar animals wouldn't need them because the UA is already pushing them towards the bottom of the moon.

So this dude is talking about lunar animals and says:

Do you have any evidence to support your outlandish claims?

... yea, that's the punchline.