Proof the Moon is not a flat disc.

What reason do you have to believe that the moon and antimoon are fighting each other and that the red color is from blood?

Where did I claim they did?

Quote from: Ellipsis on May 09, 2010, 09:43:33 PM

What reason do you have to believe that the moon and antimoon are fighting each other and that the red color is from blood?

Where did I claim they did?

I think he has you confused with James. or just referring to an older post.

Some organisms have different types of 'blood' altogether, because oxygen can sometimes be extracted directly from the air or water (as dissolved oxygen) depending on how their circulatory system is made.

Anyway, the red is specifically caused by the iron in hemoglobin. When the iron is oxidized it reflects visible electromagnetic radiation that appears to us as the familiar red shade of blood. When there is no oxygen attached, the molecule absorbs different bands (based on the shape and size of the molecule) so it appears to us as blue. Personally, I don't know jack about biology. But I can say that color is always based on chemistry. Larger molecules/atoms absorb smaller wavelengths of the electromagnetic radiation than smaller ones. It's the exact same concept you see when you watch a ship or boat. Large waves rock and bounce off the boat, smaller waves don't. In other words, large waves can be seen immediately on the opposite side, whereas smaller waves can't penetrate, so you don't see them (called a 'boat shadow'?) until some distance behind the boat, based on it's size.

Here's a link if you'd like more detail
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_is_blood_red
Interesting read -- learned a few things myself.

Quote from: Ellipsis on May 09, 2010, 09:43:33 PM

What reason do you have to believe that the moon and antimoon are fighting each other and that the red color is from blood?

Where did I claim they did?

You didn't, James did.

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on May 06, 2010, 05:43:01 PM

Quote from: James on May 06, 2010, 05:32:03 PM

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on May 06, 2010, 05:29:50 PM

James theorises the Anti Moon "bleeds" and that causes redness. Does he understand why blood is red? No, he does not. Blood is red because it contains haemoglobin. The function of haemoglobin is to hold oxygen in the blood. There is no oxygen in space, hence there would be no haemoglobin, hence no red blood. Fail.
That is just one for many hundred reasons his theory is silly.

Are roses red because they contain haemoglobin?

Roses don't bleed. They don't have blood. You suggested the Anti Moon bleeds. Bleeding is leaking blood. You suggested the bleeding caused redness, in other words, that the blood was red. Don't try to wriggle out of it by asking trick questions. Your quote is visible for all to see. You're trying to make out that I said "all red lifeforms have haemoglobin in them" - it's clear to everyone that's not what I said. Do you think the other forum users are morons?

Just because human blood is red due to haemoglobin, what cause do you have to say that in all life forms blood whose blood is red this redness is caused by haemoglobin? Or will you back out for another obvious rhetorical trick ?

Fine, let's have it your way - what is the function of the Anti Moon's "blood"? You surely must know this since you know all these other things magically without needing science or data. Do tell.

Quote from: John Davis on May 09, 2010, 09:44:17 PM

Quote from: Ellipsis on May 09, 2010, 09:43:33 PM

What reason do you have to believe that the moon and antimoon are fighting each other and that the red color is from blood?

Where did I claim they did?

You didn't, James did.

Do you understand the semantic function of the word "perhaps"??

Quote from: Sliver on May 09, 2010, 09:51:28 PM

Quote from: John Davis on May 09, 2010, 09:44:17 PM

Quote from: Ellipsis on May 09, 2010, 09:43:33 PM

What reason do you have to believe that the moon and antimoon are fighting each other and that the red color is from blood?

Where did I claim they did?

You didn't, James did.

Do you understand the semantic function of the word "perhaps"??

Sure, it allows you to claim something without actually technically making that claim.

Try telling us how FET works, not just making wild guesses as to how observed phenomena might be possible. Experimentation is a good way to start.

Quote from: Sliver on May 09, 2010, 09:51:28 PM

Quote from: John Davis on May 09, 2010, 09:44:17 PM

Quote from: Ellipsis on May 09, 2010, 09:43:33 PM

What reason do you have to believe that the moon and antimoon are fighting each other and that the red color is from blood?

Where did I claim they did?

You didn't, James did.

Do you understand the semantic function of the word "perhaps"??

As in, "Perhaps James is a seroius troll?"

Quote from: James on May 10, 2010, 05:25:14 PM

Quote from: Sliver on May 09, 2010, 09:51:28 PM

Quote from: John Davis on May 09, 2010, 09:44:17 PM

Quote from: Ellipsis on May 09, 2010, 09:43:33 PM

What reason do you have to believe that the moon and antimoon are fighting each other and that the red color is from blood?

Where did I claim they did?

You didn't, James did.

Do you understand the semantic function of the word "perhaps"??

As in, "Perhaps James is a seroius troll?"

More like "maybe", as in "this and several millions of other scenarios are equally possible, you could just the same say the aliens from the fifth dimension did it, even though one scenario is more probable than all the others combined".

In this case, I can say that the aliens from the fifth dimension paint the moon again every 28 days, and I have as much evidence for that than James or Davis do.

While semantically correct, blabbering anything and then saying "perhaps" is the total negation of the possibility of getting any good knowledge.

It is like when I tell you "the sun is hot" and you respond "perhaps we live in a simulation, like in the movie Matrix, and the sun does not even exist".

Quote from: John Davis on April 26, 2010, 11:44:20 AM

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on April 26, 2010, 11:16:00 AM

No, you don't. You just say you do for the lulz. James may believe but I think he has genuine psychiatric problems. The amount of common sense visual evidence alone you have to shut your eyes to in order to think the Moon is bioluminescent is so enormous, that to believe it your mental level would have to be such that all you could do is flail about going "duuurrrrr". You'd have to think it's a coincidence that the lighting pattern on the Moon as it passes through its phases just happens to correspond exactly with what one would see if it was a rugged spheroid lit from whichever direction the sun happens to be in at that time. Presumably you do think this is a coincidence? If you think the moonlight is not reflected sunlight, it's a requirement to say yes to this coincidence.

It is clear by simple visual evidence that the moon has a large weather system that moves in extremely predictable patterns.  This weather system blocks out light from bioluminescent life as it passes over it.  Occasionally, some of the waste makes it to earth in the form of mana or blood rain (depending if it is "wet" or not)  via getting caught in the center of localized aetheric eddies that interact with said weather system.  The weather system comes from gasses from inside the moon.   

You're quite right John, although I'm fairly convinced there is actually life moving around up there as well as weather - probably a combination of the two. The redness of blood rain is in all likelyhood dependent on the Red Moon phenomenon described by Lardner.

I'm indeed interested in that possibility as well.

Quote from: James on April 26, 2010, 01:41:16 PM

Quote from: John Davis on April 26, 2010, 11:44:20 AM

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on April 26, 2010, 11:16:00 AM

No, you don't. You just say you do for the lulz. James may believe but I think he has genuine psychiatric problems. The amount of common sense visual evidence alone you have to shut your eyes to in order to think the Moon is bioluminescent is so enormous, that to believe it your mental level would have to be such that all you could do is flail about going "duuurrrrr". You'd have to think it's a coincidence that the lighting pattern on the Moon as it passes through its phases just happens to correspond exactly with what one would see if it was a rugged spheroid lit from whichever direction the sun happens to be in at that time. Presumably you do think this is a coincidence? If you think the moonlight is not reflected sunlight, it's a requirement to say yes to this coincidence.

It is clear by simple visual evidence that the moon has a large weather system that moves in extremely predictable patterns.  This weather system blocks out light from bioluminescent life as it passes over it.  Occasionally, some of the waste makes it to earth in the form of mana or blood rain (depending if it is "wet" or not)  via getting caught in the center of localized aetheric eddies that interact with said weather system.  The weather system comes from gasses from inside the moon.   

You're quite right John, although I'm fairly convinced there is actually life moving around up there as well as weather - probably a combination of the two. The redness of blood rain is in all likelyhood dependent on the Red Moon phenomenon described by Lardner.

I'm indeed interested in that possibility as well.

Warms the cockles of my heart to see John Davis and James trolling each other with such straight faces.

Yeah, I just made this all up so I can put myself through daily prejudice and abuse in my real life.  I spend most of my free work time working on a book just for kicks.  I have spent the last 10 years or so working on fe theory just for kicks.  I have formed two local groups just for the hell of it, and I formed an international group because I was bored.  I traveled around the world studying this because hey, what else was I going to do?

That makes perfect sense.  Thanks for your input.  I think its rather clear who is the one trolling here (hint, its you.)

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on April 25, 2010, 02:28:38 PM

The Earth can't be round because we all see the same side of it, whether looking at it to our west or to our east.

 the current prevailing scientific view

Please provide proof that any legitimate "scientist" views this as fact.

Yeah, I just made this all up so I can put myself through daily prejudice and abuse in my real life.  I spend most of my free work time working on a book just for kicks.  I have spent the last 10 years or so working on fe theory just for kicks.  I have formed two local groups just for the hell of it, and I formed an international group because I was bored.  I traveled around the world studying this because hey, what else was I going to do?

That makes perfect sense.  Thanks for your input.  I think its rather clear who is the one trolling here (hint, its you.)

You have yet to publish any of your work, so its kind of hard to take you seriously.

Yeah, I just made this all up so I can put myself through daily prejudice and abuse in my real life.  I spend most of my free work time working on a book just for kicks.  I have spent the last 10 years or so working on fe theory just for kicks.  I have formed two local groups just for the hell of it, and I formed an international group because I was bored.  I traveled around the world studying this because hey, what else was I going to do?

That makes perfect sense.  Thanks for your input.  I think its rather clear who is the one trolling here (hint, its you.)

Can we buy your book yet? Do you have a publisher? If you have spent 10 years working on FE theory then why does it continue to be so crappy? I can only assume that you have been working on it extremely poorly. Your claim is similar to someone who can only play two chords on the guitar saying "I've been a professional musician for 10 years!" It may be true, but it doesn't mean they aren't a crappy musician.

Quote from: John Davis on October 29, 2011, 08:59:28 AM

Yeah, I just made this all up so I can put myself through daily prejudice and abuse in my real life.  I spend most of my free work time working on a book just for kicks.  I have spent the last 10 years or so working on fe theory just for kicks.  I have formed two local groups just for the hell of it, and I formed an international group because I was bored.  I traveled around the world studying this because hey, what else was I going to do?

That makes perfect sense.  Thanks for your input.  I think its rather clear who is the one trolling here (hint, its you.)

Can we buy your book yet? Do you have a publisher? If you have spent 10 years working on FE theory then why does it continue to be so crappy? I can only assume that you have been working on it extremely poorly. Your claim is similar to someone who can only play two chords on the guitar saying "I've been a professional musician for 10 years!" It may be true, but it doesn't mean they aren't a crappy musician.

I doubt that the musician in question would have played guitar for 10 years and have a passion for music and a belief that it indeed exists.  The point is the ridiculousness of the claim that I am a troll.  Not how good I am at my passion.

Quote from: The Knowledge on November 12, 2011, 11:38:17 AM

Quote from: John Davis on October 29, 2011, 08:59:28 AM

Yeah, I just made this all up so I can put myself through daily prejudice and abuse in my real life.  I spend most of my free work time working on a book just for kicks.  I have spent the last 10 years or so working on fe theory just for kicks.  I have formed two local groups just for the hell of it, and I formed an international group because I was bored.  I traveled around the world studying this because hey, what else was I going to do?

That makes perfect sense.  Thanks for your input.  I think its rather clear who is the one trolling here (hint, its you.)

Can we buy your book yet? Do you have a publisher? If you have spent 10 years working on FE theory then why does it continue to be so crappy? I can only assume that you have been working on it extremely poorly. Your claim is similar to someone who can only play two chords on the guitar saying "I've been a professional musician for 10 years!" It may be true, but it doesn't mean they aren't a crappy musician.

I doubt that the musician in question would have played guitar for 10 years and have a passion for music and a belief that it indeed exists.  The point is the ridiculousness of the claim that I am a troll.  Not how good I am at my passion.

The claim that you are a troll is not ridiculous at all. You have given no evidence to demonstrate that you are not just pretending about all these flat earth beliefs. Your claims that you have formed these local groups and endure abuse and prejudice can actually be very easily verified, as can your claim that you are writing a book - but only if you want them to be. Please do give us the phone numbers of people that know you. Please post me a hard copy of a material advertising your group meetings, or the phone number of someone who'se been to one. Please do e-mail me some excerpts from your book.
But you'll refuse to do any of this, and so the assumption you are a troll remains just as valid as the assumption that you are not. Your wave function has yet to collapse, Mr Davis.
If you do not give out evidence that you're not a troll then you must accept that it is a reasonable accusation to make.

You have given no evidence to demonstrate that you are not just pretending about all these flat earth beliefs.

lol, George Scott fallacy. I haven't seen that one in a while.

Quote from: The Knowledge on November 13, 2011, 10:46:24 AM

You have given no evidence to demonstrate that you are not just pretending about all these flat earth beliefs.

lol, George Scott fallacy. I haven't seen that one in a while.

We've been getting them all over the place.

Quote from: The Knowledge on November 13, 2011, 10:46:24 AM

You have given no evidence to demonstrate that you are not just pretending about all these flat earth beliefs.

lol, George Scott fallacy. I haven't seen that one in a while.

No, the George Scott fallacy would be if I tried to refute Mr Davis's flat earth arguments by claiming he doesn't believe them himself.
What I am doing is simply accusing Mr Davis of being a troll, and by saying he has presented no evidence that he is not such a creature. This accusation has no bearing on whether or not I think Mr Davis's FE beliefs are true or not.
Try to troll a little less lazily in future.

Picture Could be fake.
might be an eye illusion
maybe the disc looks funny

there are alot of reasons that can not prove that your correct. but you cant prove that your correct either.

Picture Could be fake.
might be an eye illusion
maybe the disc looks funny

there are alot of reasons that can not prove that your correct. but you cant prove that your correct either.

The OP includes the dates the photographs were taken, thus allowing possible cross checking with other photographs or observations of the moon on the same dates. This eliminates the possibility of them simply being "faked".
It's not an eye illusion, hold a ruler up to your screen.
"The disc looks funny" is meaningless.