James' Ideas on the Sun and Moon

Exerpt from here.

A Summary of the Salient Facts So Far Established
* The light produced by the Moon is of a different character to that of the Sun:
* Sunlight is attended always by a great heat, Moonlight by none (this proven in Dickens, again by Lardner)
* Moonlight is highly injurous to plants, animals and humans (this attested by Lardner, subjected to empirical experiment by myself)
* Sunlight is essential to plants, &c., &c.
* Sunlight tends to extinguish fires, despite its great heat, Moonlight to exasperate them (this attested by Parallax and easily confirmed by observation).
* From the above we infer that the Moon is an independant light source.

Discuss.

How did he establish these "facts"? Only one of those is true.

How did he establish these "facts"? Only one of those is true.

I, too, would love to know.  Especially considering we already showed that moonlight isn't "highly injurous to plants, animals and humans".  The "injurous to humans" part is especially ridiculous.

Even if the results of Ichi's study are to be believed, the use of the word "highly" is a vast overstatement. I see plants every day which are regularly exposed to the light of the moon, and they do not seem to be highly injured.

And what is meant by "different character"? The spectrum of the light from the moon is very similar if not identical to that from the sun. The only reason it appears to lack heat is that it is much less intense.

...still waiting for James.  I know he's online.

Sunlight tends to extinguish fires, despite its great heat, Moonlight to exasperate them (this attested by Parallax and easily confirmed by observation).

That one should be absolute proof that James is delusional.
Sunlight extinguishes fires?  Tell that to every single fire fighter on Earth.

And what is meant by "different character"? The spectrum of the light from the moon is very similar if not identical to that from the sun. The only reason it appears to lack heat is that it is much less intense.

The main difference in character between sunlight and moonlight is that sunlight is emitted light while moonlight is reflected light.

Quote from: James

* Sunlight tends to extinguish fires, despite its great heat, Moonlight to exasperate them (this attested by Parallax and easily confirmed by observation).

Wow. I need to read some more Rowbotham. I didn't realise there were still untapped deposits of fail in there.

Edit to add:

3rd. 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. Many philosophers have recently attempted to deny and ridicule this fact, but they are met, not only by the common sense and every-day experience of very practical people, but by the results of specially instituted experiments.

It is not so well known perhaps, but it is an equally decided fact, that when the light of the moon is allowed to play upon a common carbonaceous fire, the action is increased, the fire burns more vividly, and the fuel is more rapidly consumed.

OK sun cold moon hot. Gotcha.

Then:

4th. In sun-light a thermometer stands higher than a similar thermometer placed in the shade.

OMG What happens?!

Quote from: ENaG

3rd. 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. Many philosophers have recently attempted to deny and ridicule this fact, but they are met, not only by the common sense and every-day experience of very practical people, but by the results of specially instituted experiments.

Yes, sunlight is very bad for fires.  It's completely impossible to use sunlight to start a fire.
http://www.campfiredude.com/fire-from-sun.shtml

I notice that james is also using sources more than 200 years out of date. That was back when people still widly though that venus had life.

Hmm... that's odd.  James still hasn't replied.

Not really.  James only visits once in a while anymore.  Rumor has it that he has something resembling a life outside of this forum.

Not really.  James only visits once in a while anymore.  Rumor has it that he has something resembling a life outside of this forum.

Don't be absurd.  You seem to be suggesting that a devout FE'ers such as James has marketable qualities that allow him to have some form of life outside of the FES; to do so would be ignorant.

Not really.  James only visits once in a while anymore.  Rumor has it that he has something resembling a life outside of this forum.

Zenticism says otherwise.

Zenticism says otherwise.

What is Zenticism? 

Well, 5.5 hours with nothing from James.  RE WIN!!!!

Exerpt from here.

Quote from: James

A Summary of the Salient Facts So Far Established
* The light produced by the Moon is of a different character to that of the Sun:
* Sunlight is attended always by a great heat, Moonlight by none (this proven in Dickens, again by Lardner)
* Moonlight is highly injurous to plants, animals and humans (this attested by Lardner, subjected to empirical experiment by myself)
* Sunlight is essential to plants, &c., &c.
* Sunlight tends to extinguish fires, despite its great heat, Moonlight to exasperate them (this attested by Parallax and easily confirmed by observation).
* From the above we infer that the Moon is an independant light source.

Discuss.

1. quite correct, it is different, namely it has less than 15% the amount of luminosity, as it is reflected.
2. somebody doesn't quite know what heat is in this context, namely the kenetic energy (movement) of particles thanks to the momentum of light waves. therefore, all light brings heat energy, no matter what Dr. Idiot has shown to prove science wrong.
3. Failing at making a proper conclusion does not a theory make, furthermore, billions of animals and plants have received exposure to moonlight (wtf do they call it moonlight, why not just call it light, cause its not some super duper special kind) and have lived
4. yeah its called photosynthesis
5. it has been shown that sun light helps to cause fires, see California wildfires and Discovery channel for how to start one with the sun and a magnifying glass. the moon starts fires? lolno I dare him to prove it, I will destroy.
6. from the above we infer that moonlight doesn't really have any effect on plants, animals, or the earth, as it has 15% the intensity of the sun as shown by spectrometers. we also infer that the people who made these claims are either trolls, or failed souls.

Quote from: General Disarray on June 12, 2010, 03:15:30 PM

And what is meant by "different character"? The spectrum of the light from the moon is very similar if not identical to that from the sun. The only reason it appears to lack heat is that it is much less intense.

The main difference in character between sunlight and moonlight is that sunlight is emitted light while moonlight is reflected light.

and the difference between electromagnetic waves that are reflected vs emitted is? I must have missed the part in EM where it says the fundamental characteristics of light waves are changed when they are reflected. please feel free to disabuse me.

Quote from: General Disarray on June 12, 2010, 03:04:39 PM

How did he establish these "facts"? Only one of those is true.

I, too, would love to know.  Especially considering we already showed that moonlight isn't "highly injurous to plants, animals and humans".  The "injurous to humans" part is especially ridiculous.

I heard it was opposite for vampires...

Not really.  James only visits once in a while anymore.  Rumor has it that he has something resembling a life outside of this forum.

Actually rumour has it that James is holed up in Grosny with FET activists who have aligned themselves with Chechen separatists. They're waiting for a safe time to cross the border into Georgia. The Conspiracy consider him a double alpha target and are using unmanned drones to track his movements. When he can he taps into the ether-frame and leaves coded messages on this forum.

Well, 5.5 hours with nothing from James.  RE WIN!!!!

Waiting 5.5 hours for someone who only shows up maybe every few days or so is a win? 

It is a well known fact that the light of the Sun has the effect of diminishing fires which have already been started. In fact, this is in all probability the origin of the famous saying "the Sun has no heat", although this is figurative as we in fact know it is the Moon which has no heat. The sun's light has a curative effect on biomass which tends to preserve it against damage, thus any fire which consumes fuel such as wood, fossil fuels or indeed any biological matter will be dampened by exposure to sunlight.

It is a well known fact that the light of the Sun has the effect of diminishing fires which have already been started. In fact, this is in all probability the origin of the famous saying "the Sun has no heat", although this is figurative as we in fact know it is the Moon which has no heat. The sun's light has a curative effect on biomass which tends to preserve it against damage, thus any fire which consumes fuel such as wood, fossil fuels or indeed any biological matter will be dampened by exposure to sunlight.

Let's test this. I'll light you on fire in the sunlight then again in the moonlight.  We'll measure how long you burn.

Couldn't we try something safer? Lol.

Do not use the threat of physical violence to intimidate other members on the FES forums. Consider this an official warning.

In fact, this is in all probability the origin of the famous saying "the Sun has no heat"

Hilarious. I think it was Tsa Tsa Gabor wasn't it?

It is a well known fact that the light of the Sun has the effect of diminishing fires which have already been started.

Well known by whom?

It is a well known fact that the light of the Sun has the effect of diminishing fires which have already been started.

It seems that a simple experiment could verify this claim.  One could measure the burn rate some standard candles (birthday, tea, votive, whatever) when exposed to sunlight, moonlight and no light.  Unfortunately you will need to wait almost 2 weeks to run the moonlight trials as we just had a new moon yesterday.  It's very important that the ambient temperature be carefully controlled as variations could affect the burn rate of the wax.

Do not use the threat of physical violence to intimidate other members on the FES forums. Consider this an official warning.

ok fine.
We can use a block of wood in the moonlight. I'm sorry for suggesting you be exposed to the deadly moonlight.

It is a well known fact that the light of the Sun has the effect of diminishing fires which have already been started. In fact, this is in all probability the origin of the famous saying "the Sun has no heat", although this is figurative as we in fact know it is the Moon which has no heat. The sun's light has a curative effect on biomass which tends to preserve it against damage, thus any fire which consumes fuel such as wood, fossil fuels or indeed any biological matter will be dampened by exposure to sunlight.

Where do you get off saying that it's "well known that the Sun puts out fires"?  Anything to back up that statement?