Moonlight

  • 160 Replies
  • 18080 Views
*

Skeleton

  • 956
  • Frankly, I have better things to do with my time.
Moonlight
« on: October 04, 2010, 07:17:54 PM »
Though the focus of Flat Earth Theory is undoubtedly the dimensions of the terrestrial plane, Zetetic cosmogony in general is very much concerned with the nature and properties of the other celestial bodies.

The harmfulness of moonlight is in no way Zetetic, because Zeteticism is the principle of believing only what can be observed and demonstrated, not what is extrapoloated from theory.
Example: The harmfulness of moonlight cannot be demonstrated. The supposed biological entities emitting light from the moon are extrapolations from theory. Therefore this moonrubbish is exactly the opposite of Zetetic in its foundation. Leave now, Willmore, through the door marked fail.
If the ultimate objective is to kill Skeleton, we should just do that next.

*

EnglshGentleman

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 9548
Re: Moonlight
« Reply #1 on: October 04, 2010, 08:24:20 PM »
The harmfulness of moonlight is in no way Zetetic, because Zeteticism is the principle of believing only what can be observed and demonstrated, not what is extrapoloated from theory.

Did you not think this post through?

Re: Moonlight
« Reply #2 on: October 04, 2010, 08:35:09 PM »
The harmfulness of moonlight is in no way Zetetic, because Zeteticism is the principle of believing only what can be observed and demonstrated, not what is extrapoloated from theory.

Did you not think this post through?
The harm is not observed, is it? Only harm to humans is extrapolated from a very poorly done experiment on one species of plant. That seems to violate the very core of the Zetetic values.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

EnglshGentleman

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 9548
Re: Moonlight
« Reply #3 on: October 04, 2010, 08:56:37 PM »
The harmfulness of moonlight is in no way Zetetic, because Zeteticism is the principle of believing only what can be observed and demonstrated, not what is extrapoloated from theory.

Did you not think this post through?
The harm is not observed, is it?

It has been both observed in Ichi's plant experiment, and in the findings that Pongo posted. The link between seizures and moonlight.

Re: Moonlight
« Reply #4 on: October 04, 2010, 09:22:31 PM »
The harmfulness of moonlight is in no way Zetetic, because Zeteticism is the principle of believing only what can be observed and demonstrated, not what is extrapoloated from theory.

Did you not think this post through?
The harm is not observed, is it?
It has been both observed in Ichi's plant experiment, and in the findings that Pongo posted. The link between seizures and moonlight.
Neither reports the observation of harm to a person from moonlight.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

EnglshGentleman

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 9548
Re: Moonlight
« Reply #5 on: October 04, 2010, 09:28:01 PM »
The harmfulness of moonlight is in no way Zetetic, because Zeteticism is the principle of believing only what can be observed and demonstrated, not what is extrapoloated from theory.

Did you not think this post through?
The harm is not observed, is it?
It has been both observed in Ichi's plant experiment, and in the findings that Pongo posted. The link between seizures and moonlight.
Neither reports the observation of harm to a person from moonlight.

Your failure to understand evidence is your own, and until you figure it out, no matter of explaining by me or anybody else will show you otherwise.

Re: Moonlight
« Reply #6 on: October 04, 2010, 09:36:45 PM »
The harmfulness of moonlight is in no way Zetetic, because Zeteticism is the principle of believing only what can be observed and demonstrated, not what is extrapoloated from theory.

Did you not think this post through?
The harm is not observed, is it?
It has been both observed in Ichi's plant experiment, and in the findings that Pongo posted. The link between seizures and moonlight.
Neither reports the observation of harm to a person from moonlight.

Your failure to understand evidence is your own, and until you figure it out, no matter of explaining by me or anybody else will show you otherwise.
Typical FEer dodge. "You must find the path on your own. I can't possibly post the evidence that supports my outlandish claim."
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

Vindictus

  • 5455
  • insightful personal text
Re: Moonlight
« Reply #7 on: October 05, 2010, 01:01:00 AM »
The harmfulness of moonlight is in no way Zetetic, because Zeteticism is the principle of believing only what can be observed and demonstrated, not what is extrapoloated from theory.

Did you not think this post through?
The harm is not observed, is it?

It has been both observed in Ichi's plant experiment, and in the findings that Pongo posted. The link between seizures and moonlight.

Ugh, EG..

Ichi's experiment has been proven as experimentally incorrect. You can determine that just by looking at his method.

The link Pongo provided was completely irrelevant. It was taken almost entirely out of context. That, also, was easy to determine.

AND, even if those two situations were credible, it still has nothing to do with moonlight and its effect on humans!

?

zork

  • 3319
Re: Moonlight
« Reply #8 on: October 05, 2010, 01:46:35 AM »
Your failure to understand evidence is your own, and until you figure it out, no matter of explaining by me or anybody else will show you otherwise.
Please, post here a quote from the article, which link Pongo posted, where there is direct evidence that it is only the moonlight that causes seizures and if you are the expert then explain also thing about Ichi's experiment, how did the moonlight group get their light which is essential for plants.
Rowbotham had bad eyesight
-
http://thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf - Visually discerning the curvature of the Earth
http://thulescientific.com/TurbulentShipWakes_Lynch_AO_2005.pdf - Turbulent ship wakes:further evidence that the Earth is round.

*

Ichimaru Gin :]

  • Undefeated FEer
  • Planar Moderator
  • 8869
  • Semper vigilans
Re: Moonlight
« Reply #9 on: October 05, 2010, 03:10:34 AM »
The harmfulness of moonlight is in no way Zetetic, because Zeteticism is the principle of believing only what can be observed and demonstrated, not what is extrapoloated from theory.

Did you not think this post through?
The harm is not observed, is it?

It has been both observed in Ichi's plant experiment, and in the findings that Pongo posted. The link between seizures and moonlight.

Ugh, EG..

Ichi's experiment has been proven as experimentally incorrect. You can determine that just by looking at his method.

The link Pongo provided was completely irrelevant. It was taken almost entirely out of context. That, also, was easy to determine.

AND, even if those two situations were credible, it still has nothing to do with moonlight and its effect on humans!
Please point out where my experiment is in any way incorrect. There have been hundeds of posts trying to prove this but the best people have come up with is "well of course lack of sunlight harms plants!" which is showing an ignorance of even knowing how the experiment is even set up!
I saw a slight haze in the hotel bathroom this morning after I took a shower, have I discovered a new planet?

*

Ichimaru Gin :]

  • Undefeated FEer
  • Planar Moderator
  • 8869
  • Semper vigilans
Re: Moonlight
« Reply #10 on: October 05, 2010, 03:12:24 AM »
Your failure to understand evidence is your own, and until you figure it out, no matter of explaining by me or anybody else will show you otherwise.
Please, post here a quote from the article, which link Pongo posted, where there is direct evidence that it is only the moonlight that causes seizures and if you are the expert then explain also thing about Ichi's experiment, how did the moonlight group get their light which is essential for plants.
Should I even respond to you anymore Zork? For the 100th time, the lamp group would have shown the same effects if that were the case.
I saw a slight haze in the hotel bathroom this morning after I took a shower, have I discovered a new planet?

?

zork

  • 3319
Re: Moonlight
« Reply #11 on: October 05, 2010, 03:13:13 AM »
Please point out where my experiment is in any way incorrect. There have been hundeds of posts trying to prove this but the best people have come up with is "well of course lack of sunlight harms plants!" which is showing an ignorance of even knowing how the experiment is even set up!
Good to know that you claim that the plants don't need the light. That is all what is needed.
Rowbotham had bad eyesight
-
http://thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf - Visually discerning the curvature of the Earth
http://thulescientific.com/TurbulentShipWakes_Lynch_AO_2005.pdf - Turbulent ship wakes:further evidence that the Earth is round.

?

zork

  • 3319
Re: Moonlight
« Reply #12 on: October 05, 2010, 03:14:37 AM »
Your failure to understand evidence is your own, and until you figure it out, no matter of explaining by me or anybody else will show you otherwise.
Please, post here a quote from the article, which link Pongo posted, where there is direct evidence that it is only the moonlight that causes seizures and if you are the expert then explain also thing about Ichi's experiment, how did the moonlight group get their light which is essential for plants.
Should I even respond to you anymore Zork? For the 100th time, the lamp group would have shown the same effects if that were the case.
Where are your numbers then that the lamp group and the moonlight group did get the same amount and same quality of light? How else you can claim that the lamp group should have shown the same effects?
 EDIT: I can admit than I am really stupid but please, explain, how can you compare the results when one group was literally under dim flashlight and another was under ordinary lamp.
« Last Edit: October 05, 2010, 03:19:38 AM by zork »
Rowbotham had bad eyesight
-
http://thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf - Visually discerning the curvature of the Earth
http://thulescientific.com/TurbulentShipWakes_Lynch_AO_2005.pdf - Turbulent ship wakes:further evidence that the Earth is round.

*

Ichimaru Gin :]

  • Undefeated FEer
  • Planar Moderator
  • 8869
  • Semper vigilans
Re: Moonlight
« Reply #13 on: October 05, 2010, 03:23:47 AM »
under a dim flashlight  ???
I saw a slight haze in the hotel bathroom this morning after I took a shower, have I discovered a new planet?

Re: Moonlight
« Reply #14 on: October 05, 2010, 03:30:38 AM »
The harmfulness of moonlight is in no way Zetetic, because Zeteticism is the principle of believing only what can be observed and demonstrated, not what is extrapoloated from theory.

Did you not think this post through?
The harm is not observed, is it?

It has been both observed in Ichi's plant experiment, and in the findings that Pongo posted. The link between seizures and moonlight.

Ugh, EG..

Ichi's experiment has been proven as experimentally incorrect. You can determine that just by looking at his method.

The link Pongo provided was completely irrelevant. It was taken almost entirely out of context. That, also, was easy to determine.

AND, even if those two situations were credible, it still has nothing to do with moonlight and its effect on humans!
Please point out where my experiment is in any way incorrect. There have been hundeds of posts trying to prove this but the best people have come up with is "well of course lack of sunlight harms plants!" which is showing an ignorance of even knowing how the experiment is even set up!
Here you go, a complete critique of your horrible design: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=42164.0
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

Ichimaru Gin :]

  • Undefeated FEer
  • Planar Moderator
  • 8869
  • Semper vigilans
Re: Moonlight
« Reply #15 on: October 05, 2010, 03:46:07 AM »
Now if only it was a meaningful critique with valid points.
I saw a slight haze in the hotel bathroom this morning after I took a shower, have I discovered a new planet?

Re: Moonlight
« Reply #16 on: October 05, 2010, 03:51:29 AM »
Now if only it was a meaningful critique with valid points.
You quite wrong. Your design is so faulty that no one will ever that it seriously. Only groups 1 and 2 can even be compared for the effects of moonlight and they show no statistical difference. You fail.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

Ichimaru Gin :]

  • Undefeated FEer
  • Planar Moderator
  • 8869
  • Semper vigilans
Re: Moonlight
« Reply #17 on: October 05, 2010, 03:53:24 AM »
Now if only it was a meaningful critique with valid points.
You quite wrong. Your design is so faulty that no one will ever that it seriously. Only groups 1 and 2 can even be compared for the effects of moonlight and they show no statistical difference. You fail.
Of course. I believe you because you typed this with much support and reasoning.
I saw a slight haze in the hotel bathroom this morning after I took a shower, have I discovered a new planet?

Re: Moonlight
« Reply #18 on: October 05, 2010, 04:02:15 AM »
Now if only it was a meaningful critique with valid points.
You quite wrong. Your design is so faulty that no one will ever that it seriously. Only groups 1 and 2 can even be compared for the effects of moonlight and they show no statistical difference. You fail.
Of course. I believe you because you typed this with much support and reasoning.
I assume that you remember this reference http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=42164.0 from just a few posts ago, and thank you for you concession. Another RE victory!
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

Ichimaru Gin :]

  • Undefeated FEer
  • Planar Moderator
  • 8869
  • Semper vigilans
Re: Moonlight
« Reply #19 on: October 05, 2010, 04:11:39 AM »
Now if only it was a meaningful critique with valid points.
You quite wrong. Your design is so faulty that no one will ever that it seriously. Only groups 1 and 2 can even be compared for the effects of moonlight and they show no statistical difference. You fail.
Of course. I believe you because you typed this with much support and reasoning.
I assume that you remember this reference http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=42164.0 from just a few posts ago, and thank you for you concession. Another RE victory!
Only in your tiny moonlight stricken head.
I saw a slight haze in the hotel bathroom this morning after I took a shower, have I discovered a new planet?

Re: Moonlight
« Reply #20 on: October 05, 2010, 04:23:25 AM »
Now if only it was a meaningful critique with valid points.
You quite wrong. Your design is so faulty that no one will ever that it seriously. Only groups 1 and 2 can even be compared for the effects of moonlight and they show no statistical difference. You fail.
Of course. I believe you because you typed this with much support and reasoning.
I assume that you remember this reference http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=42164.0 from just a few posts ago, and thank you for you concession. Another RE victory!
Only in your tiny moonlight stricken head.
If name calling is the best you've got, then I'm sure it is a victory. Hurrah!
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

?

zork

  • 3319
Re: Moonlight
« Reply #21 on: October 05, 2010, 04:31:25 AM »
under a dim flashlight  ???
Yes. Full moon intensity is some 0.5 lux. Flashlight can give you quite more. Do you have numbers which show what was your artificial lamp intensity? Otherwise I don't see that you can ever convince anyone and can never submit your work. If you put one plant under light with intensity barely 0.5 lux and another under 1000 lux then the results are of course different.
 For example - http://aggie-horticulture.tamu.edu/greenhouse/nursery/guides/ornamentals/light.html
When determining the effect of light on plant growth there are three areas to consider: intensity, duration and quality.

 And you definitely did provide quite a much poorer intensity and quality in your moonlight group than to lamp group. Or do you have light intensity numbers to prove otherwise?
« Last Edit: October 05, 2010, 06:20:31 AM by zork »
Rowbotham had bad eyesight
-
http://thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf - Visually discerning the curvature of the Earth
http://thulescientific.com/TurbulentShipWakes_Lynch_AO_2005.pdf - Turbulent ship wakes:further evidence that the Earth is round.

?

General Disarray

  • Official Member
  • 5039
  • Magic specialist
Re: Moonlight
« Reply #22 on: October 05, 2010, 04:41:19 AM »
I would have also liked to see luminosity readings for all the groups. Perhaps a luminosity vs. time graph for each group, that would have been very helpful.
You don't want to make an enemy of me. I'm very powerful.

*

EnglshGentleman

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 9548
Re: Moonlight
« Reply #23 on: October 05, 2010, 11:14:46 AM »
You quite wrong. Your design is so faulty that no one will ever that it seriously. Only groups 1 and 2 can even be compared for the effects of moonlight and they show no statistical difference. You fail.

This makes zero sense.

Re: Moonlight
« Reply #24 on: October 05, 2010, 11:44:44 AM »
You quite wrong. Your design is so faulty that no one will ever that it seriously. Only groups 1 and 2 can even be compared for the effects of moonlight and they show no statistical difference. You fail.

This makes zero sense.

Google biology, or search youtube to better understand why Iche's experiment is a total fail. I really don't think he really knows much about biology to understand why his experiment was a joke EG. And CT is correct about groups 1 and 2.
FE T-shirts = Profit = conspiracy = ideological cult in the making = teaching stupid = paranoia = nut case. Any questions?

?

zork

  • 3319
Re: Moonlight
« Reply #25 on: October 05, 2010, 12:02:50 PM »
You quite wrong. Your design is so faulty that no one will ever that it seriously. Only groups 1 and 2 can even be compared for the effects of moonlight and they show no statistical difference. You fail.

This makes zero sense.
What? Comparing groups where one group got sunlight and moonlight and the other only sunlight makes no sense to you? If there is any effect from the moonlight then it should be seen from these two groups. Is it really so hard to understand?
Rowbotham had bad eyesight
-
http://thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf - Visually discerning the curvature of the Earth
http://thulescientific.com/TurbulentShipWakes_Lynch_AO_2005.pdf - Turbulent ship wakes:further evidence that the Earth is round.

*

EnglshGentleman

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 9548
Re: Moonlight
« Reply #26 on: October 05, 2010, 03:52:07 PM »
You quite wrong. Your design is so faulty that no one will ever that it seriously. Only groups 1 and 2 can even be compared for the effects of moonlight and they show no statistical difference. You fail.

This makes zero sense.

Google biology, or search youtube to better understand why Iche's experiment is a total fail. I really don't think he really knows much about biology to understand why his experiment was a joke EG. And CT is correct about groups 1 and 2.

You quite wrong. Your argument is so bad that no one will that it seriously.

Re: Moonlight
« Reply #27 on: October 05, 2010, 05:35:35 PM »
You quite wrong. Your design is so faulty that no one will ever that it seriously. Only groups 1 and 2 can even be compared for the effects of moonlight and they show no statistical difference. You fail.

This makes zero sense.

Google biology, or search youtube to better understand why Iche's experiment is a total fail. I really don't think he really knows much about biology to understand why his experiment was a joke EG. And CT is correct about groups 1 and 2.

You quite wrong. Your argument is so bad that no one will that it seriously.

Do try harder EG, you seem desperate.. In fact I can provide two videos in biology that will literally make Iche's experiment no more than equal to being retarded at best. He really doesn't know jack___t about biology. And his experiment really show's it. However, it will amuse me to see if you can figure it out. And I hope you do realize that some plants have adaptive mechanisms that will prevent moonlight from interfering with photoperiodism as well. Makes you wonder how much Iche really knows about Plants, much less the ones he used in his little experiment. You might also want to look up plants that bloom at night.

There are also plants like wheat to which are effected by moonlight. This triggers the light switch known as the phytochrome  to which is involved in the circadian rhythms. This is involved in many plant responses that can have morphogenetic effects. Moonlight is also known to be a trigger in coral reproduction.

here is an interesting read here as well:

http://www.naturopathicresources.com/images/RegulatingOvulation.PDF
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/9/3538.full
   





 

« Last Edit: October 05, 2010, 06:57:12 PM by TheJackel »
FE T-shirts = Profit = conspiracy = ideological cult in the making = teaching stupid = paranoia = nut case. Any questions?

*

EnglshGentleman

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 9548
Re: Moonlight
« Reply #28 on: October 05, 2010, 07:27:42 PM »
Oh wow, you are really don't get it do you.  ::)

I'll try again.

Quote
You quite wrong. Your design is so faulty that no one will ever that it seriously.

Does this make any sense? No. He what quite wrong? No one will ever what it seriously?


On-topic.

What? Comparing groups where one group got sunlight and moonlight and the other only sunlight makes no sense to you? If there is any effect from the moonlight then it should be seen from these two groups. Is it really so hard to understand?

There was a noticeable difference between the two groups.

Quote
The difference in the median values between the two groups is greater than would be expected by chance; there is a statistically significant difference
« Last Edit: October 05, 2010, 07:37:02 PM by EnglshGentleman »

Re: Moonlight
« Reply #29 on: October 05, 2010, 07:59:49 PM »
The first half of your post is trolling. However, let's look at this further.

There was a noticeable difference between the two groups.

Quote
The difference in the median values between the two groups is greater than would be expected by chance; there is a statistically significant difference
[/quote]

No sh_t.. And I never stated otherwise. Do pay attention that adverse effects of moonlight on plants have nothing to do with moonlight(the light itself) being harmful vs useless to the over all health of the plant he used. Many plants simply ignore moonlight and I don't think you comprehend this. Secondly moonlight is not strong enough to trigger photosynthetic processes but may trigger other morphogenetic or growth processes. He also doesn't go into how prolonged exposure to moonlight will mess with circadian rhythms just because it's lower intensity than direct sunlight. News flash EG, his experiment showed nothing of interest! And another news Flash EG, plants require more light than the moon can provided to sustain themselves! So no matter what, a plant will die if it doesn't get the light it requires. It may even expend energy vital to its survival to growth up to seek out a light source. Some plants can even physically uproot and move themselves in a 3D environment to put themselves out of the shade and into direct sunlight. Hence there are a lot of factors that low light such as moonlight can trigger in plants. The results differ because the light environment is different. In some cases moonlight is beneficial and triggers reproduction, blooming ect.  There Nothing special in his little experiment.
 
Another thing of interest is that some plants will burn if you move them from a low light environment into a highly sun lit environment and die. Such as the Plumeria. This plant will also go dormant at night if the temperature goes below 50 degrees.. 

And sorry, it is correct that groups 1 and 2 are rather the only relevant groups to be looking at. And I see nothing of interest there.

« Last Edit: October 05, 2010, 08:20:27 PM by TheJackel »
FE T-shirts = Profit = conspiracy = ideological cult in the making = teaching stupid = paranoia = nut case. Any questions?