Empirical evidence for moon shrimp

Quote from: General Disarray on March 22, 2011, 11:37:23 AM

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on March 22, 2011, 11:34:17 AM

Quote from: General Disarray on March 22, 2011, 10:52:37 AM

So why should we accept a person's dreams that moon shrimp exist?

When have I ever suggested we should? 

So we can toss out all dreams presented here as evidence for the existence of these alleged moon shrimp then.

I have never stated otherwise.

In that case, can you provide any empirical evidence for the existence of lunar shrimp? If you say "I'm looking at it right now, it's beautiful" I will be quite peeved.

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on March 22, 2011, 01:09:05 PM

Quote from: General Disarray on March 22, 2011, 11:37:23 AM

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on March 22, 2011, 11:34:17 AM

Quote from: General Disarray on March 22, 2011, 10:52:37 AM

So why should we accept a person's dreams that moon shrimp exist?

When have I ever suggested we should? 

So we can toss out all dreams presented here as evidence for the existence of these alleged moon shrimp then.

I have never stated otherwise.

In that case, can you provide any empirical evidence for the existence of lunar shrimp? If you say "I'm looking at it right now, it's beautiful" I will be quite peeved.

He doesn't observe them in a dream.

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on March 22, 2011, 01:09:05 PM

Quote from: General Disarray on March 22, 2011, 11:37:23 AM

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on March 22, 2011, 11:34:17 AM

Quote from: General Disarray on March 22, 2011, 10:52:37 AM

So why should we accept a person's dreams that moon shrimp exist?

When have I ever suggested we should? 

So we can toss out all dreams presented here as evidence for the existence of these alleged moon shrimp then.

I have never stated otherwise.

In that case, can you provide any empirical evidence for the existence of lunar shrimp? If you say "I'm looking at it right now, it's beautiful" I will be quite peeved.

It is daytime and cloudy, so I cannot quite see it yet. I shall update you tonight, however.

Viewing the moon is not empirical evidence for moon shrimp.

I am quite peeved.

Wrong. During a full moon you can see all the moon shrimp. It doesn?t come any more empirical than that.

This has been done to death.

FE:     I see light coming from the moon and the only logical conclusion is the the light is from moon shrimp.
RE:     What evidence do you have that the light comes from moon shrimp?
FE:     I see light coming from the moon.

It has been asked before. What is the evidence that the light coming from the moon is from moon shrimp and not another source?

There is no other possible source. Given that the earth is flat there is no other possible way the moon could illuminate the earth other than by the power of moon shrimp.

This looks like another

VICTORY FOR FLAT EARTH!!!

Wrong. During a full moon you can see all the moon shrimp. It doesn?t come any more empirical than that.

Only if your vision is good enough to resolve individual shrimp.  Otherwise, it's only empirical evidence that the moon exists.

There is no other possible source. Given that the earth is flat there is no other possible way the moon could illuminate the earth other than by the power of moon shrimp.

For the umpteenth time, what evidence to you have that the light comes from moon shrimp and not from any other form of lunar bioluminescent material?

Quote from: Crustinator on March 22, 2011, 02:52:13 PM

Wrong. During a full moon you can see all the moon shrimp. It doesn?t come any more empirical than that.

Only if your vision is good enough to resolve individual shrimp.  Otherwise, it's only empirical evidence that the moon exists.

It is true that moon shrimp are "inferred". Just like "gravity" and "electrons" and "electromagnetism" and lots of other things the Conspiracy (NASA) would like you to believe exist. The difference is we have hard evidence to back up our claims.

Quote from: markjo on March 22, 2011, 03:09:22 PM

Quote from: Crustinator on March 22, 2011, 02:52:13 PM

Wrong. During a full moon you can see all the moon shrimp. It doesn?t come any more empirical than that.

Only if your vision is good enough to resolve individual shrimp.  Otherwise, it's only empirical evidence that the moon exists.

It is true that moon shrimp are "inferred". Just like "gravity" and "electrons" and "electromagnetism" and lots of other things the Conspiracy (NASA) would like you to believe exist. The difference is we have hard evidence to back up our claims.

And yet... we are still waiting on that hard evidence.... Baring theEnglishGentilemen's super vision of 500,000,000+/20 resolution, and various dreams, and highly questionable telepathic communications...

There is no other possible source. Given that the earth is flat there is no other possible way the moon could illuminate the earth other than by the power of moon shrimp.

Why is it not possible to be an electric lamp behinds a soft silver-blue diffuser that is powered by an alternator that is generating continuous power by being hooked up to the celestial gears, and has a hemishperical shield that rotates around it fully once every 28 days, thus causing the phases of the moon effect?

That explanation would seem far more plausible than moon shrimp to me... and it is clearly another possible source.... assuming a spherical moon of course.

Why is it not possible to be an electric lamp behinds a soft silver-blue diffuser that is powered by an alternator that is generating continuous power by being hooked up to the celestial gears, and has a hemishperical shield that rotates around it fully once every 28 days, thus causing the phases of the moon effect?

Sounds very complicated to me. Also where would the lamp be plugged in?

Quote from: Oracle on March 22, 2011, 03:28:10 PM

Why is it not possible to be an electric lamp behinds a soft silver-blue diffuser that is powered by an alternator that is generating continuous power by being hooked up to the celestial gears, and has a hemishperical shield that rotates around it fully once every 28 days, thus causing the phases of the moon effect?

Sounds very complicated to me. Also where would the lamp be plugged in?

It would be powered by the same celestial gears that keep the moon orbiting above the face of the planet.  The circular orbital motion would be the source of the power.  Clearly you would not be able to see the power cords as they would be invisible at over 3000 miles away.

This is interesting evidence but I prefer to believe in the "natural" order of things rather than having to believe in a giant ceiling fan in the sky. How preposterous!

Besides, I don't see how this "electric lamp" could be integrated with the anti-moonshrimp theory.

Besides, I don't see how this "electric lamp" could be integrated with the anti-moonshrimp theory.

It would not require the Anti-moon shrimp theory... it is a separate example to show that there is not only just one possible explanation that works with FET.

How about this, then:

It is known that when you pass a wire through a magnetic field, you generate an electrical force (this is the basis of how generators and alternators work).  It has also been asserted that the moon itself is but a large flat 'metalic' disk on an orbital path, and no one argues the strong magnetic attraction from the magnetic north pole.  (strong enough to even impact a compass needle near the rim).

In the McIntyre model, the sun and the moon are metallic discs instead. These discs are being held above the Earth by photoelectric effect.

Now, passing a 'metallic' disk through a magnetic field causes an excitement of electrical energy which can then be emitted as a photo-luminous light source.  But the sun, emitting much stronger EMF radiation, causes that luminosity to move toward the direction of the sun when ever the moon gets closer to it.  Starting full when on the farthest approach from the sun, but growing darker on the far side until it is all but snuffed out by the time it is near the sun, and then restoring again (near side illuminating before the far side) as they move further away from each other.

The McIntyre model is not widely accepted. Most scientists now recognise the validity of Moon Shrimp Theory.

It would not require the Anti-moon shrimp theory... it is a separate example to show that there is not only just one possible explanation that works with FET.

You can't just dismiss overwhelming evidence to fit your theory.

Quote from: Oracle on March 22, 2011, 04:02:42 PM

It would not require the Anti-moon shrimp theory... it is a separate example to show that there is not only just one possible explanation that works with FET.

You can't just dismiss overwhelming evidence to fit your theory.

Ok, show me a link to this overwhelming credible and verifiable empirical evidence.  Besides... you miss the point, I'm not trying to debunk moon shrimp nor anti-moon shrimp.

The McIntyre model is not widely accepted. Most scientists now recognize the validity of Moon Shrimp Theory.

That may be, but my point was to show that there are other possible ways the moon could illuminate the earth other than by the power of moon shrimp.

It is the Zetetic Method to keep an open mind to ALL possibilities, and not reject something out of hand just because it does not fit with your already preconceived ideas.

Quote from: Crustinator on March 22, 2011, 02:55:16 PM

There is no other possible source. Given that the earth is flat there is no other possible way the moon could illuminate the earth other than by the power of moon shrimp.

For the umpteenth time, what evidence to you have that the light comes from moon shrimp and not from any other form of lunar bioluminescent material?

Perhaps you should start removing his spam posts.

It is true that moon shrimp are "inferred"  .... The difference is we have hard evidence to back up our claims.

Ok... so no concrete empirical evidence... fine ... 2 questions then:

1.  Why does it take 22 forum pages to reach this conclusion?

-and-

2. What solid and credible evidence do you have to infer the existence of moon shrimp?

I can accept evidence by inference, if the evidence is both credible and plausible.

Quote from: Particle Person on March 22, 2011, 01:49:59 PM

In that case, can you provide any empirical evidence for the existence of lunar shrimp? If you say "I'm looking at it right now, it's beautiful" I will be quite peeved.

It is daytime and cloudy, so I cannot quite see it yet. I shall update you tonight, however.

UPDATE

The moon is out and I can see it now. Yes, I can see the moon shrimp in all their majesty. If only you were here to view them with me through sunglasses. You too would be in awe! This is truly a beautiful and mysterious world we live in!

That is truly remarkable. Do you have any cocaine? 

That is truly remarkable. Do you have any cocaine? 

I hear Rowbotham had some pretty good stuff.  After all, he was a "doctor".

To questions about the validity of personal testimony, Mrs Peach has made the same points I would have. Obviously one must deliberate about the evidence presented, but such testimony is still considered evidence, irrespective of whether or not the jury believe it. As for dreams being accepted as part of testimony in a court of law, this does happen when relevant.

I never said that truth = evidence.  You assumed that I did by twisting my words around.  You are dodging and you are trying to warp the idea of what evidence actually is.

I didn't twist your words around at all. You said "logging your dreams do not in and of themselves suggest that what you did dream was in fact truth" in a discussion about whether or not dreams can be considered as evidence of something. Now, either you're confusing evidence and truth, or you're making an irrelevant point that borders on being a straw man argument. If you're not equating truth with evidence, why are you talking about it? I have never said dreams are always true, so pick your poisen.

If you want to mince hairs... fine.  You do not have a shred of credible 'evidence'.  The 'evidence' that you submitted is completely irrelevant for data to show that such creatures may or may not exist.

"Credible" by what standard or metric? I consider them to be very credible evidence.

*Sigh* The descriptions offered by dreaming are evidence of what precisely?  That they had a dream experience?  That Nural activity did in fact occur while dreaming?

Hold on! Scientists have conducted studies which match kinds of dream to kinds of neural activity, and linked aspects of dream content to that activity. They assume that the experiences are as described, and thus constitute evidence in their studies.

I'm not disputing that you had a dream experience.  Just that your dream experience is not credible in this case.

Again, credible according to what standard?

You can see from the following web site it is possible to build a crude spectrograph with items found around the house. You will notice that the both sunlight and moon light cover the full visible light spectrum. I fund a study on bioluminescence and have included a chart of their results. You can see that that individual species have a rather narrow wavelength compared to moon light. I will be testing this myself to see if I can find a species that produces a light similar to moonlight over the next week or two. I would like to encourage others to join me because if FE can produce a species that matches moonlight they will have actual evidence of moon shrimp.

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~zhuxj/astro/html/spectrometer.html


Sunlight


Moonlight


Bioluminescence

I will be testing this myself to see if I can find a species that produces a light similar to moonlight over the next week or two.

Good thing we already found one. Moon Shrimp.

As for dreams being accepted as part of testimony in a court of law, this does happen when relevant.

Do you have any credible citations (i.e. not somebody's blog) for this tidbit? I'm curious about specifics.

Quote from: midwestsailor on March 23, 2011, 06:44:57 AM

I will be testing this myself to see if I can find a species that produces a light similar to moonlight over the next week or two.

Good thing we already found one. Moon Shrimp.

I would love to get a moon shimp so I can independtly verify this. Please tell me where you found a moon shrimp for testing and did you require anything special for its care.