Empirical evidence for moon shrimp

but even Zeteticism needs a scientific method.

No, Zetetics reject the scientific method and use the Zetetic method. It's what being a Zetetic means.

Dreams do not constitute valid evidence. Please stop making low content posts in the upper forum, Lord Wilmore. It is setting a bad example.

Sorry, but stating that dreams aren't valid evidence doesn't make it so. I have made my argument at length in this topic, whereas you have simply made a bald statement.


Also, memberating is against the rules, as you well know.

Dreams are not empirical evidence.

Another bald statement. As I have argued elsewhere in this thread, dreams certainly match the definition of empirical evidence. If you have an argument to the contrary, present it.

But wouldn't having a dream that involves moon shrimp be just considered evidence that one can dream about moon shrimp and not that they exist on the moon outside of the dream.

Quote from: Horatio on May 05, 2011, 09:26:38 AM

Dreams are not empirical evidence.

Another bald statement. As I have argued elsewhere in this thread, dreams certainly match the definition of empirical evidence. If you have an argument to the contrary, present it.

Empirical evidence (the record of one's direct observations or experiences) can be analyzed quantitatively or qualitatively. Through quantifying the evidence or making sense of it in qualitative form, a researcher can answer empirical questions, which should be clearly defined and answerable with the evidence collected (usually called data).

So tell us, Wilmore, what sort of qualitative or quantitative analysis have you performed on your dreams or James's dreams?

Quote from: mindslave on May 05, 2011, 06:56:02 AM

but even Zeteticism needs a scientific method.

No, Zetetics reject the scientific method and use the Zetetic method. It's what being a Zetetic means.

No it doesn't. The dictionary definition of zetetic is "to procede by inquiry". The noun, on some wiki dictionaries (the noun is not recognised by most standard dictionaries), is synonymous with "a skeptic", but neither infers rejection of science. In fact, I would counter that both are required to be a scientist.

Sorry, but stating that dreams aren't valid evidence doesn't make it so. I have made my argument at length in this topic, whereas you have simply made a bald statement.

But failing to meet the requirements of empirical observation, i.e observation and experimentation, does.

Another bald statement. As I have argued elsewhere in this thread, dreams certainly match the definition of empirical evidence. If you have an argument to the contrary, present it.

No, they don't. Repeating it ad nauseum won't make it any truer.

I can find numerous requests for empirical evidence that moonlight comes from moon shrimp and not some other form of bioluminescent organism, but I have yet to find any evidence supplied to support that claim.  Must be the search function is still broken. 

Try looking at the moon (in a mirror of course to neutralise its harmful rays)

Try looking at the moon (in a mirror of course to neutralise its harmful rays)

I've looked at the moon.  I see no evidence of any sort of biological processes.  Perhaps you you could help me out by telling me what tell-tale signs I should be looking for.

moon shrimp dream = you have observed you can dream about moon shrimp.  because you have not observed the moon in your dream is the moon in the real world, and that dreams can correlate to the real world effectively, unless this is a dream too, you cannont use dreams as evidence for real world moon shrimp.

looking at the moon's light =  moon has light.  you have not observed what caused it.

the question is if dreams are empiriical evidence, they are, but what is it empirical evidence for

Quote from: Crustinator on May 05, 2011, 03:21:38 PM

Try looking at the moon (in a mirror of course to neutralise its harmful rays)

I've looked at the moon.  I see no evidence of any sort of biological processes.  Perhaps you you could help me out by telling me what tell-tale signs I should be looking for.

You should see a whitish glow. Do not stare for too long though, you may become nauseated. I am viewing the moon now, and the empirical evidence for bioluminescence is quite glorious.

Your requirement to prove your theory is to actually show a shrimp capable of surviving without water and any form of gaseous atmosphere. Then we can take you seriously. Up until that point, the conventional explanation of heiligenschein will do just fine.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-data_query?bibcode=1997Icar..128....2H&db_key=AST&link_type=ABSTRACT&high=4dc3d4d6d616224

Quote from: markjo on May 05, 2011, 05:52:31 PM

Quote from: Crustinator on May 05, 2011, 03:21:38 PM

Try looking at the moon (in a mirror of course to neutralise its harmful rays)

I've looked at the moon.  I see no evidence of any sort of biological processes.  Perhaps you you could help me out by telling me what tell-tale signs I should be looking for.

You should see a whitish glow. Do not stare for too long though, you may become nauseated. I am viewing the moon now, and the empirical evidence for bioluminescence is quite glorious.

glorious?... ok, I've never been to the moon and, assuming that every picture and video I saw of the moon was made up by NASA and that every scientist works for the conspiracy, I can only suppose that the moonlight comes from the reflection of the sunlight. Same as you: you can only suppose that moonlight comes from moonshrimps, because you can't even demonstrate you ever saw one (that's the base of an empirical evidence: I can see aliens, but if no one else saw them, it can't be a scientific proof)

Given the availability of commercial and privately owned telescopes and the ever increasing resolution and clarity they can produce, I fail to understand how these shrimp have yet to be detected, and proven to exist, which would help your barmy case no end. The use of such telescopes also clarifies the size of the moon as it's very simple to work out the magnification of the lenses contained within and measure the size of the moon  to showthat it's slightly bigger than your stated 32 miles. Even a school child could tell you that.

"Citation" I hear you cry:

http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/webscope/activities/pdfs/measureSize.PDF

Have fun warping those fundamental mathematics. "Ah", but I hear you cry, "you require to know the distance from Earth to the object". Allow me to help:

http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/gkastr1.html

And if you want to reject that, just take a radar dish and use doppler.

Now, I think that's an RE victory and you need to alter your FAQ.

You should see a whitish glow. Do not stare for too long though, you may become nauseatedyour neck may become stiff from craning your neck to look at it for extended periods of time. I am viewing the moon now, and the empirical evidence for bioluminescence is quite glorious.

Fixed.

Quote from: mindslave on May 05, 2011, 06:56:02 AM

but even Zeteticism needs a scientific method.

No, Zetetics reject the scientific method and use the Zetetic method.

what is the definition of Zetetic Method?
I've found this
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Zetetic+method
and sounds pretty scientific to me...
And I've found this article on wikipedia about Marcello Truzzi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcello_Truzzi
which seems to be the opposite of your (FEs) thinking

I am viewing the moon now, and the empirical evidence for bioluminescence is quite glorious.

Seeing as the moon is about 10% full, I rather doubt your outlandish claim.  Also, "glorious" is a subjective term that does not provide any empirical data.  You also neglected to provide any evidence whatsoever that shrimp are the source of the "glorious" bioluminescence or that the light from the moon is even bioluminescent in nature in the first place.  Seeing as I've pointed that out to you numerous times, I feel that I should warn you that this is bordering on low content posting.

what are moonshrimp? I thought it was a technical term for something, but i am getting the feeling that someone is winding me up about them being creatures that light up the moon...I came on here looking for liek minded thoughts on a disc world, but now I am thinking this is a parody site of soem sort that's jus ttaking the mick out of people with an open enough mind to challenge modern thinking on the globular farce of our world

If a virginal teenage boy has a dream that he had sex with a girl, is that empirical evidence that he had sex, and would no longer be a virgin?

what are moonshrimp? I thought it was a technical term for something, but i am getting the feeling that someone is winding me up about them being creatures that light up the moon...I came on here looking for liek minded thoughts on a disc world, but now I am thinking this is a parody site of soem sort that's jus ttaking the mick out of people with an open enough mind to challenge modern thinking on the globular farce of our world

Lurk more.  They're the non-existent excuse that someone concocted to explain moon phases and the false "dangers of moonlight".  They claim that the moon phases are the causes of massive migrations of these bioluminescent 'moon shrimp' which somehow find the energy to move thousands of miles and produce light on a barren wasteland without utilizing photosynthesis.

Given the availability of commercial and privately owned telescopes and the ever increasing resolution and clarity they can produce, I fail to understand how these shrimp have yet to be detected, and proven to exist, which would help your barmy case no end. The use of such telescopes also clarifies the size of the moon as it's very simple to work out the magnification of the lenses contained within and measure the size of the moon  to showthat it's slightly bigger than your stated 32 miles. Even a school child could tell you that.

"Citation" I hear you cry:

http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/webscope/activities/pdfs/measureSize.PDF

Have fun warping those fundamental mathematics. "Ah", but I hear you cry, "you require to know the distance from Earth to the object". Allow me to help:

http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/gkastr1.html

And if you want to reject that, just take a radar dish and use doppler.

Now, I think that's an RE victory and you need to alter your FAQ.

And all was quiet in the FE camp....

I had a dream that my manager raped and killed a woman. Should I report him to the local authorities because I have empirical evidence that my manager is a deranged homicidal rapist, or would the cops just laugh at me because it was a dream?

Quote from: john_hand on May 06, 2011, 08:48:34 AM

what are moonshrimp? I thought it was a technical term for something, but i am getting the feeling that someone is winding me up about them being creatures that light up the moon...I came on here looking for liek minded thoughts on a disc world, but now I am thinking this is a parody site of soem sort that's jus ttaking the mick out of people with an open enough mind to challenge modern thinking on the globular farce of our world

Lurk more.  They're the non-existent excuse that someone concocted to explain moon phases and the false "dangers of moonlight".  They claim that the moon phases are the causes of massive migrations of these bioluminescent 'moon shrimp' which somehow find the energy to move thousands of miles and produce light on a barren wasteland without utilizing photosynthesis.

Your understanding of moonshrimp is woefully flawed.  So much so that I find you extremely under-qualified to sum up the theory

I had a dream that my manager raped and killed a woman. Should I report him to the local authorities because I have empirical evidence that my manager is a deranged homicidal rapist, or would the cops just laugh at me because it was a dream?

I dreamed dating Keyra Knightlety... but she didn't leave her number

Quote from: Hessy on May 06, 2011, 09:57:48 AM

Quote from: john_hand on May 06, 2011, 08:48:34 AM

what are moonshrimp? I thought it was a technical term for something, but i am getting the feeling that someone is winding me up about them being creatures that light up the moon...I came on here looking for liek minded thoughts on a disc world, but now I am thinking this is a parody site of soem sort that's jus ttaking the mick out of people with an open enough mind to challenge modern thinking on the globular farce of our world

Lurk more.  They're the non-existent excuse that someone concocted to explain moon phases and the false "dangers of moonlight".  They claim that the moon phases are the causes of massive migrations of these bioluminescent 'moon shrimp' which somehow find the energy to move thousands of miles and produce light on a barren wasteland without utilizing photosynthesis.

Your understanding of moonshrimp is woefully flawed.  So much so that I find you extremely under-qualified to sum up the theory

Then enlighten us, as I can't find anything intelligible to lurk after.

This is the perfect place to show us the full theory and the empirical evidence that supports these conclusions. So far we have Dreams about moon shrimp and observing light from the moon. The question of how the light is determined to be originating from moon shrimp has yet to be answered.

Quote from: markjo on May 04, 2011, 07:37:52 PM

I can find numerous requests for empirical evidence that moonlight comes from moon shrimp and not some other form of bioluminescent organism, but I have yet to find any evidence supplied to support that claim.  Must be the search function is still broken. 

Try looking at the moon (in a mirror of course to neutralise its harmful rays)

Looking at the Moon in a mirror will not neutralise the harmful effects of its rays, actually it will intensify them.  To the readers of this thread I do not suggest that you follow this man's advice; he is indeed bold and fearless in his inquiries but this kind of bravado is not appropriate for people at home, this man is a trained professional who has studied the Moon for many years and properly understands the risks which are involved in investigating it.  I recommend that most people stay as far away from the Moon as possible, even if it appears in a mirror.

Looking at the Moon in a mirror will not neutralise the harmful effects of its rays, actually it will intensify them.

Do you have any shred of evidence to support this outlandishly absurd and baseless claim?

I see evidence of the moon shrimp right now as I look into the sky.

NO, You see evidence that light is travelling from the moon to your eyes. This is only evidence that there is light coming from the moon. No evidence is given that moon shrimp are the scource of the light. I am not saying that it is not possible that there are moon shrimp, only that moon shrimp are only one of billions of possible light scources.

Whos is this James guy that can supposedly go into telepathic episodes and learn about the univers? Why is it that only one person say's that? Why is it that he seems to be the only person you guys listen to? And if no one has ever been to space -like I read in the Q/A area- then how can the Earthe being any shape be proven? How is anything In space be proven? Are you sure we're not a cube planet?

James' dreams are only a confirmation of the evidence we have already amassed in our library. He doesn't see the future or command the animals or mess with other folks minds. He simply has symbiotic relationship with mother nature, allowing him to delve into her secrets. Its serves as a gross error check to our research.
As for how earth's shape can be proven, there are thousands of threads on that very subject. To pick one or two examples would be churlish.
We are not on a cube shaped planet. Of that we are sure. The real-estate prices to live on one of the 8 corners would be astronomical.

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on January 13, 2011, 08:56:51 PM

I see evidence of the moon shrimp right now as I look into the sky.

NO, You see evidence that light is travelling from the moon to your eyes. This is only evidence that there is light coming from the moon. No evidence is given that moon shrimp are the scource of the light. I am not saying that it is not possible that there are moon shrimp, only that moon shrimp are only one of billions of possible light scources.

All data and experimentation (e.g. Ichi's exhaustive plant experiments) pointed to the probability that bioluminescent shrimp were the cause of toxic light radiating from the moon. James' synergetic understanding of the universe helped only to confirm what we all already knew to be true.

Quote from: Crustinator on May 05, 2011, 03:21:38 PM

Quote from: markjo on May 04, 2011, 07:37:52 PM

I can find numerous requests for empirical evidence that moonlight comes from moon shrimp and not some other form of bioluminescent organism, but I have yet to find any evidence supplied to support that claim.  Must be the search function is still broken. 

Try looking at the moon (in a mirror of course to neutralise its harmful rays)

Looking at the Moon in a mirror will not neutralise the harmful effects of its rays, actually it will intensify them.  To the readers of this thread I do not suggest that you follow this man's advice; he is indeed bold and fearless in his inquiries but this kind of bravado is not appropriate for people at home, this man is a trained professional who has studied the Moon for many years and properly understands the risks which are involved in investigating it.  I recommend that most people stay as far away from the Moon as possible, even if it appears in a mirror.

Brother James you are simply wrong on this issue. I have always kept the moon firmly in a mirror and not in direct line of sight and it has never done me harm. In fact I believe it has given me longevity beyond the wildest desires of men.

If a virginal teenage boy has a dream that he had sex with a girl, is that empirical evidence that he had sex, and would no longer be a virgin?

This is a valid point.