Moonlight: Dangers & Precautions

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on February 27, 2015, 11:47:43 AM

i hadn't thought about this before, but it makes sense. sunlight causes skin cancer and sunburn, and the moon is just the same kind of object, just closer to the earth, with less in the way to disrupt the rays.
it seems so clear it could be dangerous. it's a pity so few people are aware of the true shape of the earth, and the real dangers.

So-called "moonlight" is in fact simply reflected light irradiated by the sun.  The albedo of the moon is 0.038 at the UV wavelength of 1700 Angstroms, which is the harmful component of sunlight.  Albedo is a non-dimensional, unitless quantity that indicates how well a surface reflects solar energy. Albedo varies between 0 and 1.  Clean snow has an albedo of 0.9 as a comparison.

Moonlight has a solar radiation component which is about 1/500,000th of that of the sun at the earth's surface.  Or put another way, sunlight is approximately 500,000 times stronger than moonlight.

To think for even a moment that moonlight can cause sunburn or skin cancer is totally unfounded—to say the least.  I challenge any flat earther to provide any viable evidence that would contradict this, along with citations of course.  I also note the typical flat earth inclusion of the phrase "could be" when making alleged statements of fact.  They're commonly called "weasel words" and are usually employed by people who are unsure of their argument, and need to provide an escape clause when empirical evidence destroys their claims.

the scientific community refuses to take us seriously and so we cannot test or provide evidence of what we say. they are too concerned with their monopoly. would you suggest we steal or build from scratch high functioning machines?
i can say only 'i believe' or 'could be' as all i am able to offer is my opinion, which is backed by observation, but cannot be backed with details because there is no way to get them. you do not conduct any of these fantasy experiments you rely on yourself, you trust the words of others and liars and money-seeking crooks. we do not do the same, because we are better than that.

think for yourself. just thinking at all is a good start.

The scientific community refuses to take us seriously and so we cannot test or provide evidence of what we say. they are too concerned with their monopoly. would you suggest we steal or build from scratch high functioning machines?

The scientific community doesn't take the flat earthers seriously simply because they've yet to provide even the tiniest modicum of empirical evidence supporting their multitude of pseudo-scientific notions.  I'm not sure what you mean by a scientific "monopoly"?  It's rather that the accredited sciences fully satisfy all our theories and observations of astrophysical and geophysical phenomena.  There's currently no competing body of alternative scientific theories, so I guess I'd agree on the monopoly definition in its simplest meaning—the exclusive possession of something.
 

I can say only 'i believe' or 'could be' as all i am able to offer is my opinion, which is backed by observation, but cannot be backed with details because there is no way to get them.

I understand this, but I repeat; opinions do not equate with established, verifiable theories. An opinion is defined as a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.

You do not conduct any of these fantasy experiments you rely on yourself, you trust the words of others and liars and money-seeking crooks. we do not do the same, because we are better than that.

Of course I "trust" the experimentation and research results of thousands of scientists with multiple doctorates in numerous fields of endeavour.  Why shouldn't I?  Don't you?
And what do you mean by claiming that I also trust the words of liars and crooks?  And how dare you claim that you (flat earthers?) are "better" than round earthers at discerning the liars from the straight-shooters?

So... on the one hand you admit to having no evidence supporting your own theories, but at the same time claim that mine are bogus or immaterial?  How exactly does this "logic" work?

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on February 28, 2015, 10:40:30 AM

The scientific community refuses to take us seriously and so we cannot test or provide evidence of what we say. they are too concerned with their monopoly. would you suggest we steal or build from scratch high functioning machines?

The scientific community doesn't take the flat earthers seriously simply because they've yet to provide even the tiniest modicum of empirical evidence supporting their multitude of pseudo-scientific notions.  I'm not sure what you mean by a scientific "monopoly"?  It's rather that the accredited sciences fully satisfy all our theories and observations of astrophysical and geophysical phenomena.  There's currently no competing body of alternative scientific theories, so I guess I'd agree on the monopoly definition in its simplest meaning—the exclusive possession of something.
 

Quote

I can say only 'i believe' or 'could be' as all i am able to offer is my opinion, which is backed by observation, but cannot be backed with details because there is no way to get them.

I understand this, but I repeat; opinions do not equate with established, verifiable theories. An opinion is defined as a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.

Quote

You do not conduct any of these fantasy experiments you rely on yourself, you trust the words of others and liars and money-seeking crooks. we do not do the same, because we are better than that.

Of course I "trust" the experimentation and research results of thousands of scientists with multiple doctorates in numerous fields of endeavour.  Why shouldn't I?  Don't you?
And what do you mean by claiming that I also trust the words of liars and crooks?  And how dare you claim that you (flat earthers?) are "better" than round earthers at discerning the liars from the straight-shooters?

So... on the one hand you admit to having no evidence supporting your own theories, but at the same time claim that mine are bogus or immaterial?  How exactly does this "logic" work?

flat earthers could provide plenty of evidence, but we do not have the ability to do so because we are not permitted to. just because someone can come up with a fiction that matches reality, doesn't mean it's true. you need evidence to back it up, and this is evidence exclusively the province of lying scientists, and inaccessible to everyone else. you take their word for it, and do not thing for yourself.
scientists are paid to get results. if you pay someone to do something, they're biased. a little research shows that scientists are paid by oil companies and sugar companies, and get different results to scientists who aren't. scientists are not reliable.

we do not need to distinguish liars from crooks, because we think for ourselves.
either the earth is stationary, in which gravity does not exist, and the supposed formation of the round earth could not have happened. if the earth is accelerating, it would be flattened by that acceleration, and would not have become a sphere. that is a simple example of how we can think for ourselves.

Flat earthers could provide plenty of evidence, but we do not have the ability to do so because we are not permitted to.

This is just pure, unadulterated nonsense, and you know it.  If you can "easily" provide evidence, then how are you being stopped and by whom?  And doesn't that nonsensical excuse seem a little all-too-convenient?

Just because someone can come up with a fiction that matches reality, doesn't mean it's true.

Uh... you do know what a non sequitur is don't you?  Maybe not LOL.

You need evidence to back it up, and this is evidence exclusively the province of lying scientists, and inaccessible to everyone else.

You're obviously living in some sort of internally-created fantasy world.  Do you really think that every one of the world's 6 million scientists is "lying" and covering up the true shape of the earth?  Seriously?  Please look up the word paranoia in your medical dictionary.  It's important that you understand its meaning before you next see your psychiatrist.

Flat earthers could provide plenty of evidence, but we do not have the ability to do so because we are not permitted to.

Please give us an outline of an experiment you would do if you were "permitted"

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 01, 2015, 06:21:15 AM

Flat earthers could provide plenty of evidence, but we do not have the ability to do so because we are not permitted to.

Please give us an outline of an experiment you would do if you were "permitted"

well one obvious thing to do would be to launch a nasa rocket and see what actually happens. then we can measure levels of resistance at sea level, at the height of an airplane, and as high as possible. that way aether will be confirmed.

such things are only done by scientists who've already decided what they want to see, however.

Quote from: kman on March 01, 2015, 07:05:38 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 01, 2015, 06:21:15 AM

Flat earthers could provide plenty of evidence, but we do not have the ability to do so because we are not permitted to.

Please give us an outline of an experiment you would do if you were "permitted"

well one obvious thing to do would be to launch a nasa rocket and see what actually happens. then we can measure levels of resistance at sea level, at the height of an airplane, and as high as possible. that way aether will be confirmed.

such things are only done by scientists who've already decided what they want to see, however.

Other makes of rocket are available.

Flat earthers could provide plenty of evidence, but we do not have the ability to do so because we are not permitted to.

You can easily redress this complaint of yours about being censured elsewhere.  Surely this site is the perfect place to provide the alleged "evidence" you have supporting a flat earth?  After all, it is one of the public faces of the FES and its beliefs.

Or are you claiming that the moderators will not allow you to do so?  Similarly, how could any round earther prevent you from posting your evidence on this forum?  Your unevidenced "not permitted to" excuse for not providing it is simply because you don't have any.

So go ahead—prove me wrong.  If you can that is.   

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 01, 2015, 06:21:15 AM

Flat earthers could provide plenty of evidence, but we do not have the ability to do so because we are not permitted to.

You can easily redress this complaint of yours about being censured elsewhere.  Surely this site is the perfect place to provide the alleged "evidence" you have supporting a flat earth?  After all, it is one of the public faces of the FES and its beliefs.

Or are you claiming that the moderators will not allow you to do so?  Similarly, how could any round earther prevent you from posting your evidence on this forum?  Your unevidenced "not permitted to" excuse for not providing it is simply because you don't have any.

So go ahead—prove me wrong.  If you can that is.   

try reading. i've posted plenty of evidence for the facts on this forum, i just do not have the ability to be scientifically rigorous without access to equipment that would ruin me for thousands.

Quote from: ausGeoff on March 02, 2015, 04:22:35 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 01, 2015, 06:21:15 AM

Flat earthers could provide plenty of evidence, but we do not have the ability to do so because we are not permitted to.

You can easily redress this complaint of yours about being censured elsewhere.  Surely this site is the perfect place to provide the alleged "evidence" you have supporting a flat earth?  After all, it is one of the public faces of the FES and its beliefs.

Or are you claiming that the moderators will not allow you to do so?  Similarly, how could any round earther prevent you from posting your evidence on this forum?  Your unevidenced "not permitted to" excuse for not providing it is simply because you don't have any.

So go ahead—prove me wrong.  If you can that is.   

try reading. i've posted plenty of evidence for the facts on this forum,

Where? All I've read from you is speculation that you claim to be true without evidence. If I missed some facts, please point to them.

i just do not have the ability to be scientifically rigorous without access to equipment that would ruin me for thousands.

I see... so you can't provide "factual" facts, just the "I think it should be this but I can't test it so I have no data" kind of facts. The latter are more properly called "opinions" or "conjecture", not "facts".

I've posted plenty of evidence for the facts on this forum, I just do not have the ability to be scientifically rigorous without access to equipment that would ruin me for thousands.

Nope.  You've not posted one single scientific reference work in support of any of your claims.  It didn't take me long—and yes, I was bored LOL—to check out all your posts over the past couple of weeks since you joined this forum, so I know what I'm talking about, and can even quote some of your responses verbatim when asked by round earthers to cite your sources, or to respond with citations disproving any round earth claims:

•  Offer some evidence for your bs, or are you incapable of that?
•  I have provided simple evidence based on what I've already stated as fact
•  Look at my previous posts, I'm sick of repeating myself
•  I have stated my beliefs clearly several times
•  I have described what it does
•  I have answered you, stop being so foolish
•  I have answered that, pay attention
•  I have explained myself well enough
•  I answered, now you pretend I haven't because you can't deal with the fact you're wrong
•  Try thinking rather than spewing garbage
•  How about in the fucking message you replied to you total fucking buffoon?
•  I've no idea what you're trying to get at
•  I'm about to make another post explaining the solar system. Wait for that
•  You've missed a lot of discussion where I have refuted every piece of bs you round earthers threw up.
•  You're lying. Try again
•  You're too brainwashed and arrogant to admit that you are wrong
•  You keep telling yourself that
•  If you consider what I have said, the answers are readily apparent
•  I don't give a damn about relativity
•  At least you admit your claims are bullshit

The majority of your comments are typical of this format, but did I see any references or citations that I could check?  Nope.

PS:  I've auto-corrected your woeful syntax, but can you please get your CAPS lock and/or your Shift key fixed?

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 03, 2015, 06:21:37 AM

I've posted plenty of evidence for the facts on this forum, I just do not have the ability to be scientifically rigorous without access to equipment that would ruin me for thousands.

Nope.  You've not posted one single scientific reference work in support of any of your claims.  It didn't take me long—and yes, I was bored LOL—to check out all your posts over the past couple of weeks since you joined this forum, so I know what I'm talking about, and can even quote some of your responses verbatim when asked by round earthers to cite your sources, or to respond with citations disproving any round earth claims:

•  Offer some evidence for your bs, or are you incapable of that?
•  I have provided simple evidence based on what I've already stated as fact
•  Look at my previous posts, I'm sick of repeating myself
•  I have stated my beliefs clearly several times
•  I have described what it does
•  I have answered you, stop being so foolish
•  I have answered that, pay attention
•  I have explained myself well enough
•  I answered, now you pretend I haven't because you can't deal with the fact you're wrong
•  Try thinking rather than spewing garbage
•  How about in the fucking message you replied to you total fucking buffoon?
•  I've no idea what you're trying to get at
•  I'm about to make another post explaining the solar system. Wait for that
•  You've missed a lot of discussion where I have refuted every piece of bs you round earthers threw up.
•  You're lying. Try again
•  You're too brainwashed and arrogant to admit that you are wrong
•  You keep telling yourself that
•  If you consider what I have said, the answers are readily apparent
•  I don't give a damn about relativity
•  At least you admit your claims are bullshit

The majority of your comments are typical of this format, but did I see any references or citations that I could check?  Nope.

PS:  I've auto-corrected your woeful syntax, but can you please get your CAPS lock and/or your Shift key fixed?

FOCUS ON WHAT'S IMPORTANT. I PROVIDE SIMPLE LOGIC FOR MY CLAIMS, AND IF YOU HAVE READ MY POSTS AS YOU CLAIM YOU WOULD SEE THAT. WHY DO YOU OBJECT TO BEING ASKED TO THINK FOR YOURSELF?
ARE YOU DENYING THAT LOGIC WORKS? YOU DON'T NEED ARTICLES OF GIBBERISH FROM PEOPLE OF DUBIOUS MERIT WHEN SIMPLE LOGIC IS ENOUGH TO DRAW MANY CONCLUSIONS. IGNORING THAT ONLY MAKES YOU LOOK BAD.

FOCUS ON WHAT'S IMPORTANT. I PROVIDE SIMPLE LOGIC FOR MY CLAIMS, AND IF YOU HAVE READ MY POSTS AS YOU CLAIM YOU WOULD SEE THAT. WHY DO YOU OBJECT TO BEING ASKED TO THINK FOR YOURSELF?
ARE YOU DENYING THAT LOGIC WORKS? YOU DON'T NEED ARTICLES OF GIBBERISH FROM PEOPLE OF DUBIOUS MERIT WHEN SIMPLE LOGIC IS ENOUGH TO DRAW MANY CONCLUSIONS. IGNORING THAT ONLY MAKES YOU LOOK BAD.

Firstly, can you please refrain from using all CAPS.  It's considered bad netiquette as it means you're SHOUTING.  And perhaps you should be using some of those spare CAPS in the rest of your comments on these forums in order to make them more legible, and not look as though they were written by a dyslexic grade-schooler.

So... can you quote exactly what "gibberish" I've posted from scientists of "dubious merit"?  Can you also post viable evidence that indicates that any of these scientists act dubiously in order to deceive anybody—or is this just your own personal opinion, unsubstantiated by any evidence?

Can you also explain exactly how you define "simple logic" as regards matters scientific.  Are you claiming that one need not refer to accredited scientific texts in order to fully understand geophysics and astrophysics and astronomy for example?  Or are you claiming that simply "thinking for yourself" is sufficient in understanding the universe, with zero scientific input from suitably qualified third parties?

That's a pretty bold statement to make; let's see you defend it.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 04, 2015, 05:54:33 AM

FOCUS ON WHAT'S IMPORTANT. I PROVIDE SIMPLE LOGIC FOR MY CLAIMS, AND IF YOU HAVE READ MY POSTS AS YOU CLAIM YOU WOULD SEE THAT. WHY DO YOU OBJECT TO BEING ASKED TO THINK FOR YOURSELF?
ARE YOU DENYING THAT LOGIC WORKS? YOU DON'T NEED ARTICLES OF GIBBERISH FROM PEOPLE OF DUBIOUS MERIT WHEN SIMPLE LOGIC IS ENOUGH TO DRAW MANY CONCLUSIONS. IGNORING THAT ONLY MAKES YOU LOOK BAD.

Firstly, can you please refrain from using all CAPS.  It's considered bad netiquette as it means you're SHOUTING.  And perhaps you should be using some of those spare CAPS in the rest of your comments on these forums in order to make them more legible, and not look as though they were written by a dyslexic grade-schooler.

So... can you quote exactly what "gibberish" I've posted from scientists of "dubious merit"?  Can you also post viable evidence that indicates that any of these scientists act dubiously in order to deceive anybody—or is this just your own personal opinion, unsubstantiated by any evidence?

Can you also explain exactly how you define "simple logic" as regards matters scientific.  Are you claiming that one need not refer to accredited scientific texts in order to fully understand geophysics and astrophysics and astronomy for example?  Or are you claiming that simply "thinking for yourself" is sufficient in understanding the universe, with zero scientific input from suitably qualified third parties?

That's a pretty bold statement to make; let's see you defend it.

the caps is called sarcasm. i am completely intelligible the rest of the time, you insist on meaningless additions.

simple logic is a starting point. if that does not hold, no science holds. so if something does not align with simple logic, it cannot align with any science. it's very simple. if science showed you that tables could fly, would you believe it, or think "that's wrong, no they can't?"

the caps is called sarcasm.

No.  All caps is considered shouting.  Posting blue text is considered sarcasm.

Also, this thread is about the dangers of moonlight.  Please stay on topic.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 04, 2015, 08:16:14 AM

the caps is called sarcasm.

No.  All caps is considered shouting.  Posting blue text is considered sarcasm.

Also, this thread is about the dangers of moonlight.  Please stay on topic.

context.

If science showed you that tables could fly, would you believe it, or think "that's wrong, no they can't?"

So you can't name specifically any scientists of dubious intent?  You're happy to just claim every single one is a fraudster?  Wow... that's sure sound evidence in support of your bizarre pseudo-scientific notions LOL.

And of course, common logic tells me that if scientists claimed tables could fly, then I'd expect to see some sort of empirical evidence supporting that claim wouldn't I... using the same common logic that tells me moonlight can't cause me sunburn.

Does your common logic tell you that moonlight can be dangerous and you need to take precautions, or do you disagree with your flat earth peers on this point?

If science showed you that tables could fly, would you believe it, or think "that's wrong, no they can't?"

Are you suggesting that tables can't fly?
#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">FLYING TABLE

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 04, 2015, 08:16:14 AM

If science showed you that tables could fly, would you believe it, or think "that's wrong, no they can't?"

So you can't name specifically any scientists of dubious intent?  You're happy to just claim every single one is a fraudster?  Wow... that's sure sound evidence in support of your bizarre pseudo-scientific notions LOL.

And of course, common logic tells me that if scientists claimed tables could fly, then I'd expect to see some sort of empirical evidence supporting that claim wouldn't I... using the same common logic that tells me moonlight can't cause me sunburn.

Does your common logic tell you that moonlight can be dangerous and you need to take precautions, or do you disagree with your flat earth peers on this point?

given the moon is obviously a star like the sun, it's clear it can be dangerous. it's less focused due to how often it spins, but the danger is there.

if science defies logic, then there is no reason to accept that science. it's simple. logic is where i first go to when i hear a discovery.

Quote from: ausGeoff on March 04, 2015, 03:44:19 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 04, 2015, 08:16:14 AM

If science showed you that tables could fly, would you believe it, or think "that's wrong, no they can't?"

So you can't name specifically any scientists of dubious intent?  You're happy to just claim every single one is a fraudster?  Wow... that's sure sound evidence in support of your bizarre pseudo-scientific notions LOL.

And of course, common logic tells me that if scientists claimed tables could fly, then I'd expect to see some sort of empirical evidence supporting that claim wouldn't I... using the same common logic that tells me moonlight can't cause me sunburn.

Does your common logic tell you that moonlight can be dangerous and you need to take precautions, or do you disagree with your flat earth peers on this point?

given the moon is obviously a star like the sun, it's clear it can be dangerous. it's less focused due to how often it spins, but the danger is there.

if science defies logic, then there is no reason to accept that science. it's simple. logic is where i first go to when i hear a discovery.

Logically, the moon doesn't do what flatties say it does. If you look back a few pages I was experimenting with sleeping under the moon. I think it was like a month or two before I stopped. No burns, no adverse effects. (And no NASA shills trying to shut my experiment down... )

The spinning argument I think is BS. You can see features of the moon, and they appear stationary. Plus, it's not a wacky water (light?) weasel. If it emitted light/radiation like the sun, it wouldn't matter one lick how fast either of us were rotating.

Arith has acquired lunacy and does not even know it.  Play with fire (moon) and you are going to get burnt. 

Given the moon is obviously a star like the sun, it's clear it can be dangerous.

Uh... are you seriously claiming that the moon is a star?  You do understand what a star is don't you?  A sphere of plasma held together by its own gravity.  And assuming that was the case, how then do you explain the different phases of the moon?

Wouldn't always appear as "full" whenever it was in our particular eastern or western hemisphere, as it would be luminous?

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 05, 2015, 03:07:14 AM

Given the moon is obviously a star like the sun, it's clear it can be dangerous.

Uh... are you seriously claiming that the moon is a star?  You do understand what a star is don't you?  A sphere of plasma held together by its own gravity.  And assuming that was the case, how then do you explain the different phases of the moon?

Wouldn't always appear as "full" whenever it was in our particular eastern or western hemisphere, as it would be luminous?

that is not what a star is. stars are metal cores heated white hot by friction with the aether, coated in rock which is not luminescent, which creates the spotlight effect. it rotates, there is no reason to think we see only one face of the moon. we see the moon from the side, and see the same traits as only one face of the moon gives off light.

Stars are metal cores heated white hot by friction with the aether, coated in rock which is not luminescent, which creates the spotlight effect.

Citation required to support this claim.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 05, 2015, 07:49:41 AM

Stars are metal cores heated white hot by friction with the aether, coated in rock which is not luminescent, which creates the spotlight effect.

Citation required to support this claim.

logic works just fine. it would be a natural consequence of a flat earth and aetheric whirlpools, and makes much more sense than magically stuck together gas.

that is not what a star is. stars are metal cores heated white hot by friction with the aether, coated in rock which is not luminescent, which creates the spotlight effect.

Then why does the moon have phases while the sun doesn't?  Why is the bright part of the moon always facing towards the sun?

it rotates, there is no reason to think we see only one face of the moon.

Well, yes, the moon does rotate, but the period of rotation is exactly the same period as its orbit around the earth resulting in us seeing the same side of the moon all month.  This is referred to as tidal locking. 

we see the moon from the side, and see the same traits as only one face of the moon gives off light.

Incorrect.  Properly exposed, traits from the dark portions of the moon are visible.

Quote from: ausGeoff on March 05, 2015, 08:30:07 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 05, 2015, 07:49:41 AM

Stars are metal cores heated white hot by friction with the aether, coated in rock which is not luminescent, which creates the spotlight effect.

Citation required to support this claim.

logic works just fine. it would be a natural consequence of a flat earth and aetheric whirlpools, and makes much more sense than magically stuck together gas.

Uh... this is not a citation.  A citation is a reference to an accredited scientific source which supports one's claims.  What you've posted here is nothing more than a personal opinion.  Science is not based on personal opinions but verifiable facts.  There's also no magic involved with science;  if you think there is, then it's nothing more than pseudo-science.

You've also yet to provide any empirical evidence to support your notions of "aether" and its purported "whirlpools", so you entire argument as it stands here is a major non sequitur.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 05, 2015, 08:44:23 AM

Quote from: ausGeoff on March 05, 2015, 08:30:07 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 05, 2015, 07:49:41 AM

Stars are metal cores heated white hot by friction with the aether, coated in rock which is not luminescent, which creates the spotlight effect.

Citation required to support this claim.

logic works just fine. it would be a natural consequence of a flat earth and aetheric whirlpools, and makes much more sense than magically stuck together gas.

Uh... this is not a citation.  A citation is a reference to an accredited scientific source which supports one's claims.  What you've posted here is nothing more than a personal opinion.  Science is not based on personal opinions but verifiable facts.  There's also no magic involved with science;  if you think there is, then it's nothing more than pseudo-science.

You've also yet to provide any empirical evidence to support your notions of "aether" and its purported "whirlpools", so you entire argument as it stands here is a major non sequitur.

didn't you say you'd stop engaging with me? please do.

your worship of scientists has nothing to do with logic. logic is all that is needed. empirical evidence means nothing without logic.

please try to stay on topic, anyway. this is about how the moon can be dangerous. clearly, it can be.

This is about how the moon can be dangerous. clearly, it can be.

So... another personal opinion? 

At any rate, what then, in your personal opinion, makes moonlight dangerous?  What are the potential negative effects on the human body, and how do they manifest themselves?  What sorts of treatment would a medical practitioner utilise to heal these ill-effects?

At any rate, what then, in your personal opinion, makes moonlight dangerous?  What are the potential negative effects on the human body, and how do they manifest themselves?  What sorts of treatment would a medical practitioner utilise to heal these ill-effects?

Maybe you should actually start from the first post in this thread.  You act like you just came up with an original question that nobody has ever thought to ask in all of the years that this thread has been active.