Moonshrimps - what's the deal?

Then you should agree that the lighting of these mountains and craters (especially near the terminator) is inconsistent with self-illumination.

looks ok to me.

Quote from: markjo on December 28, 2012, 10:34:31 AM

Then you should agree that the lighting of these mountains and craters (especially near the terminator) is inconsistent with self-illumination.

looks ok to me.

go on then explain?

Quote from: Lorddave on December 28, 2012, 10:39:28 AM

Quote from: markjo on December 28, 2012, 10:34:31 AM

Then you should agree that the lighting of these mountains and craters (especially near the terminator) is inconsistent with self-illumination.

looks ok to me.

go on then explain?

Explain what?

how moon shrimps are able to create the observations we can see in the photos i posted? lit mountain ranges beyond the dark side of terminus? and creators in darkness on the lit side of the terminus? explain to us how this is possible if the moon is lit up by moon shrimps?

how moon shrimps are able to create the observations we can see in the photos i posted? lit mountain ranges beyond the dark side of terminus? and creators in darkness on the lit side of the terminus? explain to us how this is possible if the moon is lit up by moon shrimps?

They aren't lit in the crater and are lit on the mountain ridge.

The theory of sonoluminecent shrimp-like creatures is a very real and serious theory that had the misfortune of having trolls champion it and beat it to death. Even in this thread, Markjo is showing a basic misunderstanding of the theory and arguing the strawmen that the trolls gave him. This troll target has turned many FE'ers away from the theory and is considered a joke by all but those that take the time to differentiate what it is from what it isn't.

I have generally quit posting on the topic, save the occasional short correction, not as a result of an overwhelming round-earth victory, but rather because having trolls shout "MOONSHRAMPS MOONSHRAMPS MOONSHRAMPS!!!!!" over and over isn't good for the society. It makes it so people coming here for answers don't see the eloquent theory, just the silliness and the damage from all the ammo we unwittingly gave the trolls.

It's sad that the theory has such a black cloud over it and answer-seekers are deprived the opportunity to read about it unmolested. At least, if anyone was eager enough to search, they could find plenty of information on these forums.

Quote from: Pythagoras on December 28, 2012, 10:47:19 AM

how moon shrimps are able to create the observations we can see in the photos i posted? lit mountain ranges beyond the dark side of terminus? and creators in darkness on the lit side of the terminus? explain to us how this is possible if the moon is lit up by moon shrimps?

They aren't lit in the crater and are lit on the mountain ridge.

and they just do this because they want to? they perfectly replicate light and darkness including shadows on the terminus for no apparent reason?

Quote from: Lorddave on December 28, 2012, 10:49:17 AM

Quote from: Pythagoras on December 28, 2012, 10:47:19 AM

how moon shrimps are able to create the observations we can see in the photos i posted? lit mountain ranges beyond the dark side of terminus? and creators in darkness on the lit side of the terminus? explain to us how this is possible if the moon is lit up by moon shrimps?

They aren't lit in the crater and are lit on the mountain ridge.

and they just do this because they want to? they perfectly replicate light and darkness including shadows on the terminus for no apparent reason?

Yes.

what are they pictures of? how do they prove what you are saying?

Bioluminescence and sonoluminescence also tend to produce light at specific wavelengths, and sonoluminescence requires a liquid to make bubbles in. Last thing I heard, there was no water on the moon. The Moon casts quite a wide spectrum of wavelengths, inconsistent with either of these forms of light emission.

and how do they randomly decide to be light on the top of a mountain and dark at the bottom of a crater just at the right time to replicate lighting from an outside source?

Bioluminescence and sonoluminescence also tend to produce light at specific wavelengths, and sonoluminescence requires a liquid to make bubbles in. Last thing I heard, there was no water on the moon. The Moon casts quite a wide spectrum of wavelengths, inconsistent with either of these forms of light emission.

Again, you are making unfounded assumptions.  You are saying that just because light is emitted from life in a certain way on Earth, then it must be that way on the moon as well.

and how do they randomly decide to be light on the top of a mountain and dark at the bottom of a crater just at the right time to replicate lighting from an outside source?

Good point, Pythagoras.
What is the official Flat Earth Society position - is it just coincidence that the glow of these shrimps just happens to correspond exactly with what we'd see if the phases were caused by light falling on the moon from the sun?
And a second question - if the moon isn't lit by the sun, then why isn't it? What prevents sunlight from reaching it?

and how do they randomly decide to be light on the top of a mountain and dark at the bottom of a crater just at the right time to replicate lighting from an outside source?

Why would you assume it's random?

again we have a easily viewable observation that is perfectly and rationally explainable in the real world but FE has to invent something invisible that we cant see and cant directly observe.

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on December 28, 2012, 01:28:14 PM

Bioluminescence and sonoluminescence also tend to produce light at specific wavelengths, and sonoluminescence requires a liquid to make bubbles in. Last thing I heard, there was no water on the moon. The Moon casts quite a wide spectrum of wavelengths, inconsistent with either of these forms of light emission.

Again, you are making unfounded assumptions.  You are saying that just because light is emitted from life in a certain way on Earth, then it must be that way on the moon as well.

Yes, that's called the laws of physics. They're predictable, and they don't change. If you're going to go down the route of changing the laws of physics to suit yourselves, you could make life a lot easier for yourselves. You could get rid of the problems associated with what keeps the sun and moon moving round the sky. You wouldn't need UA any more because you could have gravity, but it could be special magic gravity that would stop a disc scrunching into a ball. You could solve every problem the RE'ers throw at you by simply reinventing physics.
But the Society doesn't do that, it tries to work within the laws of physics wherever possible, resulting in some of its most tortuously funny theories. So having a one off instance where you want to make the laws governing atomic and molecular interactions differ on a quantum level just because they're on the moon is a bit of a lame cop out. But hey, feel free to present evidence where the physics governing emission spectra from bio or sonoluminescence have been found to be different in different places.
I've never driven my car to Paris. I'm afraid to now, in case the internal combustion engine doesn't work there.

Quote from: Pythagoras on December 28, 2012, 01:31:12 PM

and how do they randomly decide to be light on the top of a mountain and dark at the bottom of a crater just at the right time to replicate lighting from an outside source?

Why would you assume it's random?

becsue i cant see any external force that would let it know when to turn on and off. unless you can suggest one?

Quote from: Pongo on December 28, 2012, 01:46:03 PM

Quote from: Pythagoras on December 28, 2012, 01:31:12 PM

and how do they randomly decide to be light on the top of a mountain and dark at the bottom of a crater just at the right time to replicate lighting from an outside source?

Why would you assume it's random?

becsue i cant see any external force that would let it know when to turn on and off. unless you can suggest one?

I could suggest one,  but it would be pure speculation.  I find it quite dishonest that you ask me to conjure up an explanation while you, no doubt, have a response loaded and at the ready to chide me for guessing (despite you being the one who asked me to guess!). 

What's more intriguing and perhaps very telling of your person is when you see something that you don't have an explanation for, you assume it HAS to be a random occurrence miraculously falling into order in each instance, or demand that someone immediately provide you with an answer, whether it be true or guessed.  I imagine seeing the world through your eyes would be a very strange thing to the common person.

oh im sorry i thought this was questions and answers section. my mistake. and i have an answer loaded every time because in the real world we have an explanation for everything i have said in this thread. where as when FE dosent it then just trys to distract from the fact they dont.

 i observe a sphere in the sky (the moon)  with my own eyes that appears to be lit from an outside source. (the sun) all observations can be explained every single one by just accepting that it is lit from an outside source. but in FE because you are all so blinkered by the world must be flat!  you have to invent this to explain that say you dont want to say why this happens and you think that this may be but your not sure its just a theory. we have answers that fit perfectly with observations and require no ummming and areeeeing to explain it.

Give me one observation of the moon that does not fit the accepted reality in round earth that the moon is lit from a outside source ( the sun )? Unless you can't that is?

This is Q&A, but I'm not going to make things up for you.

The best thing that proves a self-lit moon is how it shines during the day.

This is also easily explainable in RE. Fail Try again

This explains perfectly how we see the sun in the day all without the need for self ilumination of the moon.
http://www.space.com/7267-moon-daylight.html

the moon is lit by a spherical sun.
a luminescent lifeform may exist on the the moon, but it does not explain the phases.

Thank you I wanabelive. Although i don't agree with you on a lot of things atleast you can see when the evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of a seperate light sorce.

as a Zetetic, I can not accept luminescent theory.
If James or Willmore could post more about there direct communications with "Luna" maybe I could.

This is Q&A, but I'm not going to make things up for you.

The best thing that proves a self-lit moon is how it shines during the day.

Last time I checked a joke people play on each other is moving a mirror or a mirror-like surface to cause reflected light into someone eyes.  Why would that be impossible during the day?

Quote from: Pongo on December 28, 2012, 04:23:29 PM

This is Q&A, but I'm not going to make things up for you.

The best thing that proves a self-lit moon is how it shines during the day.

Last time I checked a joke people play on each other is moving a mirror or a mirror-like surface to cause reflected light into someone eyes.  Why would that be impossible during the day?

This would be an acceptable analogy if the mirror were a globe of water and the person was standing so that the light source was behind them and their eyes were in total darkness before shining the "mirror".

What is the official Flat Earth Society position - is it just coincidence that the glow of these shrimps just happens to correspond exactly with what we'd see if the phases were caused by light falling on the moon from the sun?
And a second question - if the moon isn't lit by the sun, then why isn't it? What prevents sunlight from reaching it?

What is the official Flat Earth Society position - is it just coincidence that the glow of these shrimps just happens to correspond exactly with what we'd see if the phases were caused by light falling on the moon from the sun?
And a second question - if the moon isn't lit by the sun, then why isn't it? What prevents sunlight from reaching it?

Of course the sunlight hits the moon. 
It's just absorbed by the living organisms on it.

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on December 28, 2012, 06:29:06 PM

What is the official Flat Earth Society position - is it just coincidence that the glow of these shrimps just happens to correspond exactly with what we'd see if the phases were caused by light falling on the moon from the sun?
And a second question - if the moon isn't lit by the sun, then why isn't it? What prevents sunlight from reaching it?

Of course the sunlight hits the moon. 
It's just absorbed by the living organisms on it.

How much sunlight hits the moon? What determines which part of the moon is struck by sunlight? Is the moon smooth or does it have surface features?