Super moonSuper 2

And don't try dragging the "thermosphere" into it.
     

Or else what?

The truth of the matter is that I've supported the claim of moonlight being dangerous not only with peer reviewed studies, but also with excerpts from experts all the way back to the Ancients. I have correlated these claims also against known facts about beasts, insects, and many other life forms. On the other hand, there has been no evidence given to the counter case that moonlight is safe.

It's a well known fact that for some reason doesn't appeal to 21st century mentality. It is especially humourous that folks decide to ignore science and evidence simply to stop themselves from having to form an opinion for themselves based on fact and reason.

Quote from: rabinoz on December 06, 2017, 07:02:12 PM

And don't try dragging the "thermosphere" into it.
     

Or else what?

Or else he wont know how to counter it

On the other hand, there has been no evidence given to the counter case that moonlight is safe.

Can't argue with that

It's almost like there isn't any evidence to be had that moonlight is safe. Its wanton to keep putting innocent people in danger because of your little scientific religion.

It's almost like there isn't any evidence to be had that moonlight is safe.

So that fact that millions of people are regularly exposed to moonlight with no ill effects doesn't count as evidence?

Millions of people are regularly exposed to radiation with no ill effects. I guess radiation isn't dangerous now? How exactly are you determining, by the way, that they are having no ill effects? Your belief system, or actual evidence?

No, it does not count as evidence. The damage could be miniscule and undetectable, but cumulative. Our deterioration as we get older and simply call 'old age' could be the cumulative damage done by moonlight. Our production of melatonin, a critical hormone is best done in complete darkness, which the moonlight prevents when we are out (and yes the artificial street and city lights do not help either)

You will not find 'extremophiles' in areas which are exposed to moonlight. You will find them in areas deep in the earth or in the oceans. Many ocean life creatures are immortal to 'old age'. Find me any animal or life which is immortal that receives any light from the moon

Millions of people are regularly exposed to radiation with no ill effects. I guess radiation isn't dangerous now? How exactly are you determining, by the way, that they are having no ill effects? Your belief system, or actual evidence?

I could ask you the same questions on how you are determining the dangers of moonlight.

BTW, you've also claimed that sunlight is supposed to diminish the intensity of fire.  Well, right now there are a bunch of firefighters in California who would disagree with you.

Quote from: John Davis on December 07, 2017, 01:21:23 PM

Millions of people are regularly exposed to radiation with no ill effects. I guess radiation isn't dangerous now? How exactly are you determining, by the way, that they are having no ill effects? Your belief system, or actual evidence?

I could ask you the same questions on how you are determining the dangers of moonlight.

BTW, you've also claimed that sunlight is supposed to diminish the intensity of fire.  Well, right now there are a bunch of firefighters in California who would disagree with you.

As I have said, I have already provided studies, citations, and cross references between multiple academic disciplines as well as expert and conventional testimonials stretching from the modern day all the way to the ancients.

What more do you want?

Ahh, that's right. You wish for them to agree with your silly dogma!

Can you provide citation for where I made this claim?

Quote from: markjo on December 07, 2017, 02:43:45 PM

Quote from: John Davis on December 07, 2017, 01:21:23 PM

Millions of people are regularly exposed to radiation with no ill effects. I guess radiation isn't dangerous now? How exactly are you determining, by the way, that they are having no ill effects? Your belief system, or actual evidence?

I could ask you the same questions on how you are determining the dangers of moonlight.

As I have said, I have already provided studies, citations, and cross references between multiple academic disciplines as well as expert and conventional testimonials stretching from the modern day all the way to the ancients.

What more do you want?

How about some evidence that isn't inconclusive.

There is a more serious problem for fervent believers in the lunar lunacy effect: no evidence that it exists. Florida International University psychologist James Rotton, Colorado State University astronomer Roger Culver and University of Saskatchewan psychologist Ivan W. Kelly have searched far and wide for any consistent behavioral effects of the full moon. In all cases, they have come up empty-handed. By combining the results of multiple studies and treating them as though they were one huge study—a statistical procedure called  meta-analysis—they have found that full moons are entirely unrelated to a host of events, including crimes, suicides, psychiatric problems and crisis center calls. In their 1985 review of 37 studies entitled “Much Ado about the Full Moon,” which appeared in one of psychology’s premier journals, Psychological Bulletin, Rotton and Kelly humorously bid adieu to the full-moon effect and concluded that further research on it was unnecessary.

Yes, all anyone can provide is non-conclusive evidence for any claim. I feel I have well outdid my duty to Burden of Proof.  As far as that nonsense, I'll highlight for you the bad bit:

'By combining the results of multiple studies and treating them as though they were one huge study'

moonlight being dangerous

I'll accept moonlight may conceivably be dangerous (by whatever means) if you will accept it is sunlight reflected from the moon.

Yes, all anyone can provide is non-conclusive evidence for any claim. I feel I have well outdid my duty to Burden of Proof.  As far as that nonsense, I'll highlight for you the bad bit:

'By combining the results of multiple studies and treating them as though they were one huge study'

Why do you think that combining the studies is a bad thing?

Quote from: John Davis on December 07, 2017, 10:00:27 AM

moonlight being dangerous

I'll accept moonlight may conceivably be dangerous (by whatever means) if you will accept it is sunlight reflected from the moon.

Whether or not you accept it has no effect on its dangers.

So nobody has any evidence that it is not dangerous?

So nobody has any evidence that it is not dangerous?

Are you asking someone to prove a negative?  Would you like me to pour you a cup from Russell's Teapot?

Proof is for mathematics and alcohol. All I'm asking is people support their claim that moonlight is safe. I feel like I've supported my claim and I have only been met with one poorly constructed study against the stacks of evidence I brought to the table.  Is it unreasonable to ask for evidence?

Proof is for mathematics and alcohol. All I'm asking is people support their claim that moonlight is safe. I feel like I've supported my claim and I have only been met with one poorly constructed study against the stacks of evidence I brought to the table. 

Why do you think that the study was poorly constructed?  Could it be for no other reason than it effectively renders your evidence inconclusive?  Poor evidence is poor evidence, regardless of the size of the stack.

Is it unreasonable to ask for evidence?

I did provide evidence in the form of a study that shows that, when properly analyzed, moonlight danger studies are statistically inconclusive and that no danger has been found.

Thank you for suppling the one piece of evidence. We've discussed why these studies are not worth their salt in the past Markjo, and you had no legitimate arguments against that. Even if I give you the one study, it says nothing to the mountains of evidence, let alone my own personal moon malaise.

Thank you for suppling the one piece of evidence. We've discussed why these studies are not worth their salt in the past Markjo, and you had no legitimate arguments against that. Even if I give you the one study, it says nothing to the mountains of evidence, let alone my own personal moon malaise.

Right, the only thing that the study I proved says is that the mountain of studies that you provided were inconclusive when properly analyzed. 

As for "your own personal moon malaise", I'd suggest that you try to see if a credible medical research facility would be willing to test your symptoms under controlled conditions.

Your study said no such thing, for reasons discussed earlier. You can keep harping on this, but as far as I'm concerned it will now fall on deaf ears.

Why would I go for treatment when I have already diagnosed myself and supplied the appropriate treatment which brought it to a resolution?

Your study said no such thing, for reasons discussed earlier. You can keep harping on this, but as far as I'm concerned it will now fall on deaf ears.

Yes, I get the feeling that it already has.

Why would I go for treatment when I have already diagnosed myself and supplied the appropriate treatment which brought it to a resolution?

Because someone who is their own doctor has a fool for a patient.  For all anyone knows, your symptoms and consequent remedy could all be psychosomatic.

Quote from: 54N on December 07, 2017, 08:45:16 PM

I'll accept moonlight may conceivably be dangerous (by whatever means) if you will accept it is sunlight reflected from the moon.

Whether or not you accept it has no effect on its dangers.

If full moonlight is simply sunlight attenuated by a factor of around 400,000 to 1,000,000 what possible mechanism can there be for moonlight itself being dangerous.

All the evidence in the world means nothing if it is simply a correlation, even if a good correlation.
In some cases the correlation is high, not because one causes the other, but because there is some common cause.
A simple one is that the bright full-moon light makes sleep difficult for some people.
And possibly more people are out at night when the moon is full, but because the shadows are so deep have more accidents, etc, etc.

But, unless there is some reasonable mechanism for moonlight itself being dangerous then all you have is guesswork.

But, since the whole flat earth idea is based on "The earth looks flat, so it must be flat", then guess all the rest
it is not surprising that those that believe the earth flat also believe so many other superstitious illogical ideas.

Just a bit more on the topic of "No Matter How Strong, Correlation Still Doesn't Equal Causation" take a peak at: Tyler Vigen, Spurious Correlations.

Quote from: John Davis on December 08, 2017, 06:50:56 AM

Quote from: 54N on December 07, 2017, 08:45:16 PM

I'll accept moonlight may conceivably be dangerous (by whatever means) if you will accept it is sunlight reflected from the moon.

Whether or not you accept it has no effect on its dangers.

If full moonlight is simply sunlight attenuated by a factor of around 400,000 to 1,000,000 what possible mechanism can there be for moonlight itself being dangerous.

Are you claiming sunlight isn't dangerous as well? I know many dermatologists that would agree. All sorts of things, and all sorts of radiations, can be dangerous. It seems like a gross simplification to say this light that affects the habits of several kingdoms of beast could not be dangerous.

All the evidence in the world means nothing if it is simply a correlation, even if a good correlation.

No, it means its a correlation. That's a lot more than nothing.

In some cases the correlation is high, not because one causes the other, but because there is some common cause.

Seems wise to avoid the common cause...

A simple one is that the bright full-moon light makes sleep difficult for some people.

What possible mechanism can there be for moonlight itself being dangerous?

And possibly more people are out at night when the moon is full, but because the shadows are so deep have more accidents, etc, etc.

Why would more people be out at night when the moon is full?

But, unless there is some reasonable mechanism for moonlight itself being dangerous then all you have is guesswork.

The studies conducted by Dr. "Ichi" have shown conclusively that it is due to the polarization.

But, since the whole flat earth idea is based on "The earth looks flat, so it must be flat", then guess all the rest
it is not surprising that those that believe the earth flat also believe so many other superstitious illogical ideas.

Yeah, what's more illogical than trusting first hand sources over secondary and tertiary ones?

Just a bit more on the topic of "No Matter How Strong, Correlation Still Doesn't Equal Causation" take a peak at: Tyler Vigen, Spurious Correlations.

Yes, we all know correlation doesn't equal causation, but in fact correlation is the ONLY means we have to determine causation. Ever. For anything.

Quote from: John Davis on December 08, 2017, 06:02:16 PM

Obviously it does not, as I said. On the other point, correlation is still more than nothing.

The only means we have to determine causation is through correlation, is this not correct?

No it is not correct, other possible causes can be investigated.

I am not implying that moonlight has no biological effect on quite a number of species, but that does not signify any damaging effects.
Also the Moon may influence sleep, study finds, but this is not any damaging effects of moonlight.
Many effects simply relate to more light at night and of course old superstitions seem to die hard.

Lack of sleep is not damaging? Pretty sure that leads to madness, especially with individuals prone to schizophrenia.

Quote from: rabinoz on December 08, 2017, 09:33:32 PM

Quote from: John Davis on December 08, 2017, 06:02:16 PM

Obviously it does not, as I said. On the other point, correlation is still more than nothing.

The only means we have to determine causation is through correlation, is this not correct?

No it is not correct, other possible causes can be investigated.

I am not implying that moonlight has no biological effect on quite a number of species, but that does not signify any damaging effects.
Also the Moon may influence sleep, study finds, but this is not any damaging effects of moonlight.
Many effects simply relate to more light at night and of course old superstitions seem to die hard.

Lack of sleep is not damaging? Pretty sure that leads to madness, especially with individuals prone to schizophrenia.

OK, maybe for pedantics like yourself I should have said,
There is, however, a limited amount of detail one can point in a quick post.

But, you still do not get the point.

The lack of sleep is not due to any special property of "the moon's rays", nor to any "NS particles" but simply to the brighter illumination.

I guess that a superstitious person can't be cured, any more than one over-prone to believing in conspiracies - and flat-earthers seem prone to both.
Though psychotherapy might help in both cases.

By , he way it would appear that most of those ancient Chinese believed the moonlight was simply reflected sunlight and that the sun really rose and set behind the horizon.
Sure there were some Chinese scholars who believed that the celestial bodies rotated in a plane above the flat earth and "Taoist Scholars that performed this experiment far before Eratosthenes disagree".
In fact, those "Taoist Scholars" and the other Chinese made far more precise measurements than the Greeks did.

What I find, however, is that the "Taoist Scholars' " model with the sun, moon and stars circling above was soon abandoned simply because it did not explain sunrises and sunsets, just as your flat earth model cannot.

As I keep saying all along, the apparent motion of the sun disproves the current flat earth model.

It's almost like there isn't any evidence to be had that moonlight is safe. Its wanton to keep putting innocent people in danger because of your little scientific religion.

Who is "putting innocent people in danger because of your little scientific religion"?

Maybe you can postulate some mechanism whereby noon-day sun attenuated by a factor of around 400,000 might be dangerous.

In the meantime, I will go out into the full moonlight whenever I wish and feel 100% safe,
except for the possibility of tripping over something and that danger would be far more were it not for the moonlight!

No wonder so many think flat earthers are as barmy as . . . . . people that believe the earth flat in spite of the all the contrary evidence.
Moonlight looks like daylight, just a lot less intense and a little "redder":Yes, the little bright dots are stars and the photo is a bit grainy, but it was hand-held at a very high ISO speed.

Quote from: John Davis on December 07, 2017, 12:51:18 PM

It's almost like there isn't any evidence to be had that moonlight is safe. Its wanton to keep putting innocent people in danger because of your little scientific religion.

Who is "putting innocent people in danger because of your little scientific religion"?

Every single person that ignores the dangers of the moon and tries to convince folks of this falsity.

Quote from: rabinoz on December 11, 2017, 04:20:34 AM

Who is "putting innocent people in danger because of your little scientific religion"?

Every single person that ignores the dangers of the moon and tries to convince folks of this falsity.

Total garbage! You provide some evidence, not based on superstition and hearsay and we might listen.

Some things looked for when a strong correlation is found are
    a cause ~ effect relationship
    a common cause, etc.

When all these are ruled out, the observation can, especially in cases like this, often be put down purely psychosomatic causes, often fanned by superstitious people as yourself and many other flat-earthers.

Bye, bye must get some sleep.

Sure Rabinoz. I'd be happy to oblige, if such a thing is possible. How do you rule out a cause-effect relationship or a common cause without the sole use of correlation?

This has gotten so far from the topic, "Super moonSuper 2" and even "The damaging effects of moonlight or NS particles or whatever that I can't be bothered answering!

You simply want to argue for argument sake, I don't!

If you come up with reasonable recent evidence, not just your empty words, for "the damaging effects of the moon rays", maybe try again.

If you come up with reasonable recent evidence, not just your empty words, for "the damaging effects of the moon rays", maybe try again.

He has correlated some anecdotal evidence and that seems to be enough for him.