Dangers of the Moon: Radio Edition

  • 101 Replies
  • 22902 Views
*

Username

  • President of The Flat Earth Society
  • Administrator
  • 18223
  • +41/-58
  • Most Accurate Scientist Ever
Re: Dangers of the Moon: Radio Edition
« Reply #30 on: May 29, 2018, 12:38:22 PM »
If I said "The moon causes madness, because 45% of educated people believe so" that would be one of those two fallacies. I'm simply pointing out that the medical community agrees with me, true or not. That's a far bit better than "gravity doesn't affect enclosed water", so I'm happy standing where I am.
If you can't arggue both sides, you understand neitherd

*

Dinosaur Neil

  • 3177
  • +0/-0
Re: Dangers of the Moon: Radio Edition
« Reply #31 on: May 29, 2018, 12:42:16 PM »
Topics you should cover:

1. Moonshramps
2. Communication with moonshramps via dreams
3. The shape of the moon as a three dimensional object (i.e. disc? cylinder? non euclidean icosahedron?)
4. Paradoxes of perspective created by Moon - Not A Globe
5. Alternative reasons why the navy don't let sailors sleep in the open air
6. Studies proving the dangers of moonlight on humans (give actual references from later than 1933)
7. Studies proving that moonlight does other dangerous stuff as distinct from sunlight
8. Why it looks exactly like the light of the sun falls on the moon
9. Why firing radar or lasers at the moon appears to give the distance estimate that it does and how exactly that is wrong
10. Why nobody has observed the "shadow object"
Founder member of the League Of Scientific Gentlemen and Mademoiselles des Connaissances.
I am pompous, self-righteous, thin skinned, and smug.

?

Piesigma

  • 59
  • +0/-0
Re: Dangers of the Moon: Radio Edition
« Reply #32 on: May 29, 2018, 01:44:26 PM »
Quote
If you have never heard about the dangers associated with the moon, its clear you have never read anything about the moon. Don't you wonder why its called lunacy?

I find the term lunacy and its dangers as wonderous as the dangers of DHMO.  Despite the significant effort made to educate people on the dangers associated with DHMO many people remain ignorant.

http://dhmo.org/

DHMO might even be associated with helping enable epileptic folks the ability to become sleep deprived and vulnerable to episodes during increases of night time illumination such as a full moon.

*

Ichimaru Gin :]

  • Undefeated FEer
  • Planar Moderator
  • 8880
  • +3/-3
  • Semper vigilans
Re: Dangers of the Moon: Radio Edition
« Reply #33 on: May 29, 2018, 01:47:56 PM »
Quote
If you have never heard about the dangers associated with the moon, its clear you have never read anything about the moon. Don't you wonder why its called lunacy?

I find the term lunacy and its dangers as wonderous as the dangers of DHMO.  Despite the significant effort made to educate people on the dangers associated with DHMO many people remain ignorant.

http://dhmo.org/

DHMO might even be associated with helping enable epileptic folks the ability to become sleep deprived and vulnerable to episodes during increases of night time illumination such as a full moon.
There is a time and place for high school chemistry jokes that have been beat to death. This is not it. The dangers of moonlight is a grave topic indeed.
I saw a slight haze in the hotel bathroom this morning after I took a shower, have I discovered a new planet?

*

Space Cowgirl

  • MOM
  • Planar Moderator
  • 52320
  • +97/-65
  • Official FE Recruiter
Re: Dangers of the Moon: Radio Edition
« Reply #34 on: May 29, 2018, 01:49:10 PM »
I'd like to know how much time all these mass shooters have spent rotting their brains in the moonlight.
I'm sorry. Am I to understand that when you have a boner you like to imagine punching the shit out of Tom Bishop? That's disgusting.

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • +1/-1
  • Extra Racist
Re: Dangers of the Moon: Radio Edition
« Reply #35 on: May 29, 2018, 04:33:42 PM »
So knowledge means nothing now? Why did you want the definition?
If you have never heard about the dangers associated with the moon, its clear you have never read anything about the moon. Don't you wonder why its called lunacy?
Science is always looking into it. Not looking good.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/lunacy-and-the-full-moon/
Sokarul, your article just tried to tell me that gravity doesn't affect water that is enclosed.
Ok, terrific
So you agree?
No. They didn't actually make that claim.

Quote
Quote
Quote
Aside from talking almost solely about how the gravitational effects of the moon aren't the cause of madness, of course an obvious strawman (the light is the cause) - It also tried to make a point out of mosquitos not causing madness, in spite of you know... malaria.
What does malaria have to do with anything? Did you even comprehend what it was saying?


Quote
On the other hand, for the moon's madness, it said 45% of educated collage students believe in the moons dangerous effects. It also said that experts in the field of medicine are even more likely to believe. 

And?
And I'd rather in this case trust experts in the field than a fool that says gravity doesn't affect water in an enclosed body.
They did not preform any experiments. I would ask the hospital billing department to find out what days are the busiest.

Quote
Quote
Quote
The medical opinion is in Sokarul. I don't know why you are fighting it.
You still have no evidence just opinions.
Yeah, I'm sure the majority of trained medical professionals have no basis for their beliefs. I'll remember that next time I get a shot. Are you anti-vax too?
They are beliefs yes. That doesn't make them right. Do you know what a belief is? And once again, they are medical professionals, not scientists running experiments on the full moon.
Also didn't I tell you not to be dumb? I actually have a science degree, why would I be an anti-vaxer?

Quote
Quote
The article quotes those at the front lines, working in psychiatry, use the knowledge of the moon to help heal people.

The idea that "no evidence exists for it" is a patent false hood - They've provided a wealth of evidence for us.
Wait, where is it?

Find it yet?
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

Dinosaur Neil

  • 3177
  • +0/-0
Re: Dangers of the Moon: Radio Edition
« Reply #36 on: May 30, 2018, 01:04:28 PM »
Quote
If you have never heard about the dangers associated with the moon, its clear you have never read anything about the moon. Don't you wonder why its called lunacy?

I find the term lunacy and its dangers as wonderous as the dangers of DHMO.  Despite the significant effort made to educate people on the dangers associated with DHMO many people remain ignorant.

http://dhmo.org/

DHMO might even be associated with helping enable epileptic folks the ability to become sleep deprived and vulnerable to episodes during increases of night time illumination such as a full moon.
There is a time and place for high school chemistry jokes that have been beat to death. This is not it. The dangers of moonlight is a grave topic indeed.

When did this clown come back and start posting again?
Founder member of the League Of Scientific Gentlemen and Mademoiselles des Connaissances.
I am pompous, self-righteous, thin skinned, and smug.

*

Ichimaru Gin :]

  • Undefeated FEer
  • Planar Moderator
  • 8880
  • +3/-3
  • Semper vigilans
Re: Dangers of the Moon: Radio Edition
« Reply #37 on: May 30, 2018, 01:31:08 PM »
Quote
If you have never heard about the dangers associated with the moon, its clear you have never read anything about the moon. Don't you wonder why its called lunacy?

I find the term lunacy and its dangers as wonderous as the dangers of DHMO.  Despite the significant effort made to educate people on the dangers associated with DHMO many people remain ignorant.

http://dhmo.org/

DHMO might even be associated with helping enable epileptic folks the ability to become sleep deprived and vulnerable to episodes during increases of night time illumination such as a full moon.
There is a time and place for high school chemistry jokes that have been beat to death. This is not it. The dangers of moonlight is a grave topic indeed.

When did this clown come back and start posting again?
Please do not tremble at the thought of me coming back. I shall awaken globularists with as ginger of a touch as possible. The fact I, the modern day Orpheus, have returned should be music to your ears.
I saw a slight haze in the hotel bathroom this morning after I took a shower, have I discovered a new planet?

*

Username

  • President of The Flat Earth Society
  • Administrator
  • 18223
  • +41/-58
  • Most Accurate Scientist Ever
Re: Dangers of the Moon: Radio Edition
« Reply #38 on: May 30, 2018, 03:14:29 PM »
So knowledge means nothing now? Why did you want the definition?
If you have never heard about the dangers associated with the moon, its clear you have never read anything about the moon. Don't you wonder why its called lunacy?
Science is always looking into it. Not looking good.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/lunacy-and-the-full-moon/
Sokarul, your article just tried to tell me that gravity doesn't affect water that is enclosed.
Ok, terrific
So you agree?
No. They didn't actually make that claim.
Here it is.
Quote
But there are at least three reasons why this explanation doesn’t “hold water,” pardon the pun. First, the gravitational effects of the moon are far too minuscule to generate any meaningful effects on brain activity, let alone behavior ... Second, the moon’s gravitational force affects only open bodies of water, such as oceans and lakes, but not contained sources of water, such as the human brain.
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Aside from talking almost solely about how the gravitational effects of the moon aren't the cause of madness, of course an obvious strawman (the light is the cause) - It also tried to make a point out of mosquitos not causing madness, in spite of you know... malaria.
What does malaria have to do with anything? Did you even comprehend what it was saying?


Quote
On the other hand, for the moon's madness, it said 45% of educated collage students believe in the moons dangerous effects. It also said that experts in the field of medicine are even more likely to believe. 

And?
And I'd rather in this case trust experts in the field than a fool that says gravity doesn't affect water in an enclosed body.
They did not preform any experiments. I would ask the hospital billing department to find out what days are the busiest.

Quote
Quote
Quote
The medical opinion is in Sokarul. I don't know why you are fighting it.
You still have no evidence just opinions.

Yeah, I'm sure the majority of trained medical professionals have no basis for their beliefs. I'll remember that next time I get a shot. Are you anti-vax too?
They are beliefs yes. That doesn't make them right. Do you know what a belief is? And once again, they are medical professionals, not scientists running experiments on the full moon.
Also didn't I tell you not to be dumb? I actually have a science degree, why would I be an anti-vaxer?
Do you feel that having a science degree means you wouldn't be an anti-vaxer? You are against the medical opinion on other topics, such as the dangers of the moon. Also, its clear that of those educated folks, 55% didn't believed in lunacy. Your degree then means little.
Quote
Quote
Quote
The article quotes those at the front lines, working in psychiatry, use the knowledge of the moon to help heal people.

The idea that "no evidence exists for it" is a patent false hood - They've provided a wealth of evidence for us.
Wait, where is it?

Find it yet?
I am at a loss to find any legitimate evidence against the moon's dangers from your silly article that says gravity doesn't affect enclosed water.
If you can't arggue both sides, you understand neitherd

*

Dinosaur Neil

  • 3177
  • +0/-0
Re: Dangers of the Moon: Radio Edition
« Reply #39 on: May 31, 2018, 04:07:57 AM »

When did this clown come back and start posting again?
Please do not tremble at the thought of me coming back. I shall awaken globularists with as ginger of a touch as possible. The fact I, the modern day Orpheus, have returned should be music to your ears.

I wasn't trembling. It was more of a disgusted sigh.
Founder member of the League Of Scientific Gentlemen and Mademoiselles des Connaissances.
I am pompous, self-righteous, thin skinned, and smug.

*

Dinosaur Neil

  • 3177
  • +0/-0
Re: Dangers of the Moon: Radio Edition
« Reply #40 on: May 31, 2018, 04:19:26 AM »
I am at a loss to find any legitimate evidence against the moon's dangers from your silly article that says gravity doesn't affect enclosed water.

This is also another logical fallacy although I can't remember the name for it - there's one side point you disagree with, therefore everything else the article says must be untrue.
Let's start by saying what everyone except the "educated" Mr Davis already understands - that what the article means is that the moon's gravity cannot move enclosed water, not that it is somehow shielded from its effect. Either Davis is too stupid to understand this - in which case he should cease posting because he is not intelligent enough for the topic - or he does understand this and is "playing dumb" over semantics, in which case he should also cease posting because trolling has no place here.

The fact is that the SA article presents very good evidence that the moon has little influence on behaviour and cites recent references to back itself up. Therefore, we should take it seriously, regardless of one phrase that Davis doesn't like.
Founder member of the League Of Scientific Gentlemen and Mademoiselles des Connaissances.
I am pompous, self-righteous, thin skinned, and smug.

?

Badxtoss

  • 3268
  • +0/-0
Re: Dangers of the Moon: Radio Edition
« Reply #41 on: May 31, 2018, 07:59:55 AM »
So knowledge means nothing now? Why did you want the definition?
If you have never heard about the dangers associated with the moon, its clear you have never read anything about the moon. Don't you wonder why its called lunacy?
Science is always looking into it. Not looking good.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/lunacy-and-the-full-moon/
Sokarul, your article just tried to tell me that gravity doesn't affect water that is enclosed.
Ok, terrific
So you agree?
No. They didn't actually make that claim.
Here it is.
Quote
But there are at least three reasons why this explanation doesn’t “hold water,” pardon the pun. First, the gravitational effects of the moon are far too minuscule to generate any meaningful effects on brain activity, let alone behavior ... Second, the moon’s gravitational force affects only open bodies of water, such as oceans and lakes, but not contained sources of water, such as the human brain.
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Aside from talking almost solely about how the gravitational effects of the moon aren't the cause of madness, of course an obvious strawman (the light is the cause) - It also tried to make a point out of mosquitos not causing madness, in spite of you know... malaria.
What does malaria have to do with anything? Did you even comprehend what it was saying?


Quote
On the other hand, for the moon's madness, it said 45% of educated collage students believe in the moons dangerous effects. It also said that experts in the field of medicine are even more likely to believe. 

And?
And I'd rather in this case trust experts in the field than a fool that says gravity doesn't affect water in an enclosed body.
They did not preform any experiments. I would ask the hospital billing department to find out what days are the busiest.

Quote
Quote
Quote
The medical opinion is in Sokarul. I don't know why you are fighting it.
You still have no evidence just opinions.

Yeah, I'm sure the majority of trained medical professionals have no basis for their beliefs. I'll remember that next time I get a shot. Are you anti-vax too?
They are beliefs yes. That doesn't make them right. Do you know what a belief is? And once again, they are medical professionals, not scientists running experiments on the full moon.
Also didn't I tell you not to be dumb? I actually have a science degree, why would I be an anti-vaxer?
Do you feel that having a science degree means you wouldn't be an anti-vaxer? You are against the medical opinion on other topics, such as the dangers of the moon. Also, its clear that of those educated folks, 55% didn't believed in lunacy. Your degree then means little.
Quote
Quote
Quote
The article quotes those at the front lines, working in psychiatry, use the knowledge of the moon to help heal people.

The idea that "no evidence exists for it" is a patent false hood - They've provided a wealth of evidence for us.
Wait, where is it?

Find it yet?
I am at a loss to find any legitimate evidence against the moon's dangers from your silly article that says gravity doesn't affect enclosed water.
Cute how you ignore the fact that there is no evidence to support your own position. The study found no increase in madness, sickness, suicide, erratic behavior, crime, or any such.
Yet you don't consider that evidence you are wrong.

*

Really

  • 223
  • +0/-0
Re: Dangers of the Moon: Radio Edition
« Reply #42 on: May 31, 2018, 08:42:28 AM »
Cute how you ignore the fact that there is no evidence to support your own position. The study found no increase in madness, sickness, suicide, erratic behavior, crime, or any such.
Yet you don't consider that evidence you are wrong.

I was especially amused when he whipped out the malaria discussion on you.  :)  Like, where the farg did that come from?

Once again... an FE fails in their discussion and immediately proceeds to spray you down with horseshit  :)
No trees have been harmed in the creation of this message.  However, numerous electrons have been horribly inconvenienced.

?

Badxtoss

  • 3268
  • +0/-0
Re: Dangers of the Moon: Radio Edition
« Reply #43 on: May 31, 2018, 10:20:49 AM »
Cute how you ignore the fact that there is no evidence to support your own position. The study found no increase in madness, sickness, suicide, erratic behavior, crime, or any such.
Yet you don't consider that evidence you are wrong.

I was especially amused when he whipped out the malaria discussion on you.  :)  Like, where the farg did that come from?

Once again... an FE fails in their discussion and immediately proceeds to spray you down with horseshit  :)
Seriously, that was funny.  They used the mosquito as an example of gravity and he tries to bring up malaria.  He does that kind of thing a lot.  Eventually he will start quoting sources but won't specifically link to them. When you look them up they are generally quacks or authors of a study that literally has nothing to do with the subject.
Personally I think he's just a con man trying to get attention.

*

Really

  • 223
  • +0/-0
Re: Dangers of the Moon: Radio Edition
« Reply #44 on: May 31, 2018, 10:23:38 AM »
Cute how you ignore the fact that there is no evidence to support your own position. The study found no increase in madness, sickness, suicide, erratic behavior, crime, or any such.
Yet you don't consider that evidence you are wrong.

I was especially amused when he whipped out the malaria discussion on you.  :)  Like, where the farg did that come from?

Once again... an FE fails in their discussion and immediately proceeds to spray you down with horseshit  :)
Seriously, that was funny.  They used the mosquito as an example of gravity and he tries to bring up malaria.  He does that kind of thing a lot.  Eventually he will start quoting sources but won't specifically link to them. When you look them up they are generally quacks or authors of a study that literally has nothing to do with the subject.
Personally I think he's just a con man trying to get attention.

The funniest thing I heard recently was the responses to someone asking the question; "Can flies fly in a vacuum?"   It was hilarious to watch it on YouTube when someone proved, NO, they can't!  They turn into "walks"  :)

It was great but, the guy you were talking to and his introduction of mosquitos...  WTF  :)   Hahahahaha...  This is more fun than Netflix  :)
No trees have been harmed in the creation of this message.  However, numerous electrons have been horribly inconvenienced.

?

Badxtoss

  • 3268
  • +0/-0
Re: Dangers of the Moon: Radio Edition
« Reply #45 on: May 31, 2018, 10:28:11 AM »
Cute how you ignore the fact that there is no evidence to support your own position. The study found no increase in madness, sickness, suicide, erratic behavior, crime, or any such.
Yet you don't consider that evidence you are wrong.

I was especially amused when he whipped out the malaria discussion on you.  :)  Like, where the farg did that come from?

Once again... an FE fails in their discussion and immediately proceeds to spray you down with horseshit  :)
Seriously, that was funny.  They used the mosquito as an example of gravity and he tries to bring up malaria.  He does that kind of thing a lot.  Eventually he will start quoting sources but won't specifically link to them. When you look them up they are generally quacks or authors of a study that literally has nothing to do with the subject.
Personally I think he's just a con man trying to get attention.

The funniest thing I heard recently was the responses to someone asking the question; "Can flies fly in a vacuum?"   It was hilarious to watch it on YouTube when someone proved, NO, they can't!  They turn into "walks"  :)

It was great but, the guy you were talking to and his introduction of mosquitos...  WTF  :)   Hahahahaha...  This is more fun than Netflix  :)
Yeah it can get pretty hilarious in here.  Unfortunately I think the most interesting FE people are not currently posting.  If you ever get the chance to engage Skeptimatic, I think that's how it's spelled or JRowesceptic you should.  In my opinion they are true believers who seriously try to support their positions.  It's actually pretty interesting.
The other fun thing here is all the science posted by Rab, Jack Black and some others when they are debunked flat earth theories.  A lot of it goes over my head but it's still pretty educational.

*

Really

  • 223
  • +0/-0
Re: Dangers of the Moon: Radio Edition
« Reply #46 on: May 31, 2018, 10:32:56 AM »
Yeah it can get pretty hilarious in here.  Unfortunately I think the most interesting FE people are not currently posting.  If you ever get the chance to engage Skeptimatic, I think that's how it's spelled or JRowesceptic you should.  In my opinion they are true believers who seriously try to support their positions.  It's actually pretty interesting.
The other fun thing here is all the science posted by Rab, Jack Black and some others when they are debunked flat earth theories.  A lot of it goes over my head but it's still pretty educational.

It will lose steam and fall out of favour.  Watch and see.  In the meantime, just enjoy the show!
No trees have been harmed in the creation of this message.  However, numerous electrons have been horribly inconvenienced.

*

Username

  • President of The Flat Earth Society
  • Administrator
  • 18223
  • +41/-58
  • Most Accurate Scientist Ever
Re: Dangers of the Moon: Radio Edition
« Reply #47 on: May 31, 2018, 10:56:37 AM »
I am at a loss to find any legitimate evidence against the moon's dangers from your silly article that says gravity doesn't affect enclosed water.

This is also another logical fallacy although I can't remember the name for it - there's one side point you disagree with, therefore everything else the article says must be untrue.
Let's start by saying what everyone except the "educated" Mr Davis already understands - that what the article means is that the moon's gravity cannot move enclosed water, not that it is somehow shielded from its effect. Either Davis is too stupid to understand this - in which case he should cease posting because he is not intelligent enough for the topic - or he does understand this and is "playing dumb" over semantics, in which case he should also cease posting because trolling has no place here.
Oh, so now it can't move enclosed water. You know, except that it can. It appears you are too stupid to understand this.

Again ignoring that the entire article is a strawman; we don't believe the moon's gravity causes its dangers.

So yes, since the basis of the article is arguing against something that no one here holds, I can discount the article's points against something completely irrelevant.
If you can't arggue both sides, you understand neitherd

*

Really

  • 223
  • +0/-0
Re: Dangers of the Moon: Radio Edition
« Reply #48 on: May 31, 2018, 11:05:55 AM »
I am at a loss to find any legitimate evidence against the moon's dangers from your silly article that says gravity doesn't affect enclosed water.

This is also another logical fallacy although I can't remember the name for it - there's one side point you disagree with, therefore everything else the article says must be untrue.
Let's start by saying what everyone except the "educated" Mr Davis already understands - that what the article means is that the moon's gravity cannot move enclosed water, not that it is somehow shielded from its effect. Either Davis is too stupid to understand this - in which case he should cease posting because he is not intelligent enough for the topic - or he does understand this and is "playing dumb" over semantics, in which case he should also cease posting because trolling has no place here.
Oh, so now it can't move enclosed water. You know, except that it can. It appears you are too stupid to understand this.

Again ignoring that the entire article is a strawman; we don't believe the moon's gravity causes its dangers.

So yes, since the basis of the article is arguing against something that no one here holds, I can discount the article's points against something completely irrelevant.

You know... I hate to say it but, both of you are right... and wrong.  1st off... dangers of the moon... ludicrous, and actually funny.  :)  And to his point... yeah, I have to agree.  The semantics are indeed muddying the waters.  I don't like that shite either.  So... I cringe when I agree with him on that point but... it's a necessity in this instance.

Dangers... Eeek... Werewolves!  :)
No trees have been harmed in the creation of this message.  However, numerous electrons have been horribly inconvenienced.

?

Badxtoss

  • 3268
  • +0/-0
Re: Dangers of the Moon: Radio Edition
« Reply #49 on: May 31, 2018, 11:38:39 AM »
I am at a loss to find any legitimate evidence against the moon's dangers from your silly article that says gravity doesn't affect enclosed water.

This is also another logical fallacy although I can't remember the name for it - there's one side point you disagree with, therefore everything else the article says must be untrue.
Let's start by saying what everyone except the "educated" Mr Davis already understands - that what the article means is that the moon's gravity cannot move enclosed water, not that it is somehow shielded from its effect. Either Davis is too stupid to understand this - in which case he should cease posting because he is not intelligent enough for the topic - or he does understand this and is "playing dumb" over semantics, in which case he should also cease posting because trolling has no place here.
Oh, so now it can't move enclosed water. You know, except that it can. It appears you are too stupid to understand this.

Again ignoring that the entire article is a strawman; we don't believe the moon's gravity causes its dangers.

So yes, since the basis of the article is arguing against something that no one here holds, I can discount the article's points against something completely irrelevant.
Absolutely you should ignore the study the article refers to, after all, the actual data they talk about disproves your point.  You have your opinions, we certainly don't want you getting confused by facts.

*

Username

  • President of The Flat Earth Society
  • Administrator
  • 18223
  • +41/-58
  • Most Accurate Scientist Ever
Re: Dangers of the Moon: Radio Edition
« Reply #50 on: May 31, 2018, 01:14:33 PM »
Except the data doesn't disprove it at all.
If you can't arggue both sides, you understand neitherd

?

Badxtoss

  • 3268
  • +0/-0
Re: Dangers of the Moon: Radio Edition
« Reply #51 on: May 31, 2018, 08:48:00 PM »
Except the data doesn't disprove it at all.
Maybe I misunderstood. If your point was there is no connection between a full moon and those things I mentioned then you are right.  The data in that meta study completely supports that position.

*

Really

  • 223
  • +0/-0
Re: Dangers of the Moon: Radio Edition
« Reply #52 on: May 31, 2018, 09:04:02 PM »
Except the data doesn't disprove it at all.

Here's an excellent site to help people understand taxonomy and methods used in formal research.

https://socialresearchmethods.net/kb/

No trees have been harmed in the creation of this message.  However, numerous electrons have been horribly inconvenienced.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • +0/-0
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Dangers of the Moon: Radio Edition
« Reply #53 on: June 01, 2018, 04:58:31 AM »
I do hope that you have not neglected your duty o warn everyone of these insidious ;) NS Particles ;).

 8) 8) 8)
Alignment. It is the specific polarization pattern of the moon's light that causes the wide range of adverse affects attributed to the moon's dangerous glare.

Even more specifically, it has a range of around -1% at 11° to about +7% at 105° with the shift to the positive occurring at the ::) occult number of 23° ::). One of many differences is that it has negative polarization from particle scattering likely caused by irregularly shaped particles smaller or equal to the moonlights wavelength. This is consistent with a bioluminescent source and also explains the genesis of the irregularly shaped particles ;D[1]. Even in glob science this effect has very little study attributed to it, likely due to the ridiculous myth that the moon's light is not dangerous and again the 'damned' nature of the research itself. To replicate this exactly in a laboratory would be impossible due to a lack of samples for the bioluminescent source to match the Neil-Sokarul particles it gives off.

I am also not talking about optical rotation - are you sure you know what that word means? I never said I invented it either Sokarul. NSP, however are the proposed small non-rotund particles responsible for scattering and polarizing, specifically those such particles within the lunar life forms. Its well known that the exact solutions for the scattering do not adhere to Mie scattering as they are non-spherical and below the wavelength in question. This is consistent with bio-luminescent life due to the minute non-spherical particles present around and in said life-forms.

Look, I understand its hard shedding the scales from ones eyes. Letting go of the globularist lies spoon fed to you throughout your entire academic career is not easy even for the stoutest of minds. Often it leads to existential crises or cognitive dissonance. But still, you must try to understand.
I can lead the horse to water, but I can't make him wear sunglasses. He has to do that for himself.

Incidentally, somebody should do a study on the affects of polarized eye filters to combat moon blindness in horses.

And even you, yes you, know it somewhere buried deep below the piles of rotund mess they threw in your head. You just have to let it shine through.

Let your innate knowledge shine through. While the last hundred or so years may seem impressive to you, they are but a drop in the bucket compared to the evolutionary distilled knowledge lying dormant and suffocating below layer after layer of indoctrination.

To everybody else, the dangers of the moonlight are very serious and the topic should be treated as such. We wouldn't want someone coming here and thinking this is a joke and then contracting lunar blindness or lunacy. Even if you don't believe in the dangers of the moon, this gives you no right to put others in serious danger by making light of such a serious topic. The fact of the matter is that given Pascal's Wager, it would be foolish to not wear your sunglasses at night until we've had time to study this new development.  In addition you'll receive the benefit of being able to track visions in your eyes.
8) 8) 8)

[1] Known as Neil-Sokarul Particles or NSP for short.


*

Dinosaur Neil

  • 3177
  • +0/-0
Re: Dangers of the Moon: Radio Edition
« Reply #54 on: June 01, 2018, 05:29:50 AM »
I am at a loss to find any legitimate evidence against the moon's dangers from your silly article that says gravity doesn't affect enclosed water.

This is also another logical fallacy although I can't remember the name for it - there's one side point you disagree with, therefore everything else the article says must be untrue.
Let's start by saying what everyone except the "educated" Mr Davis already understands - that what the article means is that the moon's gravity cannot move enclosed water, not that it is somehow shielded from its effect. Either Davis is too stupid to understand this - in which case he should cease posting because he is not intelligent enough for the topic - or he does understand this and is "playing dumb" over semantics, in which case he should also cease posting because trolling has no place here.
Oh, so now it can't move enclosed water. You know, except that it can. It appears you are too stupid to understand this.

Again ignoring that the entire article is a strawman; we don't believe the moon's gravity causes its dangers.

So yes, since the basis of the article is arguing against something that no one here holds, I can discount the article's points against something completely irrelevant.

I dispute your assertion that the moon's gravity can move water within the human brain to any measurable or detectable degree. The basis of my confidence is that electrostatic forces have a far greater effect in that environment - an example being if you have a drop of water on a surface and turn the surface so the drop can fall to earth, often it will remain clinging to the surface, despite being under the influence of a gravitational field thousands of times stronger than that of the moon. This is why water doesn't just fall out of a sponge.
Feel free to prove me wrong with links. You won't be able to.
Founder member of the League Of Scientific Gentlemen and Mademoiselles des Connaissances.
I am pompous, self-righteous, thin skinned, and smug.

*

Username

  • President of The Flat Earth Society
  • Administrator
  • 18223
  • +41/-58
  • Most Accurate Scientist Ever
Re: Dangers of the Moon: Radio Edition
« Reply #55 on: June 01, 2018, 01:24:40 PM »
I am at a loss to find any legitimate evidence against the moon's dangers from your silly article that says gravity doesn't affect enclosed water.

This is also another logical fallacy although I can't remember the name for it - there's one side point you disagree with, therefore everything else the article says must be untrue.
Let's start by saying what everyone except the "educated" Mr Davis already understands - that what the article means is that the moon's gravity cannot move enclosed water, not that it is somehow shielded from its effect. Either Davis is too stupid to understand this - in which case he should cease posting because he is not intelligent enough for the topic - or he does understand this and is "playing dumb" over semantics, in which case he should also cease posting because trolling has no place here.
Oh, so now it can't move enclosed water. You know, except that it can. It appears you are too stupid to understand this.

Again ignoring that the entire article is a strawman; we don't believe the moon's gravity causes its dangers.

So yes, since the basis of the article is arguing against something that no one here holds, I can discount the article's points against something completely irrelevant.

I dispute your assertion that the moon's gravity can move water within the human brain to any measurable or detectable degree.

Moving the goalpost much? I never made any assertion. I said that gravity affects contained water, including that within the brain. Again, I point out this is  in the first place is completely irrelevant - its not gravity that causes the dangers; its the polarized nature of moonlight.

Quote
The basis of my confidence is that electrostatic forces have a far greater effect in that environment - an example being if you have a drop of water on a surface and turn the surface so the drop can fall to earth, often it will remain clinging to the surface, despite being under the influence of a gravitational field thousands of times stronger than that of the moon. This is why water doesn't just fall out of a sponge.
Feel free to prove me wrong with links. You won't be able to.

Why would I disprove this bit of irrelevance. The fact that stronger "forces" exist does not mean the influence of weaker forces is null. I don't really need to supply a link to 'prove you wrong' concerning your belief that containing objects somehow stops gravity. Its the "enclosed" train argument all over again, except on an entirely new level of stupidity.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2018, 01:26:51 PM by John Davis »
If you can't arggue both sides, you understand neitherd

*

Straight

  • 135
  • +0/-0
  • We should put all "SCIENTISTS" behind BARS
Re: Dangers of the Moon: Radio Edition
« Reply #56 on: June 01, 2018, 02:12:41 PM »
John Davis, how can I become a full member of The Flat Earth Society? Did you set that up yet (with the Flat Earth coin shapped small medal and all)? 

*

NAZA

  • 594
  • +0/-0
Re: Dangers of the Moon: Radio Edition
« Reply #57 on: June 01, 2018, 02:55:12 PM »

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • +1/-1
  • Extra Racist
Re: Dangers of the Moon: Radio Edition
« Reply #58 on: June 01, 2018, 07:43:13 PM »

Here it is.
Quote
But there are at least three reasons why this explanation doesn’t “hold water,” pardon the pun. First, the gravitational effects of the moon are far too minuscule to generate any meaningful effects on brain activity, let alone behavior ... Second, the moon’s gravitational force affects only open bodies of water, such as oceans and lakes, but not contained sources of water, such as the human brain.
Ok, so first you meant to say moon's gravity. Originally you said they claim "gravity doesn't affect water." But now it's the moon's gravity.
Anyways the main part here is to look at the full quote.
Quote
But there are at least three reasons why this explanation doesn’t “hold water,” pardon the pun. First, the gravitational effects of the moon are far too minuscule to generate any meaningful effects on brain activity, let alone behavior. As the late astronomer George Abell of the University of California, Los Angeles, noted, a mosquito sitting on our arm exerts a more powerful gravitational pull on us than the moon does. Yet to the best of our knowledge, there have been no reports of a “mosquito lunacy effect.” Second, the moon’s gravitational force affects only open bodies of water, such as oceans and lakes, but not contained sources of water, such as the human brain. Third, the gravitational effect of the moon is just as potent during new moons—when the moon is invisible to us—as it is during full moons.
So you can see why they made the claim.


Quote
Do you feel that having a science degree means you wouldn't be an anti-vaxer? You are against the medical opinion on other topics, such as the dangers of the moon. Also, its clear that of those educated folks, 55% didn't believed in lunacy. Your degree then means little.
I'm not ignoring their medical opinion. It's their belief based on no evidence.
"A 2011 study published in the World Journal of Surgery found that more than 40% of medical staff believe that lunar phases can affect human behavior, even though most studies find no direct correlation between the full moon and hospital admission rates. "
And also no claims it's the light, but rather moon phase.
This is why you need to think more critically. This is also why I would not be an anti-vaxor.

Quote
I am at a loss to find any legitimate evidence against the moon's dangers from your silly article that says gravity doesn't affect enclosed water.
Back to the word "gravity". Why do you omit the part where they say "Moon's gravity"? Also it is well know the moon doesn't cause tides in a glass of water, if they were going for something like that.
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

Username

  • President of The Flat Earth Society
  • Administrator
  • 18223
  • +41/-58
  • Most Accurate Scientist Ever
Re: Dangers of the Moon: Radio Edition
« Reply #59 on: June 01, 2018, 08:51:10 PM »

Here it is.
Quote
But there are at least three reasons why this explanation doesn’t “hold water,” pardon the pun. First, the gravitational effects of the moon are far too minuscule to generate any meaningful effects on brain activity, let alone behavior ... Second, the moon’s gravitational force affects only open bodies of water, such as oceans and lakes, but not contained sources of water, such as the human brain.
Ok, so first you meant to say moon's gravity. Originally you said they claim "gravity doesn't affect water." But now it's the moon's gravity.
Anyways the main part here is to look at the full quote.
Quote
But there are at least three reasons why this explanation doesn’t “hold water,” pardon the pun. First, the gravitational effects of the moon are far too minuscule to generate any meaningful effects on brain activity, let alone behavior. As the late astronomer George Abell of the University of California, Los Angeles, noted, a mosquito sitting on our arm exerts a more powerful gravitational pull on us than the moon does. Yet to the best of our knowledge, there have been no reports of a “mosquito lunacy effect.” Second, the moon’s gravitational force affects only open bodies of water, such as oceans and lakes, but not contained sources of water, such as the human brain. Third, the gravitational effect of the moon is just as potent during new moons—when the moon is invisible to us—as it is during full moons.
So you can see why they made the claim.
The claim is incorrect. I fail to see why you are presenting this as evidence against the dangerous nature of the moons light.
Quote

Quote
Do you feel that having a science degree means you wouldn't be an anti-vaxer? You are against the medical opinion on other topics, such as the dangers of the moon. Also, its clear that of those educated folks, 55% didn't believed in lunacy. Your degree then means little.
I'm not ignoring their medical opinion. It's their belief based on no evidence.
"A 2011 study published in the World Journal of Surgery found that more than 40% of medical staff believe that lunar phases can affect human behavior, even though most studies find no direct correlation between the full moon and hospital admission rates. "
And also no claims it's the light, but rather moon phase.
This is why you need to think more critically. This is also why I would not be an anti-vaxor.
Yeah I need to think more critically. Because, you know, hospital admission rates would be the best metric to use. Not.
Quote
Quote
I am at a loss to find any legitimate evidence against the moon's dangers from your silly article that says gravity doesn't affect enclosed water.
Back to the word "gravity". Why do you omit the part where they say "Moon's gravity"? Also it is well know the moon doesn't cause tides in a glass of water, if they were going for something like that.
Do you feel like the moon's gravity should act differently from every other known form of gravity? And you still aren't worried about the dangers of the moon?
If you can't arggue both sides, you understand neitherd