Why is moonlight cold?

Quote from: nnnoooiiissseee on August 07, 2018, 01:50:20 AM

Oh, and here's the monkey wrench you were looking for.

No, there's no monkey wrench there! The earth doesn't rotate once in 24 hours. It rotates once in approximately 23.934 hours so try again!

Expanding that explanation some, the period of rotation of earth is 23h 56m 4.1s = 23.93447 hours, not 24 hours. This is 0.06553 hours less than exactly 24 hours. In half a year (about 182.625 days), that difference accumulates to 0.06553 hours/day * 182.625 days = 11.97 hours, half a day, which is why "after 6 months day would be night and night would be day", which we do observe (for instance, Orion is high in the sky at midnight in December, but high in the sky around midday in June).

"Do you see a problem here?" Yes. The assumed period of rotation is wrong, so the conclusion based on that assumption is wrong.

Sorry.

Quote from: nnnoooiiissseee on August 06, 2018, 02:20:21 PM

Never did get a straight answer on that one... go figure. 

There should be enough observations to understand and explain the reason of this event. but this has not been done yet.

There have been plenty of observations made but most fail to do the same measurement when there is no moon visible.
Had they done that they would find the same cooling whether or not the moon is present - therefore the moon is not the cause of the cooling.

The main problem here that we have to stand on it: is this cooling  the same for different colors and phases of the moon?. for example, the red moon, the blue moon and the white moon, full or crescent, have they same cooling?. Or are they different? this gives us a mind about it. the moon lights of different colors cool down at the same or different value. This works provide us to know that this cooling is independent of the moonlight color and phase of it or not.

It's all the same moon. It can look red at times but only because of the atmosphere we are looking through.
But the name, "blue moon", does not refer to the colour but it's simply a name given to the occasional second moon in a month.

the fact that the cooling is independent or not of the moonlight color will give us more healthy information about the actual source of this cooling.

I have not seen observations made for different moon colors and positions until now. this cooling may be has a single explanation, or there may be different explanations for different phases/colors of the moon.

We can not be sure the main reason of this event, before we see enough and comparative experiments depends on colors and phases of the moon.

There is no cooling due to moonlight. The cooling occurs just as effectively whether to moon is in the sky or not.

The other problem is; the cooling being related with distance or not. For understand this, we have to do an experiment depends on distance of the moon with same shape. For example, two obversations should be made, one of them should be in time while moon is near and the other should be far, but with same color and phase. The difference of temperature works we to understand is the source of cooling depends on moonlight, or only existance of the moon.

Again, there is no cooling effect due to moonlight and that has been demonstrated numerous times.

Mostly in this site we are people who think scientifically, but not soothsayers. it may be wrong to provide information on this issue while there are not enough observations, measurements, researches and experiments.

Sure "think scientifically" and I personally have done "observations, measurements, researches and experiments" and I know that it is the sky, with or without the moon that is so cold.

Even the morning a bit after sunrise, when the sky overhead was quite bright, thee sky overhead measured -34° while objects near the gound and under trees were about 2°C.

Before do these experiments, all theories are in vain. These experiments are not done.

Quote from: wise

Incorrect! I repeat that I and many others have done sufficient experiments to verify that the cooling has nothing to do with the moon.

But if you want some theory. Moonlight is simply reflected sunlight, with direct full moonlight reduced to about 1/360,000 in intensity.
Now various estimates of the heating of a metal plate in direct sunlight indicate that it would heat about 60° above ambient.
Hence the "heating" due to full direct moonlight would be about 60/360,000 = 0.00017° above ambient  - quite negligible.

But the sub-zero night sky is a totally different matter. Here on a clear dry night, as I have said, it measures around -34° and that does cool ojects exposed to it.

The members here are generally researchers or scientists generally writes after a research or observations. So that all commenters are writing here vast in vain. There is nothing surprise here.

I have been writing the truth! And that truth is that moonlight is not cooling in any way at all.

Here we go again. I don't reply seperated posts. Its not a behaviour but generally phsical hardnesses. But if you write in Turkish, then I reply your post by seperating it to thousands of parts.

Here we go again. I don't reply seperated posts. Its not a behaviour but generally phsical hardnesses. But if you write in Turkish, then I reply your post by seperating it to thousands of parts.

Well, that's your problem. Others can read what I write and judge accordingly.

If you write long posts there is little option but to split them up. Keep your posts short and I might not find the need.

Here we go again. I don't reply seperated posts. Its not a behaviour but generally phsical hardnesses. But if you write in Turkish, then I reply your post by seperating it to thousands of parts.

Since you said you have changed, why don't you make the effort and change this not reading separated quotes.

Oh, and here's the monkey wrench you were looking for. I would have used an actual photo of a round earth but NASA doesn't have any... 

That image... Has it ever occured to that person that our clocks are always 12pm at noon because they take this time-shift into account?

Quote from: wise on August 08, 2018, 03:51:10 AM

Here we go again. I don't reply seperated posts. Its not a behaviour but generally phsical hardnesses. But if you write in Turkish, then I reply your post by seperating it to thousands of parts.

Well, that's your problem. Others can read what I write and judge accordingly.

If you write long posts there is little option but to split them up. Keep your posts short and I might not find the need.

I'll consider this.

Quote from: wise on August 08, 2018, 03:51:10 AM

Here we go again. I don't reply seperated posts. Its not a behaviour but generally phsical hardnesses. But if you write in Turkish, then I reply your post by seperating it to thousands of parts.

Since you said you have changed, why don't you make the effort and change this not reading separated quotes.

I've changed accordingly changing the flat earth belief in the world. We are not revenge, we are wisdom after now. but I still have not enough English. It doesn't changed.

Quote from: 17 November on August 06, 2018, 06:40:43 PM

Quote from: rabinoz on August 06, 2018, 04:32:38 PM

Quote from: nnnoooiiissseee on August 06, 2018, 02:20:21 PM

Never did get a straight answer on that one... go figure. 

The clear night sky is what is so cold, not the moonlight!

Well, Lane County Flat Earth Research in Eugene, Oregon got together on a clear night with a full moon in a public park with infrared thermometers which measure the surface temperatures of objects.

We took two at least two temperatures of each of each object: one in direct moonlight and the second in the shade.

The result was consistently that the part of any object in the shade was hotter than the area of the same object in the moonlight. I appreciate that group’s organiser as I was unaware of that hitherto.

And considering that, I don’t have any respect for statements by anyone arguing moonlight is not cold which are devoid of any evidence.

Repeat the same experiment when there is no moon! You'll get the same results! The object in the shade is protected from the cool air and absorbs the heat stored in the material of the shade.

I would welcome and be happy and ready to do what you recommend except that this involves two temperature readings - one in the light and the other in the shade.

Therefore, I am at a loss as to what should be used as the light source for such an experiment during a new moon at night. 

Forgive me for stating the obvious, but if I make the same experiment using the sun as the light source (i.e. making the same dual temperature readings during daytime/ one in direct sunlight & one in the shade), then I’m thinking the results will be the opposite of what I found in the case of a full moon.

So I’m still left concluding that sunlight is hot and moonlight is cold. I can dig it. Why do some folks have such a hang up with that conclusion? Just respectfully asking.

Quote from: FalseProphet on August 06, 2018, 07:04:03 PM

Quote from: 17 November on August 06, 2018, 06:40:43 PM

Well, Lane County Flat Earth Research in Eugene, Oregon got together on a clear night with a full moon in a public park with infrared thermometers which measure the surface temperatures of objects.

We took two at least two temperatures of each of each object: one in direct moonlight and the second in the shade.

The result was consistently that the part of any object in the shade was hotter than the area of the same object in the moonlight. I appreciate that group’s organiser as I was unaware of that hitherto.

And considering that, I don’t have any respect for statements by anyone arguing moonlight is not cold which are devoid of any evidence.

Repeat the same experiment when there is no moon! You'll get the same results! The object in the shade is protected from the cool air and absorbs the heat stored in the material of the shade.

I would welcome and be happy and ready to do what you recommend except that this involves two temperature readings - one in the light and the other in the shade.

Therefore, I am at a loss as to what should be used as the light source for such an experiment during a new moon at night. 

Measure the temperatures of the same objects at the same locations under the same conditions (other than the presence of the moon) as you did when the moon was casting shadows.

So I’m still left concluding that sunlight is hot and moonlight is cold. I can dig it. Why do some folks have such a hang up with that conclusion? Just respectfully asking.

Because there is no reason to believe it's true and many reasons to believe it's incorrect. The experiments that purport to demonstrate that it is true, as they are described, are poorly designed. Perhaps they're intentionally designed to produce the desired result while giving the false impression that they're objective, or perhaps they're poorly designed because the investigator doesn't know how to design a meaningful experiment.

[Edit] Clarification of suggested no-moon experiment.

It is amazing to me that this topic is even a conversation.


cold moonlight?  wow.

Simple, no more heat energy from the sunlight at night...it gets cooler.

Quote from: FalseProphet on August 06, 2018, 07:04:03 PM

Quote from: 17 November on August 06, 2018, 06:40:43 PM

Quote from: rabinoz on August 06, 2018, 04:32:38 PM

Quote from: nnnoooiiissseee on August 06, 2018, 02:20:21 PM

Never did get a straight answer on that one... go figure. 

The clear night sky is what is so cold, not the moonlight!

Well, Lane County Flat Earth Research in Eugene, Oregon got together on a clear night with a full moon in a public park with infrared thermometers which measure the surface temperatures of objects.

We took two at least two temperatures of each of each object: one in direct moonlight and the second in the shade.

The result was consistently that the part of any object in the shade was hotter than the area of the same object in the moonlight. I appreciate that group’s organiser as I was unaware of that hitherto.

And considering that, I don’t have any respect for statements by anyone arguing moonlight is not cold which are devoid of any evidence.

Repeat the same experiment when there is no moon! You'll get the same results! The object in the shade is protected from the cool air and absorbs the heat stored in the material of the shade.

I would welcome and be happy and ready to do what you recommend except that this involves two temperature readings - one in the light and the other in the shade.

Therefore, I am at a loss as to what should be used as the light source for such an experiment during a new moon at night. 

Forgive me for stating the obvious, but if I make the same experiment using the sun as the light source (i.e. making the same dual temperature readings during daytime/ one in direct sunlight & one in the shade), then I’m thinking the results will be the opposite of what I found in the case of a full moon.

So I’m still left concluding that sunlight is hot and moonlight is cold. I can dig it. Why do some folks have such a hang up with that conclusion? Just respectfully asking.

Go back through and read my explanation of what youre comparing.

Ask "experiment designer" Pinky. I'm sure he'll come up with something.

I would welcome and be happy and ready to do what you recommend except that this involves two temperature readings - one in the light and the other in the shade.

Therefore, I am at a loss as to what should be used as the light source for such an experiment during a new moon at night. 

The sky is a "light source". And it is very cold - even in the daytime.
Using an IR thermometer the temperature of the sky (away from the sun or shading objects) at various times and the highest temperature was -18°C at 10 am yesterday (Aug 10).

Forgive me for stating the obvious, but if I make the same experiment using the sun as the light source (i.e. making the same dual temperature readings during daytime/ one in direct sunlight & one in the shade), then I’m thinking the results will be the opposite of what I found in the case of a full moon.

But repeatedly people have been asked to do exactly the same experiments in the same location when there is no moon in the sky.
If the same difference in temperature is observed with or without the moon that certainly indicates that the moon has nothing to do with it.

So I’m still left concluding that sunlight is hot and moonlight is cold. I can dig it. Why do some folks have such a hang up with that conclusion? Just respectfully asking.

I took two containers filled with water and placed one in a location shaded from the sky (under a verandah roof or under a shrub, it moade little difference).
The sky temperature was measured with an IR thermometer directed as near as possible vertical but well away from any overhead objects and the sun (in daylight).
Here are a few of my results - with no moon in the sky.The temperature of that one in the bright sun kept rising.

There is no need for any moon in the sky. The moon does not send out "rays".
Moonlight travels in all directions and has an extremely small heating effect - maybe (50/500,000)°C and virtually impossible to measure.
The temperature of an object is due to an equilibrium between heat lost to the environment and heat gained.
The sky, day or night, is very cold and very little heat is gained from that source but shading objects are usually at about the air temperature and far warmer than the sky.

<< Update to this nice cold (for us) morning >>

So I’m still left concluding that sunlight is hot and moonlight is cold. I can dig it. Why do some folks have such a hang up with that conclusion? Just respectfully asking.

Probably because because light (or other EM radiation) just doesn’t work that way.

At least not without seriously rewriting an entire field of physics.

Why is moonlight cold/ not cold even part of FE?

Why does Spotlight moon require to have a cooling effect?
What "problem" does this solve in FE?

Why is moonlight cold/ not cold even part of FE?

Why does Spotlight moon require to have a cooling effect?
What "problem" does this solve in FE?

No, not really. There may be some FE out there on YouTube saying it, but I hardly ever watch FE videos.

Quote from: Themightykabool on August 13, 2018, 09:29:07 AM

Why is moonlight cold/ not cold even part of FE?

Why does Spotlight moon require to have a cooling effect?
What "problem" does this solve in FE?

No, not really. There may be some FE out there on YouTube saying it, but I hardly ever watch FE videos.

And

Forgive me for stating the obvious, but if I make the same experiment using the sun as the light source (i.e. making the same dual temperature readings during daytime/ one in direct sunlight & one in the shade), then I’m thinking the results will be the opposite of what I found in the case of a full moon.

So I’m still left concluding that sunlight is hot and moonlight is cold. I can dig it. Why do some folks have such a hang up with that conclusion? Just respectfully asking.

Moonlight may seem cold but keep in mind that maximum moonlight is from a full moon, and a full moon comes up at sunset and sets at sunrise.  So a full moon (and its light) occurs only in the dark of night, unlike the quarter moons that appear during part of the daylight.   The result is that a full moon (and its light) is associated with the cold (and dark) of night and the other phases of the moon occur during part of the daytime and might not be noticed then.

Moonlight probably adds only a tiny fraction of a degree warmth to the atmosphere but it is overwhelmed by the drop in temperature after sunset.

So i did some thought experiments. If there was a thing like cold light a.k.a. heat sucking rays - it would have marvelous applications. You could produce light bulbs that emit cold light - all air conditioning manufacturers would go bankrupt as everyone would switch to cooling light bulbs in summer. No need for liquid helium and nitrogen to cool things down. Quantum computers for everyone. No new fridges - just switch a light bulb to new cooling one. Superconductors in sidewalks and in roads that actually levitate things - almost no need for power. Why use watercooling in cars when you can have coldray cooling? You know those IR gas heaters they put up in winter near pubs? Hey, we have a portable CR(cold ray) cooler for summer. Experiments with Einsten-Bose condensate at home. Yes. I always wanted some of these. Ah, and the murders when they find someone cooled to absolute zero. Yes, it has wonderful applications
On the other hand frostbites would probably get most often treated wounds
Seriously - how on flat Earth did you come up with such nonsense. Just take IR camera, go to a road, find a spot that is half in moonlight and half in tree shadow. Actually, don't do that and rather read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light   That should be sufficient to stop making youknowwhat from yourself.

Seriously - how on flat Earth did you come up with such nonsense. Just take IR camera, go to a road, find a spot that is half in moonlight and half in tree shadow.

Seriously, how did you come up with such nonsense?

Quote from: Xxdx on September 05, 2018, 06:05:45 AM

Seriously - how on flat Earth did you come up with such nonsense. Just take IR camera, go to a road, find a spot that is half in moonlight and half in tree shadow.

Seriously, how did you come up with such nonsense?

Simply - got this phone https://www.catphones.com/en_gb/cat-s60-smartphone.html
Edit: Also, why wouldn't it work? If the moonlight was cold, as in reducing temperature cold, it should cool down areas exposed to moonlight.

So i did some thought experiments. If there was a thing like cold light a.k.a. heat sucking rays - it would have marvelous applications. You could produce light bulbs that emit cold light - all air conditioning manufacturers would go bankrupt as everyone would switch to cooling light bulbs in summer. No need for liquid helium and nitrogen to cool things down. Quantum computers for everyone. No new fridges - just switch a light bulb to new cooling one. Superconductors in sidewalks and in roads that actually levitate things - almost no need for power. Why use watercooling in cars when you can have coldray cooling? You know those IR gas heaters they put up in winter near pubs? Hey, we have a portable CR(cold ray) cooler for summer. Experiments with Einsten-Bose condensate at home. Yes. I always wanted some of these. Ah, and the murders when they find someone cooled to absolute zero. Yes, it has wonderful applications
On the other hand frostbites would probably get most often treated wounds
Seriously - how on flat Earth did you come up with such nonsense. Just take IR camera, go to a road, find a spot that is half in moonlight and half in tree shadow. Actually, don't do that and rather read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light   That should be sufficient to stop making youknowwhat from yourself.

Doesn’t Batman villain Mr Freeze have something like this?  Weaponised, naturally.

That’s about as good evidence as anything else you’ll get around here.

Quote from: Curiouser and Curiouser on September 05, 2018, 06:41:27 AM

Quote from: Xxdx on September 05, 2018, 06:05:45 AM

Seriously - how on flat Earth did you come up with such nonsense. Just take IR camera, go to a road, find a spot that is half in moonlight and half in tree shadow.

Seriously, how did you come up with such nonsense?

Simply - got this phone https://www.catphones.com/en_gb/cat-s60-smartphone.html
Edit: Also, why wouldn't it work? If the moonlight was cold, as in reducing temperature cold, it should cool down areas exposed to moonlight.

What do you imagine the temperature resolution of the phone is versus the temperature change you're trying to measure versus the uncontrolled thermodynamic conditions of a road with a tree shadow?

What do you imagine the temperature resolution of the phone is versus the temperature change you're trying to measure versus the uncontrolled thermodynamic conditions of a road with a tree shadow?

Surprisingly good. Yeah, it's the least expensive model by flir and when something has say 10C, than without calibration(and sometimes even with that) you get readings anywhere between 0 and 20C(bit exagaratting), but it shows temperature differences surprisingly well. Wanted to say i could provide proof, but i have rather made one right away...
https://vimeo.com/288388384

Haven't figured out how to insert preview, so just click that. Won't take much of your time, whole video has about 30 seconds.

This could make an interesting experiment for a high school or middle school science project. 

"Hypothesis: sunlight warms and moonlight cools."

You'd need a relatively open space (yard or field) with a fairly uniform surface where the experiment wouldn't be disturbed, in an area free from reflections of moonlight and sunlight from windows or other surfaces, a way to support an obstruction, say a square of thin plywood maybe a half a meter to a meter on a side, horizontally about 4 times the length of a side above the ground to cast a shadow, and a way to record the temperature in at least two places, one that gets shaded from moonlight as the moon moves across the sky, and one that doesn't. Placing fast-reading temperature probes an equal distance from directly below the obstruction, so it blocks the same amount of sky for both would be ideal, or, perhaps a thermal imager would work if one was available. If the obstruction is 4 times as high as it is wide, the sensor will be in the moon's shadow for about an hour if the moon is near the meridian. You'd probably want to record the temperatures continuously for at least a half hour or longer before until that long after the shadow passes over the sensor.

Conducting the experiment during the day, with the sun's shadow passing over one sensor but not the other tests the "sunlight warms" part of hypothesis. It also tests the equipment and technique, so doing that first would probably be worthwhile.

Subtracting the temperature recorded from the control sensor (the one never in shadow) from the temperature recorded from the sensor that the shadow passes over should remove warming or cooling trends from the recorded temperatures, making it easier to see the effect of the shadow on temperature.

If someone has schoolkids and is looking for an experiment for them to do, this could be a good one. The point of a school science project is about designing and conducting a good experiment, with adequate controls, to test an hypothesis, and then analyzing the results and drawing a conclusion. The point is not whether the hypothesis seems preposterous or not, nor whether the result confirms or refutes the hypothesis. If it turns out that the experiment is not able to detect the expected phenomenon, examining why it failed and proposing an improved experiment is also a useful exercise.

Quote from: Curiouser and Curiouser on September 05, 2018, 09:13:49 AM

What do you imagine the temperature resolution of the phone is versus the temperature change you're trying to measure versus the uncontrolled thermodynamic conditions of a road with a tree shadow?

Surprisingly good. Yeah, it's the least expensive model by flir and when something has say 10C, than without calibration(and sometimes even with that) you get readings anywhere between 0 and 20C(bit exagaratting), but it shows temperature differences surprisingly well. Wanted to say i could provide proof, but i have rather made one right away...
https://vimeo.com/288388384

Haven't figured out how to insert preview, so just click that. Won't take much of your time, whole video has about 30 seconds.

What do you imagine the temperature resolution of the phone is versus the temperature change you're trying to measure versus the uncontrolled thermodynamic conditions of a road with a tree shadow?

What do you imagine the temperature resolution of the phone is versus the temperature change you're trying to measure versus the uncontrolled thermodynamic conditions of a road with a tree shadow?

Still saying sufficient. Don't shout at me - i know what they will see - exactly same temperatures.
But because cooling moonlight equals magic, and magic does not need neither exact measurement, neither vacuum chamber to eliminate heat transfer nor higher intensity of light than one lux that the moon gives, if it really is magical cooling moonlight, there should be difference.
And if that magical cold moonlight manages to cool atmosphere, effect on ground would be way higher, as only about 18% of solar radiation is absorbed by atmosphere. Remaining almost all of 70% is absorbed by earth. So yeah, even if it was not magic, still saying sufficient.
Spoilsport. 

Quote from: Curiouser and Curiouser on September 05, 2018, 10:20:57 AM

What do you imagine the temperature resolution of the phone is versus the temperature change you're trying to measure versus the uncontrolled thermodynamic conditions of a road with a tree shadow?

I know what they will see - exactly same temperatures.

Not exactly the same. At least not consistently. A surface under the night sky radiates heat more efficiently. A surface under a tree will radiate less heat, thus having a slightly higher temperature. I doubt you’ll be able to catch that with your phone.

The phone itself is pretty neat though.

Quote from: Curiouser and Curiouser on September 05, 2018, 10:20:57 AM

What do you imagine the temperature resolution of the phone is versus the temperature change you're trying to measure versus the uncontrolled thermodynamic conditions of a road with a tree shadow?

Still saying sufficient. Don't shout at me - i know what they will see - exactly same temperatures.

All caps is shouting. Bold red is pointing out a section you may have missed.

Thank you for pointing out that you believe the instrument will read exactly the same in both circumstances, which means it does not have sufficient temperature resolution to measure the difference, and hence is not a suitable tool to make the measurement.