Dark Moon

  • 183 Replies
  • 4584 Views
*

sokarul

  • 16787
  • Discount Chemist
Re: Dark Moon
« Reply #120 on: February 17, 2020, 07:11:58 PM »
What about looking at the wavelength?
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

Run Sandokhan run

*

Ichimaru Gin :]

  • Undefeated FEer
  • Planar Moderator
  • 8771
  • Semper vigilans
Re: Dark Moon
« Reply #121 on: February 17, 2020, 08:12:31 PM »
I've already explained how bio-luminescent wavelengths were different in Earth's own history. Why would the moon be exactly the same if not even earth's are identical?
I saw a slight haze in the hotel bathroom this morning after I took a shower, have I discovered a new planet?

*

sokarul

  • 16787
  • Discount Chemist
Re: Dark Moon
« Reply #122 on: February 17, 2020, 08:33:09 PM »
The EM spectrum is known.

You never answered my other question why are there shadows?



Doesn’t look like bio luminescent.
« Last Edit: February 18, 2020, 02:53:26 PM by sokarul »
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

Run Sandokhan run

*

rabinoz

  • 24910
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Dark Moon
« Reply #123 on: February 17, 2020, 11:20:24 PM »
I've already explained how bio-luminescent wavelengths were different in Earth's own history. Why would the moon be exactly the same if not even earth's are identical?
Nobody suggested that the spectra of the light from your hypothesised bio-luminescent organisms on the Moon would be exactly the same.

You have yet to show the spectra of the light from any bio-luminescent organisms of earth or on the Moon.

The massive difference that I can see is that the spectrum of moonlight is continuous but with absorption lines for many known elements but
the light from bio-luminescent organisms of earth seems to be confined to single comparatively narrow band - almost mono-chromatic.

Now what about some answers or should we accept the obvious explanation that moonlight is reflected sunlight?

*

Yes

  • 603
Re: Dark Moon
« Reply #124 on: February 18, 2020, 05:43:44 AM »
Now what about some answers or should we accept the obvious explanation that moonlight is reflected sunlight?
Maybe the moonlight is the moon organisms' reflection of sunlight.  That would also explain why fish rot in both moonlight and sunlight.
Signatures are displayed at the bottom of each post or personal message. BBCode and smileys may be used in your signature.

*

rabinoz

  • 24910
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Dark Moon
« Reply #125 on: February 18, 2020, 06:51:03 AM »
Now what about some answers or should we accept the obvious explanation that moonlight is reflected sunlight?
Maybe the moonlight is the moon organisms' reflection of sunlight.  That would also explain why fish rot in both moonlight and sunlight.
Maybe it's this, maybe it's that seems to be the usual flat Earth answer.

*

EvolvedMantisShrimp

  • 914
  • Physical Comedian
Re: Dark Moon
« Reply #126 on: February 18, 2020, 10:10:52 AM »
Now what about some answers or should we accept the obvious explanation that moonlight is reflected sunlight?
Maybe the moonlight is the moon organisms' reflection of sunlight.  That would also explain why fish rot in both moonlight and sunlight.

Regardless of whether it is the moon's surface reflecting sunlight or some sort of creatures on the moon's surface reflecting sunlight, it still amounts to the same thing: The moon is reflecting sunlight.
Nullius in Verba

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16362
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Dark Moon
« Reply #127 on: February 18, 2020, 01:18:57 PM »
Oysters close their shells to shield themselves from the harmful effects of the full moon.
You have provided no evidence that:
  • "Oysters" do "close their shells" at "the full moon" (But I have quoted a report that they are "more closed".) nor that
  • even If they do "close their shells" at "the full moon" the the reason is "to shield themselves from the harmful effects of the full moon."
This seems far more plausible:
Quote from: Jason Daley, SMITHSONIANMAG.COM
Oysters Open and Close Their Shells as the Moon Wanes and Waxes
A new study suggests the mollusks may widen and narrow their shells depending on movement of plankton, which shifts with the lunar cycle.

 a new study published in the journal Biology Letterssuggests oysters are one of the creatures that keep tabs on the moon, and that the lunar cycle influences how widely they open their shells.

Nicola Davis at The Guardian reports that researchers discovered the oysters’ lunar love affair after tracking 12 Pacific oysters, Crassostrea gigas, that they submerged along the French coast. They then watched them carefully through three lunar cycles, each of which lasts 29.5 days. Using electrodes, they measured how widely the oysters opened their shells every 1.6 seconds, then compared that data with data about the moon’s cycle.

They found the oysters paid attention to the phases of the moon: as the moon was waxing, or growing fuller, the oysters narrowed their shells—never closing them completely. And when the moon started waning, or receding to the new moon phase, they widened their shells back up.

What that suggests is the oysters may rely on a internal lunar clock rather than direct cues, like the intensity of the moonlight. If that was the case, they would open their shells equally during the first quarter moon and the last quarter moon since the intensity of the light would be similar. But the oysters reacted differently to those phases suggesting they are following an internal calendar rather than reacting to the moonlight itself.

Yes clearly they learned the schedule and know when to expect danger.
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

Stash

  • 3832
Re: Dark Moon
« Reply #128 on: February 18, 2020, 02:32:36 PM »
Oysters close their shells to shield themselves from the harmful effects of the full moon.
You have provided no evidence that:
  • "Oysters" do "close their shells" at "the full moon" (But I have quoted a report that they are "more closed".) nor that
  • even If they do "close their shells" at "the full moon" the the reason is "to shield themselves from the harmful effects of the full moon."
This seems far more plausible:
Quote from: Jason Daley, SMITHSONIANMAG.COM
Oysters Open and Close Their Shells as the Moon Wanes and Waxes
A new study suggests the mollusks may widen and narrow their shells depending on movement of plankton, which shifts with the lunar cycle.

 a new study published in the journal Biology Letterssuggests oysters are one of the creatures that keep tabs on the moon, and that the lunar cycle influences how widely they open their shells.

Nicola Davis at The Guardian reports that researchers discovered the oysters’ lunar love affair after tracking 12 Pacific oysters, Crassostrea gigas, that they submerged along the French coast. They then watched them carefully through three lunar cycles, each of which lasts 29.5 days. Using electrodes, they measured how widely the oysters opened their shells every 1.6 seconds, then compared that data with data about the moon’s cycle.

They found the oysters paid attention to the phases of the moon: as the moon was waxing, or growing fuller, the oysters narrowed their shells—never closing them completely. And when the moon started waning, or receding to the new moon phase, they widened their shells back up.

What that suggests is the oysters may rely on a internal lunar clock rather than direct cues, like the intensity of the moonlight. If that was the case, they would open their shells equally during the first quarter moon and the last quarter moon since the intensity of the light would be similar. But the oysters reacted differently to those phases suggesting they are following an internal calendar rather than reacting to the moonlight itself.

Yes clearly they learned the schedule and know when to expect danger.

No where is there any indication of expected 'danger'. You literally just made that up.
No. That sudden lurch forwards is the atmospheric slosh effect.

*

rabinoz

  • 24910
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Dark Moon
« Reply #129 on: February 18, 2020, 05:08:38 PM »
Looking at the gonads is the key
Stare at them as long as you like but it doesn't answer the question.

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16362
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Dark Moon
« Reply #130 on: February 19, 2020, 11:34:51 AM »
Oysters close their shells to shield themselves from the harmful effects of the full moon.
You have provided no evidence that:
  • "Oysters" do "close their shells" at "the full moon" (But I have quoted a report that they are "more closed".) nor that
  • even If they do "close their shells" at "the full moon" the the reason is "to shield themselves from the harmful effects of the full moon."
This seems far more plausible:
Quote from: Jason Daley, SMITHSONIANMAG.COM
Oysters Open and Close Their Shells as the Moon Wanes and Waxes
A new study suggests the mollusks may widen and narrow their shells depending on movement of plankton, which shifts with the lunar cycle.

 a new study published in the journal Biology Letterssuggests oysters are one of the creatures that keep tabs on the moon, and that the lunar cycle influences how widely they open their shells.

Nicola Davis at The Guardian reports that researchers discovered the oysters’ lunar love affair after tracking 12 Pacific oysters, Crassostrea gigas, that they submerged along the French coast. They then watched them carefully through three lunar cycles, each of which lasts 29.5 days. Using electrodes, they measured how widely the oysters opened their shells every 1.6 seconds, then compared that data with data about the moon’s cycle.

They found the oysters paid attention to the phases of the moon: as the moon was waxing, or growing fuller, the oysters narrowed their shells—never closing them completely. And when the moon started waning, or receding to the new moon phase, they widened their shells back up.

What that suggests is the oysters may rely on a internal lunar clock rather than direct cues, like the intensity of the moonlight. If that was the case, they would open their shells equally during the first quarter moon and the last quarter moon since the intensity of the light would be similar. But the oysters reacted differently to those phases suggesting they are following an internal calendar rather than reacting to the moonlight itself.

Yes clearly they learned the schedule and know when to expect danger.

No where is there any indication of expected 'danger'. You literally just made that up.
I assume then you think these oysters close their shells for fun?
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

magellanclavichord

  • 897
  • Cheerful Globularist
Re: Dark Moon
« Reply #131 on: February 19, 2020, 11:41:42 AM »
I assume then you think these oysters close their shells for fun?

The article makes it clear that the oysters are not trying to avoid moon light. Whatever causes them to open and close their shells, is clearly not a fear of any danger in the light. It could easily be something as simple as more abundant food during the full moon, and less abundant during new moon, and they need to open wider when there's less food. There's zero evidence that they're afraid of moon light. And there's abundant evidence that people expose themselves to moon light with no ill effects.

Anomaly-hunting is not science.

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16362
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Dark Moon
« Reply #132 on: February 19, 2020, 11:51:45 AM »
I assume then you think these oysters close their shells for fun?

The article makes it clear that the oysters are not trying to avoid moon light. Whatever causes them to open and close their shells, is clearly not a fear of any danger in the light. It could easily be something as simple as more abundant food during the full moon, and less abundant during new moon, and they need to open wider when there's less food. There's zero evidence that they're afraid of moon light. And there's abundant evidence that people expose themselves to moon light with no ill effects.

Anomaly-hunting is not science.
It makes no such thing clear. It simply says that lack of the light does not affect them; this would make sense if it was a learned behavior or if it developed due to a queue that the danger would be likely to present itself. Perhaps tides.

And yes, anomaly hunting is science. It's called "normal science." You can read about it in Thomas Kuhn's "Structure of Scientific Revolutions." But of course you know more about science than all of us dumb flat earthers right?

You make a lot of "It could be as simple as" and very little evidence to support these wild claims. On the other hand there is a direct relationship between the full moon and this behavior.
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

Stash

  • 3832
Re: Dark Moon
« Reply #133 on: February 19, 2020, 12:21:50 PM »
I assume then you think these oysters close their shells for fun?

The article makes it clear that the oysters are not trying to avoid moon light. Whatever causes them to open and close their shells, is clearly not a fear of any danger in the light. It could easily be something as simple as more abundant food during the full moon, and less abundant during new moon, and they need to open wider when there's less food. There's zero evidence that they're afraid of moon light. And there's abundant evidence that people expose themselves to moon light with no ill effects.

Anomaly-hunting is not science.
It makes no such thing clear. It simply says that lack of the light does not affect them; this would make sense if it was a learned behavior or if it developed due to a queue that the danger would be likely to present itself. Perhaps tides.

The article states:

"So why would the oysters care about the phases of the moon? Laura Payton, a co-author of the study from the University of Bordeaux, tells Davis at The Guardian she has a guess. “We know that oysters open their valves when there is food,” she says, and previous research has shown that the movement of plankton, which oysters filter out of seawater and consume, is influenced by moonlight."

It mentions nothing about 'danger', 'harmful', whatever. You literally are making up the notion that "oysters are afraid of moonlight..." or the like based upon nothing.
No. That sudden lurch forwards is the atmospheric slosh effect.

Re: Dark Moon
« Reply #134 on: February 19, 2020, 12:25:28 PM »
I assume then you think these oysters close their shells for fun?
Not closing for fun doesn't equate to closing to avoid danger of the moonlight.

You make a lot of "It could be as simple as" and very little evidence to support these wild claims. On the other hand there is a direct relationship between the full moon and this behavior.
No, there isn't.
There is a correlation between the period of the cycle of the moon and the period of the behaviour.

That doesn't make it a direct relationship to the full moon, and far more importantly, it doesn't make it a relationship or correlation to moonlight.

It in no way shows that moonlight is dangerous.

It would be like saying people going inside and sleeping at night shows that the darkness of night is somehow intrinsically dangerous and harming us all.

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16362
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Dark Moon
« Reply #135 on: February 19, 2020, 12:46:07 PM »
I assume then you think these oysters close their shells for fun?

The article makes it clear that the oysters are not trying to avoid moon light. Whatever causes them to open and close their shells, is clearly not a fear of any danger in the light. It could easily be something as simple as more abundant food during the full moon, and less abundant during new moon, and they need to open wider when there's less food. There's zero evidence that they're afraid of moon light. And there's abundant evidence that people expose themselves to moon light with no ill effects.

Anomaly-hunting is not science.
It makes no such thing clear. It simply says that lack of the light does not affect them; this would make sense if it was a learned behavior or if it developed due to a queue that the danger would be likely to present itself. Perhaps tides.

The article states:

"So why would the oysters care about the phases of the moon? Laura Payton, a co-author of the study from the University of Bordeaux, tells Davis at The Guardian she has a guess. “We know that oysters open their valves when there is food,” she says, and previous research has shown that the movement of plankton, which oysters filter out of seawater and consume, is influenced by moonlight."

It mentions nothing about 'danger', 'harmful', whatever. You literally are making up the notion that "oysters are afraid of moonlight..." or the like based upon nothing.
It does mention nothing about that. But I am making up my "guess" as much so as she made up her "guess." Mine obviously fits within the argument I am making, and hers her argument. Funny enough, the fact that plankton is influenced by moonlight also supports my general hypothesis. As things are stated, we seem to be on even ground.
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

Crutchwater

  • 2148
  • Stop Indoctrinating me!
Re: Dark Moon
« Reply #136 on: February 19, 2020, 12:58:54 PM »
I assume then you think these oysters close their shells for fun?

The article makes it clear that the oysters are not trying to avoid moon light. Whatever causes them to open and close their shells, is clearly not a fear of any danger in the light. It could easily be something as simple as more abundant food during the full moon, and less abundant during new moon, and they need to open wider when there's less food. There's zero evidence that they're afraid of moon light. And there's abundant evidence that people expose themselves to moon light with no ill effects.

Anomaly-hunting is not science.
It makes no such thing clear. It simply says that lack of the light does not affect them; this would make sense if it was a learned behavior or if it developed due to a queue that the danger would be likely to present itself. Perhaps tides.

The article states:

"So why would the oysters care about the phases of the moon? Laura Payton, a co-author of the study from the University of Bordeaux, tells Davis at The Guardian she has a guess. “We know that oysters open their valves when there is food,” she says, and previous research has shown that the movement of plankton, which oysters filter out of seawater and consume, is influenced by moonlight."

It mentions nothing about 'danger', 'harmful', whatever. You literally are making up the notion that "oysters are afraid of moonlight..." or the like based upon nothing.
It does mention nothing about that. But I am making up my "guess" as much so as she made up her "guess." Mine obviously fits within the argument I am making, and hers her argument. Funny enough, the fact that plankton is influenced by moonlight also supports my general hypothesis. As things are stated, we seem to be on even ground.

Plankton are believed to recede to deeper water during brighter lunar phases because they are food, so, in that sense you may be correct in saying that moonlight is dangerous.
I will always be Here To Laugh At You.

*

magellanclavichord

  • 897
  • Cheerful Globularist
Re: Dark Moon
« Reply #137 on: February 19, 2020, 01:02:43 PM »
I assume then you think these oysters close their shells for fun?

The article makes it clear that the oysters are not trying to avoid moon light. Whatever causes them to open and close their shells, is clearly not a fear of any danger in the light. It could easily be something as simple as more abundant food during the full moon, and less abundant during new moon, and they need to open wider when there's less food. There's zero evidence that they're afraid of moon light. And there's abundant evidence that people expose themselves to moon light with no ill effects.

Anomaly-hunting is not science.
It makes no such thing clear. It simply says that lack of the light does not affect them; this would make sense if it was a learned behavior or if it developed due to a queue that the danger would be likely to present itself. Perhaps tides.

The article states:

"So why would the oysters care about the phases of the moon? Laura Payton, a co-author of the study from the University of Bordeaux, tells Davis at The Guardian she has a guess. “We know that oysters open their valves when there is food,” she says, and previous research has shown that the movement of plankton, which oysters filter out of seawater and consume, is influenced by moonlight."

It mentions nothing about 'danger', 'harmful', whatever. You literally are making up the notion that "oysters are afraid of moonlight..." or the like based upon nothing.
It does mention nothing about that. But I am making up my "guess" as much so as she made up her "guess." Mine obviously fits within the argument I am making, and hers her argument. Funny enough, the fact that plankton is influenced by moonlight also supports my general hypothesis. As things are stated, we seem to be on even ground.

Not at all. You are claiming that moonlight is dangerous to people, and supporting this with an observation about bivalve mollusks.

However, I applaud your honesty in admitting that you are just guessing. One of the hallmarks of pseudoscience is to make an observation for which there is not a clear understanding, and concluding that some explanation out of left field with no evidence at all must be the true one. The classic example is, "I saw a light in the sky. If you can't tell me exactly what it was, then it must have been a flying saucer from the planet Bogash 12 with extraterrestrial squirrels who are here to steal coconuts."

In this case, you note a correlation between oysters and the phases of the moon, and you assert that it must mean that moon light is harmful. A thousand other explanations are more likely.

You also employ the false-equivalents fallacy when you say that your theory that oysters are afraid of moon light is equal to Payton's theory that they respond to the presence of plankton.

*

Stash

  • 3832
Re: Dark Moon
« Reply #138 on: February 19, 2020, 01:09:58 PM »
I assume then you think these oysters close their shells for fun?

The article makes it clear that the oysters are not trying to avoid moon light. Whatever causes them to open and close their shells, is clearly not a fear of any danger in the light. It could easily be something as simple as more abundant food during the full moon, and less abundant during new moon, and they need to open wider when there's less food. There's zero evidence that they're afraid of moon light. And there's abundant evidence that people expose themselves to moon light with no ill effects.

Anomaly-hunting is not science.
It makes no such thing clear. It simply says that lack of the light does not affect them; this would make sense if it was a learned behavior or if it developed due to a queue that the danger would be likely to present itself. Perhaps tides.

The article states:

"So why would the oysters care about the phases of the moon? Laura Payton, a co-author of the study from the University of Bordeaux, tells Davis at The Guardian she has a guess. “We know that oysters open their valves when there is food,” she says, and previous research has shown that the movement of plankton, which oysters filter out of seawater and consume, is influenced by moonlight."

It mentions nothing about 'danger', 'harmful', whatever. You literally are making up the notion that "oysters are afraid of moonlight..." or the like based upon nothing.
It does mention nothing about that. But I am making up my "guess" as much so as she made up her "guess." Mine obviously fits within the argument I am making, and hers her argument. Funny enough, the fact that plankton is influenced by moonlight also supports my general hypothesis. As things are stated, we seem to be on even ground.

I hardly think you are on even ground with Dr Laura Payton, Postdoctoral researcher, Alfred Wegener Institute (AWI), her bio:
I am a postdoctoral researcher based at the University of Oldenburg and the Alfred Wegener Institute (AWI). I work on biological rhythms and endogenous molecular clocks in marine organisms, i.e. how organisms are adapted to their cyclic ecosystem and temporally organize accordingly.

Her 'guess' is based upon previous scientific research/studies and her own work as a Phd in the field.

Your 'guess' is based upon making things up that don't appear in the research presented.

No. That sudden lurch forwards is the atmospheric slosh effect.

Re: Dark Moon
« Reply #139 on: February 19, 2020, 01:36:15 PM »
It does mention nothing about that. But I am making up my "guess" as much so as she made up her "guess." Mine obviously fits within the argument I am making, and hers her argument. Funny enough, the fact that plankton is influenced by moonlight also supports my general hypothesis. As things are stated, we seem to be on even ground.
No, it isn't.
That is because you ignore something she focuses on.
It is not based upon the moonlight itself, as if it was it would be symmetric about the full moon.
It in no way demonstrates any danger of moonlight.

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16362
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Dark Moon
« Reply #140 on: February 19, 2020, 01:41:14 PM »
My so called "guess" is nothing of the sort. It is categorically the same as hers. I am an expert in the field of astronomy; my work is reviewed by my peers, and I work for a research organization (The Flat Earth Society.)

A PhD is meaningless. I've met so many useless PhDs that knew little of their own fields. The academic establishment is a joke that barely can sustain itself financially, feeding off the working class by putting them in debt and making them essentially slaves while failing to provide them with the basic skills to excel in their fields. They should be ashamed of what they are doing to society.
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

magellanclavichord

  • 897
  • Cheerful Globularist
Re: Dark Moon
« Reply #141 on: February 19, 2020, 04:57:01 PM »
Calling the Flat Earth Society a "research organization" is the funniest thing I've ever seen. The FES does no original research and has never had anything published in a peer-reviewed journal. Individuals in the FES watch crackpot YouTube videos and call it "research." Having work by a flat-Earther "reviewed" by members of the FES is like having the ravings of a lunatic in a mental hospital reviewed by his "peer" inmates in the asylum.

I'll say it again: It is just not possible for anybody to actually believe that the Earth is flat. Go to the sea, you can see that the Earth is round, take an airplane flight from Australia to either South America or southern Africa and you can see the Earth is round. Look up in the sky and see the ISS flying over, you can see that the Earth is round. Shove a stick in the ground, you can see that the Earth is round. It's just not possible to believe it's flat.

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16362
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Dark Moon
« Reply #142 on: February 19, 2020, 04:58:52 PM »
Odd you mention that, because the Flat Earth Society published a peer reviewed journal.
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16362
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Dark Moon
« Reply #143 on: February 19, 2020, 04:59:03 PM »
Quite a few really.
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16362
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Dark Moon
« Reply #144 on: February 19, 2020, 04:59:38 PM »
Of course, if we had to pick from the globularists - it would be hard to find a peer amongst them.
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

rabinoz

  • 24910
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Dark Moon
« Reply #145 on: February 19, 2020, 05:31:59 PM »
Odd you mention that, because the Flat Earth Society published a peer reviewed journal.
Odd you mention that, because you say "the Flat Earth Society published a peer reviewed journal" but don't even give a link to it.

Re: Dark Moon
« Reply #146 on: February 19, 2020, 07:57:05 PM »
I assume then you think these oysters close their shells for fun?

The article makes it clear that the oysters are not trying to avoid moon light. Whatever causes them to open and close their shells, is clearly not a fear of any danger in the light. It could easily be something as simple as more abundant food during the full moon, and less abundant during new moon, and they need to open wider when there's less food. There's zero evidence that they're afraid of moon light. And there's abundant evidence that people expose themselves to moon light with no ill effects.

Anomaly-hunting is not science.
It makes no such thing clear. It simply says that lack of the light does not affect them; this would make sense if it was a learned behavior or if it developed due to a queue that the danger would be likely to present itself. Perhaps tides.

And yes, anomaly hunting is science. It's called "normal science." You can read about it in Thomas Kuhn's "Structure of Scientific Revolutions." But of course you know more about science than all of us dumb flat earthers right?

You make a lot of "It could be as simple as" and very little evidence to support these wild claims. On the other hand there is a direct relationship between the full moon and this behavior.
And there is a direct correlation with the full moon and tides.
Do the oysters open when there is a heavy overcast.
The the universe has no obligation to makes sense to you.
The earth is a globe.

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16362
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Dark Moon
« Reply #147 on: February 19, 2020, 08:39:06 PM »
Odd you mention that, because the Flat Earth Society published a peer reviewed journal.
Odd you mention that, because you say "the Flat Earth Society published a peer reviewed journal" but don't even give a link to it.
Shit you might have to pick up a book or go to a library. If you can't find it.

Here's some Daniel digitalized. https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/home/index.php/flat-earth-library/pamphlets-and-journals

Of course this is just what we managed to get. The entire ouvre is quite a bit larger.
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16362
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Dark Moon
« Reply #148 on: February 19, 2020, 08:39:36 PM »
The fire and all.
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

rabinoz

  • 24910
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Dark Moon
« Reply #149 on: February 19, 2020, 11:43:32 PM »
Odd you mention that, because the Flat Earth Society published a peer reviewed journal.
Odd you mention that, because you say "the Flat Earth Society published a peer reviewed journal" but don't even give a link to it.
Shit you might have to pick up a book or go to a library. If you can't find it.

Here's some Daniel digitalized. https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/home/index.php/flat-earth-library/pamphlets-and-journals

Of course this is just what we managed to get. The entire ouvre is quite a bit larger.
And what book or library might have copies of The Flat Earth Society Library: Pamphlets & Journals Collection?

And where is there any evidence of peer review?

I've read some and find this sort of thing:
The Sea-Earth Globe and and its Monstrous Hypothetical Motions by Albert Smith (Zetetes)

It does have some interesting claims:
"(7). The distant horizon being always on a level with the eye, whatever be the altitude of the observer, it seems to rise, or to fall, with the observer; but he never has occasion to depress his vision to look downwards towards it, nor upwards !"

Really? Does everyone agree.

And the section starting on page 31 on "TWO POLES." is quite "instructive" with this on page 33:
"It then goes round with the southern currents, daily, contracting its circle in a fine spiral until it arrives at 231/2°S. when, having lost its further southern tendency or swirl, electrical and magnetic forces, doubtless under intelligent supervision, drive it again northwards. Similar explanations apply to the moon, and to the planets, but with different periods, owing to their different altitudes, as already explained in a former article."


Maybe you can suggest something that fits what we can more easily see without those bendy light and "doubtless under intelligent supervision" hypotheses.