Are people really still going to push the moon is harmless?

  • 192 Replies
  • 12813 Views
*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: Are people really still going to push the moon is harmless?
« Reply #60 on: September 20, 2022, 12:30:17 PM »
Effect of moonlight on plant.

What you see is a calcium defense



Obviously the plant is in distress in the moonlight

There's no mention in their paper regarding moonlight...

Glutamate-induced calcium signaling in astrocytes

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17563
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
Re: Are people really still going to push the moon is harmless?
« Reply #61 on: September 20, 2022, 01:06:58 PM »
Too bad I have shared first hand experimental data that shows just how metabolically harmful moonlight is to plants.
And care to provide any of that, along with the experimental methedology?

There is no embellishment with the use of science. Flat earthers invented science. Then we ascended to the next plane of experimentation.
Pure BS.
FEers hate science, and run from it all the time.
Indeed, experimentally we have shown the production of excess collenchyma due to moonlight exposure.

Your remarks on science are laughable. Flat earthers invented the very notion. I think your upside question mark avatar is befitting of globularists: hide questions at costs. Do not investigate.

Where can one see the results of this experimentation?
You can find it in our forums. Specifically the believers section.

Herein lies the problem. I did search Believers and found this from Ichimaru Gin :]:

Experiment regarding the biological effects of moonlight
« on: November 08, 2009, 04:25:42 PM

Rattlesnakes and other animals harmed by moonlight

Quote
This study investigated the effect of moonlight on the nocturnal activity patterns of prairie rattlesnakes (Crotalus viridis viridis). The effect of stimulated moonlight on six adults and eight juvenile prairie rattlesnakes was tested under laboratory conditions in which temperature, feeding frequency, and photoperiod were controlled. The snakes were maintained and tested under a summer photoperiod of 14L: 10D h cycle. The activity of each snake was measured using an index of tracking in the sand floor of a test chamber under new, half, three-quarters, and full moon light (0.06, 0.35, 1.00, and 2.10 lux, respectively). Adult snake activity was significantly greater in new moonlight (starlight only) when compared to activity in three-quarter and full moonlight. The adults also significantly increased activity in open areas in dim moonlight.

Ichi follows this with:

"Upon further review of the experiment, the cells within the rattlesnakes were found to have damage in such a way that proteins geared towards transcription were acutely damaged an in such a manner created a causation of incorrect codon pairing."

He cited the experiment/paper:

The Effect of Moonlight on Activity Patterns of Adult and Juvenile Prairie Rattlesnakes (Crotalus viridis viridis)
Author(s): Jennifer A. Clarke, Joseph T. Chopko and Stephen P. Mackessy
Source: Journal of Herpetology, Vol. 30, No. 2 (Jun., 1996), pp. 192-197
Published by: Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles


I looked up the paper referenced, it can be found here:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263101200_The_Effect_of_Moonlight_on_Activity_Patterns_of_Adult_and_Juvenile_Prairie_Rattlesnakes_Crotalus_viridis_viridis

No where in the paper does it mention anything about cell damage. No mention at all. No testing of cells even occurred, just the activity of the snakes, no blood tests, no nothing.

So it appears that Ichi completely fabricated, "...Upon further review of the experiment, the cells within the rattlesnakes were found to have damage ..."

This gives me great pause in regard to the veracity of anything you or he says.
Why would you think that something discovered under further review would be directed stated in the original paper?

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: Are people really still going to push the moon is harmless?
« Reply #62 on: September 20, 2022, 01:48:39 PM »
Too bad I have shared first hand experimental data that shows just how metabolically harmful moonlight is to plants.
And care to provide any of that, along with the experimental methedology?

There is no embellishment with the use of science. Flat earthers invented science. Then we ascended to the next plane of experimentation.
Pure BS.
FEers hate science, and run from it all the time.
Indeed, experimentally we have shown the production of excess collenchyma due to moonlight exposure.

Your remarks on science are laughable. Flat earthers invented the very notion. I think your upside question mark avatar is befitting of globularists: hide questions at costs. Do not investigate.

Where can one see the results of this experimentation?
You can find it in our forums. Specifically the believers section.

Herein lies the problem. I did search Believers and found this from Ichimaru Gin :]:

Experiment regarding the biological effects of moonlight
« on: November 08, 2009, 04:25:42 PM

Rattlesnakes and other animals harmed by moonlight

Quote
This study investigated the effect of moonlight on the nocturnal activity patterns of prairie rattlesnakes (Crotalus viridis viridis). The effect of stimulated moonlight on six adults and eight juvenile prairie rattlesnakes was tested under laboratory conditions in which temperature, feeding frequency, and photoperiod were controlled. The snakes were maintained and tested under a summer photoperiod of 14L: 10D h cycle. The activity of each snake was measured using an index of tracking in the sand floor of a test chamber under new, half, three-quarters, and full moon light (0.06, 0.35, 1.00, and 2.10 lux, respectively). Adult snake activity was significantly greater in new moonlight (starlight only) when compared to activity in three-quarter and full moonlight. The adults also significantly increased activity in open areas in dim moonlight.

Ichi follows this with:

"Upon further review of the experiment, the cells within the rattlesnakes were found to have damage in such a way that proteins geared towards transcription were acutely damaged an in such a manner created a causation of incorrect codon pairing."

He cited the experiment/paper:

The Effect of Moonlight on Activity Patterns of Adult and Juvenile Prairie Rattlesnakes (Crotalus viridis viridis)
Author(s): Jennifer A. Clarke, Joseph T. Chopko and Stephen P. Mackessy
Source: Journal of Herpetology, Vol. 30, No. 2 (Jun., 1996), pp. 192-197
Published by: Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles


I looked up the paper referenced, it can be found here:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263101200_The_Effect_of_Moonlight_on_Activity_Patterns_of_Adult_and_Juvenile_Prairie_Rattlesnakes_Crotalus_viridis_viridis

No where in the paper does it mention anything about cell damage. No mention at all. No testing of cells even occurred, just the activity of the snakes, no blood tests, no nothing.

So it appears that Ichi completely fabricated, "...Upon further review of the experiment, the cells within the rattlesnakes were found to have damage ..."

This gives me great pause in regard to the veracity of anything you or he says.
Why would you think that something discovered under further review would be directed stated in the original paper?

Because how does one perform a further review of the experiment/paper and find something that was never a part of the experiment/paper? There's nothing in the experiment/paper that has anything to do, even remotely, with Prairie Rattlesnakes experiencing cell damage from moonlight. That's a complete fabrication. And I find that disingenuous and disturbing.

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17563
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
Re: Are people really still going to push the moon is harmless?
« Reply #63 on: September 20, 2022, 01:50:20 PM »
Too bad I have shared first hand experimental data that shows just how metabolically harmful moonlight is to plants.
And care to provide any of that, along with the experimental methedology?

There is no embellishment with the use of science. Flat earthers invented science. Then we ascended to the next plane of experimentation.
Pure BS.
FEers hate science, and run from it all the time.
Indeed, experimentally we have shown the production of excess collenchyma due to moonlight exposure.

Your remarks on science are laughable. Flat earthers invented the very notion. I think your upside question mark avatar is befitting of globularists: hide questions at costs. Do not investigate.

Where can one see the results of this experimentation?
You can find it in our forums. Specifically the believers section.

Herein lies the problem. I did search Believers and found this from Ichimaru Gin :]:

Experiment regarding the biological effects of moonlight
« on: November 08, 2009, 04:25:42 PM

Rattlesnakes and other animals harmed by moonlight

Quote
This study investigated the effect of moonlight on the nocturnal activity patterns of prairie rattlesnakes (Crotalus viridis viridis). The effect of stimulated moonlight on six adults and eight juvenile prairie rattlesnakes was tested under laboratory conditions in which temperature, feeding frequency, and photoperiod were controlled. The snakes were maintained and tested under a summer photoperiod of 14L: 10D h cycle. The activity of each snake was measured using an index of tracking in the sand floor of a test chamber under new, half, three-quarters, and full moon light (0.06, 0.35, 1.00, and 2.10 lux, respectively). Adult snake activity was significantly greater in new moonlight (starlight only) when compared to activity in three-quarter and full moonlight. The adults also significantly increased activity in open areas in dim moonlight.

Ichi follows this with:

"Upon further review of the experiment, the cells within the rattlesnakes were found to have damage in such a way that proteins geared towards transcription were acutely damaged an in such a manner created a causation of incorrect codon pairing."

He cited the experiment/paper:

The Effect of Moonlight on Activity Patterns of Adult and Juvenile Prairie Rattlesnakes (Crotalus viridis viridis)
Author(s): Jennifer A. Clarke, Joseph T. Chopko and Stephen P. Mackessy
Source: Journal of Herpetology, Vol. 30, No. 2 (Jun., 1996), pp. 192-197
Published by: Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles


I looked up the paper referenced, it can be found here:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263101200_The_Effect_of_Moonlight_on_Activity_Patterns_of_Adult_and_Juvenile_Prairie_Rattlesnakes_Crotalus_viridis_viridis

No where in the paper does it mention anything about cell damage. No mention at all. No testing of cells even occurred, just the activity of the snakes, no blood tests, no nothing.

So it appears that Ichi completely fabricated, "...Upon further review of the experiment, the cells within the rattlesnakes were found to have damage ..."

This gives me great pause in regard to the veracity of anything you or he says.
Why would you think that something discovered under further review would be directed stated in the original paper?

Because how does one perform a further review of the experiment/paper and find something that was never a part of the experiment/paper? There's nothing in the experiment/paper that has anything to do, even remotely, with Prairie Rattlesnakes experiencing cell damage from moonlight. That's a complete fabrication. And I find that disingenuous and disturbing.
Seems pretty easy. Have you never read a paper and noticed something in the data and realized it correlates to something else usually but that would have been outside of the scope of the paper so not mentioned? It's literally the normal process when you research anything. But we can wait for Ichi to defend himself, of which I'm sure he's more than capable of.

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: Are people really still going to push the moon is harmless?
« Reply #64 on: September 20, 2022, 03:26:46 PM »
Too bad I have shared first hand experimental data that shows just how metabolically harmful moonlight is to plants.
And care to provide any of that, along with the experimental methedology?

There is no embellishment with the use of science. Flat earthers invented science. Then we ascended to the next plane of experimentation.
Pure BS.
FEers hate science, and run from it all the time.
Indeed, experimentally we have shown the production of excess collenchyma due to moonlight exposure.

Your remarks on science are laughable. Flat earthers invented the very notion. I think your upside question mark avatar is befitting of globularists: hide questions at costs. Do not investigate.

Where can one see the results of this experimentation?
You can find it in our forums. Specifically the believers section.

Herein lies the problem. I did search Believers and found this from Ichimaru Gin :]:

Experiment regarding the biological effects of moonlight
« on: November 08, 2009, 04:25:42 PM

Rattlesnakes and other animals harmed by moonlight

Quote
This study investigated the effect of moonlight on the nocturnal activity patterns of prairie rattlesnakes (Crotalus viridis viridis). The effect of stimulated moonlight on six adults and eight juvenile prairie rattlesnakes was tested under laboratory conditions in which temperature, feeding frequency, and photoperiod were controlled. The snakes were maintained and tested under a summer photoperiod of 14L: 10D h cycle. The activity of each snake was measured using an index of tracking in the sand floor of a test chamber under new, half, three-quarters, and full moon light (0.06, 0.35, 1.00, and 2.10 lux, respectively). Adult snake activity was significantly greater in new moonlight (starlight only) when compared to activity in three-quarter and full moonlight. The adults also significantly increased activity in open areas in dim moonlight.

Ichi follows this with:

"Upon further review of the experiment, the cells within the rattlesnakes were found to have damage in such a way that proteins geared towards transcription were acutely damaged an in such a manner created a causation of incorrect codon pairing."

He cited the experiment/paper:

The Effect of Moonlight on Activity Patterns of Adult and Juvenile Prairie Rattlesnakes (Crotalus viridis viridis)
Author(s): Jennifer A. Clarke, Joseph T. Chopko and Stephen P. Mackessy
Source: Journal of Herpetology, Vol. 30, No. 2 (Jun., 1996), pp. 192-197
Published by: Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles


I looked up the paper referenced, it can be found here:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263101200_The_Effect_of_Moonlight_on_Activity_Patterns_of_Adult_and_Juvenile_Prairie_Rattlesnakes_Crotalus_viridis_viridis

No where in the paper does it mention anything about cell damage. No mention at all. No testing of cells even occurred, just the activity of the snakes, no blood tests, no nothing.

So it appears that Ichi completely fabricated, "...Upon further review of the experiment, the cells within the rattlesnakes were found to have damage ..."

This gives me great pause in regard to the veracity of anything you or he says.
Why would you think that something discovered under further review would be directed stated in the original paper?

Because how does one perform a further review of the experiment/paper and find something that was never a part of the experiment/paper? There's nothing in the experiment/paper that has anything to do, even remotely, with Prairie Rattlesnakes experiencing cell damage from moonlight. That's a complete fabrication. And I find that disingenuous and disturbing.
Seems pretty easy. Have you never read a paper and noticed something in the data and realized it correlates to something else usually but that would have been outside of the scope of the paper so not mentioned? It's literally the normal process when you research anything. But we can wait for Ichi to defend himself, of which I'm sure he's more than capable of.

These need to be shown before one can accept the claim that indirect measurements are accurate, as well as a direct measurement to confirm the indirect. This has all been a huge exercise in 'correlation does not imply cause.'

You have shown plenty of correlation. You have not shown any cause, or any direct measurement to support your correlation.

You seem to be talking out of both sides of your mouth.

How does one correlate the findings of a prairie rattlesnake's nocturnal activity, i.e., moving about more or less, with cell damage from moonlight when the findings don't even address anything having to do will cells, damage, etc?

The findings of the study cited simply say, "Moonlight avoidance may be a strategy employed by adult prairie rattlesnakes to reduce detection by visually hunting predators...Moonlight may also enhance adult snakes hunting success."

How does one go from there to unequivocally state that Prairie Rattlesnakes experienced cell damage from moonlight based upon one's "further review of the experiment" when the experiment mentions no such thing at all and has zero to do with cellular stuff, not even remotely? You consider that science?

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: Are people really still going to push the moon is harmless?
« Reply #65 on: September 20, 2022, 04:08:58 PM »
I think your upside question mark avatar is befitting of globularists: hide questions at costs. Do not investigate.
You sure do love projecting the inadequacies of FEers onto REers.
Ah, deflection. The tool of the weak of mind.
And a tool FEers use often.

Like the example above, where instead of providing any evidence, they just claim to have it and throw out insults.

I wonder what plants produce to defend themselves when introduced to stressful conditions like high wind. He does not say its harmful, that's you.
Good job trying to twist things again.
They claim the moon's harm to plant life is indisputable. They claim to have first hand experimental data that shows just how harmful moonlight is to plants, and gives this as an example.
That sure seems to be an implication that it is harmful.

Yet here you are saying that this allows the plants to defend themselves better in mechanically stressful conditions.

So just what evidence of harm is there?

That is like saying that fertilizer makes plants grow more, so it must be harmful.

You can find it in our forums. Specifically the believers section.
Care to provide a link to where the experimental methodology is clearly outlined?
If it is this one here:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=36906.0
Then it is quite poor.

The control was a plant exposed to both moonlight and sunlight.
A sunlight only group was covered by a pot during the night.
A moonlight only group was covered by a pot during the day.
An additional artificial day/artificial night was setup also covered by a pot, and with a lamp, with no indication of the brightness of the lamp, or if it varied between the day and night exposure.

So what is actually being tested, is it the effect of exposure to moonlight, the effect of being deprived of sunlight, or the effect of being covered by a pot (and the time of being covered by the pot)?

While it does provide some temperature data, it doesn't mention when it was taken other than "3 times in the morning and 3 times in the evening", and it only provides a comparison between sample 1 and 2 in the first set.
Was this before during or after being covered by a pot?
Given the likely timing of these (I assume it is during the day, when both of these are uncovered), I would expect them to be quite comparable.

EDIT: After reading again, it doesn't actually state what temperatures it was comparing, I simply assumed it was for the plants.
After thinking about it more, with 3 repeats for each time, and 7 days, giving a total of 21 samples, it appears that is actually comparing the temperature in the morning and the temperature in the evenining.
So it isn't even checking if the temperature is different for each plant.

Then it goes on to provide more but shows it on the basis of variance across the days, rather than between the different groups.

And the most problematic of all, it makes no mention of when this experiment was conducted or what the phase of the moon was during the experiment.
This means it isn't really focusing on moonlight at all and instead it is being covered based on if it is day or night.'

So this experiment was so poorly done that it isn't even enough to establish if the change was due to the moonlight.

Why would you think that something discovered under further review would be directed stated in the original paper?
It depends on when that "Further review" took place.
It is quite easy for a paper to include initial results which prompted further review to obtain more results and report it in the same paper.

But if it doesn't come from that paper, where did it come from?
There were 2 citations they provided:
Quote
Citations to experiments mentioned before my own.
Interference of Moonlight with the Photoperiodic Measurement of Time by Plants, and their Adaptive Reaction
Author(s): Erwin Bunning and Ilse Moser
Source: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Vol. 62, No. 4 (Apr. 15, 1969), pp. 1018-1022
Published by: National Academy of Sciences
The Effect of Moonlight on Activity Patterns of Adult and Juvenile Prairie Rattlesnakes (Crotalus viridis viridis)
Author(s): Jennifer A. Clarke, Joseph T. Chopko and Stephen P. Mackessy
Source: Journal of Herpetology, Vol. 30, No. 2 (Jun., 1996), pp. 192-197
Published by: Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles
The first is clearly dealing with plants, not rattlesnakes, and is long before the study discussed. The second is the study linked/discussed.

That means if they got their information from any cited source, it would be the one on rattlesnakes. Yet it isn't there.
So where did it come from?
Did they just make it up?

Personally what I find more damning about that study is that it is a study of simulated moonlight.
So it isn't even the moon.
That means it isn't showing the effects of moonlight specifically. Instead it is showing the effect of light at night.
It doesn't even say what kind of lights here used, just that 105 small light bulbs (0.05 W) were distributed evenly over the ceiling of the chamber.
« Last Edit: September 20, 2022, 04:12:04 PM by JackBlack »

*

Timeisup

  • 3554
  • You still think that. You cannot be serious ?
Re: Are people really still going to push the moon is harmless?
« Reply #66 on: September 21, 2022, 04:37:49 AM »
Too bad I have shared first hand experimental data that shows just how metabolically harmful moonlight is to plants.
And care to provide any of that, along with the experimental methedology?

There is no embellishment with the use of science. Flat earthers invented science. Then we ascended to the next plane of experimentation.
Pure BS.
FEers hate science, and run from it all the time.
Indeed, experimentally we have shown the production of excess collenchyma due to moonlight exposure.

Your remarks on science are laughable. Flat earthers invented the very notion. I think your upside question mark avatar is befitting of globularists: hide questions at costs. Do not investigate.

Where can one see the results of this experimentation?
You can find it in our forums. Specifically the believers section.

Herein lies the problem. I did search Believers and found this from Ichimaru Gin :]:

Experiment regarding the biological effects of moonlight
« on: November 08, 2009, 04:25:42 PM

Rattlesnakes and other animals harmed by moonlight

Quote
This study investigated the effect of moonlight on the nocturnal activity patterns of prairie rattlesnakes (Crotalus viridis viridis). The effect of stimulated moonlight on six adults and eight juvenile prairie rattlesnakes was tested under laboratory conditions in which temperature, feeding frequency, and photoperiod were controlled. The snakes were maintained and tested under a summer photoperiod of 14L: 10D h cycle. The activity of each snake was measured using an index of tracking in the sand floor of a test chamber under new, half, three-quarters, and full moon light (0.06, 0.35, 1.00, and 2.10 lux, respectively). Adult snake activity was significantly greater in new moonlight (starlight only) when compared to activity in three-quarter and full moonlight. The adults also significantly increased activity in open areas in dim moonlight.

Ichi follows this with:

"Upon further review of the experiment, the cells within the rattlesnakes were found to have damage in such a way that proteins geared towards transcription were acutely damaged an in such a manner created a causation of incorrect codon pairing."

He cited the experiment/paper:

The Effect of Moonlight on Activity Patterns of Adult and Juvenile Prairie Rattlesnakes (Crotalus viridis viridis)
Author(s): Jennifer A. Clarke, Joseph T. Chopko and Stephen P. Mackessy
Source: Journal of Herpetology, Vol. 30, No. 2 (Jun., 1996), pp. 192-197
Published by: Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles


I looked up the paper referenced, it can be found here:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263101200_The_Effect_of_Moonlight_on_Activity_Patterns_of_Adult_and_Juvenile_Prairie_Rattlesnakes_Crotalus_viridis_viridis

No where in the paper does it mention anything about cell damage. No mention at all. No testing of cells even occurred, just the activity of the snakes, no blood tests, no nothing.

So it appears that Ichi completely fabricated, "...Upon further review of the experiment, the cells within the rattlesnakes were found to have damage ..."

This gives me great pause in regard to the veracity of anything you or he says.
Why would you think that something discovered under further review would be directed stated in the original paper?

Because how does one perform a further review of the experiment/paper and find something that was never a part of the experiment/paper? There's nothing in the experiment/paper that has anything to do, even remotely, with Prairie Rattlesnakes experiencing cell damage from moonlight. That's a complete fabrication. And I find that disingenuous and disturbing.
Seems pretty easy. Have you never read a paper and noticed something in the data and realized it correlates to something else usually but that would have been outside of the scope of the paper so not mentioned? It's literally the normal process when you research anything. But we can wait for Ichi to defend himself, of which I'm sure he's more than capable of.


Firstly what paper are you referring to?

To claim that moonlight has an adverse effect on plants requires hard solid evidence. No such evidence has been produced.

Let's remember moonlight is only reflected sunlight, and a small percentage at that ,no moon shrimp involved!.

If you people want to claim that moon light is somehow detrimental to life here on earth how about offering some hard proof rather than just keeping on banging your gums together.

Its just more of the same old same old, make some spurious claim say a lot of words without once being able to back any of it up, knock conventional science and thats about it. Don't you guys not get tired of constantly coming out with claims that are no more than plain nonsense?

Let's remember one cold hard fact. Never once has any validated Flat Earth sponsored research paper been published in any scientific publication. Why do you think that is?

Is there any flat earth research institute that does meaningful research? Or is all what you people come out with no more than a collection of random brain farts?
Really…..what a laugh!!!

*

Wolvaccine

  • EXTRA SPICY MODE
  • 25833
Re: Are people really still going to push the moon is harmless?
« Reply #67 on: September 21, 2022, 04:52:04 AM »

To claim that moonlight has an adverse effect on plants requires hard solid evidence. No such evidence has been produced.

Let's remember moonlight is only reflected sunlight, and a small percentage at that ,no moon shrimp involved!.


It's not just about light, it's also about the effects it has from something which such a large mass hanging over our heads. Those tens of millions of trees didn't care about the moonlight so much as it did care that the moons 'wobble' yanked its water supply and thus starved them of water long enough to die

Moonlight also disrupts sleep. There is a reason why people like blockout curtains and shelter - because our melatonin production works best when there is no light around. A full moon can be quite disruptive to the process.

I dont discount that certain animals or plants have evolved mechanisms to defend or counteract or even live in harmony with the moon - humans aren't one such species though. We aren't nocturnal. We need darkness and some people do go mad or irritable from moonlight. Whether it's real or because they were conditioned to be told it's bad for them is beside the point. The moon has a negative impact on the lives of many plants and animals on Earth

Believe me, when the sea level rise at the end of the century threatens many coastal cities and pacific islands - the moon is only going to worsen the calamity.

Obviously we are stuck with the moon - but that doesn't mean we have to like it

Quote from: sokarul
what website did you use to buy your wife? Did you choose Chinese over Russian because she can't open her eyes to see you?

What animal relates to your wife?

Know your place

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: Are people really still going to push the moon is harmless?
« Reply #68 on: September 21, 2022, 12:25:03 PM »
Moonlight also disrupts sleep. There is a reason why people like blockout curtains and shelter - because our melatonin production works best when there is no light around. A full moon can be quite disruptive to the process.

Moonlight has never disrupted my sleep. And I don't own any blockout curtains.

*

Wolvaccine

  • EXTRA SPICY MODE
  • 25833
Re: Are people really still going to push the moon is harmless?
« Reply #69 on: September 21, 2022, 12:29:15 PM »
Moonlight also disrupts sleep. There is a reason why people like blockout curtains and shelter - because our melatonin production works best when there is no light around. A full moon can be quite disruptive to the process.

Moonlight has never disrupted my sleep. And I don't own any blockout curtains.

Have you conducted any experiment that shows how much quicker and better quality sleep you could be achieving when you're in total darkness vs a full moon beaming through your window?

Of course you can still sleep - but your quality and amount of melatonin produced would be more with no light


Quote from: sokarul
what website did you use to buy your wife? Did you choose Chinese over Russian because she can't open her eyes to see you?

What animal relates to your wife?

Know your place

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: Are people really still going to push the moon is harmless?
« Reply #70 on: September 21, 2022, 12:45:57 PM »
Moonlight also disrupts sleep. There is a reason why people like blockout curtains and shelter - because our melatonin production works best when there is no light around. A full moon can be quite disruptive to the process.

Moonlight has never disrupted my sleep. And I don't own any blockout curtains.

Have you conducted any experiment that shows how much quicker and better quality sleep you could be achieving when you're in total darkness vs a full moon beaming through your window?

Yes.

*

Wolvaccine

  • EXTRA SPICY MODE
  • 25833
Re: Are people really still going to push the moon is harmless?
« Reply #71 on: September 21, 2022, 01:45:08 PM »
Moonlight also disrupts sleep. There is a reason why people like blockout curtains and shelter - because our melatonin production works best when there is no light around. A full moon can be quite disruptive to the process.

Moonlight has never disrupted my sleep. And I don't own any blockout curtains.

Have you conducted any experiment that shows how much quicker and better quality sleep you could be achieving when you're in total darkness vs a full moon beaming through your window?

Yes.

Cool. Where is the paper I can look at or is it just a personal anecdote?

Quote from: sokarul
what website did you use to buy your wife? Did you choose Chinese over Russian because she can't open her eyes to see you?

What animal relates to your wife?

Know your place

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: Are people really still going to push the moon is harmless?
« Reply #72 on: September 21, 2022, 03:44:09 PM »
Moonlight also disrupts sleep. There is a reason why people like blockout curtains and shelter - because our melatonin production works best when there is no light around. A full moon can be quite disruptive to the process.

Moonlight has never disrupted my sleep. And I don't own any blockout curtains.

Have you conducted any experiment that shows how much quicker and better quality sleep you could be achieving when you're in total darkness vs a full moon beaming through your window?

Yes.

Cool. Where is the paper I can look at or is it just a personal anecdote?

Does an experiment require a "paper"? No one else seems to be required to have a "paper" regarding their moonlight experiments around here - People just seem to claim that rattlesnake cells are damaged by moonlight without any "papers".

In any case, my "paper" was submitted to Apple via my watch.

As well, light has the potential to interrupt sleep. Artificial light, sunlight, moonlight, flashlight, spotlight...light.

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17563
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
Re: Are people really still going to push the moon is harmless?
« Reply #73 on: September 21, 2022, 04:43:44 PM »
Moonlight also disrupts sleep. There is a reason why people like blockout curtains and shelter - because our melatonin production works best when there is no light around. A full moon can be quite disruptive to the process.

Moonlight has never disrupted my sleep. And I don't own any blockout curtains.

Have you conducted any experiment that shows how much quicker and better quality sleep you could be achieving when you're in total darkness vs a full moon beaming through your window?

Yes.

Cool. Where is the paper I can look at or is it just a personal anecdote?

Does an experiment require a "paper"? No one else seems to be required to have a "paper" regarding their moonlight experiments around here - People just seem to claim that rattlesnake cells are damaged by moonlight without any "papers".

In any case, my "paper" was submitted to Apple via my watch.
Do you want to tell him Masa or should I? Its almost as if the garden variety round earther has some sort of aversion to science.

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17563
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
Re: Are people really still going to push the moon is harmless?
« Reply #74 on: September 21, 2022, 04:44:54 PM »
I think your upside question mark avatar is befitting of globularists: hide questions at costs. Do not investigate.
You sure do love projecting the inadequacies of FEers onto REers.
Ah, deflection. The tool of the weak of mind.
And a tool FEers use often.

Like the example above, where instead of providing any evidence, they just claim to have it and throw out insults.

I wonder what plants produce to defend themselves when introduced to stressful conditions like high wind. He does not say its harmful, that's you.
Good job trying to twist things again.
They claim the moon's harm to plant life is indisputable. They claim to have first hand experimental data that shows just how harmful moonlight is to plants, and gives this as an example.
That sure seems to be an implication that it is harmful.

Yet here you are saying that this allows the plants to defend themselves better in mechanically stressful conditions.

So just what evidence of harm is there?

That is like saying that fertilizer makes plants grow more, so it must be harmful.

You can find it in our forums. Specifically the believers section.
Care to provide a link to where the experimental methodology is clearly outlined?
If it is this one here:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=36906.0
Then it is quite poor.

The control was a plant exposed to both moonlight and sunlight.
A sunlight only group was covered by a pot during the night.
A moonlight only group was covered by a pot during the day.
An additional artificial day/artificial night was setup also covered by a pot, and with a lamp, with no indication of the brightness of the lamp, or if it varied between the day and night exposure.

So what is actually being tested, is it the effect of exposure to moonlight, the effect of being deprived of sunlight, or the effect of being covered by a pot (and the time of being covered by the pot)?

While it does provide some temperature data, it doesn't mention when it was taken other than "3 times in the morning and 3 times in the evening", and it only provides a comparison between sample 1 and 2 in the first set.
Was this before during or after being covered by a pot?
Given the likely timing of these (I assume it is during the day, when both of these are uncovered), I would expect them to be quite comparable.

EDIT: After reading again, it doesn't actually state what temperatures it was comparing, I simply assumed it was for the plants.
After thinking about it more, with 3 repeats for each time, and 7 days, giving a total of 21 samples, it appears that is actually comparing the temperature in the morning and the temperature in the evenining.
So it isn't even checking if the temperature is different for each plant.

Then it goes on to provide more but shows it on the basis of variance across the days, rather than between the different groups.

And the most problematic of all, it makes no mention of when this experiment was conducted or what the phase of the moon was during the experiment.
This means it isn't really focusing on moonlight at all and instead it is being covered based on if it is day or night.'

So this experiment was so poorly done that it isn't even enough to establish if the change was due to the moonlight.

Why would you think that something discovered under further review would be directed stated in the original paper?
It depends on when that "Further review" took place.
It is quite easy for a paper to include initial results which prompted further review to obtain more results and report it in the same paper.

But if it doesn't come from that paper, where did it come from?
There were 2 citations they provided:
Quote
Citations to experiments mentioned before my own.
Interference of Moonlight with the Photoperiodic Measurement of Time by Plants, and their Adaptive Reaction
Author(s): Erwin Bunning and Ilse Moser
Source: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Vol. 62, No. 4 (Apr. 15, 1969), pp. 1018-1022
Published by: National Academy of Sciences
The Effect of Moonlight on Activity Patterns of Adult and Juvenile Prairie Rattlesnakes (Crotalus viridis viridis)
Author(s): Jennifer A. Clarke, Joseph T. Chopko and Stephen P. Mackessy
Source: Journal of Herpetology, Vol. 30, No. 2 (Jun., 1996), pp. 192-197
Published by: Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles
The first is clearly dealing with plants, not rattlesnakes, and is long before the study discussed. The second is the study linked/discussed.

That means if they got their information from any cited source, it would be the one on rattlesnakes. Yet it isn't there.
So where did it come from?
Did they just make it up?

Personally what I find more damning about that study is that it is a study of simulated moonlight.
So it isn't even the moon.
That means it isn't showing the effects of moonlight specifically. Instead it is showing the effect of light at night.
It doesn't even say what kind of lights here used, just that 105 small light bulbs (0.05 W) were distributed evenly over the ceiling of the chamber.
Yeah, I'm not reading another one of your nonsense filled non-sequitor diatribes.

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17563
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
Re: Are people really still going to push the moon is harmless?
« Reply #75 on: September 21, 2022, 04:45:47 PM »
Too bad I have shared first hand experimental data that shows just how metabolically harmful moonlight is to plants.
And care to provide any of that, along with the experimental methedology?

There is no embellishment with the use of science. Flat earthers invented science. Then we ascended to the next plane of experimentation.
Pure BS.
FEers hate science, and run from it all the time.
Indeed, experimentally we have shown the production of excess collenchyma due to moonlight exposure.

Your remarks on science are laughable. Flat earthers invented the very notion. I think your upside question mark avatar is befitting of globularists: hide questions at costs. Do not investigate.

Where can one see the results of this experimentation?
You can find it in our forums. Specifically the believers section.

Herein lies the problem. I did search Believers and found this from Ichimaru Gin :]:

Experiment regarding the biological effects of moonlight
« on: November 08, 2009, 04:25:42 PM

Rattlesnakes and other animals harmed by moonlight

Quote
This study investigated the effect of moonlight on the nocturnal activity patterns of prairie rattlesnakes (Crotalus viridis viridis). The effect of stimulated moonlight on six adults and eight juvenile prairie rattlesnakes was tested under laboratory conditions in which temperature, feeding frequency, and photoperiod were controlled. The snakes were maintained and tested under a summer photoperiod of 14L: 10D h cycle. The activity of each snake was measured using an index of tracking in the sand floor of a test chamber under new, half, three-quarters, and full moon light (0.06, 0.35, 1.00, and 2.10 lux, respectively). Adult snake activity was significantly greater in new moonlight (starlight only) when compared to activity in three-quarter and full moonlight. The adults also significantly increased activity in open areas in dim moonlight.

Ichi follows this with:

"Upon further review of the experiment, the cells within the rattlesnakes were found to have damage in such a way that proteins geared towards transcription were acutely damaged an in such a manner created a causation of incorrect codon pairing."

He cited the experiment/paper:

The Effect of Moonlight on Activity Patterns of Adult and Juvenile Prairie Rattlesnakes (Crotalus viridis viridis)
Author(s): Jennifer A. Clarke, Joseph T. Chopko and Stephen P. Mackessy
Source: Journal of Herpetology, Vol. 30, No. 2 (Jun., 1996), pp. 192-197
Published by: Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles


I looked up the paper referenced, it can be found here:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263101200_The_Effect_of_Moonlight_on_Activity_Patterns_of_Adult_and_Juvenile_Prairie_Rattlesnakes_Crotalus_viridis_viridis

No where in the paper does it mention anything about cell damage. No mention at all. No testing of cells even occurred, just the activity of the snakes, no blood tests, no nothing.

So it appears that Ichi completely fabricated, "...Upon further review of the experiment, the cells within the rattlesnakes were found to have damage ..."

This gives me great pause in regard to the veracity of anything you or he says.
Why would you think that something discovered under further review would be directed stated in the original paper?

Because how does one perform a further review of the experiment/paper and find something that was never a part of the experiment/paper? There's nothing in the experiment/paper that has anything to do, even remotely, with Prairie Rattlesnakes experiencing cell damage from moonlight. That's a complete fabrication. And I find that disingenuous and disturbing.
Seems pretty easy. Have you never read a paper and noticed something in the data and realized it correlates to something else usually but that would have been outside of the scope of the paper so not mentioned? It's literally the normal process when you research anything. But we can wait for Ichi to defend himself, of which I'm sure he's more than capable of.


Firstly what paper are you referring to?

To claim that moonlight has an adverse effect on plants requires hard solid evidence. No such evidence has been produced.

Let's remember moonlight is only reflected sunlight, and a small percentage at that ,no moon shrimp involved!.

If you people want to claim that moon light is somehow detrimental to life here on earth how about offering some hard proof rather than just keeping on banging your gums together.

Its just more of the same old same old, make some spurious claim say a lot of words without once being able to back any of it up, knock conventional science and thats about it. Don't you guys not get tired of constantly coming out with claims that are no more than plain nonsense?

Let's remember one cold hard fact. Never once has any validated Flat Earth sponsored research paper been published in any scientific publication. Why do you think that is?

Is there any flat earth research institute that does meaningful research? Or is all what you people come out with no more than a collection of random brain farts?

The relevant study has been made available by Ichi for all those interested to read more than they talk. I think I'd trust a real scientist that has been trained in academia far more than I would someone who won't admit his ignorance about infinity.

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: Are people really still going to push the moon is harmless?
« Reply #76 on: September 21, 2022, 04:54:47 PM »
Ah, deflection. The tool of the weak of mind.
Yeah, I'm not reading another one of your nonsense filled non-sequitor diatribes.
So you will just deflect from all the problems raised.
Yet again showing FEers using deflection rather than addressing issues.

You not liking it because it exposes flaws with the claims of FEers does not make it nonsense nor diatribe.
The fact you feel the need to respond to the post, while entirely ignoring the contents of it shows that you likely know it shows many problems with your position while being unable to defend your position.

If you would like a brief summary:
The paper they quoted does not use moonlight, it uses artificial illumination, and thus can't be demonstrating the dangers of moonlight specifically.
There is no citation at all for the follow up claim regarding proteins, so that is likely fabricated, or at best unsubstantiated.
The experiment they performed, was done so inadequately with such poor controls it is impossible to get anything meaningful from it.

Is that easier for you to address?

The relevant study has been made available by Ichi for all those interested to read more than they talk. I think I'd trust a real scientist that has been trained in academia far more than I would someone who won't admit his ignorance about infinity.
And it's flaws have been exposed, showing it is entirely inadequate to support the claims you and Ichi want to make.
« Last Edit: September 21, 2022, 04:56:25 PM by JackBlack »

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: Are people really still going to push the moon is harmless?
« Reply #77 on: September 21, 2022, 05:25:07 PM »
Moonlight also disrupts sleep. There is a reason why people like blockout curtains and shelter - because our melatonin production works best when there is no light around. A full moon can be quite disruptive to the process.

Moonlight has never disrupted my sleep. And I don't own any blockout curtains.

Have you conducted any experiment that shows how much quicker and better quality sleep you could be achieving when you're in total darkness vs a full moon beaming through your window?

Yes.

Cool. Where is the paper I can look at or is it just a personal anecdote?

Does an experiment require a "paper"? No one else seems to be required to have a "paper" regarding their moonlight experiments around here - People just seem to claim that rattlesnake cells are damaged by moonlight without any "papers".

In any case, my "paper" was submitted to Apple via my watch.
Do you want to tell him Masa or should I? Its almost as if the garden variety round earther has some sort of aversion to science.

I think you're the one with an aversion to science. The rattlesnake study, (I posted the link earlier) has zero mention of cellular damage, let alone cellular damage due to moonlight. Yet, "Upon further examination of the (rattlesnake) experiment shows that the rattlesnakes cells were damaged by moonlight.

How is saying there's something in a science paper/experiment that isn't even remotely in the science paper/experiment considered "science"?

*

Timeisup

  • 3554
  • You still think that. You cannot be serious ?
Re: Are people really still going to push the moon is harmless?
« Reply #78 on: September 22, 2022, 12:33:32 AM »
Too bad I have shared first hand experimental data that shows just how metabolically harmful moonlight is to plants.
And care to provide any of that, along with the experimental methedology?

There is no embellishment with the use of science. Flat earthers invented science. Then we ascended to the next plane of experimentation.
Pure BS.
FEers hate science, and run from it all the time.
Indeed, experimentally we have shown the production of excess collenchyma due to moonlight exposure.

Your remarks on science are laughable. Flat earthers invented the very notion. I think your upside question mark avatar is befitting of globularists: hide questions at costs. Do not investigate.

Where can one see the results of this experimentation?
You can find it in our forums. Specifically the believers section.

Herein lies the problem. I did search Believers and found this from Ichimaru Gin :]:

Experiment regarding the biological effects of moonlight
« on: November 08, 2009, 04:25:42 PM

Rattlesnakes and other animals harmed by moonlight

Quote
This study investigated the effect of moonlight on the nocturnal activity patterns of prairie rattlesnakes (Crotalus viridis viridis). The effect of stimulated moonlight on six adults and eight juvenile prairie rattlesnakes was tested under laboratory conditions in which temperature, feeding frequency, and photoperiod were controlled. The snakes were maintained and tested under a summer photoperiod of 14L: 10D h cycle. The activity of each snake was measured using an index of tracking in the sand floor of a test chamber under new, half, three-quarters, and full moon light (0.06, 0.35, 1.00, and 2.10 lux, respectively). Adult snake activity was significantly greater in new moonlight (starlight only) when compared to activity in three-quarter and full moonlight. The adults also significantly increased activity in open areas in dim moonlight.

Ichi follows this with:

"Upon further review of the experiment, the cells within the rattlesnakes were found to have damage in such a way that proteins geared towards transcription were acutely damaged an in such a manner created a causation of incorrect codon pairing."

He cited the experiment/paper:

The Effect of Moonlight on Activity Patterns of Adult and Juvenile Prairie Rattlesnakes (Crotalus viridis viridis)
Author(s): Jennifer A. Clarke, Joseph T. Chopko and Stephen P. Mackessy
Source: Journal of Herpetology, Vol. 30, No. 2 (Jun., 1996), pp. 192-197
Published by: Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles


I looked up the paper referenced, it can be found here:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263101200_The_Effect_of_Moonlight_on_Activity_Patterns_of_Adult_and_Juvenile_Prairie_Rattlesnakes_Crotalus_viridis_viridis

No where in the paper does it mention anything about cell damage. No mention at all. No testing of cells even occurred, just the activity of the snakes, no blood tests, no nothing.

So it appears that Ichi completely fabricated, "...Upon further review of the experiment, the cells within the rattlesnakes were found to have damage ..."

This gives me great pause in regard to the veracity of anything you or he says.
Why would you think that something discovered under further review would be directed stated in the original paper?

Because how does one perform a further review of the experiment/paper and find something that was never a part of the experiment/paper? There's nothing in the experiment/paper that has anything to do, even remotely, with Prairie Rattlesnakes experiencing cell damage from moonlight. That's a complete fabrication. And I find that disingenuous and disturbing.
Seems pretty easy. Have you never read a paper and noticed something in the data and realized it correlates to something else usually but that would have been outside of the scope of the paper so not mentioned? It's literally the normal process when you research anything. But we can wait for Ichi to defend himself, of which I'm sure he's more than capable of.


Firstly what paper are you referring to?

To claim that moonlight has an adverse effect on plants requires hard solid evidence. No such evidence has been produced.

Let's remember moonlight is only reflected sunlight, and a small percentage at that ,no moon shrimp involved!.

If you people want to claim that moon light is somehow detrimental to life here on earth how about offering some hard proof rather than just keeping on banging your gums together.

Its just more of the same old same old, make some spurious claim say a lot of words without once being able to back any of it up, knock conventional science and thats about it. Don't you guys not get tired of constantly coming out with claims that are no more than plain nonsense?

Let's remember one cold hard fact. Never once has any validated Flat Earth sponsored research paper been published in any scientific publication. Why do you think that is?

Is there any flat earth research institute that does meaningful research? Or is all what you people come out with no more than a collection of random brain farts?

The relevant study has been made available by Ichi for all those interested to read more than they talk. I think I'd trust a real scientist that has been trained in academia far more than I would someone who won't admit his ignorance about infinity.

Trust a real scientist? Which scientist is that you trust?

It’s a rather bizarre statement from you as many of your past posts have heaped scorn on both scientists and their modes of learning.

In what basis do you decide to trust a scientist?

Where is this relevant study? Why do you trust it’s findings? What makes it so compelling?
Really…..what a laugh!!!

*

Wolvaccine

  • EXTRA SPICY MODE
  • 25833
Re: Are people really still going to push the moon is harmless?
« Reply #79 on: September 22, 2022, 02:54:16 AM »
https://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/hundreds-of-pilot-whales-dead-on-tasmanias-west-coast-after-mass-stranding/news-story/178bac865344d00124b6ca1f4e7e8c3d

Quote
Wildlife experts are racing against the clock to save 35 pilot whales stranded on a Tasmanian beach after nearly 200 of their kin died in a mass stranding.

On Wednesday, around 230 whales became stranded at the entrance to Macquarie Harbour near Strahan on Tasmania’s west coast.

Sadly, Tasmania Parks and Wildlife Service regional operations manager Brendon Clark said only 35 whales had survived the night. He blamed the exposed conditions.

“Unfortunately, we do have a high mortality rate for this particular stranding – that’s predominantly due to the exposed conditions out on Ocean Beach,” he said.

“The environmental conditions, the surf out there on the exposed west coast, is certainly taking its toll on the animals.”

After a day spent triaging the whales to determine which animals had the best chance of survival, rescue crews were in action on Thursday trying to enact their daring operation.

Mr Clark said around 50 experts and experienced personnel would be involved in the heavy-duty mission, including volunteers from three local aquaculture organisations, State Emergency Services and parks employees.

“The primary focus this morning is on rescuing and releasing the surviving animals,” the regional operations manager reiterated.

I blame the moon  >:(

Quote from: sokarul
what website did you use to buy your wife? Did you choose Chinese over Russian because she can't open her eyes to see you?

What animal relates to your wife?

Know your place

*

Timeisup

  • 3554
  • You still think that. You cannot be serious ?
Re: Are people really still going to push the moon is harmless?
« Reply #80 on: September 22, 2022, 05:50:50 AM »
https://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/hundreds-of-pilot-whales-dead-on-tasmanias-west-coast-after-mass-stranding/news-story/178bac865344d00124b6ca1f4e7e8c3d

Quote
Wildlife experts are racing against the clock to save 35 pilot whales stranded on a Tasmanian beach after nearly 200 of their kin died in a mass stranding.

On Wednesday, around 230 whales became stranded at the entrance to Macquarie Harbour near Strahan on Tasmania’s west coast.

Sadly, Tasmania Parks and Wildlife Service regional operations manager Brendon Clark said only 35 whales had survived the night. He blamed the exposed conditions.

“Unfortunately, we do have a high mortality rate for this particular stranding – that’s predominantly due to the exposed conditions out on Ocean Beach,” he said.

“The environmental conditions, the surf out there on the exposed west coast, is certainly taking its toll on the animals.”

After a day spent triaging the whales to determine which animals had the best chance of survival, rescue crews were in action on Thursday trying to enact their daring operation.

Mr Clark said around 50 experts and experienced personnel would be involved in the heavy-duty mission, including volunteers from three local aquaculture organisations, State Emergency Services and parks employees.

“The primary focus this morning is on rescuing and releasing the surviving animals,” the regional operations manager reiterated.

I blame the moon  >:(

Why?
Really…..what a laugh!!!

*

Ichimaru Gin :]

  • Undefeated FEer
  • Planar Moderator
  • 8902
  • Semper vigilans
Re: Are people really still going to push the moon is harmless?
« Reply #81 on: September 26, 2022, 05:05:40 PM »
Each plant did not have GPS tracker coordinates listed in the experiment to account for whether they traveled amongst themselves in the greenhouse while Ichi was gone in between readings! He easily could have strapped a Garmin watch to each stem but he chose not to.
[Include 5 more pages of angry low tier posts]
Checkmate flat earthers.

Love,
JackBlack
I saw a slight haze in the hotel bathroom this morning after I took a shower, have I discovered a new planet?

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: Are people really still going to push the moon is harmless?
« Reply #82 on: September 26, 2022, 05:28:27 PM »
Each plant did not have GPS tracker coordinates listed in the experiment to account for whether they traveled amongst themselves in the greenhouse while Ichi was gone in between readings! He easily could have strapped a Garmin watch to each stem but he chose not to.
[Include 5 more pages of angry low tier posts]
Checkmate flat earthers.

Love,
JackBlack

The rattlesnake study in one of your old posts, (I posted the link earlier) has zero mention of cellular damage, let alone cellular damage due to moonlight. Yet you jump from the rattlesnake study and state, "Upon further examination of the (rattlesnake) experiment shows that the rattlesnakes cells were damaged by moonlight."

How did you arrive at that conclusion when there is no mention of cells or cellular damage in the rattlesnake study?

*

Ichimaru Gin :]

  • Undefeated FEer
  • Planar Moderator
  • 8902
  • Semper vigilans
Re: Are people really still going to push the moon is harmless?
« Reply #83 on: September 26, 2022, 06:50:54 PM »
Here is another study that shows the same: Snakes are significantly less active during the full moon. Dated this year.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/276213612_Effects_of_Simulated_Moonlight_on_Activity_in_the_Desert_Nightsnake_Hypsiglena_chlorophaea

This is found in studies consistently.
I have convincingly found that plants also have a metabolic price to pay. Please feel free to replicate any of the studies.
I saw a slight haze in the hotel bathroom this morning after I took a shower, have I discovered a new planet?

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: Are people really still going to push the moon is harmless?
« Reply #84 on: September 26, 2022, 09:23:41 PM »
Here is another study that shows the same: Snakes are significantly less active during the full moon. Dated this year.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/276213612_Effects_of_Simulated_Moonlight_on_Activity_in_the_Desert_Nightsnake_Hypsiglena_chlorophaea

This is found in studies consistently.
I have convincingly found that plants also have a metabolic price to pay. Please feel free to replicate any of the studies.

This does not answer the question as to how you determined that your further examination of the study resulted in cellular damage to rattlesnakes caused by moonlight.

These are behavioral studies and they attribute the lesser movement to predator avoidance. Zero mention of anything even remotely related to biology, let alone cellular damage.

It seems like you completely fabricated that conclusion based upon zero evidence.

*

Ichimaru Gin :]

  • Undefeated FEer
  • Planar Moderator
  • 8902
  • Semper vigilans
Re: Are people really still going to push the moon is harmless?
« Reply #85 on: September 27, 2022, 05:55:22 AM »
These are behavioral studies... Zero mention of anything even remotely related to biology
Oh dear.
I saw a slight haze in the hotel bathroom this morning after I took a shower, have I discovered a new planet?

Re: Are people really still going to push the moon is harmless?
« Reply #86 on: September 27, 2022, 06:04:32 AM »
Everyone here should see rhe movie Moonfall. Especially if you think the moon is a menace that needs to be destroyed. The film literally depicts the moon as it is falling on Earth. And alot of other things, but spoilers.

*

Wolvaccine

  • EXTRA SPICY MODE
  • 25833
Re: Are people really still going to push the moon is harmless?
« Reply #87 on: September 27, 2022, 07:35:08 AM »
Everyone here should see rhe movie Moonfall. Especially if you think the moon is a menace that needs to be destroyed. The film literally depicts the moon as it is falling on Earth. And alot of other things, but spoilers.

I've seen it twice. Good movie so long as you switch off your brain first. If your brain is in gear, you will not have a good time

Quote from: sokarul
what website did you use to buy your wife? Did you choose Chinese over Russian because she can't open her eyes to see you?

What animal relates to your wife?

Know your place

Re: Are people really still going to push the moon is harmless?
« Reply #88 on: September 27, 2022, 08:38:54 AM »
watch the movie, have a good...time

keep your brain on...gonna have a bad time


*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: Are people really still going to push the moon is harmless?
« Reply #89 on: September 27, 2022, 09:09:03 AM »
These are behavioral studies... Zero mention of anything even remotely related to biology
Oh dear.

Oh dear is right...You completely fabricated your conclusion out of thin air. Which pretty much calls into question all of your other conclusions. Why do you feel the need to make things up?

How did you derive from the paper that, in your words, "Upon further review of the experiment, the cells within the rattlesnakes were found to have damage in such a way that proteins geared towards transcription were acutely damaged an in such a manner created a causation of incorrect codon pairing."

Here's the paper you cited again. Zero mention of anything cellular, let alone "damage".
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263101200_The_Effect_of_Moonlight_on_Activity_Patterns_of_Adult_and_Juvenile_Prairie_Rattlesnakes_Crotalus_viridis_viridis

Why lie about something when anyone can just look at the source?