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=36906.0Then 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:
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.