Isnt the moon a big chunk of the Earth that was blown off? So it is terrestrial in a sense.

Can you provide some context for your comment? What tests?

In the same way that the "moon rock" we gifted to the Netherlands got tested, and ended up being petrified wood.

That doesnt exactly answer my question....

My bad, you're right.

There are two profound differences in the chemistry of lunar regolith and soil from terrestrial materials. The first is that the Moon is very dry. As a result, those minerals with water as part of their structure such as clay, mica, and amphiboles are totally absent from the Moon. The second difference is that lunar regolith and crust are chemically reduced, rather than being significantly oxidized like the Earth's crust. In the case of the regolith, this is due in part to the constant bombardment of the lunar surface with protons (i.e. hydrogen (H) nuclei) from the solar wind. One consequence is that iron on the Moon is found in the metallic 0 and +2 oxidation state, whereas on Earth iron is found primarily in the +2 and +3 oxidation state.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_soil

Edit: Downvote that quick, huh? Was my answer not sufficient enough for you?

Edit 2: Ahhh, I see now by your other comments ITT that you're not asking earnestly. Just here to shit on the idea. Got it.

For the record I dont upvote or downvote comments. At least I havent touched yours.

IIRC the moon crashed into the earth a long time ago when the solar system was forming and the earth took a large part of the dense metal material and what was left over makes up the moon.

I thought the moon was made up of feldspar which does exist on earth as well.

Did we go to the moon? Probably, but I don't really buy the Apollo 11 story.

That particular one was fake but the real sample, one of the original 134, is in a different Dutch museum. NASA holds the majority of the sample and has given out small samples for research.

Reality check getting down voted because it doesn't fit one's narrative. Awesome.

Except the one we actually gave the Dutch is in another museum.

No, it's an electrical transformer that radiates cold and cools the earth.

Lol no its not.

Best case scenario its people who dont know how to use the instrumentation.

Seriously, try to find a write up that would hold up to scrutiny.

I mean like a scientific document laying out the steps and removing potentials for error. Like every other test that is performed.

If anything what you are seeing is this.

I have 2 coolers, one with a lid, one without.

I put a cold drink into both. Which one will warm up quicker? The one that is in the cooler without the lid, right?

So do I proclaim that the lid on the cooler has a cooling effect?

No, thats dumb. There was no lid so heat was able to radiate away more easily.

Same thing here.

What happens on clear nights where the moon is visible? There is no cloud cover AKA no lid on the box.

If there are clouds its like having a lid on a cooler, it doesnt leak heat as easily.

Why would I ever do all that for you? lol.

The moon is its own light source, it radiates cold, and it's an energy transformer. It's hollow and you can bounce lasers off of it. It's orbit is not dictated by gravity.

Show me a scientific experiment that stands up to scrutiny and disproves what I said.

I'd legitimately love to read more about this theory, unlike the user above me that would rather mock you and belittle the idea. Know any good sources?

How have I mocked you?

you can use thermometers in the moonlight when it's full - they will read several degrees cooler. It's noticeable - no mainstream scientist can explain this at all. They always claims it's space sucking the heat off the planet - which of course is total nonsense. You can further prove it's the moonlight that's cooling by using a magnifying class - it will intensify the effect.

Please see these people here https://np.reddit.com/r/space/comments/43l25n/why_does_moonlight_seem_to_be_colder_than_the/ can explain that much better than I can .

no mainstream scientist can explain this at all.

Why didn't you research it before you said that?

I've already done this research - I've spoken to actual professionals with physics degrees - there is no explanation. The magnifying glass amplifying the effect suggests it's a property of the light itself. That's what no one can explain - thanks for confirming it.

I've spoken to actual professionals with physics degrees - there is no explanation.

Except it does.

From the above link.

then the answer is one that any amateur astronomer can know.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_cooling

The night sky is cold.

Objects exposed to the night sky will radiate their heat into it. Objects exposed to less of the sky (such as under a tree) can "see" less of the sky and will radiate less heat to the sky.

Its the same reason amateur astronomers put tubes in front of their telescopes.

http://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-resources/dealing-with-dew/

The anti-dew tubes have no optics and can be made of anything you fancy. They do nothing except stop the lens at the front "seeing" a large part of the sky.

Edit - that article even says "grass in the middle of a field white with frost or dew while grass near a tree has none". Its exactly the same effect as the "shade" in the youtube video.

You're just restating the mainstream explanation which I have already debunked by use of magnifying in the experiment I described above.

The magnifying glass increasing the cooling effect suggests it's a quality of the light. Deal with it :)

The magnifying glass increasing the cooling effect suggests it's a quality of the light

Then why haven't you used it to power your home / power things / make money?

Why do you think that the moon producing cooling light is the same as free energy?

Why do you think that the moon producing cooling light is the same as free energy?

Because I know how thermocouples and sterling generators work?

Care to share your knowledge?

They work of differences in heat...

So you can't explain how the presence of cooling light several days out of the month would supply easy free energy then?

I didn't think so

So you can't explain how the presence of cooling light several days out of the month would supply easy free energy then?

Yes I can. However as you have show you will not research even when given the exact words to search for so why should I take time and effort to write up a description that you will not bother to read?

I knew you couldn't explain why cooling light would provide free energy :)

Fine.

Here you go.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stirling_engine

You really should engage in a moment of self reflection to determine why you depended upon someone else to provide you with that information.

I asked you to explain it, not to link me wikipedia :)

No. You would not listen if I did.

Now please explain why you aren't using your physics defying light to make money.

It's everyone's light :) And you just informed me of this type of motor recently - there hasn't even been a full moon since then you big dummy

Temperature differences can be used to create electricity.

If, as claimed, a magnifying glass creates "cold" from the light of the Moon, you should be able to point it at a Seebeck generator or a heat engine and generate free energy from warmer temperature of the ambient air.

Of course you can easily check for yourself that the Moon does no such thing by looking at it with an infrared camera and seeing that it radiates heat.

Cool, thanks for the idea. I'll have to check into that.

Just f.y.i. you could do the test yourself for almost no money. And there are tons of videos on the internet to verify that what I say is true. Cheers and thanks again

Indeed, you can. And I have.

Have you?

what do you mean, moonlight or the seebeck generator?

Moonlight.

I already know moonlight is cooling because I've tested it myself dozens of times under many different conditions. How did you test it?

Really? What were the dozens of times and different conditions you used?

I notice most of the videos which claim that Moonlight has a magical cooling effect cover up one object while leaving the other in open air, and don't provide a control where they do the same experiment without the moon being out. So I made sure to in my own trials.

In my experiments I noticed that the target exposed to open air was cooler every time, whether the Moon was out or not, whatever its phase, cloudy or not, etc. The results were clearly that something more exposed to the open air was cooler, rather than that the Moon had anything to do with it.

Don't forget to also look at the Moon through an infrared camera. Have you done that? I have although some years ago.

Oh, you're one of THOSE posters - hahaha, ok buddy, sure you did.

If you have two thermometers, just leave one in the moonlight and one in the shade. The one in the moonlight will read colder every time, usually by about 2-3 degrees.

I suppose this video would have to be a forgery somehow in your view? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXixR7Y5LBk

Again, radiative cooling is a total joke. It does not hold up to any scrutiny - it's a myth. It's a religious belief. Would love to hear your thoughts :)

If you have two thermometers, just leave one in the moonlight and one in the shade. The one in the moonlight will read colder every time, usually by about 2-3 degrees.

Indeed, and as I said I noticed such a temperature difference every time for the object in "shade" whether the Moon was out or not.

What were the dozens of conditions under which you did your own experiment?

I suppose this video would have to be a forgery somehow in your view? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXixR7Y5LBk

No, I don't think it's a forgery. I think it lacks any sort of control group. As I said is a common mistake above, the maker of this video did not perform a control experiment where they did the same thing but with the Moon not being out. When I did that with the Moon not being out, just the open air, I got the same sort of results.

But I suppose you would think these videos using thermal/infrared cameras are forgeries?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWTKs9xY22I

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVC8fCV6OCI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6a5ZTYNp1NU

Again, radiative cooling is a total joke. It does not hold up to any scrutiny - it's a myth. It's a religious belief. Would love to hear your thoughts :)

Are you suggesting that objects which are hot do not radiate cool down in the process? Have you not observed things such as lightbulb filaments glowing and releasing energy when hot?

Aiming an infrared camera at the moon seems like a diversionary tactic on your part to me - I don't have any experience doing this sort of test and I'm not sure what it would measure because I would have to further research the nature of the thermal and infrared cameras before I really speak on the matter - I would have to look into it. Thanks again for the idea though.

I'm not suggesting - I'm telling you that radiative cooling as a substitute explanation for the cooling properties of moonlight is total bunk and easily falsifiable with less than $20 of equipment - one which I have responsibly performed with a control, successfully, over a dozen times.

So yes to answer your question - I have also used a control - I have also used the thermometers on various nights without a full moon - such as a new moon or a partial moon. There was some very small fluctuations but no particular trend I noticed under non-full moon conditions. During a new moon, for instance, the nights are very dark and there was no temperature difference across the thermometers. Full moon brings out the temperature differences every time though.

Aiming an infrared camera at the moon seems like a diversionary tactic on your part to me - I don't have any experience doing this sort of test and I'm not sure what it would measure because I would have to further research the nature of the thermal and infrared cameras before I really speak on the matter - I would have to look into it. Thanks again for the idea though.

It's not a diversion, I am suggesting another experiment you can perform which will clearly show you that the Moon is emitting infrared radiation.

I'm not suggesting - I'm telling you that radiative cooling as a substitute explanation for the cooling properties of moonlight is total bunk and easily falsifiable with less than $20 of equipment - one which I have responsibly performed with a control, successfully, over a dozen times.

That's not exactly what I am asking though. In your previous comment you did not say "radiative cooling as a substitute explanation for the cooling properties of moonlight," you just said "radiative cooling is a total joke," full stop.

Do you think radiative cooling does not exist at all? Do you think hot objects do not emit any heat or energy in the form of radiation?

So yes to answer your question - I have also used a control - I have also used the thermometers on various nights without a full moon - such as a new moon or a partial moon. There was some very small fluctuations but no particular trend I noticed under non-full moon conditions. During a new moon, for instance, the nights are very dark and there was no temperature difference across the thermometers. Full moon brings out the temperature differences every time though.

Interesting claims. Would love to see the actual data you collected. Do you still have it?

No - I'm sure radiative cooling does apply in many situations. But moonlight is cooling. Currently the only explanation given EVER to try explain away this phenomenon is "radiative cooling" - which is all I ever hear, and it does not address why the magnifying glass would further decrease the temperature.

Why do you think the magnifying glass further reduces the temperature? That's the heart of the issue.

I don't have my data here - these experiments were generally informal - but the experimental design still works. If radiative cooling were the only effect in operation, the lenses, as I mentioned before, would INCREASE the temperature. However, the lenses focusing the moonlight consistently FURTHER DECREASE the temperature. Why do you think that could be?

No - I'm sure radiative cooling does apply in many situations. But moonlight is cooling.

Even if you assume this is true, the claimed difference of 2-3 degrees is not nearly enough to account for the difference in temperatures at night, yes? Especially since it is cooler at night even when the Moon isn't out, I'm sure you agree.

Do you agree that the Earth cools off at night even when the Moon isn't out?

Why do you think the magnifying glass further reduces the temperature? That's the heart of the issue.

In my experience, it didn't.

If radiative cooling were the only effect in operation, the lenses, as I mentioned before, would INCREASE the temperature. However, the lenses focusing the moonlight consistently FURTHER DECREASE the temperature. Why do you think that could be?

I have not seen this shown to occur with any rigor.

Can you prove the claim that a magnifying glass "further decreases" the temperature? One trial isn't enough to show this, can you provide any proof of this experiment being done with repeated trials, control groups, error calculations...?

As I have said repeatedly, I did many, many trials.

Are you now going to claim that you've used a lens to test this? You didn't mention it in your previous post about your experiment - that would be a hell of thing to leave out.

So far you have offered absolutely NO EXPLANATION for the lens further decreasing the temperature. Don't worry, you're not alone. No one has been able to explain it thus far. That's why this is relevant and I continue to talk about it. Thanks for trying.

As I have said repeatedly, I did many, many trials.

I did too... but neither of us has error bars or a dataset on hand for others to analyze, and that is what I am asking for.

Are you now going to claim that you've used a lens to test this?

Indeed I did.

So far you have offered absolutely NO EXPLANATION for the lens further decreasing the temperature.

That is because I dispute that this even happens, based on my own experience.

Again, can you prove the claim that a magnifying glass "further decreases" the temperature? One trial in a youtube video isn't enough to show this, can you provide any proof of this experiment being done with repeated trials, control groups, error calculations...? Not necessarily by you, by anyone?

Here is your previous rundown of your experimental design:

In my experiments I noticed that the target exposed to open air was cooler every time, whether the Moon was out or not, whatever its phase, cloudy or not, etc. The results were clearly that something more exposed to the open air was cooler, rather than that the Moon had anything to do with it.

You do not mention lenses at all. I think I've caught you making a false claim. Please try the experiment sometime with a magnifying lens if you're interested. Otherwise, keep believing whatever you want - I'll be using science to demonstrate how full of shit the entire mainstream cosmology is. Cheers and thanks for your ideas.

You do not mention lenses at all. I think I've caught you making a false claim.

Incorrect. I was emphasizing the importance of making a control group, and the various conditions under which I did trials, not describing exactly how each trial was conducted. You will notice I did not describe the type of thermometer I used either, or what the targets I was measuring even were. I am happy to give more details about how exactly I did each trial if you like.

Please try the experiment sometime with a magnifying lens if you're interested.

I already have.

You didn't answer, but do you agree that the Earth cools off at night even when the Moon isn't out?

Can you prove the claim that a magnifying glass "further decreases" the temperature? One trial in a youtube video isn't enough to show this, can you provide any proof of this experiment being done with repeated trials, control groups, error calculations...? Not necessarily by you, by anyone?

I'm speaking informally on reddit, I'm not trying to publish anything. As we have discussed, my experimental design meets all the rigors you set out - I have a control and everything. I'm not sure if you're aware, but you've come to /r/conspiracy to engage with me. It's a subreddit - it's not a science journal - and despite discussing this here, my experimental design was flawless - it met all the criteria you set forth.

Again, your attempts to attack my rigor are very transparent to me - especially because you continue to do it after we have already established my experiment is fine and it's simply my results that you don't like. You clearly want to deny this phenomenon exists because you can't explain it at all.

And I'm not really concerned if you don't believe my claims. Thanks again for trying to distract from the fact that you obviously lied about doing experiments. By your own words you completely omitted the lens component of the experiment, which is critical to proving that it's a property of the light. I am now suspicious that you have even performed the version which you initially described. You seem more like a contrarian trying to win an argument than someone interested in finding the truth.

Generally, I've found people that are willing to lie that quickly and easily probably lie all the time :)

Go ahead and keep replying if you want to, I'm done here. I've shown everyone here that you are not to be trusted and will lie to try to prove whatever point you may be arguing. Have a nice night.

I'm speaking informally on reddit, I'm not trying to publish anything.

That's fine. I don't need it to be your results, I am asking for data collected by anyone. All I have found are youtube videos like you have shared, of a single trial with no control and improvised equipment.

my experimental design was flawless - it met all the criteria you set forth.

No experiment is "flawless," since all experiments have error which must be accounted for. You have not even described your experiment in enough detail to really make that assessment, anyway. Which is fine with me, as I said, I don't need it to be your results that prove your claim.

Thanks again for trying to distract from the fact that you obviously lied about doing experiments. By your own words you completely omitted the lens component of the experiment, which is critical to proving that it's a property of the light.

I'm speaking informally on reddit, I'm not trying to publish anything. :)

As I explained, I was describing the conditions under which the experiment was performed. I am happy to discuss more details about how it was done, and the many other experiments I have done, but you seem to have decided to run away from this discussion instead.

I will leave you with the two questions you keep ignoring:

You didn't answer, but do you agree that the Earth cools off at night even when the Moon isn't out?

Can you prove the claim that a magnifying glass "further decreases" the temperature? One trial in a youtube video isn't enough to show this, can you provide any proof of this experiment being done with repeated trials, control groups, error calculations...? Not necessarily by you, by anyone?

You couldn't even keep your story straight. That's how I know you're lying - I don't need to see any numbers or ask for a formal write-up - you failed a basic consistency test. What a total joker :) And yet you continue to "soldier" on, pretending like you have some kind of credibility.

It's fine though, keep trying to undermine me, my positions, my experiment, and pretending you know it all. Lots of posters here are familiar with tactics like these. I'm not asking you or anyone to believe me - I don't care if you do. It's very telling that you apparently feel some kind of need to continue to try to argue with me even though I don't care what you think of me. Sorry but you've clearly demonstrated enough character weakness (willingness to lie) that your opinion does not matter to me :)

As I have repeatedly explained to you, I described the conditions under which the experiment was performed. I am happy to discuss more details about how it was done, and the many other experiments I have done, but you seem to have decided to run away from this discussion instead.

You didn't answer, but do you agree that the Earth cools off at night even when the Moon isn't out? This is a simple yes or no question.

The answer (yes) contradicts your claim that radiative cooling is "a myth," although you quickly backtracked on that claim and admitted that it does exist.

I claim it cannot possibly be the sole reason for the temperature difference I observed and you continually try to mischaracterize what I said in order to make me seem less credible. Here's my previous answer:

No - I'm sure radiative cooling does apply in many situations.

Did you miss that? You act like you're trying to pin me with your embolden question. I guess you didn't really read my replies very thoroughly either.

So in addition to being an outright liar, you're also careless - good to know.

Good, so you agree that the Earth is cooler at night even when the Moon is not out. Remember, though, your initial claim was:

radiative cooling is a total joke. It does not hold up to any scrutiny - it's a myth. It's a religious belief.

Is radiative cooling a myth? Or does it exist? You quickly backtracked on your claim and admitted that it does exist. So why did you claim it was a "myth" before?

I said it was a joke as a full explanation of the effect of the experiment - which I control for with the magnifying lens that you did not include.

Then after you goaded me for a while, I clarified my position. Radiative cooling does exist (I never denied that it did, only objected to your claim that it was reason I was getting a temperature difference) but it does not explain why a magnifying lens further decreases the temperature reads from a thermometer during a full moon.

Then after you goaded me for a while, I clarified my position.

"You couldn't even keep your story straight. That's how I know you're lying."

Really though, you were very broad in your claim of calling radiative cooling "a myth." I am glad you have clarified and/or backed off from that.

So, what do you think of my suggested experiment? Are nights with a full Moon generally cooler than nights with a new Moon?

After all, if the Moon is required to explain the cooling of the Earth at night fully, there should be a significant decrease in nighttime temperature when it is out, right?

What I have read so far suggests either no difference or a minuscule but statistically significant temperature increase with a full Moon.

Can you find any data which suggests that there is a decrease in temperature on nights with a full Moon vs. a new Moon?

Honestly, I wasn't even aware the term "radiative cooling" applied beyond the topic of the earth cooling at night. If you look at the wikipedia article on the topic, it's the only type of radiative cooling all that's mentioned. Look. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_cooling

Again, you make empty accusation and try to twist my words to discredit me. It's pathetic honestly - this is truly narcissistic behavior.

I'm not concerned with trying to broaden this to include speculation and other nonsense. I posted my experiment - which you have claimed to have imitated (falsely). Then you have tried repeatedly to twist everything I said in order to attack my credibility when again, I don't care what you think because I know you're a liar.

If you're interested, please do more research. I'm glad I've broadened your understanding of reality, if only a little bit :)

Honestly, I wasn't even aware the term "radiative cooling" applied beyond the topic of the earth cooling at night.

Were you not aware that things which are hot radiate energy?

I'm not concerned with trying to broaden this to include speculation and other nonsense.

That's not what I am doing. You directly made a claim that that the moon "radiates cold" and cools things down when they are in its light. Should this not apply to the Earth?

I see that you will not provide any data or evidence that there is a decrease in temperature on nights with a full Moon vs. a new Moon.

It is not "speculation" to check the widely available data for temperature over time and compare it against the phases of the moon.

If you're interested, please do more research. I'm glad I've broadened your understanding of reality, if only a little bit :)

You have not. I remain unconvinced by your anecdotes (since my own experience contradicts them) and you have provided nothing to prove your claims with any rigor--which, again, does not need to be your own results.

You directly made a claim that that the moon "radiates cold" and cools things down when they are in its light.

Where did I make this claim? I believe I've only said it's a property of the moonlight. I don't know what the moon is and I am only speaking of moonlight on a full moon - I am not claiming the moon radiates cold. The cooling doesn't seem to be present unless the moon is full or near-full.

Again, I'm not asking you to believe me or to look anything up in a journal. I claim no position of authority, I'm really just saying to any honest readers that you don't have to believe anything you read on the internet, you can do out and do these tests yourselves for almost no money at all. The materials are very cheap and the time investment is also minimal.

So if you're curious, then please try it. Because as we can all see, /u/magic_missile certainly did not - he admitted as much when he originally spoke about his experimental design - and I quoted his reply to protect against edits. Thanks for reading.

I have repeatedly explained how I described the conditions under which the experiment was taken, and offered repeatedly to explain in detail about the actual trials I performed--you ignore this.

You also ignore the evidence that there is if anything a slight temperature increase during a full Moon, directly contradicting your claims.

So, what do you think of my suggested experiment? Are nights with a full Moon generally cooler than nights with a new Moon?

If moonlight has a cooling effect, shouldn't they be?

Again - The experiment I performed proves the cooling effect is a property of the light. Because the lens increases this effect.

The earth is a very complex system where there are multitudinous factors polluting the "global" data so I'm not surprised that temperature data across time does not necessarily readily reveal this.

But if you go out near a full moon and focus the moonlight with a magnifying glass, you'll be able to measure the cooling effects very easily. It's quite remarkable.

Again - The experiment I performed proves the cooling effect is a property of the light. Because the lens increases this effect.

You have not proven this claim. I understand that you do not have your own data to share--do you have anyone's? Or is all the "proof" that exists in youtube videos of one-off measurements with no control groups, no repeated trials, no attempt at measuring experimental error?

The earth is a very complex system where there are multitudinous factors polluting the "global" data so I'm not surprised that temperature data across time does not necessarily readily reveal this.

So, are you agreeing that nights with a full moon are not as a rule cooler than nights with a new moon? Even though you make the claim that objects under moonlight are cooled down by multiple degrees?

But if you go out near a full moon and focus the moonlight with a magnifying glass, you'll be able to measure the cooling effects very easily. It's quite remarkable.

My experience contradicts your claim. Since all either of us have are anecdotes, I have asked you several times to link to actual proof of this claim. You have given none.

You have not proven this claim

Again - I have not proven it to you - because it's impossible to prove something to someone who refuses to listen. But I have proven it conclusively to myself and all the observers I had when I executed the experiments, which is plenty. As I've said repeatedly, I know you're a liar and I don't care about your opinion, you'd rather lie about your experience than admit you can't explain a simple result :)

I would happily accept proof if you could show it for someone who has done this experiment in a rigorous way, as I explained. Can you? Or does the data not exist anywhere?

You suggest that the lack of any cooling effect of the moon on the Earth is explained by "multitudinous factors polluting the "global" data"--maybe you should investigate local data and see if there is any correlation there?

Do you think it is cooler in your area when the moon is full, compared to when it is not? If not, why not?

Since the full moon purportedly makes everything it shines on at least 2-3 degrees cooler...

If the previous dozens of messages are any indication, you would continue to deny that you have a nose on your face if it suited you.

Try me. Post the proof, if it exists.

Meanwhile, you have again ignored a simple question:

You suggest that the lack of any cooling effect of the moon on the Earth is explained by "multitudinous factors polluting the "global" data"--maybe you should investigate local data and see if there is any correlation there?

Do you think it is cooler in your area when the moon is full, compared to when it is not? If not, why not?

I already answered your question about the full moon and it's impact on global temperature, I'm not sure what you think you're fishing for :)

Read the question again and more carefully:

...investigate local data and see if there is any correlation there?

Do you think it is cooler in your area when the moon is full, compared to when it is not? If not, why not?

Already answered that - Thanks for proving yourself not only a liar, but a bad listener as well.

Please link and quote the answer you gave for your local conditions. In just the previous comment, you said:

I already answered your question about the full moon and it's impact on global temperature

But I am asking about local and not global.

This question is not about "global" temperatures.

As I have told you repeatedly (you don't listen) I don't care about your opinion - I don't have to answer any questions from you. I've already answered that question, and you didn't listen. You were probably busy thinking about how you wanted to attack me next.

But I don't care, I'm immune to your B.S. You haven't listened to anything I've said and you lied about performing the experiment as described. I don't owe you anything :)

Ok, link to your answer to that question. Quote the answer.

I do not believe that you have answered whether you think the temperatures in your own town--not globally, and not on just individual objects--are affected by the full Moon.

Prove me wrong. Link to where you answered that question.

Sorry, didn't you read my previous replies or listen to anything I've said?

I don't owe you anything - I've already answered your questions and you're just continuing to trudge on for no productive reason.

You are not an earnest poster, you have lied repeatedly, you have been abusive, and continue to act like I owe you something. I don't owe you anything my friend! You have no power over me. Please just try to go about your day and enjoy yourself.

I have already explained that the question I am asking is about local rather than global conditions. You have not answered that question

If you don't want to answer--that's fine of course.

But claiming to have answered the question about local conditions and not global ones is either not understand the difference or just outright lying.

I have been very clear about this - I have answered your question already - I understand you feel a need to keep posting, but you're really not promoting your ideas very well, and trying to trap me in an irrelevant argument won't further your cause. Really, it's okay, you're not fooling anyone at this point.

You did not... You explicitly said you had answered the question about "global" temperatures even though I was explicitly asking for "local" ones.

If you don't want to answer the question that is fine. But claiming to have answered the "local" question is a direct contradiction with what you have said before.

Do you understand the difference between "global" and "local"?

Yes I do. And I have answered your question. But of course, you have not been actually reading anything I write, you just want to continue to attack my position.

The experiment works fine - the one you lied about performing yourself. In your own words, you omitted the most crucial part of the experiment - and then you lied about. Persistently.

Again - because apparently you have not been reading my words - I am not going to give in to your little question game. I have already addressed it - it's that simple. Sorry if you didn't like what I had to say. It's over - the experiment stands with your lies and blatant tactical errors in this discussion.

Really, it's ok - I pity people like you who feel they have to continue to try to undermine honest posters on /r/conspiracy. Really, please take a break and try to enjoy yourself in whatever way you wish. It seems like you really need a break from this - you're just repeating yourself senselessly. And as I have stated repeatedly, I have already answered it. Not sure what your malfunction is but I would recommend a break from the internet for you my friend. Cheers and have a good one.

At this point it seems possible you might genuinely not understand the difference between global and local. That is what I am trying to suss out now. Here, I will repeat the question:

...maybe you should investigate local data and see if there is any correlation there?

Do you think it is cooler in your area when the moon is full, compared to when it is not? If not, why not?

Do you claim to have answered this local question (specifically not about global temperatures) even though your response was:

I already answered your question about the full moon and it's impact on global temperature

If you don't want to answer this local question, that is fine. But you are claiming to have answered it and you clearly have not.

Otherwise, please link to the comment where you answered the local question, or admit that you simply do not want to answer it.

Everyone please take note about how this poor mindless spammer literally cannot help it but continue to try to harass me.

Please leave me alone - I have answered your question - and I am under obligation to do that. I have done you a favor. You have lied to me repeatedly, you continue to harass me and try to provoke me. You have no power here - Please just give it a rest.

You have already exposed yourself as a liar and a fraud, and I have asked you many times to drop it. Check the previous replies again if you're really curious and again - please leave me be. Please stop replying here and harassing me - I'm not going to cooperate with you at any rate because I know you're not here to help. Please relax and have a nice day.

There is no harassment here. I am being politely insistent on a question which you have falsely claimed to have answered. I am not trying to provoke you in any way--only trying to show you the difference between the "global" question (which you answered) and the "local" question (which you have not, although you claim to have done so).

There are two questions:

1) A global question.

2) A local question.

Are you claiming to have answered #2, the local question? If so, only link to your local answer and I will be satisfied. Otherwise, if you simply do not want to answer that question, that is perfectly fine.

If you do not reply I will assume this is the case and leave you alone. I am only engaging you as far as you are engaging me. I will not follow up or harass you about your non-reply in any way. In fact I will do my best to never engage you in another discussion again.

I have answered your question - you have consistently done nothing but try to undermine and harass me, blatantly lying all the while. I bet you'll continue no matter what happens. You have the freedom to stop any time you want - please go away and leave me be.

You do understand that there are two questions, and I am asking about the second one, right?

Do you claim to have answered both questions (plural), the global and local one?

If so, only link to your local answer and I will be satisfied. Otherwise, if you simply do not want to answer that question, that is perfectly fine.

If you do not reply I will assume this is the case and leave you alone. I am only engaging you as far as you are engaging me. I will not follow up or harass you about your non-reply in any way. In fact I will do my best to never engage you in another discussion again.

Already answered :)

You already answered both questions?

If so, only link to your local answer and I will be satisfied. Otherwise, if you simply do not want to answer that question, that is perfectly fine.

If you do not reply I will assume this is the case and leave you alone. I am only engaging you as far as you are engaging me. I will not follow up or harass you about your non-reply in any way. In fact I will do my best to never engage you in another discussion again.

Yes I answered your question - please go away :)

Have a nice night, it's been real

Both questions? You keep saying "I answered your question"--singular. You understand that I asked two questions? Are you claiming to have answered both?

If so, only link to your local answer and I will be satisfied. Otherwise, if you simply do not want to answer that question, that is perfectly fine.

If you do not reply I will assume this is the case and leave you alone. I am only engaging you as far as you are engaging me. I will not follow up or harass you about your non-reply in any way. In fact I will do my best to never engage you in another discussion again.

Yes - though I had no obligation to do so, I answered you.

You know, just because you warn someone you're going to punch them doesn't make the punch not an assault - you're still harassing me. Please stop and go away - I have tried to help you as much as I can and you've done nothing but lie and harass me. Please stop and go away - I hope you have a pleasant evening.

You are being perhaps deliberately unclear and evasive here. I have asked you two questions, plural. You keep saying things like, "I answered you" and "I answered your question" (singular).

I am asking you if you are claiming to have answered both (plural) questions. You can acknowledge that you understand this by saying something like "yes I have answered both questions" and linking to the comment where you answered the second one.

It seems likely that you just want to avoid answering the second, local question.

If you do not reply I will assume this is the case and not follow up at all. I am only engaging you as far as you are engaging me. You are under no obligation to continue replying to me. I am only responding to each of your responses in this comment chain and will not engage you anywhere else. That is not harassment, that is dialogue. If you stop--so will I.

Perhaps you are being deliberately stalkerish?

I have tried to give you what you want and you seem to be obsessed with me - please leave me alone. Hope you're able to relax and have a nice night.

All you need to do is stop replying here and I will understand that you simply want to avoid answering the question, which is perfectly fine, and I will not follow up in any way. I will be and am already avoiding any further conversations with you, as I said.

You claim I'm being avoidant - no, you're being a stalker. I already answered and you're just looking for any excuse to harass me. Please desist.

This is really simple. I am not engaging you anywhere else--I am just responding to your responses to me here. If you stop replying I will do so as well. You are not obligated to respond here at all.

If you do choose to respond, a simple link to the comment where you have answered the second question will shut me up.

If you do not respond, that will be that.

No thanks - I don't have to give you what you want for you to go away and stop harassing me. You just have to make the choice to give up whatever bizarre game you're playing and be a decent person. Please stop harassing me and try to have a good night.

Why would I ever do all that for you? lol.

I dont think I asked you to do anything...

The moon is its own light source, it radiates cold, and it's an energy transformer. It's hollow and you can bounce lasers off of it. It's orbit is not dictated by gravity.

Why do you think any of those things? What makes you believe that?

We know the moon is reflective, we know it doesnt radiate cold (How through a vacuum?) Energy transformer? What?

Why do you think its hollow?

It follows the theory of gravity perfectly.

Show me a scientific experiment that stands up to scrutiny

That shows what?

Your whole reply is a mess.

it radiates cold,

Then why does it give of IR radiation?

it radiates cold,

Then why does it give of IR radiation?

Because it radiates, lol.

The moon gives off hear which you can verify with a FLIR device which you can buy for less than 200, see in youtube videos, or even rent / borrow one to test it yourself.

The moon gives off heat which you can verify with a FLIR device which you can buy for less than 200, see in youtube videos, or even rent / borrow one to test it yourself.

close, but no cigar. It's more that a cooler with a lid is a more contained system than the one without, therefore when the outside environment tries to equalize the inside of whatever object you've cooled, it's stopped by the lid, however it still will warm up to the temperature of the container, not as quickly though.

I've always been fascinated by the idea that the moon was placed there by somthing. The unusually large size, perfect distance from earth so that the moon and sun appear to be the exact same size, the extremely odd tidally locked orbit, the fact that NASA said the moon rang like a bell. So many coincidences...

I think it was potentially what first allowed the earth to become terraformed. I also think it's one of the reasons we've never been back (publicly, that is).

The moon isn't a place you go. The sun is artificial too.

Start are balls of gas with electricity going through them.

Sun is an energy transformer that radiates plasma or electric heat. It's not nuclear, hydrogen, gas, or any of that bs.

Would love to read more on this. Is this your own personal theory or can you point me in a good direction?

IDK, you just kind of figure it out. They tell you in 8th grade science that the Sun is plasma and stars are gas.

They are obviously the same size.

Once you learn to decipher BS in the media and edu, it's fairly easy to figure out what's going on.

There's maybe some YouTubers that talk about it.

Here's a trick question for you...

Is there life on Mars?

I’ll guess the answer to the trick question is “Mars doesn’t exist”? I don’t know.

You are on Mars, lol.

Wait... what?? How? Really?

It’s the conclusion that I come to looking at this subreddit.

Basically, we are colonizing this area. Our history is manufactured. We didn’t build these cities, but found them. Technology is being withheld.

While not required, you are requested to use the NP (No Participation) domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by replacing the "www" in your reddit link with "np".

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJJ_z6pwUrE

This stuff is like the "proof" or whatever. Zoom cameras are actually so good and cheap, that you can zoom in and see what's really going on. My vision is good enough I can see stars shimmer with eyes. But, there's videos online where people recreate the stars and planets in a lap. They are just gas bubbles with electric frequency causing them to take their shape.

The sun and moon are completely different.

Zoom cameras are actually so good and cheap, that you can zoom in and see what's really going on.

Does it not bother you that when using a good old fashioned analog telescope this phenomena goes away?

The only times you see those blurry orbs is through a digital camera. Why do you think that is?

Does it not bother you that when using a good old fashioned analog telescope this phenomena goes away?

It doesn't. #FakeNews.

The pictures you see are fake. You can't go to a telescope and get pictures like that. They have to be rendered, and it takes months or years. So, IDK what the fuck you are talking about, but it has zero basis in reality.

Do you believe every bit of BS you are told?

It doesn't. #FakeNews.

It does lol I own a telescope, a rather nice one at that.

You can't go to a telescope and get pictures like that.

You literally can lol. Go check out https://www.reddit.com/r/astrophotography/

Do you believe every bit of BS you are told?

Nope just the shit I see through my telescope

Do you believe everything you are told?

Just for shits and giggle use an analog device and observe a close planet in the solar system.

Why does that scare you?

I see lots of pictures of the moon, and then all the other planets look like stuff that can be created in the lab using gas and frequency.

Here's an example. It looks exactly like when people create it in a lab using frequency.

Don't see many pictures of stars.

While not required, you are requested to use the NP (No Participation) domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by replacing the "www" in your reddit link with "np".

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

It looks exactly like when people create it in a lab using frequency.

Don't see many pictures of stars.

Give me an example of the gas and frequency planet made in a lab...

I like to star gaze as well (up to about a 200X magnification). That doesn't mean I believe what science says is up there. In fact, the more you look up there, the less you believe what school has taught about space. I have a feeling it's the skeptics who are more likely to look up in the sky, while the true believers tend to stay inside and quote books.

The longer you stare at the moon with a good telescope, the more you start to think it was man-made.

Man-made or natural, I don't believe anything mainstream science says about it: the size, distance, tides, and the way the surface of it was formed. Watching it in a telescope, you'll see rough crater terrain and then it's impossibly smooth, making me think it's all a perfectly smooth surface under an uneven crust. I don't think the craters are from impacts or volcanic, either. They look more like bubbles popped or something to me.

At any rate, I love Moon-gazing. It's fascinating to see it up close, and I recommend it to anyone, whether they believe in the lies of mainstream science or seek the truth, it's still beautiful.

To me the craters look like an impact through a thin layer of crust of rock over a much harder layer of something very hard, almost like a metal hull.

There definitely could be something hard on it, or the whole thing made of a hard metal or something else smooth. Ancient Aliens did an episode on that, that was actually pretty cool with visual models of what the Moon might look like if it was "extra terrestrial" made.

I'm also trying to catch sight of sun spots with my solar filter and track them throughout the day as they rotate like a wheel. Someday I'll invest in a nice telescope because it really is amazing to look at that stuff.

Here is raw footage from a C14 telescope, its a bit fancier than mine

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9IDTUAmWC6A

Jupiter is a ball of gas. No one really disputes that. Maybe it's bigger or smaller than you think, nearer or further away, but it's just gas, light, electricity, etc.

Yeah but its not a warping ball of neon lights

No, it’s a morphing ball of dull light.

The sun isn’t a ball of gas. The moon isn’t a ball of gas. Jupiter and the stars are balls of gas.

The sun and moon arent balls of gas...

Jupiter does.

Why do you think that is?

Because, as Jeranism says, you didn't tell the telescope what it was pointing at.

wish I was joking

Sonoluminescence: sound waves in water.

God spoke everything into existence with his Word. He then became Jesus Christ and died for us.

Gen 1:3  And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 

Gen 1:7  And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. 

Who laid the foundations of the earth, so that it should not be removed forever.

Psalm 104:5

Amen

I got to look into that word stuff, where they made the patterns. That’s mind blowing at face value.

It's not nuclear, hydrogen, gas, or any of that bs.

Then explain why the Sun gives off this - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_spectral_series

e = mc²

Buy you just said " It's not nuclear, hydrogen, gas, or any of that bs."

It gives out plasma. It's not a ball of gas, but the plasma is a state of matter that comes from the electricity that it is transforming into the plasma. It's reasonable that the plasma emitted is hydrogen... but the Sun isn't hydrogen; it's a transformer turning electricity into plasma to make heat.

This isn't a LARP, you need actual evidence.

This is a message board. I don't owe you anything. Do your own research.

I have and it doesn't match what you are saying. You don't have any evidence to support your position and when called out you respond by lashing out.

That isn't the way people who are convinced of the validity of their ideas behave.

Here you go.

You mean the ideas of Eric Dollard? The free energy guy?

I mean, do your own research, come to your own conclusion.

Is asking people questions part of doing research?

lulz, have a nice day guy

Figures. When asked to support your position you run away.

Typical.

I love how crackpots never have a spine and can't back up their ideas

the extremely odd tidally locked orbit

Its so odd that more than 25 satellites in the solar system are tidally locked...

You’ve identified them with your telescope?

How about the unusually large size compared to all other observable satellites?

Sounds like you read Alien Agenda way back when.

Haha I’ve actually never heard of that, how way back when are we talking?

2000, a must read for any conspiracy theorist.

Jim Mars Alien Agenda https://www.harpercollins.com/9780060955366/alien-agenda/

Cold doesn't radiate

Do you think it's like a cathode to the Sun (anode)? In other words, the Moon doesn't give off cold, but takes the heat away and leaving cold?

Interesting question.

I suspect they are both transformers, or energy converters, that work independently of each other. They are kinda like really advanced, and large, lightbulbs.

It’s not known where their energy comes from, so really I have no answer for you. But, I think it’s clear they are taking energy in and converting it to hot or cold.

and converting it to hot or cold.

You can't convert to cold if that is what you are saying.

Your refrigerator converts electricity to cold. Your electric oven converts electricity to heat.

No, a refrigerator is a heat pump. It doesn't create cold. It moves heat.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refrigerator

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_pump

This is why the condenser tubes on the back of a refrigerator get warm or hot, because that is where the heat is going.

Duh

Glad you agree...

In the same way, thermal radiation is a transfer of heat from the object which is radiating. There is no such thing as radiating cold as you have suggested in some of your comments.

You can look at anything from a different level, and say oh it's really doing this.

The Sun heats the earth. The Moon cools it. If the moon didn't cool the earth, it would just keep getting warmer and warmer because of the sun.

The Sun heats the earth. The Moon cools it.

As /u/ima_catholic suggested, buy an infrared camera and see for yourself that the Moon emits heat.

If the moon didn't cool the earth, it would just keep getting warmer and warmer because of the sun.

No. The Earth radiates heat all around it and that is how it cools down. When you shine a bright lamp on something, that thing doesn't just keep getting hotter forever. It radiates heat to its surroundings, even as they are also radiating heat to it.

The hotter it gets, the more heat it radiates, until it reaches a steady state where it is radiating as much heat out as is being radiated to it. Conduction and convection are involved too in many cases.

If you are interested in this subject, there are free online courses about heat transfer I could point you to.

Just because there's radiation, doesn't mean it's hot... that's just an assumption the cameras make.

There is thermoelectric cooling. It would give false results with your camera.

Just because there's radiation, doesn't mean it's hot... that's just an assumption the cameras make.

There is infrared radiation coming from it... infrared radiation heats things up. Radiation in general is a form of energy, and adding energy to a system (by radiation incident upon it) does not cool it down, quite the opposite.

There is thermoelectric cooling. It would give false results with your camera.

You are not claiming "thermoelectric cooling," you are claiming that it "radiates cold." That is not the same thing.

Do you understand that as an object such as the Earth heats up, it emits heat as thermal radiation?

When you shine a bright lamp on something, that thing doesn't just keep getting hotter forever. Do you agree?

It radiates heat to its surroundings, even as they are also radiating heat to it. You don't need a "cold lamp" to cool it down.

You get that, right?

The moon is an energy transformer. It transforms electric energy into cold.

You are not claiming "thermoelectric cooling," you are claiming that it "radiates cold." That is not the same thing.

This is called a deconstructive argument. You are:

1. over parsing, and breaking down language, to the point that it has no meaning

2. reconstructing the language to have the meaning that you want

3. pointing at me and saying I'm wrong

I'm not wrong because you are breaking language, and making deconstructive arguments. That you are resulting to this, likely means that I am right.

But, I'm ending the discussion here. Have a nice one!

This is not deconstructive... thermoelectric cooling is a real thing that already exists, and it is not related to what you are claiming.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoelectric_cooling

Now I expect you won't answer, but I want to make sure you are aware that as an object such as the Earth heats up, it emits heat as thermal radiation.

When you shine a bright lamp on something, that thing doesn't just keep getting hotter forever. Do you agree?

It radiates heat to its surroundings, even as they are also radiating heat to it. You don't need a "cold lamp" to cool it down.

Using your analogy, maybe Sirius is more likely be the cathode.

Could be. There's a theory all the stars are connected by some unseen conduit. Or maybe they're in salt water and the electricity flows through the water.

That's one of the current theories, ya. And i mean, if you want to go back far enough, everything in the solar system was made from the same stuff.

This the creation story we are given at school.

The question is, what empirical evidence are we shown to support this creation story?

Like.. all of science?

lol

I mean.. laugh at yourself? You ask for empirical proof, which is what science is.. peer reviewed scientific studies, then you just dismiss it all?

"Show me proof!"

"Sure, here."

"lol noz dat no pruuf lul"

How long have you had faith in muh science?

Isnt the moon a big chunk of the Earth that was blown off?

That is the theory.

Now, can you tell me their most convincing piece of evidence to support that theory?

(No appeals to authority)

I saw this on the cover of a magazine like 25-30 years ago. I don’t believe it, but seemed plausible to me at the time. But, major science periodical was selling this story.

(No appeals to authority)

Dumb. Prove a computer isn't magic (no appeals to authority)

You cant prove a negative.

The prove a positive.

Prove the moon isnt what we believe it to be

Youre still asking me to prove a negative.

Okay then dont prove anything.

Just dont complain when people dont believe you

I dont complain when people dont believe me. I dont care when people dont believe me. Especially people that may or may not even be real such as those people I interact with on the internet.

I dont care when people dont believe me.

Then let the adults talk and keep your opinions to yourself

:)

says the guy asking people to prove negatives.

Youre basically saying we cant know so you cant prove it.

Which is different than proving a negative.

According to your logic proving it does exist is a negative and proving it doesnt exist is a negative.

So which is it?

Im not saying we cant know. I would know the moon existed if I was standing on it. I know the Earth exists because Im standing on it.

That some nonsense and you know it.

Which back to my initial point that you cant prove computers are not magic because you cant shrink yourself down to view an electron.

Thats dumb.

You have all the resources to figure this out but you ignore them because you cant experience it. This is called solipsism and its a fools way to navigate life.

How do you know I cant shrink myself down to view and electron?

I would have to see it in person or else nothing can be believed, right?

exactly.

Sounds like a bullshit argument that you would use whenever you get stumped.

Computers arent magic

I never said computers are magic. Why are you putting words in my mouth?

Im using your logic applied elsewhere to show how dumb it is.

You clearly think computers are powered by pixie dust because you have no way of knowing how they function

I never said anything about pixie dust. You seem to be having a hard time here. Is there any way I can help you better understand this?

I get it.

Again (Keep up here bro) applying your logic to other areas like computing means I can never know what a computer is doing. I can never view how they work so I will never know.

Therefore it must be something magical.

No, that is not how this works. You might be a computer programmer and understand perfectly well though personal experience how a computer works, but that does not mean I know how a computer works. To you, it would make perfect sense, to me it would be a mystery, but I would understand they work, just now how they work. Just because I do not understand how they work does not mean I automatically assume its magic. It just means that, in my mind, I have no been exposed to the information necessary for me to know how it works.

I wonder who that account is, I got a pretty good guess

Was it me????

Prove a computer isn't magic

I believe what we call 'technology' is magic.

Why don't you?

Oh yeah, that's right, 'muh experts'.

I believe what we call 'technology' is magic.

So you just take someone elses word for it?

Ive never seen an electron move through a logic gate, have you?

Nihilism is a stepping stone.

Ive never seen an electron move through a logic gate, have you?

No I have not.

See? Honesty is easy once you get the hang of it :)

Please define the word theory as you are using it in your question.

You read that in a 'science' magazine?

Yeah and the hundreds of papers on the subject

It's size and proximity (plus the exact ratio to the sun to make perfect eclipses) generates an extreme low chance that it's terrestrial.

I don't believe in coincidences. Perfect synchronous rotation too...

Many theories. None will ever be proven. The info on it ringing like a bell should remove some mainstream ones though

GOOD. YOU DESERVED TO GET BANNED.

That's an interesting article. You should post it to this sub, instead of putting it inside the comments of a self post.

There's a bunch of clusterfucks around the moon items and films etc..

/space doesn't like you pointing out any of them...
You are 100% in support of space!!!!!!!!!! or banned.

R/space is garbage. They are trash. They will ban anyone who questions their scripted narrative. A special place in hell for r/space. Traitors to mankind.

r/space almost surely controlled by the usual band of TMOR pedo-defenders and other assorted rim-job specialists.

Plenty on the NASA payroll.

Good point!

NASA defense team is by far the most identifiable. Got a legit thread about aliens in Antarctica going on right now and nothing from the usual suspects. Question the legitimacy of NASA though? Not on their fucking watch. Couple new ones in here as well

LOL yeah always the same exact cadence of questions and pompous buffoonery.

Fascinating insight! Thank you!

Question the legitimacy of NASA though?

Actually respond with evidence or facts? Not from some people - much better to deny basic evidence and physics!

Of course you did. Space is the biggest psiop there is. They are on lock down over there.

I like to ask 'awake' people how much empirical evidence they can point to which led them to believe in 'outer space'.

The usual response is, 'we can see the night sky herp derp'.

People are so incredibly stupid today that they do not even understand the difference between the sky, and 'outer space'. It is all the same thing to them.

Idiocracy indeed.

Yeah, they got nothing but our indoctrination from childhood but that is quite powerful. This deception is so impressive and astounding when you just step back and look at how it all works. People have dedicated their entire lives to it with no idea it's all nonsense. It's the most successful religion of all time because it convinced the world is wasn't a religion.

It's the most successful religion of all time because it convinced the world it wasn't a religion.

Very well said.

When it comes to space, an honest person has to admit that their ideas and opinions about space were given to them by people in a position of authority (school teachers, "scientists", government officials).

I, personally have not been to the moon or outer space. I have no first hand knowledge either of those exist in the way Ive been told they exist. I either have to have faith Ive been correctly educated or I have to conclude I do not know.

When it comes to space, an honest person has to admit that their ideas and opinions about space were given to them by people in a position of authority (school teachers, "scientists", government officials).

Don't forget 'science fiction', a misnomer if ever there was one.

I, personally have not been to the moon or outer space. I have no first hand knowledge either of those exist in the way Ive been told they exist. I either have to have faith Ive been correctly educated or I have to conclude I do not know.

100% spot on.

I like to ask 'awake' people how much empirical evidence they can point to which led them to believe in 'outer space'.

However when people ask you to explain things like Doppler shift you tend to run away from the conversation. Why?

I'm still waiting for you to explain how you verified claims pertaining to 'doppler shift'.

Remember how I wrong-footed you by stating, 'no appeals to authority'.

I'm still waiting for you to explain how you verified claims pertaining to 'doppler shift'.

Take SDR. Monitor GPS frequencies. NOTE DOPPLER SHIFT.

It doesn't take much to get banned from r/space.
All you gotta do is question their religious beliefs.

Or challenge the authority of their clergy.

This is not my strong suit: https://imgur.com/a/aAUoaQA

Lets keep in mind that NASA was, at one time, full of nazi scientists thanks to Operation Paperclip. Sooooooo........

What does that have to do with anything?

“My butt hurts, help me.”

That great brain drain of Germany helped us become what we are today. They were part of Germany when it was controlled by nazis but they are still people. Just because I'm an American doesn't mean that I represent everything our government does. We are people living in nations. Your accusation is naive.

So these nazi scientists, that conducted unethical and illegal experiments were really just good guys in a bad situation? Were they just following orders so to speak?

One of those scientists is the grand father of modern day rocketry.

Is it possible that there is both good and bad here and we just need to keep that in mind?

For sure, you're definitely right.

Reddit doesn't facilitate active discussion anymore. It's become a platform where paid interests can control what we all believe to be the 'majority' mindset on a particular topic.

The 'science' subreddits have become such a tragic parody of what the concept of science is supposed to be its almost beyond belief.

NASA has not tried to claim ownership of the dust, but Cicco filed the lawsuit proactively

Great article... Now were you banned just for posting this or because you threw a tantrum at the mods after they removed the shitty article?

https://giphy.com/gifs/EouEzI5bBR8uk/html5

The moon landing was faked. We had tech way past it already when went

r/space2

as per their mod

"As is typical with popular posts having anything to do with the moon, if you see a removed comment, chances are good it was claiming the moon landing was fake, joking about the moon landing being fake, or some other jokey comment."

So... If you make a dumb comment, it gets removed.

Easy.

They are mostly arrogant douchebags who can only spout the usual dogma.

And actively troll supporters of the Electric Universe paradigm

While not required, you are requested to use the NP (No Participation) domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by replacing the "www" in your reddit link with "np".

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

Good point!

Was it me????

Your refrigerator converts electricity to cold. Your electric oven converts electricity to heat.

Duh

The magnifying glass increasing the cooling effect suggests it's a quality of the light

Then why haven't you used it to power your home / power things / make money?

So you can't explain how the presence of cooling light several days out of the month would supply easy free energy then?

Yes I can. However as you have show you will not research even when given the exact words to search for so why should I take time and effort to write up a description that you will not bother to read?

I'm speaking informally on reddit, I'm not trying to publish anything. As we have discussed, my experimental design meets all the rigors you set out - I have a control and everything. I'm not sure if you're aware, but you've come to /r/conspiracy to engage with me. It's a subreddit - it's not a science journal - and despite discussing this here, my experimental design was flawless - it met all the criteria you set forth.

Again, your attempts to attack my rigor are very transparent to me - especially because you continue to do it after we have already established my experiment is fine and it's simply my results that you don't like. You clearly want to deny this phenomenon exists because you can't explain it at all.

And I'm not really concerned if you don't believe my claims. Thanks again for trying to distract from the fact that you obviously lied about doing experiments. By your own words you completely omitted the lens component of the experiment, which is critical to proving that it's a property of the light. I am now suspicious that you have even performed the version which you initially described. You seem more like a contrarian trying to win an argument than someone interested in finding the truth.

Generally, I've found people that are willing to lie that quickly and easily probably lie all the time :)

Go ahead and keep replying if you want to, I'm done here. I've shown everyone here that you are not to be trusted and will lie to try to prove whatever point you may be arguing. Have a nice night.

I'm speaking informally on reddit, I'm not trying to publish anything.

That's fine. I don't need it to be your results, I am asking for data collected by anyone. All I have found are youtube videos like you have shared, of a single trial with no control and improvised equipment.

my experimental design was flawless - it met all the criteria you set forth.

No experiment is "flawless," since all experiments have error which must be accounted for. You have not even described your experiment in enough detail to really make that assessment, anyway. Which is fine with me, as I said, I don't need it to be your results that prove your claim.

Thanks again for trying to distract from the fact that you obviously lied about doing experiments. By your own words you completely omitted the lens component of the experiment, which is critical to proving that it's a property of the light.

I'm speaking informally on reddit, I'm not trying to publish anything. :)

As I explained, I was describing the conditions under which the experiment was performed. I am happy to discuss more details about how it was done, and the many other experiments I have done, but you seem to have decided to run away from this discussion instead.

I will leave you with the two questions you keep ignoring:

You didn't answer, but do you agree that the Earth cools off at night even when the Moon isn't out?

Can you prove the claim that a magnifying glass "further decreases" the temperature? One trial in a youtube video isn't enough to show this, can you provide any proof of this experiment being done with repeated trials, control groups, error calculations...? Not necessarily by you, by anyone?

Again - The experiment I performed proves the cooling effect is a property of the light. Because the lens increases this effect.

You have not proven this claim. I understand that you do not have your own data to share--do you have anyone's? Or is all the "proof" that exists in youtube videos of one-off measurements with no control groups, no repeated trials, no attempt at measuring experimental error?

The earth is a very complex system where there are multitudinous factors polluting the "global" data so I'm not surprised that temperature data across time does not necessarily readily reveal this.

So, are you agreeing that nights with a full moon are not as a rule cooler than nights with a new moon? Even though you make the claim that objects under moonlight are cooled down by multiple degrees?

But if you go out near a full moon and focus the moonlight with a magnifying glass, you'll be able to measure the cooling effects very easily. It's quite remarkable.

My experience contradicts your claim. Since all either of us have are anecdotes, I have asked you several times to link to actual proof of this claim. You have given none.

You do understand that there are two questions, and I am asking about the second one, right?

Do you claim to have answered both questions (plural), the global and local one?

If so, only link to your local answer and I will be satisfied. Otherwise, if you simply do not want to answer that question, that is perfectly fine.

If you do not reply I will assume this is the case and leave you alone. I am only engaging you as far as you are engaging me. I will not follow up or harass you about your non-reply in any way. In fact I will do my best to never engage you in another discussion again.

No thanks - I don't have to give you what you want for you to go away and stop harassing me. You just have to make the choice to give up whatever bizarre game you're playing and be a decent person. Please stop harassing me and try to have a good night.