[manicminer]

FE Wiki has a section where it talks about the Moon being ‘transparent’. Within that section there is a link…

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za63.htm

The first paragraph mentions a solar eclipse that was visible on October 11th 1520. This was an annular eclipse. These occur when the Moons angular size on the sky is slightly less than that of the Sun.

The outermost part of solar disk remains visible for the entire duration of such an eclipse. At mid-eclipse one can see this outermost part as a ‘ring of fire’ which is often highly red tinted due to the light of the chromosphere shining through as well.

At the time of a solar eclipse only a very small amount of the Earths surface is covered by the darkest part of the Moons shadow at any one time.  That means a significant amount of sunlight is reflected back towards the Moon. More than enough to faintly illuminate the Moons Earth facing side which will be in darkness at the time of the eclipse. A solar eclipse coincides with the phase of ‘new Moon’.

During a total eclipse we see the solar corona shining like a brilliant white halo surrounding the Moons silhouetted disc.  The brightness of the corona will contrast with the faint light of Earthshine, rendering it invisible.

The corona is not visible during an annular eclipse so there is every chance that, with suitable care taken, the Earthshine effect would be visible under the right conditions.  This would make the normal features of the full Moon faintly visible during the maximum phase of the eclipse. That could be misinterpreted as making the Moon look as if it was vaguely translucent.

I am trying to think back to what options would have been available during the early 16th century to observe solar eclipses safely.  That was well before the concentrated era of telescopic observational astronomy and certainly no filters would have been available.

[AATW]

Quite astonishingly I believe that Rowbotham simultaneously claims that.
1) The moon in transparent, or translucent
2) The moon emits its own light.
3) That light is "cold".

Any one of these is Nobel Prize worthy, the idea of a celestial body which is transparent or translucent, the idea that the moon emits rather than reflects light and that any form of light could have a cooling effect. Amazing that his ideas haven't caught on...

Now. Of course. Him being wrong about these things doesn't mean he's wrong about everything else. But given that his writings are mostly about science, his complete ignorance here does not bode well for this other pontifications.

[QED]

Quite astonishingly I believe that Rowbotham simultaneously claims that.
1) The moon in transparent, or translucent
2) The moon emits its own light.
3) That light is "cold".

Any one of these is Nobel Prize worthy, the idea of a celestial body which is transparent or translucent, the idea that the moon emits rather than reflects light and that any form of light could have a cooling effect. Amazing that his ideas haven't caught on...

Now. Of course. Him being wrong about these things doesn't mean he's wrong about everything else. But given that his writings are mostly about science, his complete ignorance here does not bode well for this other pontifications.

He is certainly mistaken about the moon emitting it’s own light on the visible spectrum. Does he specify the band of emission?

The light is...cold? Oh dear, by what reasoning does he assign a temperature to this light?

I am quite curious for any of these details you can provide.

[Tom Bishop]

It was science and multiple astronomers and scientists who were claiming that stars sometimes occulted the moon and that the light of the moon registered as either no change or caused a cooling effect with the special and sensitive tools used. Those are their claims. Rowbotham references them.

Rowbotham says that many experiments on moonlight have shown no heat increase or at times even a cooling effect:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za29.htm

    The moon's light concentrated in the above manner produces a focus so brilliant and luminous that it is difficult to look upon it; yet there is no increase of temperature. In the focus of sun-light there is great heat but no light. In that of the moon's light there is great light but no heat. That the light of the moon is without heat, is fully verified by the following quotations:---

    "If the most delicate thermometer be exposed to the full light of the moon, shining with its greatest lustre, the mercury is not elevated a hair's breadth; neither would it be if exposed to the focus of her rays concentrated by the most powerful lenses. This has been proved by actual experiment." 1

    "This question has been submitted to the test of direct experiment. . . . The bulb of a thermometer sufficiently sensitive to render apparent a change of temperature amounting to the thousandth part of a degree, was placed in the focus of a concave reflector of vast dimensions, which, being directed to the moon, the lunar rays were collected with great power upon it. Not the slightest change, however, was produced in the thermometric column; proving that a concentration of rays sufficient to fuse gold if they proceeded from the sun, does not produce a change of temperature so great as the thousandth part of a degree when they proceed from the moon." 2

    "The most delicate experiments have failed in detecting in the light of the moon either calorific or chemical properties. Though concentrated in the focus of the largest mirrors, it produces no sensible heating effect. To make this experiment, recourse has been had to a bent tube, the extremities of which terminate in two hollow globes filled with air, the one trans-parent, the other blackened, the middle space being occupied by a coloured fluid. In this instrument, when caloric is absorbed by it, the black ball takes up more than the other, and the air it encloses increasing in elasticity, the liquid is driven out. This instrument is so delicate that it indicates even the millionth part of a degree; and yet, in the experiment alluded to, it gave no result." 1

    "The light of the moon, though concentrated by the most powerful burning-glass, is incapable of raising the temperature of the most delicate thermometer. M. De la Hire collected the rays of the full moon when on the meridian, by means of a burning-glass 35 inches in diameter, and made them fall on the bulb of a delicate air-thermometer. No effect was produced though the lunar rays by this glass were concentrated 300 times. Professor Forbes concentrated the moon's light by a lens 30 inches in diameter, its focal distance being about 41 inches, and having a power of concentration exceeding 6000 times. The image of the moon, which was only 18 hours past full, and less than two hours from the meridian, was brilliantly thrown by this lens on the extremity of a commodious thermopile. Although the observations were made in the most unexceptional manner, and (supposing that half the rays were reflected, dispersed and absorbed), though the light of the moon was concentrated 3000 times, not the slightest thermo effect was produced." 2

    In the "Lancet" (Medical Journal), for March 14th, 1856, particulars are given of several experiments which proved that the moon's rays when concentrated, actually reduced the temperature upon a thermometer more than eight degrees.

Other references --

Dr. William LeRoy Broun says:

https://books.google.com/books?id=Lz5AAAAAYAAJ&dq=tyndall%20concentrated%20moonlight%20cold&pg=PA204#v=onepage&q&f=false

    Even when the moonlight has been concentrated by large concave mirrors on delicate thermometers they have failed to cause any increase of temperature. One astronomer thought that he has obtained a degree of heat from the moon on the top of Teneriffe; but his instrumental means were imperfect. Professor Tyndall says that his experiments indicated rays of cold from the moon.

Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London

https://books.google.com/books?id=44oQ80CCe9AC&dq=Effect%20of%20Moonlight%20on%20Selenium&pg=PA315#v=onepage&q&f=false

Effect of Moonlight on Selenium

    The effect of moonlight on the selenium was tried during the month of January 1875. [details follow]

    ...These experiments show that exposure to cold produces a change in the selenium in the same direction as exposure to moonlight

    ...From these and a variety of other experiments which have already been described, and which point all in the same direction, we conclude that for a slight increase of temperature the resistance of the selenium is greatly increased, and for a slight lowering of temperature the resistance is greatly diminished

https://books.google.com/books?id=QRNLAQAAMAAJ&dq=moonlight%20galvanometer%20cold&pg=PA422#v=onepage&q&f=false

    But with Seebeck's discovery of the exactation of electricity by the action of heat upon vertain electrical conductors came a method of detecting changed of temperature infinitisimally small. When plates of two metals, say bismuth and antimony, are soldered together and the point of junction is heated, an electric current is established from one metal to the other; this may be carried off by writes and caused to deflect a galvanometer, the needle of which becomes an index whereby the greater or less intensity of the current can be measured; and since the current varies with the warmth that generates it, the measure of the one becomes a measure of the other, and the metal plates and needle together form a thermometer very different from the instrument to which we generally apply that name.

    Now, by multiplying the metal plates and increasing the delicacy of the galvanometer, any degree of sensitiveness can be secured; indeed the instrument may be rendered so acute as to be unmanageable, the warmth of a man's body several yards off sufficing to set the needle a-quivering.

    Melloni was the first to apply it, in some of his early experiments he succeeded in measuring the vital heat of different insects and in detecting the warmth accompanying the luminous glow of phosphorous. It was while performing this last test of the powers of his new calorimeter that he bethought himself of trying it upon the moon. So he concentrated the lunar rays, by means of a metallic mirror, upon the face of his thermopile, in the hope of seeing the needle swing in the direction indicating heat; but it turned the opposite way, proving that the anterior and exposed surface of the pile was colder than its posterior face. Here was an anomaly. Did the moon, then, shed cold?

    [author goes on to attempt an explanation for the observation]

    ....

    Mr. Park Harrison, who has devoted a vast amount of time to the collation of meteorological observations, finds unmistakable evidence of them. But a strange apparent anomaly is revealed :--When the moon gives us most warmth we feel the greatest cold! The explanation of this lies in the fact of the slight clearing tendency above alluded to. The clearer the sky the more freely the earth's heat passes away into space, and consequently the colder we feel. So that while the moon warms us she cools us.

More details on Prof Tyndall's cold moonlight experiments:

https://books.google.com/books?id=3w5LAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA200&dq=concentrated+moonlight+cold&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwidtuOshoXhAhUirlkKHU3NAL8Q6AEISzAG#v=onepage&q&f=false

[Bastian Baasch]

moonlight copypasta

We already went through this on page 2 of "Why just Rowbotham?" https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=14004.20 , how about you try addressing my questions this time instead of ignoring them.

Tom, a few questions, if you would please.

For one, the experiments presented aren't very zetetic, they all focus on seeing if moonlight produces heat, instead of just observing the results from their equipment. They all expected moonlight to have a measurable effect instead of testing their equipment with other conditions, like a moonless night, a night with clouds, etc. Indeed, the only experiment to test having the equipment not face the moon was Tyndall, and he admitted himself London's atmospheric conditions weren't suitable for such a delicate test.

Second, you yourself said the results have a lot of variation, some say no change, some say cool, and you mention some who measured a temp. increase. Hardly results to make a solid conclusion out of. You don't just say "Well, more of them said cooling, so that must be it!" It doesn't work like that. You have to show the results are statistically significant.

Third, where's the explanation of the results? You're also bashing RE about how we can't explain gravity, going so far to add in some snarky remarks on the UA wiki about gravitons, so what's the explanation of this cold light from the moon allegedly? No backsies now, you can't turn heel and say "We can observe the effects without having to explain them."

Fourth, what about the currency of these experiments? They're all from the 19th century, are there any recent results from any scientific (or zetetic) experiments, and you can't just pull a "Truth doesn't have an expiration date," because the variation of results complicates that in point two, and there is better equipment to re conduct their experiments.

Fifth Tom, did you notice you contradicted yourself? In the snippet about Harrison, it says this

The clearer the sky the more freely the earth's heat passes away into space, and consequently the colder we feel. So that while the moon warms us she cools us.

That's radiative cooling! Did you just not read through it, or were you too zealous in trying to prove us wrong?

[Curious Squirrel]

Just want to pick at your reference regarding Selenium as it sparked my interest to look into for whatever reason. Reading up on it, there appears to be zero reason to think the moonlight was actually cooling the Selenium. While it indeed deflected in the same direction, any source of light will cause the same deflection. See the 1907 experiment performed by Joel Stebbins and F.C. Brown, who were attempting to find out how far away a candle needed to be in order to change the resistance by the same amount as the moon. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1907ApJ....26..326S Both the light from the candle and from the moon deflected things in the same direction. By the logic given that asserts it as evidence of a cold moon, a candle must be cold as well. Alternatively refer to the work "The Action of Light on Selenium" by Professor W.G. Adams: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rstl.1877.0009 In an opening paragraph he refers to the work of Mr. Willoughby Smith in discovering light alone will change the resistance of Selenium.

This in mind, I would suggest the reaction of Selenium to moonlight is not an indicator of moonlight having a cooling effect.

[Tom Bishop]

how about you try addressing my questions this time instead of ignoring them.

Why? I don't find the subject to be a debatable matter.

No matter how much you guys claim that the scientists were wrong, or that it can be explained by some proposed physical effect, those were simply the reported results of emperical scientific investigation. They are claims of astonomers and scientists, not Rowbotham. I am sure that they imagined some things to explain it at the time too.

[QED]

how about you try addressing my questions this time instead of ignoring them.

Why? I don't find the subject to be a debatable matter.

No matter how much you guys claim that the scientists were wrong, or that it can be explained by some proposed physical effect, those were simply the reported results of emperical scientific investigation. They are claims of astonomers and scientists, not Rowbotham. I am sure that they imagined some things to explain it at the time too.

Then simply abandon the conversation. But regardless of your opinion, the matter has been impeached.

If you wish to introduce a reference, then best practices suggest you provide the original, so that it can be addressed directly. Referencing Rowbotham who referenced some other scientist is inefficient, and only serves to obsfucate the discussion at hand.

To wit: provide the original citations which state that the Moon emits “cool” light, and we can proceed in a civilized manner by addressing it. Until this is done, the claim is unfounded, and is dismissed without penalty.

[markjo]

It seems that this very question of "cold moonlight" is fairly popular on several of the scientific Q&A boards.  Here's one from Quora:

There are literally hundreds of videos on YouTube claiming that this simple little experiment proves that:

“Moonlight is cold, which means the Moon is not reflecting sunlight as we have been told, so we have been lied to by ‘scientism’ and evil NASA — therefore the Earth is flat!”

They are wrong.

The moonlight does not cause an object to get colder. It’s the object in the shade that gets warmer.

When an object (or surface) is covered or shaded with a hand, roof, tree or cloud, it radiates less of its heat into the night air, and it will become slightly warmer than an object (or surface) that is exposed to the open night sky.

Actually, the Moon’s light (which is, of course, reflected sunlight) doesn’t have anything to do with it at all. It’s all about Radiative cooling.

Temperatures of surfaces under an unobstructed night sky will lose more of their heat than surfaces with obstructions, roofs, trees or clouds over them, and this happens even on nights when the Moon isn't present (which makes it harder to see, of course).

This sounds like a quite reasonable explanation to me.

[manicminer]

It was science and multiple astronomers and scientists who were claiming that stars sometimes occulted the moon

I think you will find Tom that it is actually the other way round. The Moon often occults stars as it moves eastwards w.r.t them by about 13 degrees a day.  To occult something in astronomy means to pass in front of.  So strictly speaking a solar eclipse is actually an occultation of the Sun by the Moon.

http://www.iota-es.de/moon/grazing_descrx101.html

[QED]

It seems that this very question of "cold moonlight" is fairly popular on several of the scientific Q&A boards.  Here's one from Quora:

There are literally hundreds of videos on YouTube claiming that this simple little experiment proves that:

“Moonlight is cold, which means the Moon is not reflecting sunlight as we have been told, so we have been lied to by ‘scientism’ and evil NASA — therefore the Earth is flat!”

They are wrong.

The moonlight does not cause an object to get colder. It’s the object in the shade that gets warmer.

When an object (or surface) is covered or shaded with a hand, roof, tree or cloud, it radiates less of its heat into the night air, and it will become slightly warmer than an object (or surface) that is exposed to the open night sky.

Actually, the Moon’s light (which is, of course, reflected sunlight) doesn’t have anything to do with it at all. It’s all about Radiative cooling.

Temperatures of surfaces under an unobstructed night sky will lose more of their heat than surfaces with obstructions, roofs, trees or clouds over them, and this happens even on nights when the Moon isn't present (which makes it harder to see, of course).

This sounds like a quite reasonable explanation to me.

Ah yes, right you are! That is a quite basic description which would indicate the surface temperature of the moon itself, no the light that it emits!

You see, we scientists are rather specific about these things, precisely for this reason: loose language presents ambiguity, and pretty soon folks are talking about “cold light” when that is not what was said at all.

You would be surprised just how much of this misunderstanding can be found in the upper fora. It underlines the importance of speaking precisely and carefully about scientific claims.

[Tom Bishop]

It seems that this very question of "cold moonlight" is fairly popular on several of the scientific Q&A boards.  Here's one from Quora:

There are literally hundreds of videos on YouTube claiming that this simple little experiment proves that:

“Moonlight is cold, which means the Moon is not reflecting sunlight as we have been told, so we have been lied to by ‘scientism’ and evil NASA — therefore the Earth is flat!”

They are wrong.

The moonlight does not cause an object to get colder. It’s the object in the shade that gets warmer.

When an object (or surface) is covered or shaded with a hand, roof, tree or cloud, it radiates less of its heat into the night air, and it will become slightly warmer than an object (or surface) that is exposed to the open night sky.

Actually, the Moon’s light (which is, of course, reflected sunlight) doesn’t have anything to do with it at all. It’s all about Radiative cooling.

Temperatures of surfaces under an unobstructed night sky will lose more of their heat than surfaces with obstructions, roofs, trees or clouds over them, and this happens even on nights when the Moon isn't present (which makes it harder to see, of course).

This sounds like a quite reasonable explanation to me.

That article is talking about the YouTube cold moonlight experiments, where things are left outside at night in moonlight and under the shade of a tree. The scientists I quoted were not leaving tin foil and other things outside. Light is collected and concentrated directly from the moon with lenses and special equipment.

[QED]

Cold light is a misnomer, and is a colloquial term for luminescence, which is visible light created from a non thermodynamic process. There are presently no known processes on the moon capable of luminescence.

[markjo]

That article is talking about the YouTube cold moonlight experiments, where things are left outside at night in moonlight and under the shade of a tree.

Yes, because the claim is that moonlight cools objects.  Are you saying that those are not valid experiments to test the claim?

The scientists I quoted were not leaving tin foil and other things outside. Light is collected and concentrated directly from the moon with lenses and special equipment.

Have you performed any of those experiments yourself to test their veracity, or are you just taking their word for it?

[Curious Squirrel]

That article is talking about the YouTube cold moonlight experiments, where things are left outside at night in moonlight and under the shade of a tree.

Yes, because the claim is that moonlight cools objects.  Are you saying that those are not valid experiments to test the claim?

The scientists I quoted were not leaving tin foil and other things outside. Light is collected and concentrated directly from the moon with lenses and special equipment.

Have you performed any of those experiments yourself to test their veracity, or are you just taking their word for it?

Found the video I was looking for the last time we got into this. He demonstrates the principal involved quite well imo, as well as showing a principal the older experiments posted by Tom will have to explain. Namely that pointing an infrared thermometer at the moon via a reflecting telescope shows an increase in temperature.

[Tom Bishop]

He's comparing the temperature of space to the temperature of the moon. This does not tell us whether the light of the moon cools objects.

[QED]

This video which claims to demonstrate that moonlight makes things cooler has a few problematic methodologies.

First, there is no control taken. Second, this measurement should be repeated in different conditions to assertion confounding variables. Third, this person does not understand how his instrument works. He is not measuring the temperature at the location of the laser - he is measuring the temperature of a circular area centered on the laser point. How big of an area depends on how far away the object is from the instrument.

Indeed, there is no calibration for varing steradian angle here.

In summary, this video does not provide empirical data done in a controlled setting. It does, in fact, illustrate reporting bias quite nicely, and serves as a good example for how not to collect data.

[manicminer]

This does not tell us whether the light of the moon cools objects

Let me ask you this directly Tom. From what you know about the physical nature of light, which property of light (UV, optical, IR etc) causes any cooling or heating effect?  And given that we only see reflected visible light (sunlight) from the Moon, how can what we see as moonlight have any effect on temperature?

I am trying to appeal to your common sense thoughts on this.

Apart from that, I believe my original post was about the supposed transparency of the Moon.   What that has got to do with whether moonlight can have any effect on temperature on the surface of the Earth I cannot work out.

[AATW]

No matter how much you guys claim that the scientists were wrong, or that it can be explained by some proposed physical effect, those were simply the reported results of emperical scientific investigation. They are claims of astonomers and scientists, not Rowbotham.

Rowbotham repeats them though, he clearly believes them to be valid. And that tells you all you need to know about his scientific prowess and how seriously we should take his ideas.
Now, to be fair, he and the scientists he was quoting were working in an era when science was much less mature than it is now. Some great things were done in science in that era but many things were claimed that we now know to be wrong or ridiculous. Partly because their tools were a lot more primitive. They didn't have the Hubble telescope, for example. Or a load of other tools which now allow us to investigate things with far greater accuracy and precision. So that has to be taken into account. Even in the modern era we can see examples where better precision changes our perception of things. There's the famous "face on Mars" image taken by one of the Viking missions. But later, better resolution images show the same region in much better resolution and show clearly it's not a face or structure made by some alien civilization on Mars:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cydonia_(region_of_Mars)

Here's some things which I posted to you before about some crazy things the Victorians did in the name of science:

https://listverse.com/2016/10/19/10-ridiculous-things-the-victorians-did-in-the-name-of-science/

Here's my favourite:

Lubbock was convinced that dogs could be taught to understand English. Not just simple commands like “sit,” “stay,” or “come back with my donut,” but full, complex sentences. To that end, he drew up giant boards with sentences on them, stuck them in front of his dog, and tried to get the animal to understand them. By his own account, Lubbock insisted he’d scientifically proven that dogs were capable of learning to read.

Question for you. Do you believe dogs can read? Some Victorian dude said he'd proven scientifically that they can. Case closed, right?
Except no, because, as the article goes on to say:

However, no one has ever repeated this feat.

The scientific ideas which came out of the Victorian era and which we still regard as "correct" did so because they passed the test of time. The results were and are reproducible. That is how ideas in science are checked and validated and how progress is made. The ideas which are shown to be wrong are quietly dropped. And that is why there are no FE scientists or astronomers and why Rowbotham has been largely forgotten about by history. Even at the time the globe earth was well known so his ideas could have revolutionised modern science as Einstein's have. But they didn't. Why? Because his ideas were wrong and have been shown wrong. He was a scientific layman who has no credibility, how strange for anyone to use his pontifications - clearly motivated by his faith in a literal interpretation of the Bible - as a basis for their scientific understanding now. It would be as silly as believing that dogs can read because some dude in the Victorian era claimed they could.

[Bastian Baasch]

how about you try addressing my questions this time instead of ignoring them.

Why? I don't find the subject to be a debatable matter.

No matter how much you guys claim that the scientists were wrong, or that it can be explained by some proposed physical effect, those were simply the reported results of emperical scientific investigation. They are claims of astonomers and scientists, not Rowbotham. I am sure that they imagined some things to explain it at the time too.

Not debatable? Did everyone hear that? The great flat earth zetetic Dr. Tom Bishop finds the matter not debatable. I guess someone should just lock the thread then.

For one, I never claimed the scientists were wrong, I'm merely questioning the experimental procedure, you have all these sources saying moonlight cools, and and all these scientists used mirrors, but how did they control the experiment? Did they compare the results to the mirror and thermometer out on a moonless night? Did they compare results to that on a cloudy night? You're just showing results, expecting the scientists to be infallible in their procedure because of your confirmation bias. Where'd your sceptical context get off to now Bishop? Maybe if you look out your window you'll find it.

From your own source on Tyndall's experiment https://books.google.com/books?id=3w5LAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA200&dq=concentrated+moonlight+cold&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwidtuOshoXhAhUirlkKHU3NAL8Q6AEISzAG#v=onepage&q&f=false it says it was "perfectly hopeless to obtain  trustworthy results on this delicate question in the atmosphere of London." yet you present him as a source confirming cold moonlight. Can you read Tom?

Have a look at what you said right after that.

Some scientists have reported no change, others have reported moonlight to cool, even "to more than eight degrees", and it appears that there are a couple who have reported it to increase in temperature by amounts of around two hundred thousandths part of a degree.

That's one wild variation of results, yet from that pack you see concrete proof of cold moonlight Mr. Confirmation Bias. You say the matter is undebatable yet your scientists that you presents have contradictory or inconclusive results.

Lastly, your own source says the cause of "cold moonlight" in the Harrison source:

The clearer the sky the more freely the earth's heat passes away into space, and consequently the colder we feel. So that while the moon warms us she cools us.

So what have learned today? Tom Bishop doesn't even read his own sources.