Re: Why just Rowbotham?
« Reply #20 on: March 15, 2019, 07:54:59 PM »
Science also demonstrated the cooling effects of moonlight through experiment. In order to show those things to be incorrect, contradictory experiments to those of science would need to be given.

Lol what? Since when does moonlight cool stuff? It's a matter of radiative cooling, not moonlight.

Edit: Not only what manicminer said is true, but there's a way to disprove it zetetically, just compare the temp. of an object out on a night with the full moon to the temp of said object with a new moon. There should be no significant difference (that is if other factors are controlled to a reasonable extent, like conducting the experiment on a cloudless night, using the IR thermometer from the same distance each time, clear area around object so nothing else affects the temp. or you accidentally take the temp. of something else near it along with the object, etc.)
« Last Edit: March 15, 2019, 09:15:15 PM by Bastian Baasch »
We are smarter than those scientists.
Hmm. So Tom Bishop is a Russian spy. That would explain why he is so dedicated.

Re: Why just Rowbotham?
« Reply #21 on: March 15, 2019, 08:46:14 PM »
A tiny amount of energy from the Sun reaches the Moon directly.  That energy (electromagnetic radiation) takes the form of UV, visible light and IR among others. A percentage (albedo) of that radiation gets reflected off the Moon in the direction of Earth. In the case of the Moon that amounts to about 12% of the incident radiation.

By the time it reaches Earth any heat energy from the Moon will be so incredibly small as to be undetectable. We can conclude then that moonlight, as pretty as it is, has absolutely no cooling or heating effect on our surroundings.
« Last Edit: March 15, 2019, 08:48:26 PM by manicminer »

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 5982
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Why just Rowbotham?
« Reply #22 on: March 15, 2019, 10:29:05 PM »
Rowbotham says that many experiments on moonlight have shown no heat increase or a cooling effect:

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

Quote
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 Le Roy Broun says:

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

Quote
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

Quote
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
« Last Edit: March 15, 2019, 10:40:05 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Why just Rowbotham?
« Reply #23 on: March 15, 2019, 10:43:22 PM »
Science also demonstrated the cooling effects of moonlight through experiment. In order to show those things to be incorrect, contradictory experiments to those of science would need to be given.
I like how you think science is a “thing”
But anyway, I’d be interested to see a link to a peer reviewed paper in a serious scientific publication which shows that moonlight is cold.

Light is a form of energy, as is heat. That’s why powerful lamps can heat things. If you discover a form of light which has negative energy and so can cool things down then congratulations on your Nobel prize.

This video explains the supposed result of cold moonlight. He gets the exact same result using sunlight and he explains why:



Is sunlight cold?

This is the trouble with cherry picking.
You can’t just look at the result in isolation, you have to understand the result.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 5982
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Why just Rowbotham?
« Reply #24 on: March 15, 2019, 11:21:17 PM »
The Victorian-era professors and scientists used far better controls, tools, and methodologies than those YouTube experiments. Light was collected directly from the moon, concentrated, and studied.

That video does not address those experiments. None of your video is relevant to the question at hand, or the quotes provided. You apparently have just picked it out randomly without even watching it. The video provides an attempted explanation of some other YouTube open-air tests. I would suggest providing material which actually addresses the experiments in question. Those scientists didn't set tinfoil outside.

At one point the video author points the telescope at the moon and then points it at space. Space is colder than the moon. None of that tells us whether the light of the moon can make things cooler. Is the topic "can things be colder than the moon," or is the topic "does moonlight cool"? If moonlight cools, it does not preclude other objects or elements in the universe being colder than the moon. The demonstration given is totally irrelevant.
« Last Edit: March 16, 2019, 12:18:14 AM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Why just Rowbotham?
« Reply #25 on: March 15, 2019, 11:40:13 PM »
Quote
It was science which claimed to have performed experiments that moonlight cooled thermometers through a telescope

Tom, since you were the one who seems to have first mentioned about this moonlight and cooling thermometers thing, any chance you could elaborate on when and how 'science' made this claim? 
« Last Edit: March 15, 2019, 11:46:28 PM by manicminer »

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 5982
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Why just Rowbotham?
« Reply #26 on: March 15, 2019, 11:53:30 PM »
I just gave a bunch of references to experiments where moonlight was seen to have either no heat or a cooling effect. Here is another:

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

Quote
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:



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.
« Last Edit: March 16, 2019, 03:01:56 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 886
    • View Profile
Re: Why just Rowbotham?
« Reply #27 on: March 16, 2019, 12:55:04 AM »
Fast forwarding to the 1990's:

"Surprising Scientists, Full Moon Is Found to Play Role in Warming the Earth"
https://www.nytimes.com/1995/03/10/us/surprising-scientists-full-moon-is-found-to-play-role-in-warming-the-earth.html

Could be other contributing factors as well. All in all seemingly hard to measure. But is seems like, if anything, moonlight doesn't have a 'cooling' effect.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 5982
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Why just Rowbotham?
« Reply #28 on: March 16, 2019, 01:08:41 AM »
A study of the relationship between lunar phases and world-wide temperatures seems hardly comparable to a direct study of moonlight.

Rowbotham is correct in that scientists were detecting no change or a cooling effect from the moon.
« Last Edit: March 16, 2019, 01:19:20 AM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Why just Rowbotham?
« Reply #29 on: March 16, 2019, 02:20:00 AM »
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
Quote
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?
We are smarter than those scientists.
Hmm. So Tom Bishop is a Russian spy. That would explain why he is so dedicated.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 886
    • View Profile
Re: Why just Rowbotham?
« Reply #30 on: March 16, 2019, 02:45:23 AM »
A study of the relationship between lunar phases and world-wide temperatures seems hardly comparable to a direct study of moonlight.

Rowbotham is correct in that scientists were detecting no change or a cooling effect from the moon.

Perhaps, but that in no way exonerates Rowbotham. To say he was correct is negligent in terms of further discovery. Blindly accepting his interpretations in the 1800's doesn't make for a case. As well Rowbotham has no direct experiment he performed against others. This all falls back into the bucket of, "Why Rowbotham?" He provides very little in terms of direct Zetetic examination, mostly interpretations of other's work. All of which, firmly seated in service to scripture. We've come a long way since 1860-ish. I think it's time to find a new messiah.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 5982
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Why just Rowbotham?
« Reply #31 on: March 16, 2019, 03:05:48 AM »
Rowbotham doesn't say that Zetetic means that you have to do it yourself. ENAG is filled with mostly references to scientific works. Zetetic means that your ideas are based on experimental or emperical investigation rather than hypothesis.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 886
    • View Profile
Re: Why just Rowbotham?
« Reply #32 on: March 16, 2019, 03:17:43 AM »
Rowbotham doesn't say that Zetetic means that you have to do it yourself. ENAG is filled with mostly references to scientific works. Zetetic means that your ideas are based on experimental or emperical investigation rather than hypothesis.

Sure, but if you start with scriptural literalism as your foundation you're starting with a hypothesis. That of the good book. And by all accounts, that's exactly what Rowbotham did.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 5982
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Why just Rowbotham?
« Reply #33 on: March 16, 2019, 04:13:01 AM »
Are you talking about the chapter on religion where he says that all religions of the world depict a Flat Earth in their ancient texts, that the faithful should seek to provide evidence for their beliefs, and that the Bible should be put under the severest of criticism?

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 886
    • View Profile
Re: Why just Rowbotham?
« Reply #34 on: March 16, 2019, 05:51:18 AM »
Are you talking about the chapter on religion where he says that all religions of the world depict a Flat Earth in their ancient texts, that the faithful should seek to provide evidence for their beliefs, and that the Bible should be put under the severest of criticism?

No, I'm talking about the chapter where he says this:

"The Scriptures--the Bible, therefore, cannot be other than the word and teaching of God. Let it once be seen that such a conclusion is a logical necessity; that the sum of the purely practical evidence which has been collected compels us to acknowledge this, and we find ourselves in possession of a solid and certain foundation for all our future investigations."

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 5982
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Why just Rowbotham?
« Reply #35 on: March 16, 2019, 08:55:36 AM »
And if we read the preceding two sentences before that "therefore" we find:

"If after so many ages of mental struggling, of speculation and trial, of change and counterchange, we have at length discovered that all astronomical theories are false; that the earth is a plane, and motionless, and that the various luminaries above it are lights only and not worlds; and that these very facts have been declared and recorded in a work which has been handed down to us from the earliest times--from a time, in fact, when mankind had lived so short a period upon the earth that they could not have had sufficient experience to enable them to criticise and doubt, much less to invent and speculate--it follows that whoever dictated and caused such doctrines to be recorded and preserved to all generations must have been superhuman, omniscient, and to the earth and its inhabitants pre-existent."

If all physical elements of the bible turn out to be true, that the earth is the central body of the universe, the depiction of the flat earth and the luminaries, the things said about the corners, endless pits below the earth, etc, etc, then it is evidence that the bible is true.

I don't have a problem with that. That is not a conclusion based upon biblical authority, that is called evidence for the elements of the bible.

Biblical literalism would be "it says this in the bible, therefore it is true". It is not difficult to understand what is being communicated at all.

Supporting elements of the bible with physical evidence is pretty much the exact opposite of biblical literalism. I find it pretty odd and disingenuous that anyone could fail to understand that.

Re: Why just Rowbotham?
« Reply #36 on: March 16, 2019, 08:58:22 AM »
We have since discovered that the earth is round...

Re: Why just Rowbotham?
« Reply #37 on: March 16, 2019, 08:59:13 AM »
All these references you provide Tom are fascinating but for reasons I have already given earlier and which seem to have been casually overlooked, there is no way that moonlight on its own can have any effect on temperature on Earth. If your understanding of moonlight is as good as it should be then you will surely realise that.  Think about it for yourself without just being a messenger for what others have said or tried.

Re: Why just Rowbotham?
« Reply #38 on: March 16, 2019, 09:11:18 AM »
Rowbotham’s agenda is pretty clear in that chapter, he rails against science because he says it leads people away from scripture, but we’ve had that conversation. It’s ironic that he champions the idea of a method which doesn’t pre-suppose a theory but it’s clear that his starting assumption for the whole book is a literal and incorrect interpretation of Scripture.

As for Victorian experiments indicating cold moonlight, the Victorians did do some pretty impressive things but they did a lot of crazy stuff too and made some pretty wild claims:

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

(My favourite one is the bloke who claimed he’d taught his dog to read!)

Evolution works because changes which give an advantage are more likely to be copied and built on. Scientific progress is the same. Some of the ideas from the Victorian era (and before) were correct and have shown to be and have been built on, other ideas have been shown to be wrong and have been discarded.

I did physics up to A-Level and I never learned about “cold moonlight”. Because that isn’t how light works. The fact he didn’t know that and the people he was quoting didn’t just shows their collective ignorance and is another reason why the pontifications of this scientific illiterate religious zealot should be ignored.
« Last Edit: March 16, 2019, 09:12:52 AM by AllAroundTheWorld »
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

*

Offline JRowe

  • *
  • Posts: 561
  • Slowly being driven insane by RE nonsense
    • View Profile
    • Dual Earth Theory
Re: Why just Rowbotham?
« Reply #39 on: March 16, 2019, 09:36:35 AM »
Honestly I see REers mentioning Rowbotham as a defining authority way more than FEers.
Who would you suggest as a better authority on FET than Rowbotham?
Why do you need an authority, are you unable to sort out the veracity of claims by yourself?
Rowbotham is a source, and it's easy to find plenty more sources out there.
My DE model explained here.
Open to questions, but if you're curious start there rather than expecting me to explain it all from scratch every time.