Claim: water in moonlight cools faster than water not in moonlight [False]

[tinkertailor]

They claim that the moon is self-luminous. The phases of the moon are completely independent of the sun and sunlight. That moonlight cools while sunshine heats is "proof" that moonlight has an independent and mysterious nature and is not reflected sunlight.

They further assume that, for some mysterious reason, the moon cycles through these phases. There are two models that I know of:

1. Part of the surface of the moon is producing light and part of it is not. The surface is much like a TV screen. In this model the moon can be a flat disk or a sphere.

2. The moon is a sphere with a light source inside. The surface is translucent with markings upon it. Between the surface and the light source there is another inside sphere ithat is half clear and half opaque. As the inside sphere rotates, the outside translucent surface goes through the phases.

Furthering the off-topicness here (sorry), but what's the evidence for the second explanation? I can't fathom how that makes more sense than the heliocentric globe at all. Is it just to make the moon phases work with a flat earth and a near sun?

 

[JRBids]

#2 Seems awful complicated!

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

Furthering the off-topicness here (sorry), but what's the evidence for the second explanation? I can't fathom how that makes more sense than the heliocentric globe at all. Is it just to make the moon phases work with a flat earth and a near sun?

Yes, that, and it's pure speculation for the joy of speculation, as far as I can tell. Number two is a model concocted by the more old fashioned, traditional type of flat earthers.


Number two is more popular among the new wave flat earthers. It's purpose:

1. To explain moon phases on a flat earth.

2. To prove that the sphere earth/heliocentric model cannot be true.
a. You can see through the dark part of the moon, so it can't be a rock as Lie-ence says.
b. Moonlight cannot be reflected sunshine because it cools.
c. The moon phases and terminator angle cannot be caused by sunlight.

Checkmate!

 

[Z.W. Wolf]

Yes, that, and it's pure speculation for the joy of speculation, as far as I can tell. Number two is a model concocted by the more old fashioned, traditional type of flat earthers.


Number two ONE - (The surface is much like a TV screen) - is more popular among the new wave flat earthers. It's purpose:

1. To explain moon phases on a flat earth.

2. To prove that the sphere earth/heliocentric model cannot be true.
a. You can see through the dark part of the moon, so it can't be a rock as Lie-ence says.
b. Moonlight cannot be reflected sunshine because it cools.
c. The moon phases and terminator angle cannot be caused by sunlight.

Checkmate!

D'oh! Corrected!

 

[Abishua]

So did anyone do the test yet? I don't have the conditions at the moment..

 

[mm1145]

So did anyone do the test yet? I don't have the conditions at the moment..

Living in the UK it is hard enough t find a night where I can see the moon past the clouds at all

 

[Mick West]

So did anyone do the test yet? I don't have the conditions at the moment..

It will have to wait until around Dec 13, it's not bright enough to see shadows now.

It's also such an incredible claim based on no evidence and counter to all known science that it's a bit hard to get motivation to try it out.

I do need to use my IFLR camera for something though. I bought it to track down the hot water pipes in my house.

 

[Abishua]

It will have to wait until around Dec 13, it's not bright enough to see shadows now.
View attachment 22916
It's also such an incredible claim based on no evidence and counter to all known science that it's a bit hard to get motivation to try it out.

I do need to use my IFLR camera for something though. I bought it to track down the hot water pipes in my house.
View attachment 22917

well sure.. make it earn it's keep can it detect 1 degree difference? how precise is it?

 

[Inti]

well sure.. make it earn it's keep can it detect 1 degree difference? how precise is it?

So you think it is likely to be inconclusive? Maybe, but I'd like to see the results of this experiment, in a casual kind of way. As Mick says , it would be so contrary to all we know about light and heat to believe that incoming light could actually reduce temperature. By what mechanism could that work?, @Abishua?

Surely what we have seen is entirely consistent with the scientific view, and with the analysis of the weaknesses of the experiment in the original claim? So if Mick performed the FLIR experiment and it is inconclusive, the sensible conclusion will be to stick with science?

 

[Mick West]

well sure.. make it earn it's keep can it detect 1 degree difference? how precise is it?

0.1°C, (0.18°F), and the beauty of it is you see the relative temperature at every point in the image at once, none of this random two point sampling.

http://flir.com/flirone/ios/?pi_ad_...H-hqzIxqg6lAxCW4q6pkprz_bdNdQLgfh1hoCNtPw_wcB

 

[Abishua]

So you think it is likely to be inconclusive? Maybe, but I'd like to see the results of this experiment, in a casual kind of way. As Mick says , it would be so contrary to all we know about light and heat to believe that incoming light could actually reduce temperature. By what mechanism could that work?, @Abishua?

Surely what we have seen is entirely consistent with the scientific view, and with the analysis of the weaknesses of the experiment in the original claim? So if Mick performed the FLIR experiment and it is inconclusive, the sensible conclusion will be to stick with science?

Well Mick is a bit biased towards mainstream science.. so I would have to trust he is honorable enough to present the factual results no matter the implication.. So far I have no reason to beleive he would blatantly lie.. although he does do things like justify antarctica timelapse videos as valid even when they are proven to be altered and heavily edited..

So.. I think he is biased.. and may skew the results to look more in line of what his beleif is.. but then again I am also.. so.. the conclusion is.. I don't think he is a straight out liar that would fabricate things just to get the results he wants.. but I trust absolutley to no one but God... not even to myself.. since we do make errors.. sometimes small.. sometimes big

 

[Abishua]

0.1°C, (0.18°F), and the beauty of it is you see the relative temperature at every point in the image at once, none of this random two point sampling.

http://flir.com/flirone/ios/?pi_ad_id={creative}&gclid=CjwKEAiAmdXBBRD0hZCVkYHTl20SJACWsZj9KuFJDzOH-hqzIxqg6lAxCW4q6pkprz_bdNdQLgfh1hoCNtPw_wcB

View attachment 22936

Oh.. what a coincidence.. was just talking about you.. : ))

Seems like a really neat peace of tech.. trully looking forward to the results of your test.. how much did it set you back for?

 

[Mick West]

Well Mick is a bit biased towards mainstream science.. so I would have to trust he is honorable enough to present the factual results no matter the implication.. So far I have no reason to beleive he would blatantly lie.. although he does do things like justify antarctica timelapse videos as valid even when they are proven to be altered and heavily edited..

So.. I think he is biased.. and may skew the results to look more in line of what his beleif is.. but then again I am also.. so.. the conclusion is.. I don't think he is a straight out liar that would fabricate things just to get the results he wants.. but I trust absolutley to no one but God... not even to myself.. since we do make errors.. sometimes small.. sometimes big

This is not making me more inclined to do it

It's a fun little experiment, but it's also that require me to be out in the cold for half an hour when I'm normally inside watching Jeopardy with a glass of wine in front of the fire.

Actually, now I think about it, my garage window faces moonward (i.e. South). I can maybe record a half hour IR video of the moonbeam sweeping across my workbench.

 

[Mick West]

Oh.. what a coincidence.. was just talking about you.. : ))

Seems like a really neat peace of tech.. trully looking forward to the results of your test.. how much did it set you back for?

$250

 

[Abishua]

This is not making me more inclined to do it

It's a fun little experiment, but it's also that require me to be out in the cold for half an hour when I'm normally inside watching Jeopardy with a glass of wine in front of the fire.

Actually, now I think about it, my garage window faces moonward (i.e. South). I can maybe record a half hour IR video of the moonbeam sweeping across my workbench.

well sorry.. just beeing honest..

You see.. now you have a good idea.. maybe fit a magnifying glass also so it focuses on the workbench.. just to see will that dot be different than surroundings..

 

[Abishua]

$250

uhh.. thats alot for me.. happy you could have it tho.. it would be awesome to try and find some birds on trees with it at night

 

[mik]

Actually, now I think about it, my garage window faces moonward (i.e. South). I can maybe record a half hour IR video of the moonbeam sweeping across my workbench.

IR cameras do not image through glass very well so maybe the window pane can distort the results by affecting this unknown cooling radiation of the moon. It would also be good to set up multiple specific test points of similar emission profile - for example painters masking tape with matte backside will work nicely. This will eliminate unwanted reflections of thermal energy. The camera should be as perpendicular to the measured surface as possible and the distance from the sensor to the target be known.

If you do conduct this experiment, if possible, I would like to independently review the raw IR images using the FLIR software suite.

 

[mm1145]

This is not making me more inclined to do it

It's a fun little experiment, but it's also that require me to be out in the cold for half an hour when I'm normally inside watching Jeopardy with a glass of wine in front of the fire.

and here we have the reason why it is up to the person making the claim to provide the evidence FOR it. you think such a thing happens you go and spend nights in the cold to prove it.

I am with Mick here in addition I do not have $250 to spend on tech even something as cool as that. (that is a really nice camera)

 

[Abishua]

and here we have the reason why it is up to the person making the claim to provide the evidence FOR it. you think such a thing happens you go and spend nights in the cold to prove it.

I am with Mick here in addition I do not have $250 to spend on tech even something as cool as that. (that is a really nice camera)

Well it's a small sacrifice to learn something.. thats why as soon as moon is in a favorable position I intend to do this.. cold is not that cold with a glass of wine.. or two..

 

[mm1145]

Well it's a small sacrifice to learn something.. thats why as soon as moon is in a favorable position I intend to do this.. cold is not that cold with a glass of wine.. or two..

this is not a criticism but a suggestion please try to do it right. post your proposed experimental design and get feedback modify it based on that feed back. Once you have done it post the results as well as the actual method followed (so it can be seen how it may have differed from the proposed method) and the be prepared to rerun the experiment with the suggested modifications

science is an ittritive process ever refining the result. Please do not do one badly designed experiment and then claim that you have disproved a centrires old theory like some flat earthers driving a boat on a lake with a laser who will remain nameless.

 

[Abishua]

IR cameras do not image through glass very well so maybe the window pane can distort the results by affecting this unknown cooling radiation of the moon. It would also be good to set up multiple specific test points of similar emission profile - for example painters masking tape with matte backside will work nicely. This will eliminate unwanted reflections of thermal energy. The camera should be as perpendicular to the measured surface as possible and the distance from the sensor to the target be known.

If you do conduct this experiment, if possible, I would like to independently review the raw IR images using the FLIR software suite.

I like it.. but I think Mick knows what hes doing and if he conducts this test will take all important factors into consideration.. if anything I noticed his attention to details..

And that independent review of raw IR images sounds great.. this is actually shaping up to be a nice research project..

 

[Abishua]

this is not a criticism but a suggestion please try to do it right. post your proposed experimental design and get feedback modify it based on that feed back. Once you have done it post the results as well as the actual method followed (so it can be seen how it may have differed from the proposed method) and the be prepared to rerun the experiment with the suggested modifications

science is an ittritive process ever refining the result. Please do not do one badly designed experiment and then claim that you have disproved a centrires old theory like some flat earthers driving a boat on a lake with a laser who will remain nameless.

Ahahah.. that was actually funny... thanks.. I'll do my best

Actually what do you think of me just focusing the moonlight on my digital thermometer metal needle thingy? Some experiment like that.. so I'm not using 3rd party proxies like water and such..

 

[mm1145]

Ahahah.. that was actually funny... thanks.. I'll do my best

Actually what do you think of me just focusing the moonlight on my digital thermometer metal needle thingy? Some experiment like that.. so I'm not using 3rd party proxies like water and such..

are you planing to move the needle because that would mean that the air temp would be different as different parts of the room have different temperatures that was the problem with the experiment in the original post. additional how much of a difference are you expecting? what is the fluctuation in the ambient temperature? I suggest long readings (hours at a time) and averaging them even them you are going to have issues. if your temp fluctuates by 3c over the hour and you see a change of 0.5 when you expose it to moon light that is not a significant enough change

 

[Abishua]

are you planing to move the needle because that would mean that the air temp would be different as different parts of the room have different temperatures that was the problem with the experiment in the original post. additional how much of a difference are you expecting? what is the fluctuation in the ambient temperature? I suggest long readings (hours at a time) and averaging them even them you are going to have issues. if your temp fluctuates by 3c over the hour and you see a change of 0.5 when you expose it to moon light that is not a significant enough change

No moving of needle.. I was thinking of letting the needle sit idle for 15min, read the temp, then put it under focused moonlight for 15min, read the temp, and then let it sit idle for another 15min and read the temp again... so if moonlight cools it it would be something like 16C, 15C, 16C..

 

[Mick West]

IR cameras do not image through glass very well so maybe the window pane can distort the results by affecting this unknown cooling radiation of the moon. It would also be good to set up multiple specific test points of similar emission profile - for example painters masking tape with matte backside will work nicely. This will eliminate unwanted reflections of thermal energy. The camera should be as perpendicular to the measured surface as possible and the distance from the sensor to the target be known.

If you do conduct this experiment, if possible, I would like to independently review the raw IR images using the FLIR software suite.

The iOS FLIR just saves images. Here's one I just took of my screen.

It adjusts the color spectrum to cover the range of temperatures in the image. While this makes determining individual temperatures tricky, it gives you a very clear look at if there is a difference in temperature in different regions of the image.

 

[Rory]

The iOS FLIR just saves images. Here's one I just took of my screen.
View attachment 22946

It adjusts the color spectrum to cover the range of temperatures in the image. While this makes determining individual temperatures tricky, it gives you a very clear look at if there is a difference in temperature in different regions of the image.

Given that it's a few weeks till the moon comes back, would it possible to upload some test pictures so that you and the rest of us could satisfy ourselves that it will give accurate results?

I was wondering how it would show something like a small outdoor fire on a chilly evening? Or rather, the air around it: something that wasn't necessarily 'hot' in itself, but that had been 'heated'.

 

[Mick West]

Given that it's a few weeks till the moon comes back, would it possible to upload some test pictures so that you and the rest of us could satisfy ourselves that it will give accurate results?

It's going to show if one region is colder than another. It's got a sensitivity of 0.1°C, so I'm not sure what you mean by "accurate results". Any variation will show up.

My thermometer outside reads 53F in the shade. The FLIR measures a range of temperature on the surfaces around there - depends on the mass and thermal conductivity of the parts of objects as to how quickly they warm up in the shade. So there's some variation.

Here's my hand at around 96°F

And here's the handprint. My hand was on the surface for about three seconds.

 

[Rory]

Cool. Thanks for those.

What is it in the first photo that's causing the non-green areas (ie, the blue spot and the orange/red spot)?

 

[Trailblazer]

Cool. Thanks for those.

What is it in the first photo that's causing the non-green areas (ie, the blue spot and the orange/red spot)?

I'm guessing they are just very slight natural temperature variation. Mick said that the colour range changes dynamically - you can see on the pics with his hand, the colour of the surface is a "colder" blue even though the actual temperature is warmer in those pics than in the one where it is green. So on the ones where everything is a similar temperature, I assume the colour range is compressed into a very small temperature change, so the slightest variations will show a different colour.

 

[Mick West]

What is it in the first photo that's causing the non-green areas (ie, the blue spot and the orange/red spot)?

I'm guessing they are just very slight natural temperature variation.

This.

 

[Rory]

I'm guessing they are just very slight natural temperature variation. Mick said that the colour range changes dynamically - you can see on the pics with his hand, the colour of the surface is a "colder" blue even though the actual temperature is warmer in those pics than in the one where it is green. So on the ones where everything is a similar temperature, I assume the colour range is compressed into a very small temperature change, so the slightest variations will show a different colour.

Understood. The point is, will it be clear enough to show what we need to see. I mean, if moonlight was colder then that would be easier - the image of light and the thermal image will correspond - but trying to show the absence of a temperature change, given that these variances will occur anyway, may not be so clearcut.

Hopefully moonlight will somehow be mystically cooler and the test will be a doddle!

 

[Mick West]

Here's the effect of the sun on my carpet, just a narrow beam through the window at an angle. Here I obscure the sun, so we are just getting the pure heat of the carpet, not reflected heat.

And the same thing with the sample point in the previously shaded area, 0.7°F cooler.

But note there's similar temps on the carpet a few feet away. I have a window open, so there's quite a temperature gradient across the room.

 

[mm1145]

But note there's similar temps on the carpet a few feet away. I have a window open, so there's quite a temperature gradient across the room.

witch dose bring up an interesting point how stable is the temperature going to be compared with how big an effect are you going to expect to see in "moon light" cooling? if it drops 0.5 is that just natural fluctuation or is it it cooling?

 

[Bruno D.]

I like it.. but I think Mick knows what hes doing and if he conducts this test will take all important factors into consideration.. if anything I noticed his attention to details..

And that independent review of raw IR images sounds great.. this is actually shaping up to be a nice research project..

It will be a cool experiment, but you will say it's fake as soon as the results contradicts what you believe. You already did so in a different thread (24h antarctic sun), and you will do it again here.

If Mick indeed decides to run the experiment, he will not be doing that for you, [...], he will be doing that for other readers and lurkers ... just a tip ...

 

[Mick West]

witch dose bring up an interesting point how stable is the temperature going to be compared with how big an effect are you going to expect to see in "moon light" cooling? if it drops 0.5 is that just natural fluctuation or is it it cooling?

The idea would be to have a large area lit by moonlight next to a large in shadow. If there is a difference then it will show up as a noticeable boundary between the two areas.

 

[Henk001]

The idea would be to have a large area lit by moonlight next to a large in shadow. If there is a difference then it will show up as a noticeable boundary between the two areas.

Is it a good idea to do the whole setup without a (full) moon and investigate the possible fluctuations as a kind of baseline (null) measurement?

 

[Mick West]

Is it a good idea to do the whole setup without a (full) moon and investigate the possible fluctuations as a kind of baseline (null) measurement?

It is, but that's twice as much work!

 

[Henk001]

I know

 

[Bruno D.]

It is, but that's twice as much work!

Does it make sense to run a test indoors, using incandescent and led bulbs? This could be a good test for the setup before going outside. At least you would be inside your house and not out in the cold ;-)

 

[Mick West]

Messing around with a test setup. Window faces South (ish).Timelapse on the FLIR, two acrylic balls and a magnifying glass to focus light. Handprints on the countertop. Light half obscured.

I'll give it 20 minutes or so, see what the time-lapse shows. Obviously in this instance some difference between the two sides is expected, as sunlight is warm.