Moonshine and Lunacy
The first thing that I discovered on this journey was that this experiment is a popular one, particularly among “Flat Earth” theorists. (I wish I were kidding about that, but the idea of a flat earth seems to have experienced a resurgence in popularity this year.) A quick search for “Moonlight cold” turned up multiple videos on Youtube, most of which show some variation of the following experiment being performed:
An object is placed outside under a full moon, partly in the shade and partly in direct moonlight. The experimenter gives the thing some time to reach equilibrium, then takes a temperature measurement with an infrared “laser” thermometer, which reveals the moonlit side to be lower in temperature, sometimes by as much as a few degrees!
Obviously, something’s afoot here, but it’s not so simple as a hoax—nearly everyone making these videos is very much convinced that they’re seeing a real effect. So how does this phenomenon arise? While you probably don’t need convincing that it’s not “heat-sucking moon beams” at work, it’s absolutely worth exploring how these earnest attempts at science can go so wrong.
A handful of these videos are shot in near-complete darkness, as even a full moon can’t provide enough light for the average cell phone camera, so practically the only discernable features in the footage are the thermometer’s laser aiming dot and backlit temperature display. Still, I admire the creators of these videos for their effort to reduce the noise in their data and provide a cleaner signal; noise is one of the biggest sources of error in any experimental setup. However, these home experiments fall victim to a far more significant source of error: poor instrumentation.
There are two factors common to virtually all these videos: a point-and-shoot infrared thermometer, and a yokel behind the camera who has no idea how the device he’s holding works. See, while it’s tempting to assume that your “laser thermometer” is telling you the temperature at the illuminated spot, that’s only half the story—the laser actually doesn’t do anything besides help you aim! The actual measurement apparatus uses a lens to focus infrared radiation from your target onto a digital sensor. What this means is that, rather than taking the temperature at a point, you’re taking the temperature of a circle centered at that point. How big the circle is depends on how far away you are from your target, along with the internal optics of the thermometer.
A standard IR thermometer has a D:S (distance to spot) ratio of roughly 10:1, meaning that making a measurement from ten feet away will give you the average temperature of a spot one foot in diameter. In the video below (which has twenty-something-thousand views, as of this writing), the experimenter seems to be standing at least ten feet away from his target, trying to check the temperature on either side of a wallet. Once you understand how the IR thermometer works, it’s plain to see where his anomalous result comes from: the spot he’s measuring on the moonlit side includes the ground beyond the edge of his pool deck, which is doubtless cooler than the stone that makes up the patio.
The potential for this kind of error is why it’s important to repeat your measurements in different ways; if he had moved the wallet to the other side of his table’s shadow, he might have noticed that the temperature difference vanishes!
This brings me to my last point. The beast that aggregates these errors into a katamari of colossal wrongness (and the real reason so many people are apparently convinced that the moon emits some kind of anti-photon) is one of modern science’s greatest enemies: reporting bias.
If the guy who made that video had noticed, halfway through filming, that he wasn’t getting the results he expected, do you think we’d have seen it? Statistically, for every person who finds that moonlight makes things colder, there’s at least one who conducted the same experiment and found that it has no effect, or even the opposite, making things warmer! (Which technically it should, but it’s likely a micro-kelvin kind of difference.) The difference between the two cases is that the null hypothesis is obvious, while the alternative is literally incredible, so only the latter gets uploaded and viewed and shared. When you consider that the uploader gets paid by advertisers based on the number of views they get, you realize that this system incentivizes bad science, not just socially but financially.
Unfortunately, this problem isn’t exclusive to Youtubers howling at the moon—it permeates the real world in serious ways. If a flipped coin land on “heads” ten times in a row, it’s very reasonable to suspect that it’s a weighted coin, but it becomes a different story entirely if you find out that someone spent all afternoon flipping in order to get that ten-heads streak. In the same way, unreported repeat trials can make a statistical fluke seem like good data, which can be a huge issue if we're talking about something like the efficacy of a nutritional supplement.
As someone who loves unconventional theories, I can say from personal experience that there’s a deeply forlorn feeling you get when an idea that you thought was revolutionary turns out to be bunk; it’s like waking from a flying dream to discover that it’s Tuesday and you’re late for work. People fight that waking feeling, usually subconsciously, because our beliefs are guided by emotions rather than logic an embarrassing amount of the time, and because everyone wants to be the new Galileo. But science—GOOD science—is the struggle against that instinct to cling to the dream as it dissolves around you, because as Randall Munroe said, "You don't use science to show that you're right. You use science to become right."
The null hypothesis, that the moon just reflects light from the sun, will never "go viral". It's not profitable, or terribly exciting, and it doesn't have the symmetrical allure of its contrived alternatives. But precisely for those reasons, it's essential that it be defended, that we demand extraordinary evidence from those who make extraordinary claims, and with zeal to match theirs. It's a scientist's duty to shake awake those dreamers who've taken in a touch too much moonshine, because there's a real world out here that needs exploring, and it's full of more wonder than anyone could dream up.
I have a Q for Pit and for Positron. It's a little off topic of the moon but still on FE and I wanted to post it where everyone could see. If there is a better forum where I should post this, please let me know.
I live on the east coast near the ocean. Let's just say I think I am seeing, with binoculars, a lighthouse, over water, at a distance of 34 miles, and my binoculars (or camera lens) are at an elevation of 25 feet. The focal height of the light on the lighthouse is 80 feet above mean high water. I am using the earth curve calculator here: (518 ft hidden, 429 feet hidden with "standard refraction")
I will be purchasing the new Nikon P1000 at some point and it has an amazing 125x zoom.
My question for Pit and Positron is: If I wait for ideal viewing conditions, cool day with water temp close to air temp, not a lot of humidity, etc., what percentage of the time should I be able to see this lighthouse? (I'll give more exact measurements and places at the time of the experiment. For now, let's just go with the hypothetical elevation and distance.) So, seriously, what percentage of the time?
Monday, September 24, 2018 at 9:39 PM
2 Thessalonians 2:11 explains what is going on. "For this reason, God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie" The words in Greek for powerful delusion is energeian planes. It can also be translated "operation of wandering" or "working of error." Wandering, as in wandering star, or planet. This tells us the spherical Earth is a scientific delusion sent by God to accomplish the opportunity for each soul to choose whether to believe the Word and in God, or by choosing Knowledge instead, to disbelieve.
There is evidence for this, but whether you can see or recognize these may depend on what you already believe.
The Lunar Eclipse is not a shadow moving across the moon; it is an approximation of one. It is a circular darkness which envelops the moon in a three dimensional manner; notice that the curve of the shadow starts tight, reaches near flat at half way, and stays flat until completion.
The Solar Eclipse has red light from the chromosphere inside the limb of the moon, which is impossible. Light from the corona also appears there. This light is essentially on the opposite side of the moon from the Sun and should not be there.
The Winter Sunlight. The Summer Heat. The sunlight in winter becomes weaker around solstice, which is not explained by either the tilt of the spherical Earth, or any activity in the atmosphere. Likewise, the burning summer heat comes on in excess of the increase from the increasing height of the Sun in the sky, and with no cause in the atmosphere. After all, does the moon darken in December? It would have to if the atmosphere was dimming the Sun.
These observations unveil the Mystery of Lawlessness, the working of evil across history that is propelled by the adversary and reaches a terrible culmination before the end. Daniel hints at such hidden things: He said, “Go your way, Daniel, for these words are concealed and sealed up until the end time.
Monday, May 21, 2018 at 10:45 PM
My name is Kevin McMillen, what I'd like to know is has anyone done this experiment at 5 am when the heat that the earth absorbed the previous day has had more time to dissipate? Logic tells me that during a full moon we are facing away from the Sun toward cold deep space and open areas will cool faster than those with any kind of cover. Do the experiment about 5am and report the results. I,m not wasting my time because I don't really care if it's a globe of flat, niether disprove the bible.
Monday, May 21, 2018 at 10:30 AM
There is a great video that explains the east/west path of the shadow. I have seen it but do not remember the address. You could search it on youtube.
Monday, April 30, 2018 at 11:56 AM
Does anyone have an explanation as to why, during the lunar eclipse on 1/31/18, the shadow was on the wrong side of the moon, and traversed in the wrong direction across the moon? It seems like an eclipse in 2011 acted similarly.
In both cases, you have the sun coming up behind the camera from the east as the moon begins setting and gets "eclipsed" in the west. In both cases, the "shadow" stars on the top of the moon and works downward. This makes no sense in the heliocentric model. I would expect the shadow to begin at the bottom and work it's way upward. What was seen was the 180 degree opposite of what one would expect?
Does anyone have an explanation?
1/31/18 lunar eclipse as seen from Florida
12/10/11 lunar eclipse as seen from New Mexico
Friday, April 27, 2018 at 5:45 PM
Jon you dunce - the moon transmits gravity to warm the Earth's crust!
Tuesday, April 10, 2018 at 9:59 AM
Grey Matter said...
Funny that you would be willing to drop thousands on such an irrelevant experiment when you could drop less on the purchase of a high altitude balloon which would provide you far more conclusive data to put this rubbish belief to rest for once and all. So amusing to hear you berate others for their science when you must dismiss all of science to hold the view that the earth is flat. Embarrassing.
Sunday, April 8, 2018 at 10:20 PM
hi everyone, anonymous nobody here. I just wanted to add that proving moonlight actually cools is in no way proof of flat earth. if the earth was flat, there would be no southern celestial pole, the stars in the southern hemisphere would move in a carousel fashion instead of around a pole. Just look at a time lapse photo of the southern night sky. The cooling is caused by a charge field coming down from the moon canceling out radiant charge from the earth which we experience as heat.
Tuesday, March 6, 2018 at 11:35 PM
Might I suggest that the apparent cooling is more a function of he air/earth surrounding the measured object cooling off in the dark?
I'm sure GOD put the moon in the sky both to light the nights and to counteract the First Law of Thermodynamics from His stretching out the heavens on Day 4.
It logically follows that if the place the moonlight temp reading is taken from is an open space it will be cooling down as soon as the main heat of the sun leaves it. Putting an object to be measured in that space for any length of time will cause the object to gain or lose heat the same as the open space place. We humans may not feel a one degree drop in temp but the object will show it to the thermometer.
On the other hand if the object is placed in a vaccum glass box in a dark room and not put in place until the sun is long gone and the box is insulated from heat radiating off the ground etc then perhaps the thermometer may show that the object in the box does gain heat from moonlightand not lose it?
Sunday, February 11, 2018 at 10:31 AM
Cool Moon said...
You are not exactly contributing to much yourself except for derision and ridicule. I have news for you: Derision and ridicule are not science! While I agree that many of the YT videos could be better quality with better instrumentation, at least those people are attempting the experiment. The one time you "tried" this yourself, on March 13, 2017 at 8:51 AM, you said, "I did not expect anything else but it was fun to give it a shot." That is exactly the reporting bias that Positron speaks of. If you found the ML to be cooler, do you think you would have shared that with us? Of course not! Once and done? Clap the dust off your hands? Case closed? That's not how science works.
On August 30, 2017 at 12:27 PM, Erik Ryman said, "@Pit Gutzmann While I agree that cooling moonlight is bullshit..." How do you know it's bullshit if you have not done the experiment? Sounds like more biased ignorance to me, once again without experimentation.
I hope "scientists" like Positron, Erik, and yourself realize the extremely dangerous position you have put yourself in, especially Positron with such a long post and no experimentation on his end. That is just plain foolish on his part. You have all come out like close-minded gangbusters declaring that there is no way ML could have a cooling effect, yet blatantly refuse to do any serious experiments yourselves. Hmmm. I wonder why that is. Afraid of what you might find? Afraid that maybe after all, ML is a negative, anti-photon light? Afraid this might expose bigger, deeper lies? I believe deep down you are afraid of just this.
I like the quote that Positron left toward the end of his post, "But science—GOOD science—is the struggle against that instinct to cling to the dream as it dissolves around you, because as Randall Munroe said, "You don't use science to show that you're right. You use science to become right."
And this is exactly what is happening, though in the reverse way that Positron expects. The heliocentric model is dissolving, and you guys are "clinging to the dream", despite new evidence. In his case, he, and you, will "become wrong" because of science. Positron will at some point realize that maybe it was not such a good idea to write such a long blasphemous blogpost, without maybe getting off his ass and doing a little more field work. In fact, to date, none of you has USED SCIENCE AT ALL!!! I shall reiterate: Ridicule, derision, and calling people yokels is not science!
I can admit my experiments, and those of others thus far have been inconclusive at best, while some do at least leave the door open. However, that is science! Taking what you learned and improving upon it. Using the scientific method, improving upon mistakes, and eliminating variables. Not once and done like Pit's biased garbage experiment!
So go ahead, keep "clinging to the heliocentric-globe dream." While you are all out ridiculing, deriding, and writing blasphemous blogposts which are NOT based on experimentation, I, and other FEers will be out doing something which you all REFUSE to do -- keep and open mind whilst using the scientific method. Don't accuse us of the "method, type of devices, error margin and test data" (blah blah blah) when you yourself refuse to do a serious experiment. That is not being a scientist. That is being an ignoramus.
You guys and your poor attitudes have motivated me to want to dump a few thousand into this experiment and end this thing once and for all. So for that, I thank you. When I can get good nighttime quality video without the camera shaking like "some yokel", I will post a link. And then, I will keep repeating the experiment over and over and over...
Till then, keep it cooool...
Friday, December 8, 2017 at 9:19 PM
All people who post under the name "Anonymous" and do not provide method, type of devices, error margin and test data do not really contribute to the discussion. If I said I have done hundred experiments and proven that Jupiter is a cube you would expect me to support this view by solid data.
Wednesday, November 22, 2017 at 11:17 AM
Yes, I too have done this experiment once and seen over a 35 degree difference therefore moonlight is proved to be a coldmaker unlike sunlight.
Tuesday, November 21, 2017 at 3:24 PM
I have done this experiment many times the biggest difference in temperature comes from an aluminum baking sheet it was over 10 degrees difference when you dismiss this experiment it proves to me that you're science is wrong
Friday, October 13, 2017 at 3:50 PM
This is a terrible article. If someone goes and tries this experiment and they get in close, and they find out that you're wrong, what then?
Look, I'm a round earth shill, but all you're doing with this article is convincing people that the flat earthers might be on to something.
You should delete this an post a real answer.
Saturday, September 30, 2017 at 9:45 PM
Cool Moon said...
Hello all. I was the one who made the post on Sunday, August 6, 2017 at 3:59 AM under Anonymous. That was my first ever post on this site. This is my second. I will be using the handle Cool Moon from now on. Fitting, don't you think?
@Erik Ryman We're light years ahead of you Erik. We repeated the experiment the following night and I did just that. We scrapped the cardboard and I used another piece of foam board going diagonally across the rectangular foam-board base such that the glass in the shade was the same distance from the divider board as the moonlit glass. Similar results once again - approx 1.3 - 1.4 F cooler in moonlight.
DISCLAIMER - Before I go further, I need Erik, Pit, and anyone else following this thread to please understand a few things.
The whole reason I did this experiment was because of a couple observations I made.
OBS #1) It seems like the people both here and commenting on youtube refuse to take the experiment seriously and try it on their own. That is sad, especially with an experiment as simple as this. No offense guys, but I gotta call a spade a spade.
OBS #2) I will agree with Positron that much of the actual experimentation being done on youtube is shoddy at best, which is why I wanted to do it, and try to improve upon the other methods being used.
I came into this experiment having absolutely no clue as to what results I would find, which is why I used items my friends and I already had available to us. I had not then and have not now any bias toward my findings one way or the other. I really don't care. I wanted to see things with my own eyes and see what the fuss was about. We were all eventually shocked at those initial findings of a few weeks ago.
We will be experimenting again this Mon & Tues (9/4/17 & 9/5/17) as those look to be the best weather for us. If we come up with cooler moonlight once again, believe me, more expensive equipment is in the works. I hope to be able to post this week's results on youtube, so you guys can at least check out the setup.
Keep it cooool.
Sunday, September 3, 2017 at 4:25 AM
@Anonymous You also have to consider that everything that has a temperature radiates energy even if its not in the visible spectrum. The background temperature of the sky is aproximately 4 Kelvin i.e. close to absolute zero. When you place anything shading your test object from the sky this will have about the same temperature as the surrounding air and will radiate way more energy and probably cover a way larger area of the sky (as seen from your glass of water) than the moon.
To compensate for this effect my suggestion is that you place a similar cardboard screen at the same distance at the other glass but from an angle that will only block the sky and not the moon.
You should really read up on the effects of thermal radiation, this is the same reason your windshield will get frosty while the side windows of your car will may not when it's cold outside and the weather is clear. Your front window is angled more towards empty sky while the side windows are more angled to buildings trees, the ground etc.
@Pit Gutzmann While I agree that cooling moonlight is bullshit I don't think the error margin of the thermometer is the problem here. Usually the error margin will tell you the absolute error of the value reported compared to the actual temperature. In this case the absolute value is unimportant, what is important is the difference in temperature between the measurements and here I would expect the thermometer to be much more accurate than the error margin. Otherwise I agree with your statements.
Wednesday, August 30, 2017 at 12:27 PM
@Anonymous Although I like it that you put consideration in acclimation and insulation from ground I still have some issues with your measurement:
You say your thermometer (Taylor Compact Instant-Read Pen Style Digital Thermometer) measures to 1/10th of a degree. It obviously does not. It only shows 1/10th on the display. What accuracy do you expect from a thermometer that ranges from -40 to 450 degrees F? You measured the first values twice. You have differences of 0.4 and 0.2 degrees in the same glasses. If you would do more measurements you would probably get a better feeling for the error margin of your thermometer. Unfortunately I can not find any declaration of that margin on Amazon, but it might be 0.5 or even 1 degree. And when your differences are within the +/- error margin your results are not trustworthy. I do not think that a cooking thermometer is a good tool to overthrow the whole of physics.
And where did you put that L-shaped cardboard? Did it block out wind?
Have you swapped the measurement series (once starting with the moonlit one and the other time starting with the shaded one) in order to see if the thermometer ALWAYS measures less temperature in the second go? How much time did you allow between the measurements. Was the thermometer acclimated as well? It has a metal rod. A few drops of water on it in fresh air make the metal colder. Has that any influence, even if you measure afterwards for two minutes? All things you will have to check in your next experiments.
Monday, August 7, 2017 at 4:46 AM
I saw the youtube videos, and I was intrigued, so I did the experiment twice between the hours of Aug 5th 9pm and Aug 6th 2am EST. I live in New England, and at our particular location tonight we had a perfectly clear night and an almost full moon (Full moon is Mon Aug 7th). Here's how I conducted the experiment:
At 7pm, took 2 standard 16 oz bar glasses and filled them up halfway with tap water, exactly equal amounts. We let them sit outside from 7pm to 9:45pm, to allow the water to acclimate to the outside temperature, while we waited for the moon to come up above the tree line.
At 9:45 pm, we took the glasses of acclimated water out to a big field on the side of my friends house where we would get approx 4 hours of uninterrupted moonlight. One glass measured 69.1 F. The other measured 69.2 F at that time. We made a small stand with 1" foam insulation board sitting up about 6" off the grass. The glasses were placed one foot apart on the foam and I put a piece of L-shaped cardboard in front of one to create shade. I decided on the foam base as a buffer so the glasses would not catch hot/cold from the ground. We let them sit for 2 hours, one in shade, one in direct moonlight.
At 11:45 pm, we went back out to measure the temperature. I used a "Taylor Compact Instant-Read Pen Style Digital Thermometer". This is a digital cooking thermometer which measures to 1/10 of a degree. I left the thermometer in the water for 2 minutes each time to try to get as accurate as possible. At 11:45 pm, water in the shade measured 64.0 F. Water in the moonlight was 62.7 F. I decided to re-measure what I just did a second time. The second reading yielded similar results - 63.6 F in the shade, 62.5 F in the moonlight.
At 1:45 am, we came back out and recorded the same temperatures twice, 58.8 F in the shade, 57.4 F in the moonlight (again, 2 minutes for each dip of the thermometer). It's just one test, first time ever doing this. We're going to test it again tomorrow. Does anyone have good advice for shooting video on this for youtube regarding lighting? My concern is getting lights too close to thermometer or glass and altering temp. I'd love to do this live-time so you can watch the thermometers change.
One test is not enough. I plan on doing hundreds. If the moonlight is cooler, you will see that. If the moonlight is warmer, you will see that. Tonight, the moonlight was cooler by 1.3 F, 1.1 F, and 1.4 F each time we did the test. Till next time...
Sunday, August 6, 2017 at 3:59 AM
Who wrote this blog?
Tuesday, July 25, 2017 at 11:36 AM
Yes, I did. Personally. No effect.
Saturday, July 15, 2017 at 5:27 PM
I apologise for having not read through the previous comments.
Did you personally conduct an experiment to demonstrate your point.
Saturday, July 15, 2017 at 9:59 AM
Hi Anonymous, so what do you want to tell us with your IQ? That you can not err? You were accepted but did not study physics and want to tell us how physics works? Is here anyone else bragging and boasting with IQ numbers?
Every scientist has a "work theory" while doing experiments. And either the experiments fit his theory or not. If not he will have to revise his theory. So what was my theory?
1. I know that the moon reflects sun light. Here are my conclusions:
2. If you have a certain temperature in the atmosphere around you this means that the air molecules have a certain kinetic energy.
3. How can moon light take away energy when it actually itself is energy? Photons reflected towards us? This would be like a stove cooled down by an outside fire. From an energy point of view totally impossible.
4. The only way to cool down things with light would be to exactly counter the swinging Brown motion of the air molecules, something we achieve with pulsed Lasers in laboratories when cooling down quantum experiments.
5. This can not be true for the moon light, because the Brown motion of air molecules is erratic and the moon light is not "steered" to counter that motion. It is not even pulsed.
6. I am sure most people "feel" colder in bright moon light, because that's the time when earth can radiate most of it's day warmth into space, unblocked by clouds. So from the "felt" coldness in moonshine nights some esoteric yoga-yin-yang guys have put the claim into the world that moonlight is cold, damp, putrifying because they always need a yang for their yin (sun). They compare sun and moon like apples and pears.
7. Eric Dubay (self-declared flat earth anchorman) did this experiment in a video. He measured a 0.2 Celsius difference between moon light and shadow. He used thermometers that (look at amazon!) have an error margin of +/- 2.0 Celsius.
8. If you ever do such experiments you will always have to tell the error margins of your setup and make sure that the effect you try to measure is significantly greater than the error margin of your experiment.
9. In my setup the sensor had an error margin of +/-0.5 Celsius and I found not even a tiny difference. When I focussed the moon light with a lens, I got even a little "warmer" reading but that, too, was within the margin of error, so I won't put too much faith into it.
I frankly do not care about your upbringing or IQ or religious status. (Even if you would be Einstein it would not matter to me.) Do the experiment, do it properly, publish it so it can be peer-reviewded. If you find the effect significant go on and find out the mechanism of it. That would be science.
Saturday, April 29, 2017 at 1:46 PM
Its our duty to shake awake cognitive dissonance the like of which is displayed in this article. you call yourself a scientist but take an angle that so clearly favors your pre conceived ideas about the subject. this attitude is rife across the world, and it is the most dangerous around, it lends itself to ignorance, acting like this makes science a religion, science requires method and testing of all possible theories/ideas, the sheer fact you are dismissing these peeps as fools when you should be devising better experiments to prove or deny the claim that would be real science.
Instead you belittle thousands of people doing real science, as best they can. If you are so advanced do some science and see what the results are (because technically trying to prove one view is not science, finding out what happens is) It is folks with your attitude that actually push me towards fringe idea's.
When i hear such illogical, emotion filled and biased words coming from the community of science, it devalues the argument and standpoint and the community as a whole. I witness this more and more every day to the point where, for me its all up for debate....all of it, because its now clear to me there is very little solid info coming from the academic world at the moment, at least into the mainstream.
I should point out i have been IQ tested several time the lowest i scored was 118 the highest was 145, and most were between 130 and 140, I am not stupid, in fact i'm close to the genius category, I had a great education at a private school i had to pass an exam to attend. I was accepted into Bristol Uni to study Physics, one of the best physics dept's in the world but chose not to go because of this very attitude, I am not religious. you cannot brush me under the carpet like I am some idiot of some religious fool. You will have to do much much better than this i am afraid. This is not science, this ego driven damage control
Saturday, April 29, 2017 at 12:28 PM
So rather than look at THOUSANDS of recreated results (which by virtue of number almost negate the so called controls, being that they are all getting the same results) you cllutch at straws to preserve Thermo Dynamics, pathetic, cognitivfe dissonance of the highest order, Until you can find the common "issue" causing "contamination" that would result in the majority of folks getting the same results(even this would be pretty lame attempt but at least it would be scientific)in a manner that EXCLUDES!! the possibility of the moonlight being cooler.
Anyone want explain the trig of curvature? go on i dare you.
Most Lighthouses are viewed from between 20 and 60 miles away, some up to 70/80 and more miles, bu lets use the lowest figure, 20 miles
So a standard light house is between 40 and 100 ft high, again lets use the smallest height elevation, 40ft...so from 20 miles away there would be 100ft of curvature (there are curvature calculators online if your maths sucks) so from 20 miles the light house would be invisible, have a look at light houses, and how far away they can be seen? Isle of Wight light house, check it out....your curvature maths does NOT match observations...go on find a light house that fits the maths, interms of viewing distance, you may find 1 or 2, but the majority are far in excess if you do the maths, now i assume if you are a pHysisist you know trig, and that these numbers either work...or they do not...They do not. Pull your head out the sand
Saturday, April 29, 2017 at 12:07 AM
What a waste of time reading this article.
We learn by observation. But your observations you made are not valid. Let me who is sitting behind a desk tell you what you are seeing.
And simply making numbers up, reveals how far people will go to support their religion.
Instead of pretending the numbers are wrong. Prove them wrong or else we try to understand why.
Anything else isn't science. Its religion.
Friday, April 14, 2017 at 10:35 PM