Message from @Citizen Z
Discord ID: 488419468205359105
Z, I will tell you how I feel about people just shooting down ideas without a better idea. It's useless not just talking about fe, in everything; politics, science, history, whatever. If you don't have a idea to replace the bad idea. It's useless to say so. Just saying it's bad isn't helpful . you need something to replace it.
You only have ideas. What do you think saying the moonlight is only a reflection of solar radiation? Thats an IDEA.
Why or how the moon lights up is currently misunderstood. it is recognised that the amount of light we receive from the moon exceeds that which could solely the suns reflection.
The moons non atmosphere is flourescing under the effects of other solar radiation.
Its theorized the earth daylight is generated the same way. Tesla understood this principle and was illuminating his labs by making the air at ceiling level fluoresce creating indoors daylight.
The earths sky changes during the day. It can be very light blue to a deep blue depending on the time of day.
ok, even if i agree with you, you still dont have a better answer
that is my problem
you dont have a better answer
You dont have an answer either. Just assumptions and theories also
You dont know. Just like i dont know.
here is my point, the main stream model for the light is there for what ever reason you want to say. If you cant give a solution that is better then it. Then what you are saying isnt useful
you cant answer the simple question of what is making the moon light emit light. The whole point you are making is that the moon is creating light. If you cant answer the question of how, why is your theory any more useful
There is solutions. You choose to downplay them or ignore them.
ok, so the moon is fluorescent
Just as good
Considering we dont know for sure.
if it is equally good, then it still doesnt matter. A new idea has to be better to replace the current idea. In anything, again not just here
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder
Meaning, one idea might be good to one person but another idea might be just as good to another
i am not saying its a bad idea, i am saying if it isnt better then there is no point, at the current time, trying to replace it. if it becomes better, sure replace it
Ive given a pretty good explanation i think. Considering chemiluminescence or phosphorescence can light up minerals and showing that fluorescence can do the same thing and even make it look like a moonlight
Reflection is the easiest answer
actually all you said is that bio/chem/phosphoreencence are a thing and something looks on the surface looks like moonlight
Also the temperature differences of the light
Which brings everything into question
you expect them to be the extact temperature?
There must be something more to it all
If the moon was reflecting the sun light, then the moonlight should be warm not cold
But we see the opposite
how it is "cold"
the experiments done show a few degree drop in temp
thats not "cold"
Its sure not hot
Yes its "colder than"
so do you expect them to be the exact same temp
well i can tell you it isnt flurescent or phosphorecent because both of those rely on the sun to function
or an other light source
Or radiation
light is a form of radiation
so, yes
visible or UV radiation
im struggling to grasp what you mean bby cold light, does a mere drop in temp make the light cold