Cool Moonlight

Well Veeky Forums I've just read a paper that had some fairly convincing arguments for a cooling effect of moonlight.

Claim: Two equal glasses of water are left outside at night for a few hours during or near a full moon, they both measure the same temperature. Then one glass gets a shade set up blocking the moonlight. They are both left a couple more hours. The temperature reading is done again surprisingly the one in the shade measures warmer than the glass of water left in the moonlight for some hours.

Can Veeky Forums prove or debunk this phenomena?
If proven, can Veeky Forums explain this strange behavior of moonlight.

Other urls found in this thread:

milesmathis.com/mooncool.pdf
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_cooling
quora.com/Why-does-moonlight-reduce-temperature
milesmathis.com/per4.pdf
physics.stackexchange.com/questions/38151/does-special-relativity-make-magnetic-fields-irrelevant
youtube.com/watch?v=XFw7U7V1Hok
youtube.com/watch?v=37y-MSBU6iY
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_refrigeration
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle
twitter.com/AnonBabble

the shade isolates the water from the air you doofus, it has nothing to do with light. it would be the same if the two glasses were placed in a dark cabinet.

The shade was set up some 15 feet away. Not directly on the top of the glass.

I sort of expected Veeky Forums to just toss names around at me.

Is anyone here able to perform this experiment themselves? I'd be interested to see a third party try it.

Link the paper you moron

Ok, but you guys hate Miles Mathis so that sort of takes away the unbiased response I was after.

milesmathis.com/mooncool.pdf

A whole bunch of rambling. I couldn't even find the data. Is the difference enough to cover the error? I doubt it.

So that's one more Veeky Forumsentist giving up on the question. Thanks for your valuable time.

>I couldn't even find the data.
This is part of the problem, it's been hypothesized that moonlight causes cooling, but there really is no official data one way or the other. This question has been asked of science for many years now.

from the paper;

>Moonlight is always coming from the opposite direction of Sunlight. This alone is enough to flip it. It doesn't have to be flipped in some fancy process at the surface of the Moon. All it has to do is bounce. The Moon's light is automatically antiphotonic simply because it is coming from the left when the Sun is right. In fact, all light coming from the direction of the Moon is antiphotonic, simply because it is coming from that direction. The light from the planets and stars, when falling at night, is also antiphotonic. Which means. . . it doesn't matter if the Moon is up or not. We would get cooling from starlight and the planets, though not as much. For this reason, someone should have predicted long ago that Moonlight was cooling, and I am just dissappointed it wasn't me. I am getting to the party rather late, and I can only apologize by arriving with an explanation rather than a prediction. The explanation is that the opposing spins of those antiphotons at night tamp down the spins of the dominant photons in the field, causing cooling.

1/2

We don't even need photon-antiphoton collisions, since antiphotons will spin down anything and everything they hit. All ions and nuclei in the field will have been spun up previously by the dominant Solar photons, and will therefore be spinning left, say. So whatever the right-spinning antiphotons now hit, they will spin down. This spin down is an energy loss, and thereby a heat loss. This effect on Moonlight would be at a maximum at full Moon, but not only because that is when the reflected light is greatest. It is also important that light at that time is most antiphotonic. At full Moon, the Moon is directly opposite the Sun (or the most opposite it would be without being in Lunar eclipse).

In that position, we don't have to take any sines of angles, getting a reduction in opposition. In that case, the Moon is not “to the side” at all. For this reason, I can at least predict that the maximum cooling effect will be when the Moon is nearest Lunar eclipse without actually being eclipsed. No one else would think to predict that since they don't have my mechanics.

2/2

Op, you do realise MOONlight is exactly the same thing as SUNlight just with lower intensity r-right?

Armed with this newfound knowledge please take a swift noose to the throat as you clearly have disregarded the fact that photons are a type of electromagnetic wave (or particle if it is so inclined lol) and therefore INCREASE the total heat of a system, admittedly not by much, but water does block some light and must absorb it's energy.

>MOONLIGHT = SUNLIGHT = WARMING EFFECT = NECK YOURSELF

Look, I've even made a nice summarising greentext for you

This is almost all bullshit lmao

>it's been hypothesized that moonlight causes cooling
No it hasn't
>but there really is no official data one way or the other.
So run the experiment yourself.
>This question has been asked of science for many years now.
No it hasn't

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_cooling

all of the answers from Veeky Forums have not been answers

>MOONlight is exactly the same thing as SUNlight

No it most definitely is not.

That's like saying the face in the mirror is you. It's only your reflection, not truly you.

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_cooling
Here's a quote from that article mr smarty pants

"Using the electromagnetic trap to contain the Magnesium ions, they bombarded them with a laser barely out of phase from the resonant frequency of the atoms"

Good luck finding visible light or IR with a frequency ANYWHERE NEAR that of the resonant frequency of a water molecule BTFO

Do you know what photons are m'lad?
Okay, now do you understand how the moon reflects them from the sun?

>inb4 they changed somehow because muh astrology BS

"Antiphotonic" is gibberish. Technobabble.

Things cool off at night because they're radiating heat into interstellar space and getting practically nothing back. The heat from the Moon is trivial.
The shade may interfere with the radiative process, at least slightly, or it may alter air currents. If you want real cold you need still air. Otherwise the cooled air above the glass is replaced by warm air. You use baffles, like the compartments of an ice cube tray.

A fair comparison would be no moon in the sky vs. a new moon. Both ways, there's no moonlight and no shade needed.

>So run the experiment yourself.
I plan on it now, I assumed Veeky Forums would be able to debunk this without me having to buy thermometers.

quora.com/Why-does-moonlight-reduce-temperature

Please read the first answer here

Top kek

Photons are spinning.
This I know.
Real physical spin.

>I assumed Veeky Forums would be able to debunk this without me having to buy thermometers.

Then how tf they gon do that boy? With an equation perhaps>

yeah man, photons spin
therefore the spin must somehow impart a magical cooling effect
I'd sarcastically clap for you, but that's giving you too much credit

If you like that one good sir, I suggest you read up on his atomic theory.

milesmathis.com/per4.pdf

it's not magic, it's simple mechanics

spin = energy = heat

the opposing spins of a photon colliding with a photon from the same source reflected back will cause the spins to "tamp each other down" thereby causing a cooling effect.

Particles don't actually spin you idiot. Just look up on YouTube what quantum spin actually is.

>"Antiphotonic" is gibberish. Technobabble.
Antiphotonic is used to describe photons with opposing spin to the local system of photons.

Tell me then, is the moon heated by the sun?

>the opposing spins of a photon colliding with a photon
AHAHAHAHHAAHAHA MEGA FAGGOT CONFIRMED GUYS
Get a load of this guy

That's about when I stop trying to talk to "scientists"

Particles do actually spin. They do not have flavor though I'd say.

>Tell me then, is the moon heated by the sun?
I will tell you. Yes, the moon is heated by the sun. Not all of the sunlight heats the moon however, some of it "reflects" and shines on us here on Earth or just off into space.

>Moonlight is always coming from the opposite direction of Sunlight.
the first sentence is already a lie

If you think colliding photons with opposed spins somehow cancels energy, you don't know very much.
If energy disappeared, where would it go? It's a conserved quantity (though it can be converted into mass.)
Two photons just pass right through each other and go on their merry ways unaffected. There's no "anti-energy"..

this is so silly. so the two glasses were at different spots. two different temps.

>Particles do actually spin.
Prove it. You can't. Now look up what spin actually is and admit you were retarded and learned something today.

You're gonna love this post.

Photon spin is the mechanism behind magnetism.

Okay, so we've established that to sun can heat the earth (during the day) and that the sun can heat the moon.

So when these spinning photons hit the moon and get reflected back to us they have opposite spins and somehow cool down objects? (lol, no)

Right, okay so how to photo-voltaic cells still function at night? And how do we take photos of the moon if all of these photons are cooling us down, surely our cameras would FREEZE solid with all this long exposure photography going on?

Teenage philosopher tier.

please see

You assume I don't understand what feynman taught, when in reality I am saying he was wrong.

Subatomic particles do spin.

What's next, do I hear a "Shut up and calculate." coming from the faggots?

>Subatomic particles do spin.
Prove it. You can't.

>Gravity is bent spacetime

spacetime is not real and cannot bend
space real, not bendable though
time real, also not bendable

also using light as a clock and ruler is fucking retarded

...

prove that they do not spin

you also cannot

the glass in moonlight is cooler because it could radiate it's heat to space. The one under the shade could not. Wow it's heat transfer 101. Did you know that people can die of hypothermia when it is 20 degrees C outside? If you get naked on a clear night, you can die of hypothermia because you radiate all your heat to space.

>spacetime is not real and cannot bend
Proof? Nah, just give me an equation and i'll be happy, better yet give me a counter example from one of Einstein's, should be simple for a genius like you.
And btw you are doing a great job trolling, congrats. I can keep this up all day lad.

Just please explain to me how the photons reflected from the moon can possibly cool the water on earth by means of a particle spin.

Exactly.
You travel along side-by-side with a moving electron. It has an electric field (lines sticking out radially) but no magnetic field.
Slow down a little so the electric has relative motion. Suddenly it HAS a magnetic field.
Where did it come from? You didn't do anything to the electron.
Magnetic fields are an illusion. Which is not to say they don't have effects.

physics.stackexchange.com/questions/38151/does-special-relativity-make-magnetic-fields-irrelevant

You don't know what a wave function is, brainlet go study a physics textbook

Right, but these spins can decrease the total heat content of a system, how exactly?

Proved it. Particle spin can't be actually spinning.

read the paper I linked and the others that are linked within it

It's not physical spin you fool, it's an intrinsic quantum state used to differentiate electrons when they are placed in shells.

>t. doesn't even atomic theory

Are you replying to the right person? You're repeating all the points I've been making.

see
Please stop being a faggot and accept that spin has no effect on the thermodynamic properties of a system.
Damn son, even your fancy schmansy article on laser cooling mentioned nothing about spins of photons. Ya think there might be a reason for that?

Whatever caused the shade also shielded the glass from the wind.

Oh shit i might not be :/
I think OP's retardation is rubbing off on me, sorry man, anywhoo he's been BTFO many times and still continues to troll

what could possibly be behind the wave? not a spin?

what about stacked spins? Can Veeky Forums even visualize a particle spinning about 3 axis' simultaneously?

lmao, electrons in shells, now it;'s all so clear thanks

The moon creates its own light, it doesn't reflect the sun's light that's fucking dumb. The sun is hot light and the moon is a cold light, it's what the yin/yang symbol represents.

yup lets troll right on over to photon channeling theory

what is this a picture of?

which way are these photons spinning?

hey can you provide me with a WP article of Photon Channeling? Oh, no sorry how about an independent and peer review scientific article? No, I guess you can't either

Case closed..

atomic theory it is

here is a picture of an alpha

The sun is just a big ball of gas on fire. Is this some electric universe bullshit?

But what does this have to do with the wavelength of Magenta?

Someone needs to do this but with moonlight and record the temperature of what it's shone on to shut these idiots up

youtube.com/watch?v=XFw7U7V1Hok

>Is anyone here able to perform this experiment themselves?
Would it really be that difficult for you to do it? You don't have some clear cups and two thermometers?

What is this shit?

the black discs are protons the green circles represent neutrons, it's the nucleus of helium, an electron on the poles. (too small to draw pic related)

protons are not actually bigger or discs, but their field is

the arrow represents the flow of energy through the atom


here is mercury

Already been done: youtube.com/watch?v=37y-MSBU6iY

>one trial
>shitty hand-held infrared thermometer
>counting for anything

If it cools things then i should be able to freeze stuff with a giant fresnel lens using moonlight ffs

posts flat earth video on Veeky Forums unironically

I didn't say anything about "decreased heat content"
You may be thinking of en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_refrigeration
Some materials become warmer in a field because the field aligns the electron spins. You let normal heat transfer cool the material back to it's original temperature, then turn off the field and the temperature drops still further.

I think the lowest temperatures ever attained are through a similar method, but applied to the particles in the nucleus.

Nothing to do with the spin of moonlight.

the lens would distort the antiphotonic cooling nature of moonlight

point objects cannot spin

...

were any of this true it would be trivial to demonstrate in a lab. bounce a high-powered laser off a mirror and it should behave with the same "antiphotonic" behavior as moonlight, and should cool objects rather than heating them.

This guy answered it sufficiently.

Now we can just call you a moron.

I wont, because I am too polite, but there are plenty of others here.

objects can't be points

thank you

They have, you're just ignoring it.

photons dont have volume or rest mass, so they're not objects

that's like saying there can be no perfect circles.

if the radius is rational than the circumference is irrational and vice versa

>>the opposing spins of a photon colliding with a photon

See, physicists thought it would be cute to name something "spin," and now THIS shit happens.

There are lots of videos of people doing it. Do it yourself you lazy shit

^This.

Particles are just virtual.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle

well, the original name of spin did make sense. the quantum behavior of the particles was consistent with them having spin-imparted angular momentum

>The Coulomb force (static electric force) between electric charges. It is caused by the exchange of virtual photons. In symmetric 3-dimensional space this exchange results in the inverse square law for electric force. Since the photon has no mass, the coulomb potential has an infinite range.

>The magnetic field between magnetic dipoles. It is caused by the exchange of virtual photons. In symmetric 3-dimensional space, this exchange results in the inverse cube law for magnetic force. Since the photon has no mass, the magnetic potential has an infinite range.

>Electromagnetic induction. This phenomenon transfers energy to and from a magnetic coil via a changing (electro)magnetic field.
The strong nuclear force between quarks is the result of interaction of virtual gluons. The residual of this force outside of quark triplets (neutron and proton) holds neutrons and protons together in nuclei, and is due to virtual mesons such as the pi meson and rho meson.

>was
Implying it currently isn't?

the shade could have blocked the radiative effects of the unshaded glass

i was referring to the choice of name when the original experiment was performed. of course it's still true, but we're not constantly in the process of re-naming the phenomenon

>light isn't distorted by the atmosphere

sweet jesus

atmosphere is a globe-earth-science lie

That's one for Veeky Forums

Maybe a lens will work after all, I'll have to try it.

>makes post about cooling effects of moonlight
>I didn't say anything about "decreased heat content"

...

>Can Veeky Forums prove or debunk this phenomena?
Yes, we debunked it already NOW FUCK OFF

Someone ELSE suggested "cooling effect"
Can't you read? (I mean "read English". You're doing very well if you're a Russian Troll working for the "Make America Stupid" movement.)

This thread reminds me of this picture.

Okay sorry :( I was making fun of OP btw sheesh not you