Oh I wasn't asking for evidence that the moon was not a rock. We're passed that point. What I asked was, and I quote:
What data is available that leads to the conclusion that the moon is a plasma phenomenon
Do you have anything?
According to professor foster, yes. As has the evidence that (possibly/ostensibly) supports the speculation that i mentioned originally.
Have you seen this verification, or is there somewhere I can read about it?
By exciting/affecting the matter that is already present (by projection of any other means), you can affect the reflection of radio waves by that matter.
Where can someone observe this happening?
I mean the evidence that you originally requested.
Yes, I'm asking you where or what that is. You just keep saying "the one I mentioned originally." I'm not sure where that is, because it's not anywhere in this comment thread.
ideas i have encountered often include a “black sun” or other radiation source we can’t see in the visible spectrum.
I'm not asking about ideas that you've encountered. I'm asking what your findings have led you to believe as the most plausible reality. Has anything, to your knowledge, been verified?
My usage did not preclude other, perhaps less conventional, meanings for the word projection.
Great! Neither does mine.
So, is there any other projection that can reflect radio waves that you know existing today?
It could. It all depends on if that redirected light reaches the eye or not
I'm not looking for speculation on if it could happen. Is there any known observed instance of it actually happening at this point in time?
The data i mentioned originally.
It's a little unclear what you mean here. Can you be more specific? Is there something you linked to previously? Looking though your comments, I'm not sure what data you mentioned that includes this information
Good question! Any ideas?
Nope, that's why I'm asking you. I'm only just now learning about this idea. Have you not thought about this yourself?
one of the more intriguing speculations is that it is a reflection (of sorts) of the world itself. In any case, as i said at the outset - having an explanation is merely mythology - validating that explanation is what really matters.
This is pretty interesting. What does it mean that it is a reflection "of sorts"? Is it reflecting image back, like a mirror? Or something else?
It depends on what you mean by projection.
This was your word, so I'm using it in the way you intended.
Can you reflect a radio wave with another radio wave? Not to my knowledge, but you can redirect it through interference.
Would that result in a visual projection though?
As i said, it is more consistent with the available data - which makes it more conceivable - which is very different than correct.
Ah, I understand.
What data is available that leads to the conclusion that the moon is a plasma phenomenon "drawn" on the air above us? What would keep that "drawing" so consistent each day?
However, a typical projection requires something to project upon (that will reflect back to the observer) and this particular “projection” can reflect radio waves.
Is there any other projection that can reflect radio waves that you know existing?
How about yourself? What do you think it is?
I don't know
I don’t think that is correct (either you asking this question, me not providing an answer - or both), but as i said - speculative alternatives are irrelevant.
That's okay! I don't wish to speculate on alternatives. You have an understanding of how things operate in reality. If I haven't asked you directly before, I would like to take that opportunity now:
What is your current understanding of what the moon is, in reality?
It definitely does look like that I was taught something contradictory, because what you were taught does not appear to be what I was taught, based on how you're describing it.
Of course it is! You just don’t like the phrasing because it makes plain how stupid it is.
The phrasing is what makes it not what I was taught. You can't just make up your own phrasing and claim it's the same lesson, because it isn't.
i’d be interested in hearing what you were taught!
And I'd be interested in sharing that with you! However, over the course of many of our conversations I asked you a similar question, which is what the current reality is of the earth and moon and how they operate. You haven't shared that with me yet.
We both know that what i was taught is not consistent with reality, so there's no use discussing it further. The current goal is establishing what reality is
Our education informed that it perpetually falls without falling
I don’t know why you say “our.” This isn’t what I was taught either. But I digress, we’re talking about what it is, not what it isn’t.
it does open up other possibilities that are scientifically consistent.
Have you weighed the various possibilities in your mind?
The primary one isn't evidence, it's just a thought. "Isn't this idea ridiculous" isn't any more evidence than if someone else were to say "boy that's a great idea." I'm not sure how you were taught, but my education did not include the explanation that the moon could be a giant rock which floats above us perpetually.
It is very easy to contrive explanations.
Well, sure...any explanation can be contrived. I am talking of reasonings that reflect reality, that either come from hard evidence or some sort of confirmed repeated observation. If there is no explanation that you have on what the moon is, then there is no way to verify if you're even correct in your theories.
My answer is freely available
I would be interested in learning your answer. It would bring meaning to the discussion if you brought forth a theory as to what the moon is.
Refuting/criticizing something does not require a replacement for it - that’s silly!
But the moon is something. It's a sight that we both have observed on a near nightly basis, either because it is a solid floating object, a projection onto a screen, or something in between. Do you just not have any explanation to what the moon is and you're comfortable with that?
Yeah, that evidence isn't really that convincing.
The monochromatic color scheme, for instance...I'm not sure how that proves that it's not a rock. Most rocks are monochromatic and reflect light similarly. (That said, I'm not asserting that this is proof that the moon is a rock)
However, the current narrative at least has explanations to questions asked. I've asked you and other similar minded people before what the moon is if not the current understood narrative, and you don't seem to have an answer for that. It seems odd that you are confident in the assertion of what the moon cannot be without having done any research on alternative explanations
Uh, ok.
I guess to answer your question, I’m gonna keep reading my book, make a cup of hot tea, and get a good night’s sleep, and wake up the next morning feeling refreshed. Because I don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about lol
You haven’t proved me wrong. I sent you the link and you just said “I proved it wrong.”
Using that logic, I just proved your other comment wrong (because I said so).
I just linked you to the actual data showing that the global temperature average has increased. Perhaps you didn’t click it.
Hot conspiracy take: the dome isn't real