new | show | ask | jobs Github

piskov a day ago

The entire premise (moon uv, ir etc) is wrong so the conclusion is wrong.

Sky is always brighter than the land, moon is not required.

Lamp movement is the confusion of where is “up”

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-44785-3

▲

pasquinelli a day ago | parent | next [-]

a conclusion can be right even if an argument for it is wrong.

▲

jmpeax a day ago | parent [-]

If P then Q, P therefore Q. Q is not the conclusion, it's just the consequent. If P is false, then Q could be true, but claiming Q is true because P is true when P is actually false is a wrong conclusion.

	▲	pasquinelli a day ago \| parent [-]
		i don't see what point your making. take something you know to be true. now come up with a stupid, falacious argument for it. now you can see that seeing an argument is bad doesn't mean the conclusion is wrong.

▲

dylan604 a day ago | parent | prev [-]

> Sky is always brighter than the land, moon is not required.

Speaking of things being wrong...how can you come to this conclusion? There are many beaches where turtle hatchlings get confused by all of the lights on land where they crawl away from the ocean instead of towards it. Land is so bright, that the vast majority of humans can no longer see the night sky. So again I ask, how do you come to the conclusion that land is darker than the sky?

▲

lmz a day ago | parent [-]

I think the missing part is "in the absence of artificial light".

▲

dylan604 a day ago | parent [-]

In "the absence of artificial light", please explain how land will be brighter than the sky

	▲	Scarblac 20 hours ago \| parent [-]
		It wouldn't, that's his point.