Moon light - the word of God vs falsely so called science

[d taylor]

Let me draw your attention to a previous post you made.

With all due respect you are arguing like an idiot.
Seriously do you really think scientists came up with the idea of moonlight being reflected sunlight to spite what the Bible supposedly states???
First of all it wasn't scientists that first proposed the idea but the ancient Greeks such as Anaxagoras in the 5th century BC.

Sorry to disappoint you but the ancient Greeks knew nothing about the Bible to spite, Anaxagoras was a philosopher who practiced naturalism which was a precursor of science.

Secondly proof that moonlight is reflected sunlight was provided way back in November 2019 in this very thread.
Here it is reproduced in its entirety.

It amazes me how this nonsense thread continues to have legs.
As mentioned previously if the moon emits its own light then why does the sky go dark during a total eclipse of the Sun?

Then there is the data itself that shows moonlight is reflected sunlight.

View attachment 347225
​

The spectra have been normalised (adjusted) to simulate equal brightness conditions.
Note the similarities in the spectra in particular the Fraunhofer lines.
Paradoxically where the continuum part of the spectra (the jagged lines minus the Fraunhofer lines) diverge the most towards the red end or higher wavelengths is what we would expect for moonlight being reflected sunlight.
This is due to the greater reflectivity of red light off the moon's surface.

-

​

The positive part about a debate about God's creation is truth will eventually reveled. So we will get to find out, who is deceived and if i am an idiot for believing God's word as given in the Bible.

Mark
Also He said to them, “Is a lamp brought to be put under a basket or under a bed? Is it not to be set on a lampstand? For there is nothing hidden which will not be revealed, nor has anything been kept secret but that it should come to light. If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear.”

Luke
“No one, when he has lit a lamp, covers it with a vessel or puts it under a bed, but sets it on a lampstand, that those who enter may see the light. For nothing is secret that will not be revealed, nor anything hidden that will not be known and come to light. Therefore take heed how you hear. For whoever has, to him more will be given; and whoever does not have, even what he seems to have will be taken from him.”

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I'm just gonna throw this question out into the void in case anyone who says that the moon is a light source in its own right can attempt to answer it:

If you say that the moon creates and emits its own light, then there must be a mechanism that exists in the moon to create said light. In the sun, that mechanism if fusion. In saying that moon is its own source of light, then something similar must be happening to create said light. What is that mechanism, that process?

 

[Ophiolite]

I'm just gonna throw this question out into the void in case anyone who says that the moon is a light source in its own right can attempt to answer it:

If you say that the moon creates and emits its own light, then there must be a mechanism that exists in the moon to create said light. In the sun, that mechanism if fusion. In saying that moon is its own source of light, then something similar must be happening to create said light. What is that mechanism, that process?

I understand what you are asking and why you are asking. I also concede that it is a reasonable thing to ask. Now I'll drop the other shoe.

It is also reasonable in science to postulate alternative explanations when one has some evidence to suggest these may be plausible. In this case @d taylor believes they have such evidence. True, the evidence is sketchy at best and has been refuted to the satisfaction of any objective observer. But the absence of a process does not itself invalidate the claim.

I mention this because I have an axe to grind in regard to plate tectonics which, in the guise of continental drift as proposed by Wegner, was summarily dismissed for the better part of three decades. This was, in part, because Wegner - a meterologist - had the audacity to concern himself with Earth science, but largely baecause there was, allegedly, no discernible mechanism. Newton didn't sit under the apocryphal apple tree and declare "I see no mechanism by which this apple could have fallen, therefore it didn't fall". Absence of mechanism is not grounds for rejection. Absence of evidence, or reasoned argument is.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I understand what you are asking and why you are asking. I also concede that it is a reasonable thing to ask. Now I'll drop the other shoe.

It is also reasonable in science to postulate alternative explanations when one has some evidence to suggest these may be plausible. In this case @d taylor believes they have such evidence. True, the evidence is sketchy at best and has been refuted to the satisfaction of any objective observer. But the absence of a process does not itself invalidate the claim.

I mention this because I have an axe to grind in regard to plate tectonics which, in the guise of continental drift as proposed by Wegner, was summarily dismissed for the better part of three decades. This was, in part, because Wegner - a meterologist - had the audacity to concern himself with Earth science, but largely baecause there was, allegedly, no discernible mechanism. Newton didn't sit under the apocryphal apple tree and declare "I see no mechanism by which this apple could have fallen, therefore it didn't fall". Absence of mechanism is not grounds for rejection. Absence of evidence, or reasoned argument is.

Yeah, but if there's a mechanism that can be found, then there'd be evidence of its use, no? Thus, I'm not in the wrong to ask for the evidence of the mechanism, which would thus lead to evidence of the moon emitting its own light.

 

[Ophiolite]

Yeah, but if there's a mechanism that can be found, then there'd be evidence of its use, no? Thus, I'm not in the wrong to ask for the evidence of the mechanism, which would thus lead to evidence of the moon emitting its own light.

Agreed, it is reasonable to ask, but it is equally reasonable to reply "we cannot yet identify a mechanism". What I think we should focus on, and this has been done on this thread, is to ask for evidence that the light of the moon has characteristics that exclude the possibility that it is the reflection of sunlight. It is no surprise that @d taylor has been unable to do so.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Agreed, it is reasonable to ask, but it is equally reasonable to reply "we cannot yet identify a mechanism". What I think we should focus on, and this has been done on this thread, is to ask for evidence that the light of the moon has characteristics that exclude the possibility that it is the reflection of sunlight. It is no surprise that @d taylor has been unable to do so.

Fair enough.

 

[sjastro]

-

​

The positive part about a debate about God's creation is truth will eventually reveled. So we will get to find out, who is deceived and if i am an idiot for believing God's word as given in the Bible.

Mark
Also He said to them, “Is a lamp brought to be put under a basket or under a bed? Is it not to be set on a lampstand? For there is nothing hidden which will not be revealed, nor has anything been kept secret but that it should come to light. If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear.”

Luke
“No one, when he has lit a lamp, covers it with a vessel or puts it under a bed, but sets it on a lampstand, that those who enter may see the light. For nothing is secret that will not be revealed, nor anything hidden that will not be known and come to light. Therefore take heed how you hear. For whoever has, to him more will be given; and whoever does not have, even what he seems to have will be taken from him.”

I noticed how you ignored the part of my post where I presented the evidence moonlight is reflected sunlight after you demanded this from various posters.
Quoting Mark and Luke is irrelevant or it's all an act of deception, it's up to you show the evidence is wrong or supports your claim.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Still waiting for you to show proof that the moon reflect the suns light, by recreating this yourself.

All you need to do is look at the spectrum of the Moon to see that it is reflected sunlight.

 

[d taylor]

-​

So when a full moon is seen it is seen as a fully, evenly lit disk with no area on the moon brighter than any other area. So light a sphere with a light source and recreate this, where the sphere is an evenly lit disk.

 

[Ophiolite]

-​

So when a full moon is seen it is seen as a fully, evenly lit disk with no area on the moon brighter than any other area. So light a sphere with a light source and recreate this, where the sphere is an evenly lit disk.

The moon is not evenly lit. If it were evenly lit we would not have people speaking about "the man in the moon". You have posted some astounding nonsense, but this remark arguably tops them all since even someone with poor eyesight could refute it with a single glance. Remarkable!

 

[Hans Blaster]

-​

So when a full moon is seen it is seen as a fully, evenly lit disk with no area on the moon brighter than any other area. So light a sphere with a light source and recreate this, where the sphere is an evenly lit disk.

What it mostly means is that your camera is over exposed. Close down your aperture. In that video you posted when you zoomed in enough that the auto exposure sensor was getting moon over most of the center of the image, it adjusted from overstaturation and the non-uniform (limb-darkened) view of the moon was available. If you take any non-oversaturated image and use any photo analysis/editing software you can measure the brightness from center to edge and see it decrease.

 

[d taylor]

​

What it mostly means is that your camera is over exposed. Close down your aperture. In that video you posted when you zoomed in enough that the auto exposure sensor was getting moon over most of the center of the image, it adjusted from overstaturation and the non-uniform (limb-darkened) view of the moon was available. If you take any non-oversaturated image and use any photo analysis/editing software you can measure the brightness from center to edge and see it decrease.

-

​

Regardless of how a photo done. The question does not change, a sphere lit by a light source. Produce with this sphere what can be done with the moon. Because this (among other reasons) shows me the moon is giving off its own light

 

[BCP1928]

-​

So when a full moon is seen it is seen as a fully, evenly lit disk with no area on the moon brighter than any other area. So light a sphere with a light source and recreate this, where the sphere is an evenly lit disk.

And then what? What is it supposed to prove if we do that?

 

[Ophiolite]

-

​

Regardless of how a photo done. The question does not change, a sphere lit by a light source. Produce with this sphere what can be done with the moon. Because this (among other reasons) shows me the moon is giving off its own light

But this assertion is based on your false belief that the moon is evenly lit. It is not, as a simple observation will confirm. Why are you consciously ignoring this fact? I have exhausted all the explanations for your behaviour except the ones that forum rules prohibit me from explicitly suggesting.

 

[Hans Blaster]

-

​

Regardless of how a photo done. The question does not change, a sphere lit by a light source. Produce with this sphere what can be done with the moon. Because this (among other reasons) shows me the moon is giving off its own light

Is your claim that the pattern of brightness on the full Moon does not match any photographic model made with physical spheres in a studio and there fore the "externally lit Moon" is "debunked"? (I think that is what you are claiming here and have claimed in earlier posts.)

If photography is being used to model something (in this case the illumination of the Moon) the lighting conditions can't be drastically different than the thing being modeled. Doing it "right" is going to take a very large and very dark room.

1. The real Moon is quite far away. To a camera's focus it is at "infinite focus" distance away. If the model sphere isn't outside the near focus limit of the camera that might cause problems.

2. The light illuminating the real Moon is very far away from it and has low "angular dispersion". No internal beam of light from one part of the Sun to the Moon differs in angle from any other beam from a different part of the Sun by more than 1/2 degree. No artificial source, especially unmodified and close, is going to be that collimated.

3. There are only a very limited number of scattering source for scattered light in the real Earth-Moon-Sun system unlike the basement rec room where such "debunking" photos are usually shot. The only source of scattered light to the Moon is the Earth itself.


To do this properly you would probably need:

1. A large, dark studio. I estimate a length of about 100 m (100 y) from the light source (Sun) to the sphere (Moon), with all internal and external light sources blocked and the whole space fully covered by black, non-reflective cloth to eliminate scattering and other stray light sources.

2. A collimator on light source to narrow the angular dispersion of the beam to as close to 1/2 degree as possible.

3. A camera placed fairly far back as well so that the focus is "infinite" (in the same direction as the source, but not in the beam directly) with extra light baffles between the camera and the light beam. (There will be dust scattering in your makeshift photography studio.)

Something like that might make a more satisfactory photograph, or you could just get some CGI software, set the beam to parallel and push the camera far away from the sphere and it should work fine.

If you want to model something, you need to replicate the conditions appropriately and not distort the results from poor modeling choices.

 

[NxNW]

-

​

The positive part about a debate about God's creation is truth will eventually reveled. So we will get to find out, who is deceived and if i am an idiot for believing God's word as given in the Bible.

We sent scientists with cameras to the surface of the moon and the truth was revealed. Your interpretation needs to change.

We know this is not a soundstage because a feather falls the same speed as a rock, and dust clouds don't form, so we know it's a vacuum.

We know we've been to the surface of the moon because we left instruments there, and the landing sites can be seen from lunar orbiters.

I've personally seen the moon pass in front of the sun, most recently a month ago, and it was black.

The moon is just a rock and generates no light of its own.

 

[sjastro]

-

​

Regardless of how a photo done. The question does not change, a sphere lit by a light source. Produce with this sphere what can be done with the moon. Because this (among other reasons) shows me the moon is giving off its own light

You have reached the stage of totally deluding yourself by not only ignoring the evidence the moon does not emit its own light, but what is presented before your very eyes.

Here is a picture I took of the moon.

I hope you are not going to make one of your incredibly stupid comments and declare this is another one of my fake images.
What do notice about the image, clearly it is not uniformly lit.
At and near the boundary where the dark and light hemispheres of the moon meet known as the terminator what else do you notice, there are crater details which become less evident the further away from the terminator.
On the opposite side of the terminator there is no crater detail.

At the terminator lunar sunrises and sunsets occur which cast shadows and accentuates the crater detail.
I'm sure even you can comprehend an external light source is required to cast shadows and if the moon is creating its own light instead there can be no shadow detail.

 

[Hans Blaster]

What do notice about the image, clearly it is not uniformly lit.
At and near the boundary where the dark and light hemispheres of the moon meet known as the terminator what else do you notice, there are crater details which become less evident the further away from the terminator.
On the opposite side of the terminator there is no crater detail.

At the terminator lunar sunrises and sunsets occur which cast shadows and accentuates the crater detail.
I'm sure even you can comprehend an external light source is required to cast shadows and if the moon is creating its own light instead there can be no shadow detail.

I thought everyone knew the moon was a shape-shifting potato 800 feet in diameter.

 

[HopeSings]

Psalm 121:6 The sun shall not strike you by day, Nor the moon by night.

To me scripture is spiritual and highly symbolic at times but not necessarily scientific

 

[dlamberth]

-

​

Regardless of how a photo done. The question does not change, a sphere lit by a light source. Produce with this sphere what can be done with the moon. Because this (among other reasons) shows me the moon is giving off its own light

That's the same as saying that a mirror gives off it's own reflection.