Moon it's own source of light

[Shrewd Manager]

Actually it does.

Really? Care to show some pics? Cause it should be super-bright. Or are you one of these guys who just says stuff without ever bothering to back it up?

Plus I forgot to mention - applying the inverse square rule to the luminescence of moonlight (as that's how light diminishes in intensity relative to its source), we'd find the supposed moon landing astronauts would have had their retinas burned out.

 

[comana]

Really? Care to show some pics? Cause it should be super-bright. Or are you one of these guys who just says stuff without ever bothering to back it up?

Plus I forgot to mention - applying the inverse square rule to the luminescence of moonlight (as that's how light diminishes in intensity relative to its source), we'd find the supposed moon landing astronauts would have had their retinas burned out.

Are you going to back up your claims here?

 

[SPF]

there is no experimental precedent for sunlight reflecting off dust in a luminescent manner.

Presumably there are many angles at which the supposed ball earth, covered in 70% water, a far more reflective medium than moondust, should illuminate that hunk o' cheese.

If there is no experimental precedent for sunlight reflecting off dust in a luminescent manner, how do you know that a 70% water covered planet would be a "far more" reflective medium than moondust?

And last but not least, we have the irrefutable testament of the manufacturer in Gen 1:16 that there are 2 great lights, one to rule the day and the other the night.

First off, it is entirely possible that the greater light is a reference to the sun and the lesser light is a reference to all the stars we see at night.

Also, if the two lights referenced are the sun and the moon, the verse doesn't say they are their own independent light sources, it just refers to them as lights. It's altogether possible that the lesser light is reflecting the greater light.

You have to do a lot of reading into the text to come away with your exclusive interpretation.

More importantly though, nobody has ever been able to demonstrate that the moon actually projects its own light or given any sort of plausible explanation as to how it is projecting its own light.

 

[d taylor]

The Bible states God created two great lights again the Bible states created two lights.
Psalms 136 also states that God made great lights.
One fact that is true in the Bible is that the moon is never stated to be a light reflector.

Paul states that the sun, moon and stars have their own glory.

Here is a paper ball and a incandescent light, so what the christian is saying that in Genesis 1 when God states that He created two great lights. He really is not saying He created two great lights, but He created a rock and a fire ball. Of course the christian will not get that from the Bible, but from science. But they believe that that is ok to add that information/idea to the Bibles account of Gods creation because that is what the majority of the human population believes.

So the two great lights are below, a paper ball is not actually a paper ball but actually a light.

 

[d taylor]

Photos of the moon and a paper covered incandescent light.

 

[lasthero]

Photos of the moon and a paper covered incandescent light.

View attachment 265940
View attachment 265941
View attachment 265942
View attachment 265943
View attachment 265944
View attachment 265945

And your point is...

 

[Shrewd Manager]

If there is no experimental precedent for sunlight reflecting off dust in a luminescent manner, how do you know that a 70% water covered planet would be a "far more" reflective medium than moondust?

Because we have 'footage' of the 'astronauts on the moon', on the sunlit side, exhibiting the low reflectivity of the dust. Lol a fistful of sparkling moondust. Dust, my 4-footed friend, it's dust. As in 'God remembers our frame and that we are dust, and takes pity'.

First off, it is entirely possible that the greater light is a reference to the sun and the lesser light is a reference to all the stars we see at night.

Sure it is. You win.

It's altogether possible that the lesser light is reflecting the greater light.

Now that's possible. As we see in Rev 21:23, there's no need for the sun and moon in the time of renewal of all things (Acts 3:21, Mt 19:28, Rev 21:5), because God's glory will be its light and the Lamb its lamp. (All means all btw - you me and the mongol hordes.)

You have to do a lot of reading into the text to come away with your exclusive interpretation.

That's funny, coming from someone who thinks scripture is consistent with the 'standard model' cosmology.

More importantly though, nobody has ever been able to demonstrate that the moon actually projects its own light or given any sort of plausible explanation as to how it is projecting its own light.

It is curious that the properties of sunlight and moonlight are fundamentally different. How would you explain that, my furry friend?

 

[Lost4words]

Maybe because the moon is made out of cheese it makes it look like it has its own light source?

 

[SkyWriting]

It is curious that the properties of sunlight and moonlight are fundamentally different. How would you explain that, my furry friend?

It's an old question.

The dark side visible is illuminated by earthlight which reflects back to us.
So the bright moon is illuminated by both the earth and sun, but the shadow is illuminated by the earth....and the stars to a tiny degree.

So the visible dark side of the moon is much more blue due to the blue earth in it's sky.

It's called "Earthshine" in the shadowed part of the moon.

What Is Earthshine?

 

[SkyWriting]

Really? Care to show some pics? Cause it should be super-bright. Or are you one of these guys who just says stuff without ever bothering to back it up?

Plus I forgot to mention - applying the inverse square rule to the luminescence of moonlight (as that's how light diminishes in intensity relative to its source), we'd find the supposed moon landing astronauts would have had their retinas burned out.

They used filters at all times on all view systems.

 

[SPF]

Photos of the moon and a paper covered incandescent light.

View attachment 265940
View attachment 265941
View attachment 265942
View attachment 265943
View attachment 265944
View attachment 265945

Congratulations, you have demonstrated that the moon is not a paper covered lightbulb.

 

[SPF]

Photos of the moon and a paper covered incandescent light.

View attachment 265940
View attachment 265941
View attachment 265942
View attachment 265943
View attachment 265944
View attachment 265945

Congratulations, you have demonstrated that the moon is not a paper covered lightbulb.

 

[d taylor]

Apollo 8 and the shrinking rising earth.

The earth rises then all of the sudden it shrinks, what a fake video.

 

[SPF]

Because we have 'footage' of the 'astronauts on the moon', on the sunlit side, exhibiting the low reflectivity of the dust. Lol a fistful of sparkling moondust. Dust, my 4-footed friend, it's dust. As in 'God remembers our frame and that we are dust, and takes pity'.

I'm confused, you're attempting to use footage that you think is fake as evidence for your position? That seems... odd.

Sure it is. You win.

Thank you.

That's funny, coming from someone who thinks scripture is consistent with the 'standard model' cosmology.

Can you remind me of what I have said regarding Scripture and the standard model cosmology? You must know since you made this claim.

It is curious that the properties of sunlight and moonlight are fundamentally different. How would you explain tha

I would explain that by saying the sun is a fiery ball of fusion that emits its own light and the moon is a cold, dead rock that reflects the sun (and earth). That is how they are fundamentally different.

Finally, can someone who believes the moon is its own light source actually explain geologically what's going on with the moon that causes it to 1) Emit it's own light, 2) Have different phases, and 3) Goes dark at eclipses at the exact predicted time when the prediction is based upon the "standard model" cosmology?

 

[Shrewd Manager]

I'm confused, you're attempting to use footage that you think is fake as evidence for your position? That seems... odd.

O c'mon now. I'm using your best evidence. Unless there's something else?

Thank you

What can I say, you badgered me into submission.

Can you remind me of what I have said regarding Scripture and the standard model cosmology? You must know since you made this claim.

Am I confusing you with someone else? Don't mean to be misrepresenting you. Now's your chance to set me straight.

I would explain that by saying the sun is a fiery ball of fusion that emits its own light and the moon is a cold, dead rock that reflects the sun (and earth). That is how they are fundamentally different.

Have some experiments to back that up?

1) Emit it's own light,

I know as much about it as you do about the sun.

2) Have different phases

Ain't God great! It's for the months.

Goes dark at eclipses at the exact predicted time when the prediction is based upon the "standard model" cosmology?

Eclipses are based on the Saros Cycle, basically a factor of time, 18-odd years or so.

 

[lasthero]

Ain't God great! It's for the months.

And it just so happens that God made the Moon show months in the exact way it would if it was reflecting sunlight.

 

[d taylor]

Finally, can someone who believes the moon is its own light source actually explain geologically what's going on with the moon that causes it to 1) Emit it's own light, 2) Have different phases, and 3) Goes dark at eclipses at the exact predicted time when the prediction is based upon the "standard model" cosmology?

So God can not created an object that can emit light, go through lighting stages/phases, block out the light of the sun, and produce its own eclipse stages.

Lets see God can part a sea, walk on water, raise people from death, heal people, make an ax head float, etc....
but God can not create a moon that has its own light goes through lighting stages. etc.....

or are you a Jefferson type believer.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

It's an old question.

The dark side visible is illuminated by earthlight which reflects back to us.
So the bright moon is illuminated by both the earth and sun, but the shadow is illuminated by the earth....and the stars to a tiny degree.

So the visible dark side of the moon is much more blue due to the blue earth in it's sky.

i can't see the blue moon shadow in this CGI. Don't get carried away, I think you'll be standing alone on this one.

 

[SPF]

So God can not created an object that can emit light, go through lighting stages/phases, block out the light of the sun, and produce its own eclipse stages.

Of course He can. I never said He couldn't. I'm asking for someone to explain to me how it works. We know why volcanoes erupt, we know why trees grow, we know why sometimes it snows instead of rains, we know how the human body works and how to repair it when it becomes damaged.

I've never seen anyone ever give an actual explanation for the geological processes going on in the moon that allow it to be its own lightsource, or to account for the waxing and waning progress it takes each month, or why eclipses occur precisely according to predicted patterns.

So how about it, how does the moon glow on its own? We know why the sun is bright, now please explain how the moon emits its own light.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

Are you going to back up your claims here?

Nope, I'm one of those guys.

But seriously, that's how light propagates, diminishing in intensity according to inverse square. Inverse Square Law Formula

Moonlight intensity generally between 0.5-1 lux.
Moonlight - Wikipedia

Moon distance: 384,400km
https://www.google.com.au/search?client=opera&q=distance+to+moon&sourceid=opera&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

Inverse square calculator (download):
Inverse Square Law of Light Calculator | International Light Technologies

Run 0.75 @ 384,000 distance to X @ 1 distance.
X= 1.11e11

Argal the moon's brightness at 1km above the surface (light side) should be (drum roll)...
111,000,000,000 lux.

Now Luxembourg may be small, but I'm guessing that's pretty bright.

Maybe you can help a little by running it through the lux to lumens to wattage calculators?