Moon it's own source of light

[yeshuaslavejeff]

But that light halo is not always seen so that proves the moon is not lit by the sun.

Not even ...... sorry, ...... no.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

If that is the only things that accounts for light emission in your opinion, then I concede.

Opinion has nothing at all to do with this.

 

[Kaon]

Opinion has nothing at all to do with this.

Oh yes it does Jeff. I have done it before, and I can back my assertions up with physics and math.

But, judging by the test post I added, we can't go further than opinions and what one has heard (as opposed to the equations one has arrived at one's self).

I said "OK" because it would be a distraction to go back and forth; i can gauge the 20 pages of C.F. debate coming to an inevitable closure (and no resolution except a siphoning of energy from one party to another.)

If you like that, then that is your choice; I am being proactive for myself.

 

[SPF]

If that is the only things that accounts for light emission in your opinion, then I concede.

I’m not sure how this response relates to my question.

My question is simple and straightforward. No tricks, no trying to score imaginary points, no semantics.

When I see the legitimate/credible photos and video posted by d_taylor , it seems to me that I’m looking at light behaving at the terminator line exactly and precisely as it would behave if the moon were reflecting light from the sun.

What I’m asking for is not extravagant or unreasonable. I’m simply asking for an alternative explanation for the specific light behavior on the photos.

I am seriously hoping someone can give me a plausible and reasonable explanation other than light reflecting, but for some reason, nobody can.

The only thing that I feel like I can conclude is that there is no other possible explanation other than light being reflected from the sun.

I don’t know how much more I can beg and plead for a competing and plausible explanation.

 

[d taylor]

d_taylor, my man! Do you have an explanation about how the dark craters on the light side of the terminator line and the lit peaks on the dark side of the terminator line occur if the moon isn’t reflecting the suns light?

I honestly don’t understand why you’ve intentionally ignored me for all these pages and utterly refuse to actually explain the phenomenon that you’ve documented so clearly for us.

I honestly cannot come up with an alternative explanation to how the light behaves If it’s not reflecting the sun.

If there is a circle (representing a moon impression) and God causes light to shine from part of that circle that is opposite of where the shadow area is, the light coming from that small section (especially if the light was directed up) can still shine and not over power the shadow area caused by the whole surface being lit.

 

[comana]

If there is a circle (representing a moon impression) and God causes light to shine from part of that circle that is opposite of where the shadow area is, the light coming from that small section (especially if the light was directed up) can still shine and not over power the shadow area caused by the whole surface being lit.

View attachment 267363 View attachment 267364

I still don't understand your rationale that there would be any shadow areas if (as you said above) the whole surface is lit. It does not make any sense for any potion of the moon to be in shadow if the entire moon surface is itself is a giant light source.

 

[Kaon]

I’m not sure how this response relates to my question.

My question is simple and straightforward. No tricks, no trying to score imaginary points, no semantics.

When I see the legitimate/credible photos and video posted by d_taylor , it seems to me that I’m looking at light behaving at the terminator line exactly and precisely as it would behave if the moon were reflecting light from the sun.

What I’m asking for is not extravagant or unreasonable. I’m simply asking for an alternative explanation for the specific light behavior on the photos.

I am seriously hoping someone can give me a plausible and reasonable explanation other than light reflecting, but for some reason, nobody can.

The only thing that I feel like I can conclude is that there is no other possible explanation other than light being reflected from the sun.

I don’t know how much more I can beg and plead for a competing and plausible explanation.

What is plausible and reasonable to you?

 

[d taylor]

I still don't understand your rationale that there would be any shadow areas if (as you said above) the whole surface is lit. It does not make any sense for any potion of the moon to be in shadow if the entire moon surface is itself is a giant light source.

when i say the whole surface lit, I do not mean every square inch. I believe there are areas that are giving off light.

 

[SPF]

If there is a circle (representing a moon impression) and God causes light to shine from part of that circle that is opposite of where the shadow area is, the light coming from that small section (especially if the light was directed up) can still shine and not over power the shadow area caused by the whole surface being lit.

View attachment 267363 View attachment 267364

Your second picture demonstrates beautifully shadows and light reflection. You keep providing photographs that show tall objects (the two on the left) with obvious shadows, and craters where light isn’t reaching and peaks where it still does. How can this be anything other than light shining across the surface of an object that ISN’T self illuminating?

What is plausible and reasonable to you?

With God all things are possible.

 

[Kaon]

With God all things are possible.

Right, that's the saying: but, what do YOU think is plausible and reasonable. That will tell me what you actually think is possible despite the spiritual platitude we all know.

There are things Chrisrians reject that the Word of God has explicitly said, and dogma and denomination make sport of marginalizing the power of the Most High God, and binding Him to our standards and logic.

 

[SPF]

Right, that's the saying: but, what do YOU think is plausible and reasonable. That will tell me what you actually think is possible despite the spiritual platitude we all know.

There are things Chrisrians reject that the Word of God has explicitly said, and dogma and denomination make sport of marginalizing the power of the Most High God, and binding Him to our standards and logic.

I just don’t think an in depth conversation about that is necessary to answer my question.

If you have an answer, and you believe your answer is true, then share it. It’s like I tell my wife sometimes (she’s very non-confrontational). It’s not up to her how people respond to the truth. Our job as Christians is to speak the Truth, how someone receives it is between them and the Holy Spirit.

I can’t ever make someone believe what is true, but if I believe I possess the truth I’m not going to withhold it from someone who’s asking. Especially when they’re not asking cynically.

So again, the more d_taylor posts pictures of the moon, the more it looks apparent and obvious that the light/dark elements and shadows along the terminator line are a result of a “dead” rock reflecting light from another object (the sun).

I currently cannot think of an alternative explanation that can plausibly explain what the pictures show. For goodness sake if you think you possess the answer, share it!

 

[Kaon]

I just don’t think an in depth conversation about that is necessary to answer my question.

If you have an answer, and you believe your answer is true, then share it. It’s like I tell my wife sometimes (she’s very non-confrontational). It’s not up to her how people respond to the truth. Our job as Christians is to speak the Truth, how someone receives it is between them and the Holy Spirit.

I can’t ever make someone believe what is true, but if I believe I possess the truth I’m not going to withhold it from someone who’s asking. Especially when they’re not asking cynically.

I understand, and I agree with you. But, don't you agree that if we reach an impasse in agreement, it would be prudent to entertain what each of us finds acceptable before going on?

If I say the moon emits light like an LED because it receives a current that delivers electrons to the surface of the moon surface/conduction band per unit per hole (acting like a semi-conductor) and emits photons from the surface, what would you consider unbelievable about that? I am not going by other people's analysis, but to acknowledge your question about craters - they behave as electron multiplier hemispheres to amplify the current/change in charge, and increase the photon flux coming from the surface.

I have, in fact, told you the pith of why and how the moon is its own light source - without going into the physics. It may be unsatisfactory to you, which is understandable as well. That is why I asked you what is plausible and reasonable to you. There is literally nothing that is outside of my plausibility and reason, but that is because I have experienced stuff and things, as well as my field and profession affording me the opportunity to vindicate some phenomena of nature for myself. I assume you are some sort of academic (don't know your field); is there anything that is off limits for you intellectually?

Ultimately, I get that you are genuinely seeking, and so I want to make sure we don't distract from a real discussion by arguing te intricacies of what is possible - especially given that the "correct" explanation may not be the most reasonable explanation as we know it.

So again, the more d_taylor posts pictures of the moon, the more it looks apparent and obvious that the light/dark elements and shadows along the terminator line are a result of a “dead” rock reflecting light from another object (the sun).

The edges reflect light just as a charge in a cubic or cylindrical symmetry object emits electric fields at the edges (not just at the surfaces). The entire surface of the moon acts as a semiconductor; on the large scale light shines uniformly. At the "small" scale (zoomed in so that the surface is as big as the moon), of course you get dendrites, craters, peaks and troughs - in the same way you would when you zoom into a semiconductor, and inspect the holes. You would see similar activity at this level - "quantizing" light emission dependent on the energies within a surface area of the moon material.

I currently cannot think of an alternative explanation that can plausibly explain what the pictures show. For goodness sake if you think you possess the answer, share it!

Let's say everything I said is just a model for the explanation. Would you entertain it? If not, it is fine.

 

[Rick Otto]

"Kaon, post: I understand, and I agree with you. But, don't you agree that if we reach an impasse in agreement, it would be prudent to entertain what each of us finds acceptable before going on?

Perfect as a phone call to the Ukraine.
I hope your question doesn't get ignored.

If I say the moon emits light like an LED because it receives a current that delivers electrons to the surface of the moon surface/conduction band per unit per hole (acting like a semi-conductor) and emits photons from the surface, what would you consider unbelievable about that? I am not going by other people's analysis, but to acknowledge your question about craters - they behave as electron multiplier hemispheres to amplify the current/change in charge, and increase the photon flux coming from the surface.

So the surface (or portions thereof) could have a luminescence achieved and controlled by a source of some kind of current? That leads to interesting questions about the source... but for the moment, how does a hemisphere multiply electrons? I can imagine their force being multiplied, but I'm not sure how their quantity could increase. Maybe because they are the same thing(?).
interesting, thanks.

I have, in fact, told you the pith of why and how the moon is its own light source - without going into the physics. It may be unsatisfactory to you, which is understandable as well. That is why I asked you what is plausible and reasonable to you. There is literally nothing that is outside of my plausibility and reason, but that is because I have experienced stuff and things, as well as my field and profession affording me the opportunity to vindicate some phenomena of nature for myself. I assume you are some sort of academic (don't know your field); is there anything that is off limits for you intellectually?

LOL! You are incredibly considerate. I have to do this with just about everybody - accommodate a frame of reference. You are a rare gem.

Ultimately, I get that you are genuinely seeking, and so I want to make sure we don't distract from a real discussion by arguing the intricacies of what is possible - especially given that the "correct" explanation may not be the most reasonable explanation as we know it.

Very practical.

The edges reflect light just as a charge in a cubic or cylindrical symmetry object emits electric fields at the edges (not just at the surfaces). The entire surface of the moon acts as a semiconductor; on the large scale light shines uniformly. At the "small" scale (zoomed in so that the surface is as big as the moon), of course you get dendrites, craters, peaks and troughs - in the same way you would when you zoom into a semiconductor, and inspect the holes. You would see similar activity at this level - "quantizing" light emission dependent on the energies within a surface area of the moon material.

Reality is a fractal zoom. ( lol )
So what is it about the edges that they like to emit electric fields?
I've seen some stuff and had things happen too, but art & music were my main avenues for finding language.

 

[Rick Otto]

I still don't understand your rationale that there would be any shadow areas if (as you said above) the whole surface is lit. It does not make any sense for any potion of the moon to be in shadow if the entire moon surface is itself is a giant light source.

"The whole surface" might be what's confusing you.
The surface viewed in it's entirety doesn't reveal surface details that might be less luminescent because of material composition, arrangement, and amount of received current.

 

[Kaon]

Perfect as a phone call to the Ukraine.
I hope your question doesn't get ignored.

Indeed.

So the surface (or portions thereof) could have a luminescence achieved and controlled by a source of some kind of current? That leads to interesting questions about the source... but for the moment, how does a hemisphere multiply electrons? I can imagine their force being multiplied, but I'm not sure how their quantity could increase. Maybe because they are the same thing(?).
interesting, thanks.

It is more or less the same thing. Surfaces that have tight lattices (like metals and metalloids - even some semiconductors with a band energy is tangent to, or very close to the Fermi level.) Because of this tight lattice, when an electron bombards a surface, the energy of the electron (depending) can cause up to 300% more electrons to be emitted from the surface of an object capable of emitting electrons.

Why is this important? Because, if the moon behaves as an LED, the more electrons we have to devote/displace to the conduction band (or whichever band is closest to the Fermi level), the more electrons we have to produce photo-emission to light the diode moon.

Moon craters are like the "holes" of semiconductors, which is why they appear to be dark compared to the electroluminescence of the surface overall. However, as seen in eclipses, the moon surface isn't actually pitch black every event; there is some light shone - mainly in the infrared and red spectrum (hence, either the eclipse disc is "black", or "blood red".) These "holes" or craters are like reservoirs of "positive" charge that, by electrical potential difference, "suck up" electrons and "propel" them to the conduction band (leaving the holes at lower energy). This difference in energy between electron-hole pairs is dissipated as heat or light energy (photon) and the electron returns to a more stable (and lower) energy recombining with the hole in the nearest valence band.

LOL! You are incredibly considerate. I have to do this with just about everybody - accommodate a frame of reference. You are a rare gem.




Very practical.

Much appreciated.

Reality is a fractal zoom. ( lol )
So what is it about the edges that they like to emit electric fields?
I've seen some stuff and had things happen too, but art & music were my main avenues for finding language.

This is pretty spot on: the fractal zoom.

The edges are usually neglected in undergraduate physics courses because it creates a symmetry problem (and, therefore a math problem). Even on the multivariable calculus level of physics, we tend to ignore the edge effects (but, they aren't negligible). The edges can produce stronger fields because of the "overcrowding" and repulsion at these points. This same type of crowding at the edges means (because of repulsion) electrons need to be able to produce photon emission even more to dissipate the extra high potential. Hence, you would get a relatively brighter shine at the edges than in the actual crater - when the electrons at the edges readily recombine with holes, and dissipate photons.

The cycles of the moon simply depend on the divergence of the current (which, primarily depends on the solid angle differential element): new moons would be a minimum divergence, full moons would be a maximum.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

So the surface (or portions thereof) could have a luminescence achieved and controlled by a source of some kind of current? That leads to interesting questions about the source...

SURE...... UH HUH....

Next someone will claim the Astronauts took up a batch of ENERGIZER BATTERIES for the source.....

or a fuel cell.....



It is so easy to prove wrong, just by TRYING TO PROVE IT RIGHT! When an honest person does this, they learn. A dishonest person does not learn no matter if there is proof or not.

 

[JackRT]

We do know that the moon does not have a magnetic field. This strongly suggests that there are no electric currents operating.

 

[SPF]

View attachment 267364

I understand, and I agree with you. But, don't you agree that if we reach an impasse in agreement, it would be prudent to entertain what each of us finds acceptable before going on?

If I say the moon emits light like an LED because it receives a current that delivers electrons to the surface of the moon surface/conduction band per unit per hole (acting like a semi-conductor) and emits photons from the surface, what would you consider unbelievable about that? I am not going by other people's analysis, but to acknowledge your question about craters - they behave as electron multiplier hemispheres to amplify the current/change in charge, and increase the photon flux coming from the surface.

I have, in fact, told you the pith of why and how the moon is its own light source - without going into the physics. It may be unsatisfactory to you, which is understandable as well. That is why I asked you what is plausible and reasonable to you. There is literally nothing that is outside of my plausibility and reason, but that is because I have experienced stuff and things, as well as my field and profession affording me the opportunity to vindicate some phenomena of nature for myself. I assume you are some sort of academic (don't know your field); is there anything that is off limits for you intellectually?

Ultimately, I get that you are genuinely seeking, and so I want to make sure we don't distract from a real discussion by arguing te intricacies of what is possible - especially given that the "correct" explanation may not be the most reasonable explanation as we know it.



The edges reflect light just as a charge in a cubic or cylindrical symmetry object emits electric fields at the edges (not just at the surfaces). The entire surface of the moon acts as a semiconductor; on the large scale light shines uniformly. At the "small" scale (zoomed in so that the surface is as big as the moon), of course you get dendrites, craters, peaks and troughs - in the same way you would when you zoom into a semiconductor, and inspect the holes. You would see similar activity at this level - "quantizing" light emission dependent on the energies within a surface area of the moon material.




Let's say everything I said is just a model for the explanation. Would you entertain it? If not, it is fine.

Hi Kaon, thanks for taking the time to respond. I'm open to any explanation that could potentially explain what we physically see. You've put forth a theory on how the moon produces its own light. Great. What I would like to do if you'll humor me is test that theory based upon the picture that d_taylor took of the moon that I quoted above.

It would have been great if it was a video instead of a photograph, but the picture will have to suffice.

Here's why I struggle with your explanation - the picture provided shows light and dark areas, along with shadows precisely how something would look if it did not have any self illuminating capacity and was instead reflecting light from a source off in the distance.

For example, if we took a small size model of the moon (that didn't self illuminate), and put a light source off in the distance, it would be possible to create the identical picture provided by d_taylor. This is why I think the most plausible answer is that the moon is not its own light source - it is behaving in the specific picture as if it is not self-illuminating but is instead reflecting.

But let's give your theory a try. If you can look at the picture and explain to me a few of the facts of the photo, then I can at least say that there is a working alternative explanation.

1) Why are the two objects on the left giving off shadows like they are?
2) Why is the front half of the crater dark but the back half still light?
3) Why are the taller peaks on the dark side of the terminator line still light?

If you can give answers to those 3 questions in a way that is consistent with your view, then I'll happily concede that there may be more to the idea that the moon is its own lightsource than I previously thought.

 

[Kaon]

Hi Kaon, thanks for taking the time to respond. I'm open...

But let's give your theory a try. If you can look at the picture and explain to me a few of the facts of the photo, then I can at least say that there is a working alternative explanation.

1) Why are the two objects on the left giving off shadows like they are?

The earth's luminosity against the moon is 1000x stronger. Since the incidence faces of the moon/earth will always be antiparallel, the earth will "shine" on the moon; the flux would be in the direction of the surface area (direct to the moon, since the surface of the earth is larger than the surface of the moon). This will cause the shadows, even though the moon emits its own light as well.

It would be like having an LED TV in a room of 20 100W light bulbs (arrayed in a semi-circular pattern with the light incident on the TV.) You will see a shadow on the back of the wall even though there is light coming from the TV itself. The zoom amplifies the affect of this shadow.

From our perspective (the 20 light bulbs), we see a bright TV shining in our direction.

2) Why is the front half of the crater dark but the back half still light?

It is extremely hard for me to determine the sides of the edges of the crater, but you can still see the edge effect. The center is illuminated slightly (less than the edges), so the shadow may due to our luminosity hitting that taller side (casting a back shadow).

3) Why are the taller peaks on the dark side of the terminator line still light?

These dendrites are an example of the edge effect as well - collecting at sharp points and emitting higher flux of photons. It is similar to why a needle shines at the point and edges (if applicable) even though there is equal light distribution.

This is also loosely basing the moon and earth on the solar model - which I do not agree with. But, to entertain the thought experiment, I have answered everything according to this model. Let's see if this is intellectual entertainment first, then maybe I can explain it according to a model that is much easier (in my opinion) that the solar model.

If you can give answers to those 3 questions in a way that is consistent with your view, then I'll happily concede that there may be more to the idea that the moon is its own lightsource than I previously thought.

We'll see if these explanations are satisfactory to you even in the marginal sense. If so, we can continue. If not, no pressure or fault: I am (for now) presenting this as a model.

 

[SPF]

The earth's luminosity against the moon is 1000x stronger. Since the incidence faces of the moon/earth will always be antiparallel, the earth will "shine" on the moon; the flux would be in the direction of the surface area (direct to the moon, since the surface of the earth is larger than the surface of the moon). This will cause the shadows, even though the moon emits its own light as well.

It would be like having an LED TV in a room of 20 100W light bulbs (arrayed in a semi-circular pattern with the light incident on the TV.) You will see a shadow on the back of the wall even though there is light coming from the TV itself. The zoom amplifies the affect of this shadow.

From our perspective (the 20 light bulbs), we see a bright TV shining in our direction.



It is extremely hard for me to determine the sides of the edges of the crater, but you can still see the edge effect. The center is illuminated slightly (less than the edges), so the shadow may due to our luminosity hitting that taller side (casting a back shadow).



These dendrites are an example of the edge effect as well - collecting at sharp points and emitting higher flux of photons. It is similar to why a needle shines at the point and edges (if applicable) even though there is equal light distribution.

This is also loosely basing the moon and earth on the solar model - which I do not agree with. But, to entertain the thought experiment, I have answered everything according to this model. Let's see if this is intellectual entertainment first, then maybe I can explain it according to a model that is much easier (in my opinion) that the solar model.




We'll see if these explanations are satisfactory to you even in the marginal sense. If so, we can continue. If not, no pressure or fault: I am (for now) presenting this as a model.

That all makes logical sense. The only follow up question I would have is regarding your explanation that the shadows in the photo are a result of earth-shine...

Why is it the shadows are always, 100% of the time angled at the terminator line? How does earth-shine manage to accomplish that?

Meaning, if the shadows are a result of light reflecting, we would expect them to always be pointed at the terminator line as there is a direct relationship between the two.

However, what relationship exists between earth-shine and whatever is going on to create the phases of the moon? It seems there shouldn’t be a correlation between the two in your model, and so shouldn’t we expect at times the shadows to be pointing another direction?

Otherwise, what you’re saying makes sense, but there are lots of things that make sense that aren’t true, so I’m definitely not a believer yet.

And what about what JackRT said about the moon not having a magnetic field?