Moon it's own source of light

[Kaon]

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?

This has to do with the geometry of the moon (the face we see), and the divergence of the current feeding light emission. The shadows, and the actual low intensity light coming from the moon are two different phenomena. Light emission from a diode like entity is not uniform, but depends on scattering angle as well. The right lattice of holes and electrons can direct light emission to specific angles/directions even causing interference patterns that seem like the phases to us (coupled with a sinusoidal/non-constant current for photon stimulation).

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.

The shadows come from the photonic dislocation of incident shine. The relative intensity of the light drops off, but the actual photons still exist - and, when they hit a barrier the photons get lodged in the lattice of the material (instead of penetrating), causing the shadow. In other words, the light could have very low thermal energy and still cast a shadow (the photons are obstructed by the barrier).

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?

The mechanism that lights the moon is internal, so no earth shine does not affect the phases or shadows. If you think of light as millions of tennis balls with red paint on them, and then shoot them at someone standing against a wall, you will get an outline of the person that stopped the balls from hitting wall behind them. The particle nature of photons etch out the shadows; the wave nature deals with energy, but at the distances of earth-moon, unless the flux is tremendous the photons won't necessarily contribute to lighting (in the same way the 20 light bulbs don't actually make the LED screen brighter).

The phases are due to internal non-constant (sinusoidal) current that stimulates photon emission.

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.

Exactly!

I try to express this about academia in most all of my critiques or comments about academia as we know it. Just because something works doesn't mean it is the unique solution that explains the process itself. It may just happen to work - and, that's all.

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

Are you sure @JackRT said it does NOT have a mag field?

Indeed, the moon does not have a magnetic field. Even in my model, the semiconductor-like makeup of the moon would severely retard any changes in electric fields capable of producing a noticeable magnetic field (the current is external, but directed internally into the moon "cavity," so the current beam carries the significant field). But, there exists magnetic anomalies (monopoles, or potential) within the more metallic rocks - which may emit their own field - according to NASA.


Let's see how these work for you.

 

[JackRT]

I see no reason to construct elaborate airy-fairy models when the reality is so simple and obvious --- the sunlight casts shadows on a rough surfaced dead moon. The changing lengths of the shadows can be observed in real time particularly near the terminator.

 

[SPF]

This has to do with the geometry of the moon (the face we see), and the divergence of the current feeding light emission. The shadows, and the actual low intensity light coming from the moon are two different phenomena. Light emission from a diode like entity is not uniform, but depends on scattering angle as well. The right lattice of holes and electrons can direct light emission to specific angles/directions even causing interference patterns that seem like the phases to us (coupled with a sinusoidal/non-constant current for photon stimulation).



The shadows come from the photonic dislocation of incident shine. The relative intensity of the light drops off, but the actual photons still exist - and, when they hit a barrier the photons get lodged in the lattice of the material (instead of penetrating), causing the shadow. In other words, the light could have very low thermal energy and still cast a shadow (the photons are obstructed by the barrier).



The mechanism that lights the moon is internal, so no earth shine does not affect the phases or shadows. If you think of light as millions of tennis balls with red paint on them, and then shoot them at someone standing against a wall, you will get an outline of the person that stopped the balls from hitting wall behind them. The particle nature of photons etch out the shadows; the wave nature deals with energy, but at the distances of earth-moon, unless the flux is tremendous the photons won't necessarily contribute to lighting (in the same way the 20 light bulbs don't actually make the LED screen brighter).

The phases are due to internal non-constant (sinusoidal) current that stimulates photon emission.



Exactly!

I try to express this about academia in most all of my critiques or comments about academia as we know it. Just because something works doesn't mean it is the unique solution that explains the process itself. It may just happen to work - and, that's all.





Are you sure @JackRT said it does NOT have a mag field?

Indeed, the moon does not have a magnetic field. Even in my model, the semiconductor-like makeup of the moon would severely retard any changes in electric fields capable of producing a noticeable magnetic field (the current is external, but directed internally into the moon "cavity," so the current beam carries the significant field). But, there exists magnetic anomalies (monopoles, or potential) within the more metallic rocks - which may emit their own field - according to NASA.


Let's see how these work for you.

I think what strikes me most about your explanation is that it sounds natural. What I mean is that most people I’ve talked to say there is no natural explanation and that God just does it.

Indeed it seems as if there is no natural explanation for most of the theories around flat earth, yet you’re attempting to provide a rational, logical, feasible explanation for the way the moon lights up.

But don’t you think it just makes a lot more sense and is possibly a lot more simple to suggest that the moon is simply a large rock that reflects the light of the sun?

After all, the way the light behaves on the moon is precisely and exactly how it would behave if the moon was a rock reflecting light. Does this not give you pause at all?

But I do grant you that what you’ve said sounds possible. I think the glaring question that hasn’t been addressed is what is powering the ability for the moon to be its own light source?

 

[Kaon]

I think what strikes me most about your explanation is that it sounds natural. What I mean is that most people I’ve talked to say there is no natural explanation and that God just does it.

Indeed it seems as if there is no natural explanation for most of the theories around flat earth, yet you’re attempting to provide a rational, logical, feasible explanation for the way the moon lights up.

But don’t you think it just makes a lot more sense and is possibly a lot more simple to suggest that the moon is simply a large rock that reflects the light of the sun?

Honestly, my personal philosophy is that simplicity and complexity are illusions. I agree that simple explanations can be the most likely and probable (Occam's Razor), but that is sometimes the case - a way to understand the superficial meaning of phenomena without diving into the intricacies that make it up. You, me, and others on these forums) may be spoiled by our intellect, forgetting how complicated the "simple answers" of academics actually are.

So, while I can entertain and respect the solar model, for example, to me as a mathematician, it leaves much to be desired - which is why I am coming up with my own theories and models based on mathematics I observe (and can test in the lab).

After all, the way the light behaves on the moon is precisely and exactly how it would behave if the moon was a rock reflecting light. Does this not give you pause at all?

Everything gives me pause about this plane of existence - including things that should work, but scream of something missing. But that also liberates me a bunch.

What if I told you that gravity is actually electromagnetic in nature? You (may) know we all have a mass-to-charge ratio, and we can equate the Hamiltonians for EM and inertial influences to determine equations of motion for a particle. All particles that aren't pure energy have mass, and charge, so what is to say what we think of as gravity isn't a finely tuned electric field accelerating us toward the surface of the planet?

I get it, I really do. I have personally solved many problems related to this (as you may have), and the math "works". But, to be fair, we tweak our parameters to make the physics work with the math often. Anyway, the solar model is "a solution" in my opinion; it isn't the unique solution. I did a paper on solar neutrino oscillations despite my disbelief in the particular phenomenon. Again, the math works for the physics; I don't know what else to say really. If you have seen my posts, I try to distance myself from academia (I am a philosophical cynic in general). My perspective and pursuit of mathematics and physics has nothing to do with fame, or even changing the world as we know it.

My own "models and techniques" work as well (testable in the lab), but I am not well funded, nor do I have much backing for these models. So, it is unlikely you will see my ideas as anywhere near mainstream unless there is some crazy circumstance that suddenly makes my theories go from "woo" to "necessary".

But I do grant you that what you’ve said sounds possible. I think the glaring question that hasn’t been addressed is what is powering the ability for the moon to be its own light source?

Solar Model: Unknown.

My Model: the current is a part of the field energy unique to the moon. The moon is connected to the lattice of field energy that makes up the entire dimension(s), so the electromagnetic induction within the fields produce a change in magnetic field (and, therefore current) in the locality of the moon. This induction received activation energy to continue this process "indefinitely". The dynamics of the first "heaven" (what we call space) within the fields produce the possibility of a dynamo effect for the moon.

I would say this process was "locked in" from the beginning. The activation energy to begin the process, of course, came from the Most High God as per His declaration.


You had me at, "what you said sounds possible," though. I don't expect you to agree with me, but I appreciate your openness to entertain something you may not necessarily believe in.

 

[Kaon]

I see no reason to construct elaborate airy-fairy models when the reality is so simple and obvious --- the sunlight casts shadows on a rough surfaced dead moon. The changing lengths of the shadows can be observed in real time particularly near the terminator.

It isn't elaborate; it is physics (and math).

Simplicity ≠ accuracy.

 

[SPF]

Honestly, my personal philosophy is that simplicity and complexity are illusions. I agree that simple explanations can be the most likely and probable (Occam's Razor), but that is sometimes the case - a way to understand the superficial meaning of phenomena without diving into the intricacies that make it up. You, me, and others on these forums) may be spoiled by our intellect, forgetting how complicated the "simple answers" of academics actually are.

So, while I can entertain and respect the solar model, for example, to me as a mathematician, it leaves much to be desired - which is why I am coming up with my own theories and models based on mathematics I observe (and can test in the lab).



Everything gives me pause about this plane of existence - including things that should work, but scream of something missing. But that also liberates me a bunch.

What if I told you that gravity is actually electromagnetic in nature? You (may) know we all have a mass-to-charge ratio, and we can equate the Hamiltonians for EM and inertial influences to determine equations of motion for a particle. All particles that aren't pure energy have mass, and charge, so what is to say what we think of as gravity isn't a finely tuned electric field accelerating us toward the surface of the planet?

I get it, I really do. I have personally solved many problems related to this (as you may have), and the math "works". But, to be fair, we tweak our parameters to make the physics work with the math often. Anyway, the solar model is "a solution" in my opinion; it isn't the unique solution. I did a paper on solar neutrino oscillations despite my disbelief in the particular phenomenon. Again, the math works for the physics; I don't know what else to say really. If you have seen my posts, I try to distance myself from academia (I am a philosophical cynic in general). My perspective and pursuit of mathematics and physics has nothing to do with fame, or even changing the world as we know it.

My own "models and techniques" work as well (testable in the lab), but I am not well funded, nor do I have much backing for these models. So, it is unlikely you will see my ideas as anywhere near mainstream unless there is some crazy circumstance that suddenly makes my theories go from "woo" to "necessary".



Solar Model: Unknown.

My Model: the current is a part of the field energy unique to the moon. The moon is connected to the lattice of field energy that makes up the entire dimension(s), so the electromagnetic induction within the fields produce a change in magnetic field (and, therefore current) in the locality of the moon. This induction received activation energy to continue this process "indefinitely". The dynamics of the first "heaven" (what we call space) within the fields produce the possibility of a dynamo effect for the moon.

I would say this process was "locked in" from the beginning. The activation energy to begin the process, of course, came from the Most High God as per His declaration.


You had me at, "what you said sounds possible," though. I don't expect you to agree with me, but I appreciate your openness to entertain something you may not necessarily believe in.

I certainly appreciate you taking the time to be detailed enough with your theory to provide me with a working explanation for how the moon could be it’s own light source.

You haven’t convinced me, but you have demonstrated a couple of things for me. First, you’re a lot smarter than me. I appreciate that because most people I’ve engaged on this and various FE related topics don’t come across as educated.

Second, you provided an actual working, natural alternative explanation. Nobody has even attempted to do so in the past.

But I think perhaps the biggest hurdle for me in entertaining a theory other than simple light reflecting off the moon is that I don’t think NASA is a hoax. I do think we walked on the moon, and I do think the ISS is real. I do think we are going to return to the moon, and I do think commercial space flights will be a reality within 5 years.

Your theory rests upon the foundation that there is a massive worldwide conspiracy.... And I just can’t get there at the moment.

But not that this matters to you I’m sure, but I for one respect you, what you say, and wish you would post more often in the way you have in this conversation.

 

[Rick Otto]

Honestly, my personal philosophy is that simplicity and complexity are illusions. I agree that simple explanations can be the most likely and probable (Occam's Razor), but that is sometimes the case - a way to understand the superficial meaning of phenomena without diving into the intricacies that make it up. You, me, and others on these forums) may be spoiled by our intellect, forgetting how complicated the "simple answers" of academics actually are.

So, while I can entertain and respect the solar model, for example, to me as a mathematician, it leaves much to be desired - which is why I am coming up with my own theories and models based on mathematics I observe (and can test in the lab).



Everything gives me pause about this plane of existence - including things that should work, but scream of something missing. But that also liberates me a bunch.

What if I told you that gravity is actually electromagnetic in nature? You (may) know we all have a mass-to-charge ratio, and we can equate the Hamiltonians for EM and inertial influences to determine equations of motion for a particle. All particles that aren't pure energy have mass, and charge, so what is to say what we think of as gravity isn't a finely tuned electric field accelerating us toward the surface of the planet?

I get it, I really do. I have personally solved many problems related to this (as you may have), and the math "works". But, to be fair, we tweak our parameters to make the physics work with the math often. Anyway, the solar model is "a solution" in my opinion; it isn't the unique solution. I did a paper on solar neutrino oscillations despite my disbelief in the particular phenomenon. Again, the math works for the physics; I don't know what else to say really. If you have seen my posts, I try to distance myself from academia (I am a philosophical cynic in general). My perspective and pursuit of mathematics and physics has nothing to do with fame, or even changing the world as we know it.

My own "models and techniques" work as well (testable in the lab), but I am not well funded, nor do I have much backing for these models. So, it is unlikely you will see my ideas as anywhere near mainstream unless there is some crazy circumstance that suddenly makes my theories go from "woo" to "necessary".



Solar Model: Unknown.

My Model: the current is a part of the field energy unique to the moon. The moon is connected to the lattice of field energy that makes up the entire dimension(s), so the electromagnetic induction within the fields produce a change in magnetic field (and, therefore current) in the locality of the moon. This induction received activation energy to continue this process "indefinitely". The dynamics of the first "heaven" (what we call space) within the fields produce the possibility of a dynamo effect for the moon.

I would say this process was "locked in" from the beginning. The activation energy to begin the process, of course, came from the Most High God as per His declaration.


You had me at, "what you said sounds possible," though. I don't expect you to agree with me, but I appreciate your openness to entertain something you may not necessarily believe in.

Sounds good except maybe the magnetism is only the motion part and the moon receives a charge from the sun?
Emission modulation being the next hill...
I'm gonna need some chewing gum, brb.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Updated: Aug 22, 2017 00:30 IST

Reuters
Reuters, Sheridan, Oregon/Charleston, S.C

A total solar eclipse is seen above Madras, Oregon, US.(REUTERS)


Nope. No light FROM the moon.

 

[Kaon]

I certainly appreciate you taking the time to be detailed enough with your theory to provide me with a working explanation for how the moon could be it’s own light source.

You haven’t convinced me, but you have demonstrated a couple of things for me. First, you’re a lot smarter than me. I appreciate that because most people I’ve engaged on this and various FE related topics don’t come across as educated.

Second, you provided an actual working, natural alternative explanation. Nobody has even attempted to do so in the past.

But I think perhaps the biggest hurdle for me in entertaining a theory other than simple light reflecting off the moon is that I don’t think NASA is a hoax. I do think we walked on the moon, and I do think the ISS is real. I do think we are going to return to the moon, and I do think commercial space flights will be a reality within 5 years.

Your theory rests upon the foundation that there is a massive worldwide conspiracy.... And I just can’t get there at the moment.

Thanks, I appreciate your words. However, my philosophy is also that everyone is a genius - not to marginalize my intelligence, but to highlight that everyone contributes something, ans everyone has something to offer (even an alleged dullard). I doubt I am "smarter" than you, and as a Christian I hope you can appreciate that I prefer wisdom over intelligence.

We share different philosophies about the world, and that is our right as adults, and sovereign humans under the Most High God. I don't care if someone agrees with me, I just don't like the immediate scoffing and incredulity of something that seems impossible or unlikely. It is a "trigger" as someone who comes from academia (think of all of the people laughed out of departments only to find they were right some years later).

I have faith in progress, just not human progress.

But not that this matters to you I’m sure, but I for one respect you, what you say, and wish you would post more often in the way you have in this conversation.

It definitely matters, and I appreciate it. But the last time I had a conversation like this (where everyone respected each other despite disagreements), it was deleted without warning. I did put up a significant amount of my own physics, so these are the type of things that make me say, "hmm" (world viewpoints and such). But, I have no problem discussing and conversing like we have; I wish it would happen more often. Not everyone is as open, or socially aware as you may be to exclaim your disagreements without alienating the other party by means of incredulity.

I hope you find what you are looking for; I won't continue driving my model, but thanks for discussing.

 

[Kaon]

Updated: Aug 22, 2017 00:30 IST

Reuters
Reuters, Sheridan, Oregon/Charleston, S.C

A total solar eclipse is seen above Madras, Oregon, US.(REUTERS)


Nope. No light FROM the moon.

Yes, the passage of the sun behind the moon cuts the current. Eclipses are "nodal" for the emission of light from the moon.

It would be like if an illuminated object drew the source of its energy from a stream of water hitting the object, and you put an extremely dense body behind the object to obstruct the flow of water. The object loses power when the dense object is directly in front of the water - blocking it from reaching the illuminated object.

However, any slight angular shift would mean greater than zero divergence of water on the illuminated object (i.e. a shine or visible moon with changing apparent luminosity/scattered water spray). The sun maintains its luminosity.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Yes, the passage of the sun behind the moon cuts the current.

I'll get out my multi-meter next time to see if that happens or not.
< I don't think so though >

 

[Kaon]

I'll get out my multi-meter next time to see if that happens or not.
< I don't think so though >

Or, you can test it in the lab.

Use a spherical or disc semiconductor, and attach a copper wire to the back of the disc/sphere. Apply a strong enough current to the copper wires, and watch light emission.

Then, put a spherical dielectric between any points of the copper wires (cutting them, and placing a dielectric on the wires at the severed points.) Document the change in luminosity vs with the dielectric material, and then document the change in luminosity vs. The surface area of the dielectric. You will notice the greater the dielectric constant and/or surface area, the stronger the storage (not conduction) of charge.

In other words, an object with a dielectric constant greater than that of a vacuum will retard current flow, and increase current storage (capacitance).

C = Q/V = Q/(IR) - capacitance is inversely proportional to the (direct) current; the higher the current, the less storage of charge.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Or, you can test it in the lab.

Sorry, my lab won't hold the moon!

(and why bother? your ideas presented in this thread were proven false already)

 

[Kaon]

Sorry, my lab won't hold the moon!

(and why bother? your ideas presented in this thread were proven false already)

I see.

Cheers.

 

[Kaon]

Sounds good except maybe the magnetism is only the motion part and the moon receives a charge from the sun?
Emission modulation being the next hill...
I'm gonna need some chewing gum, brb.

The charge comes from "somewhere" I haven't mentioned (for reason of verification on my side), but I will say my model allows for both the solar and biblical model (luminaries and heavens, not stars and space). I don't know what the source of the current is in the solar model. Actually, I think the current coming from the ambient flux of charged particles from any star is the "easy" answer, though it could be true. In the biblical model, I am just a bit further in that the Most High God provides the activation power (Power = energy per time current x potential). I have yet to disclose what that power actually is.

 

[SPF]

In the FE model, isn’t the moon closer than 239,000 miles away?

shouldn't it be easier to travel to the moon in the FE model?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

In the FE model, isn’t the moon closer than 239,000 miles away?
shouldn't it be easier to travel to the moon in the FE model?

How many gallons would it take with these FE models ? (to go that far) >>
Kia Optima FE Info - Safety and Fuel Efficiency
https://www.officialdata.org/cars/Kia/Optima FE
Kia has manufactured models of Optima FE for 5 years. They average 28.3 combined miles per gallon, with the latest 2020 Optima FE above average at 29 combined MPG.

 

[SPF]

I don’t think I could bring myself to driving to the moon in a Kia....

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I don’t think I could bring myself to driving to the moon in a Kia....

Be sure to get extra air bags if you want to try !

 

[JackRT]

I don’t think I could bring myself to driving to the moon in a Kia....

At an average speed of 60mph it would only take 167 days.