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

[d taylor]

Well, what you write seems to be different to what you say you are writing...

You know this question was not originally asked to you anyway, it was post to a post made by eleos 1954.

 

[Radagast]

A simple fact is that i can post photos of the sun moon and stars in the raqia, where God place them.

But not a single real photo can be posted of the sun, moon and stars in, pagan sciences made up outer space.

There's more photos of space online than there are visible stars.

 

[46AND2]

I know the lie science states, that the moon is out in an non existent space vacuum.

When you or any body else has never see that in reality a moon, sun out in space or stars.

Er...hypothetically, if the light from the moon is just reflected sunlight...what would you expect to see around the moon that is also reflecting light?

But here is an experiment you can do to mimic what you would like us to show you:

Paint the inside of a box with Vantablack S-VIS. Lie it on its side with the opening facing you. Suspend a whiffle ball with fishing string, also coated in Vantablack, such that the ball hangs in the center of the box. Shine a strong flashlight on the ball in a dark room.

Tell me your observations. Be honest, and actually tweak the experiment to try to get the results you don't think can happen.

 

[Kylie]

A simple fact is that i can post photos of the sun moon and stars in the raqia, where God place them.

But not a single real photo can be posted of the sun, moon and stars in, pagan sciences made up outer space.

Yeah, anyone can make claims, you have no evidence to back them up.

 

[Kylie]

You know this question was not originally asked to you anyway, it was post to a post made by eleos 1954.

So what?

You are asking for evidence that the moon is a reflector, provided that it doesn't rely on the moon being a reflector. You are demanding evidence while at the same time saying you don't want it to be evidence. That is intellectually dishonest.

 

[d taylor]

So what?

You are asking for evidence that the moon is a reflector, provided that it doesn't rely on the moon being a reflector. You are demanding evidence while at the same time saying you don't want it to be evidence. That is intellectually dishonest.

Like i say if you can not understand what i am asking go bug somebody else

 

[Kylie]

Like i say if you can not understand what i am asking go bug somebody else

I understand that you are asking for evidence that the moon is a reflector while at the same time discounting the things that would make the moon a reflector.

You might as well say you want evidence that something is a car while saying it doesn't count if it carries people or has wheels.

 

[d taylor]

I understand that you are asking for evidence that the moon is a reflector while at the same time discounting the things that would make the moon a reflector.

You might as well say you want evidence that something is a car while saying it doesn't count if it carries people or has wheels.

No i am not asking that, and i have stated this twice, i will not restate it again.

 

[Kylie]

No i am not asking that, and i have stated this twice, i will not restate it again.

The fact that you said that we can't show any light from the sun lighting up the moon which then reflects the light seems to indicate that you are indeed asking that. See your post 534. You said, "do not show any light from the sun, lighting the moon, the moon should just shine in the room as if it is a light source itself."

Or do you think that saying that it only counts if it shows that the moon produces light counts as evidence that the moon does not produce light, just reflects it?

In any case, you other demand in that post, that we set up a light source and moon analogue in a room while not lighting up the room doesn't work either, because in the room we have atmosphere and walls, neither of which exist in space.

 

[Tone]

Is area 51...the moon...?

 

[Kylie]

Is area 51...the moon...?

No.

Area 51 is in Nevada. Nevada is not on the moon.

 

[d taylor]

The fact that you said that we can't show any light from the sun lighting up the moon which then reflects the light seems to indicate that you are indeed asking that. See your post 534. You said, "do not show any light from the sun, lighting the moon, the moon should just shine in the room as if it is a light source itself."

Or do you think that saying that it only counts if it shows that the moon produces light counts as evidence that the moon does not produce light, just reflects it?

In any case, you other demand in that post, that we set up a light source and moon analogue in a room while not lighting up the room doesn't work either, because in the room we have atmosphere and walls, neither of which exist in space.

Look at what i am saying.

This has to be done in actual life, i can not take a photo to show you what i am saying, because the photo does not represent this truthful.

If you take a sphere/ball or whatever to use as a moon and then take a light to light up the sphere/etc. you will see the light form your light source, it will light up where ever you are. if you are outside (in pitch black) the area within the reach of the light will be illuminated.

So to get the blackness (which is not always black sometimes deep blue) around what is seen with the moon. A person would have to move away from the light source lighting the sphere, to have the black of a night sky around their sphere like is seen with the moon in the sky.

if you do not understand
After this i am tired of writing and typing, this is it from me.

 

[46AND2]

Look at what i am saying.

This has to be done in actual life, i can not take a photo to show you what i am saying, because the photo does not represent this truthful.

If you take a sphere/ball or whatever to use as a moon and then take a light to light up the sphere/etc. you will see the light form your light source, it will light up where ever you are. if you are outside (in pitch black) the area within the reach of the light will be illuminated.

So to get the blackness (which is not always black sometimes deep blue) around what is seen with the moon. A person would have to move away from the light source lighting the sphere, to have the black of a night sky around their sphere like is seen with the moon in the sky.

if you do not understand
After this i am tired of writing and typing, this is it from me.

The only reason you see light without being in direct view of the source, when shone in "pitch blackness" is because there are plenty of other things for the light to reflect off. You aren't achieving pure darkness.

If you were in a room completely painted (technically chemical vapor depositioned) with Vantablack, and turned on a flashlight, you wouldn't even be able to see the walls.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I only post photos because we are not out side looking in real life.

And that is why originally i stated that i would like to see this model in real life. because a photo does not represent reality very well especially light.

That is your advantage discussing this over a computer. And basically science's trickery, that really exist only on paper, computer model programs, and in the imagination of people who believe sciences lies.

Please, how are there any "science lies"? As to the Moon why do you think that the way that the Moon reflects light is not reasonably reproducible? The only problem would be getting a fairly parallel source of light. One could easily make a first approximation. What would that prove? The light from the Moon is exactly what we would expect if it was spherical and reflecting the Sun's light.

 

[Kylie]

Look at what i am saying.

This has to be done in actual life, i can not take a photo to show you what i am saying, because the photo does not represent this truthful.

If you take a sphere/ball or whatever to use as a moon and then take a light to light up the sphere/etc. you will see the light form your light source, it will light up where ever you are. if you are outside (in pitch black) the area within the reach of the light will be illuminated.

So to get the blackness (which is not always black sometimes deep blue) around what is seen with the moon. A person would have to move away from the light source lighting the sphere, to have the black of a night sky around their sphere like is seen with the moon in the sky.

if you do not understand
After this i am tired of writing and typing, this is it from me.

I get what you are saying.

But you do not realise the way the sun/moon/earth system works. It is different in space because there is nothing else in the area to be lit up. That's what space means.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I get what you are saying.

But you do not realise the way the sun/moon/earth system works. It is different in space because there is nothing else in the area to be lit up. That's what space means.

Perhaps he does not appreciate how empty space is. At night a beam of light is often visible due to the dust particles in it. It is hard to replicate the invisible nature of a beam of light in a vacuum. He might be complaining because in a very dark room we would be able to see the beam of light used. Though frankly it can be hard to understand what science deniers are confused about.

 

[d taylor]

Perhaps he does not appreciate how empty space is. At night a beam of light is often visible due to the dust particles in it. It is hard to replicate the invisible nature of a beam of light in a vacuum. He might be complaining because in a very dark room we would be able to see the beam of light used. Though frankly it can be hard to understand what science deniers are confused about.

But space is not empty. Science, nasa, government who faked going to the moon, has taken full advantage of the modern light pollution that most people experience.

Most people believe the sky(raqia) above is pitch black with a moon and a few stars. 95% (estimate) of people in america do not see the raqia as God created it.

But if a person can get away from man created light pollution. The night raqia sky is full of light it is not pitch black.

which is it

Just like this (i believe) this intentional miss information given by science.

from this website: Why can't you see stars during the day? (Beginner) - Curious About Astronomy? Ask an Astronomer

Why can't you see stars during the day? (Beginner)
I'm a teacher in a daycare. Each week we have a theme for are program. Last week it was the stars in the sky. This little boy asked me "why do stars glow at night and not during the day?" I did't know what to answer so maybe you can help me answer this question for the little boy.

Stars do glow during the day, but we can't see them because of the glare of sunlight. When the sun is up, the blue color in sunlight gets scattered all over the atmosphere, turning the sky the familiar bright blue color. This blue light is much brighter than the faint light coming from the stars, so it prevents us from seeing them.

If you were standing on the Moon, for instance, where there is no atmosphere, you would see the stars both day and night.

But you also get this:

People also ask
Why are there no stars in the moon pictures?
The dim light of the stars simply does not provide enough exposure to record visible images. All manned landings happened during the lunar daytime. Thus, the stars were outshone by the sun and by sunlight reflected off the Moon's surface.
Moon landing conspiracy theories - Wikipedia

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories

 

[Radagast]

But if a person can get away from man created light pollution. The night raqia sky is full of light it is not pitch black.

What you see, away from light pollution, is a black night sky with a very large number of stars.

 

[tas8831]

Conspiracies happen all the time, all through out the world. .

Yes, they do. But - and this may come as a shock to you - EVERYTHING that you do not understand or do not like or think goes against your middle eastern religion is NOT a conspiracy.

Did tobacco companies conspire to defraud the public by claiming nicotine is not addictive? YES.

Are contrails actually CHEMtrails, used by the gubmint to drop mind-control drugs on the public? NO.

Does the fact that cloud seeding is a thing PROVE that the gubmint is dropping mind-control drugs on the public?

NO.

Your own media tells you conspiracies happen

And apparently YOUR 'own media' thinks people like you are gullible and easily controlled. This is why they lie to you. They know you will believe them.

Why do you dismiss so easily?

Why do you BEELEEEVE so easily?
What other kooky conspiracy garbage do you accept without question, despite evidence to the contrary?
I dismiss because I am not programmed to accept nonsense in order to prop up anti-science and anti-gubmint propaganda.

Have you done proper research and VENTED both sides of the arugment?

Tell me all about the "proper research" YOU have done on both sides.
Tell me all about your "research" into how the moon produces its own light - and then please do explain how it is that this light gets turned off so it looks exactly like it would if the earth's shadow passed across it, and then explain WHY this would need to happen?


You see, in real life conspiracies, some one or some group always has a vested interest. When tobacco companies conspire, they do it to make money.
When JW Boothe and pals conspired to kill Lincoln, they did it for revenge.

When NASA conspired to make us think the moon does not produce its own light....???
First, it was not NASA. It was simple physics.
When NASA conspired to fake the moon landings? Hmmm....
Well sure, it could have been to keep their jobs, but they were pretty well funded before the 'space race' (even before they were called NASA), so I don't think that is a valid reason. And if the moon landing were a hoax, then there would be all sorts of other nations - primarily the Russians at the time (and still) - and individuals eager to embarrass the U.S. by exposing it, and nearly a million people worldwide would have been required to keep it all secret for 50 years.

But no, please show us all of your amazing 'research', which I am certain does not at all consist entirely of reading conspiracy kook websites and books.

And then tell me what you mean by "VENTED"?

Have you PROVED all things using the word of God?

No. Nobody has. Religion is the biggest hoax there is.

I work in IT and security, and let me tell you....both software and hardware has billions of bugs.

IT and security? And you are a religious zealot conspiracy theorist?

Wow - I feel safer already!

Anyone in programming knows you can NEVER get it right the first time. The technology in the 50s were so primitive...it's just unimaginable, it boggles the mind how they could even get to outerspace using that trash.

Ah - so a big dose of personal incredulity (that amazingly is nonexistent when it comes to the notion that a tribal deity from the ancient middle east is the one TRUE god and created the universe from nothing by speaking...) is all it takes to be "woke"..

Programming was so utterly bad that there's even a famous quote by the legend of structured programming edgar dijkstra, "you're doing it wrong". This garbage could not even get off the atmosphere as demonstrated by Neil Armstrong's hoax test flights.

And do tell how you know it was a hoax.

I mean other than via Jesus belief and being a conspiracy theorist.

Toyota Prius batteries are pretty much dead after 10 years. The voyager batteries kept on going for 50 years and NASA did not share technology? Really??????

So not only are you a conspiracy monger and religious zealot, you are also very, very ignorant of the things you attack.

You see, Voyager did not use batteries. They used radioisotope thermoelectric generators:

Electrical power is supplied by three Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators (RTGs). The current power levels are about 249 watts for each spacecraft. As the electrical power decreases, power loads on the spacecraft must be turned off in order to avoid having demand exceed supply. As loads are turned off, some spacecraft capabilities are eliminated.​

And they are, in fact, winding down after 41 (not 50) years.

I find it shocking that an IT guru and 'woke' individual such as yourself never happened to come across this simple, public fact in all of your 'research.'

But I am sure this is also just part of the grand conspiracy.... for some reason...


I note that you have still dutifully avoided explaining what the moon is REALLY made of and how, exactly, it produces its own light that, as if by magic, and modulates this light such that it mimics what we would see when the earth's shadow crosses it, blocking incoming light from the sun.


Oh - and after to present your "research" about the moon's make-up, how it produces light, etc., please also tell us about your amazing "research" into the veracity of the bible tales. Especially the miracles and the creation. I can't wait!

 

[tas8831]

But space is not empty. Science, nasa, government who faked going to the moon, has taken full advantage of the modern light pollution that most people experience.

Who faked the bible tales?

NASA wasn't around back in the ancient middle east, so tell us all about your amazing research.