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

[dlamberth]

Not really.

It's called "anarchy."

Jesus said ...

Matthew 11:29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.

You say ...

It's more of having God as a reality in my life than are "beliefs".

Further, in the name of "love," you argue down those who do have beliefs that go contrary to what atheists tell them.

"Anarchy" is the only word I can think of.

(Actually, I can think of another word, but I'll keep it to myself.)

I'm ONLY speaking for myself, and that's having God a reality in my life.

I take your example of Matthew 11:29 as I put the suggestion into my heart. For myself, that's not a "belief". It's doing something. And in that doing something is what births having God as one's reality. That's not anarchy.

 

[dlamberth]

-​

Having God as a reality in your life, what kind of new age philosophy is this.

God isn't your reality? What kind of Christian is this?

 

[d taylor]

That's how shadows work. An object between the light source and the "shadowed" object blocks light from reaching it so there is no scattering.

That is right, how a shadow works from a single light source. So where is the missing light from the moon reflecting light to earth 200,000+ miles away.

You are saying this reflected light would not be seen.

Kind of like on Andy Griffith Show, when Andy ask where are the prints of the cow.

 

[Hans Blaster]

That is right, how a shadow works from a single light source. So where is the missing light from the moon reflecting light to earth 200,000+ miles away.

You are saying this reflected light would not be seen.

Kind of like on Andy Griffith Show, when Andy ask where are the prints of the cow.

What?

The light in that photo comes from Sun and reflects off the Moon (on which the photographer is standing). This is the same way I can see the trees outside my window -- light from the Sun reflects off the trees. The Earth isn't involved in that photo.

 

[pgp_protector]

Then you'll make mistakes when dealing with people who do know their doctrine, won't you?

Jesus took Genesis literally.

Notice this passage, where He takes both Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 literally?

Matthew 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, (Genesis 1:27)
19:5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? (Genesis 2:24).

Have you not heard and read of Hansel & Gretel on how they learn to overcome the difficulties in life?
.
.
.
.
.
Oh look I ask if you heard an read something that conveyed a message and lesson.
.
.
.

That doesn't mean I took it literally.

 

[sjastro]

That is right, how a shadow works from a single light source. So where is the missing light from the moon reflecting light to earth 200,000+ miles away.

You are saying this reflected light would not be seen.

Kind of like on Andy Griffith Show, when Andy ask where are the prints of the cow.

Is this all part of the moon landing is a fake and picture was taken from a Hollywood studio?
Strange how the Soviet Union never considered the Apollo moon landings to be fake given they lost the space race and a geopolitical battle.

I'm prepared to make a stunning generalization, Godless communists were far more honest in accepting the reality than certain Christian fundamentalists.

 

[d taylor]

What?

The light in that photo comes from Sun and reflects off the Moon (on which the photographer is standing). This is the same way I can see the trees outside my window -- light from the Sun reflects off the trees. The Earth isn't involved in that photo.

-​

There is no light in that photo reflecting off of the moon's surface. Especially reflected light strong enough to travel 200,000+ miles that would cast a shadow upon the earth's surface.

The only reflected light is the light reflecting off of the pack on the back of the astronaut and reflecting onto the back of the astronaut's helmet.

 

[Hans Blaster]

-​

There is no light in that photo reflecting off of the moon's surface.

ALL the light in that photo is sunlight reflecting off the surface of the Moon or off of other objects sitting on the Moon's surface into the camera. That's the only reason you can see ANYTHING in that photo. The only source of light is the Sun and reflections of Sunlight. (Just like when you go out in day time.)

Especially reflected light strong enough to travel 200,000+ miles that would cast a shadow upon the earth's surface.

The Earth and its surface aren't in that photo. No "extra strength" is required for a photon to travel long distances. A photon will travel in a straight line through empty space until it is absorbed or scattered.

The only reflected light is the light reflecting off of the pack on the back of the astronaut and reflecting onto the back of the astronaut's helmet.

Nope. ALL of the light is reflected. The ground doesn't glow on its own. If the Sun wasn't above the horizon (which it is, all Apollo missions landed on the Moon when the Sun was in the sky) there would be no sources of light.

 

[d taylor]

ALL the light in that photo is sunlight reflecting off the surface of the Moon or off of other objects sitting on the Moon's surface into the camera. That's the only reason you can see ANYTHING in that photo. The only source of light is the Sun and reflections of Sunlight. (Just like when you go out in day time.)

The Earth and its surface aren't in that photo. No "extra strength" is required for a photon to travel long distances. A photon will travel in a straight line through empty space until it is absorbed or scattered.

Nope. ALL of the light is reflected. The ground doesn't glow on its own. If the Sun wasn't above the horizon (which it is, all Apollo missions landed on the Moon when the Sun was in the sky) there would be no sources of light.

-

​

Prove you r assertion, reflect light off of an object and cast a shadow upon another object that would be equivalent to being 200,000+ miles away.

 

[Hans Blaster]

-

​

Prove you r assertion, reflect light off of an object and cast a shadow upon another object that would be equivalent to being 200,000+ miles away.

Again, what are you talking about? The shadows in that picture are from places where there is no direct sunlight because objects are blocking the path.

 

[sjastro]

Again, what are you talking about? The shadows in that picture are from places where there is no direct sunlight because objects are blocking the path.

He is being willfully ignorant instead of being plain ignorant.
Still moon landing conspiracy theories make a good source for comedy.

​

 

[Hans Blaster]

He is being willfully ignorant instead of being plain ignorant.

Sigh. People have been blocked for less.

 

[d taylor]

Again, what are you talking about? The shadows in that picture are from places where there is no direct sunlight because objects are blocking the path.

-
​

When the story is invented it can be adjusted to fit proposed questions. In that case there really is no reason to ask questions and to ask that stated supposed realities, be modeled and shown to work as stated.

 

[Hans Blaster]

-
​

When the story is invented it can be adjusted to fit proposed questions. In that case there really is no reason to ask questions and to ask that stated supposed realities, be modeled and shown to work as stated.

There is no "story". There are astronauts standing on the Moon.

 

[d taylor]

-​

There is no "story". There are astronauts standing on the Moon.

-​

And you believe this because you watched this on tv and see the photos.

 

[Hans Blaster]

-

-​

And you believe this because you watched this on tv and see the photos.

GO Away. This isn't the conspiracy nonsense sub-forum.

 

[essentialsaltes]

What reflected light looks like.

The shadow cast by her nose or the darkness at the 'limb' of her face at right is like features of a gibbous moon.

Her cheek can be (partially) seen to the right of her nose, like the plains can be (partially) seen to the right of these lunar features.
But like her cheek fades to blackness at the edge, so do the lunar plains (because they curve away like a face curves away.

Those are clearly shadows on the moon. And to find the source of the shadow, you trace the line of sight backwards. If the shadow is falling ON the moon, the source of light is NOT the moon.

 

[driewerf]

-​

The astronaut is lit from a single light source. There on his suit, a light area and a shadow area no reflected light area.

That is exactly the point, one single light source, the Sun. Not the Moon. Congratulations.

 

[sjastro]

And you believe this because you watched this on tv and see the photos.​

Why should @Hans Blaster or anyone else have a reason not to believe the moon landings are real?
You are only individual who has a reason to do so as it shows your interpretation of the Bible is wrong.

Your disbelief borders on delusion, I find it amazing on your insistence proof is required to reflect light off of an object and cast a shadow upon another object 200,000+ miles away.
Next time it's full moon go out and prove it yourself, your shadow is the object 200,000+ miles away from the moon which reflects sunlight.

This leaves two questions open about the moon being being reflected sunlight or not, and the distance.
The first was answered long ago, lunar shadows and solar eclipses proves the moon reflects sunlight and as this thread shows the best you can do is ignore these facts and carry on regardless as if the facts never existed.
This is an example of being willfully ignorant.
The question of distance is addressed with the use of a telephone and camera; two observers at different points on the earths surface photograph the moon at exactly the same time with exposures long enough to reveal background stars.
Each image will show the moon being in a slightly different position relative to the stars and is an example of lunar parallax from which the distance can be calculated using simple mathematics.
The advantage with this method is you can participate and learn something in the process.
Another method and far more accurate is using laser and measuring the time taken when the laser is reflected back to earth which is only possible by astronauts putting mirrors on the moon in the first place.

How are going to address this post, are you going to ignore it and continue to perpetrate the lie it's all a conspiracy or maybe finally concede the Bible not correct.

 

[Ophiolite]

How are going to address this post, are you going to ignore it and continue to perpetrate the lie it's all a conspiracy or maybe finally concede the Bible not correct.

I suggest a small amendment to an otherwise excellent post. The Bible may or may not be correct in regard to the moon emitting light, but @d taylor's interpretation is most certainly incorrect.