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

[Radagast]

C'mon, fixating on that is a bit feeble given all of the unanswerable questions about a 'flat earth'.

But ignoring the real questions and fixating on irrelevancies is exactly what flat-earthers do.

For the benefit of people watching at home: Christianity does not teach flat-earthism. Christians have always known that the Earth was round.

 

[d taylor]

C'mon, fixating on that is a bit feeble given all of the unanswerable questions about a 'flat earth'. There are time-lapse images of other planets in the solar system you can check out, made possible by the amount of glass and other machinery and tech pointing at them. Or do you believe that only the earth is flat?

This is a topic post about the moon, i entertained 1 question from you. i will not turn the persons post into to a flat earth discussion. if you want to discuss flat earth go to one of the topics posted about that.

 

[Radagast]

i will not turn the persons post into to a flat earth discussion.

You already did.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Y

Excuses, excuses keep them coming so you can continue to believe the lie.

You need to learn how to tell the difference between an excuse and an explanation. You made a rather foolish demand. It appears that you suffer from high levels of science denialism and the evidence that you demand would probably not convince you. Instead you should look at the evidence that you have no answer to.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I never addressed your camera comment, because it was not speaking to what i was talking about.

I was never talking about camera lens that have a $20,000+ price tag.

I am a poor artist, i am speaking about bridge cameras, one that the average working person can afford.

Nikon came out last september with the p1000, 125x zoom = 3000mm bridge camera ($995.00). I was saying if nikon, cannon, sony, etc.. ever come out with a 200 plus zoom it would again provide just a little more power of zoom and that possibly a little better (closer) image.

p1000, 125x zoom

View attachment 259651

What would you expect to see? Tell me how small an object you want to see in the Moon. It is easy to calculate the diameter of lens needed to see it.

 

[Tom 1]

This is a topic post about the moon, i entertained 1 question from you. i will not turn the persons post into to a flat earth discussion. if you want to discuss flat earth go to one of the topics posted about that.

Ok, fair enough.

 

[Radagast]

What would you expect to see? Tell me how small an object you want to see in the Moon. It is easy to calculate the diameter of lens needed to see it.

A mobile phone and a telescope will do the job, with the right adaptor:

 

[tas8831]

The word of God says:
Genesis 1:16: And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

Falsely so called science says:
The moon does not have light. The sun's light is reflected off the moon surface.


So which do creationists believe? Are you really going to "adapt" God's word to aethiest science unscientific explanations? No man has gone past the firmament (they tried to in Genesis and God confounded them).

If the moon makes its own light, why are there phases?

 

[tas8831]

I don't know about any of you, but when I walk out into my yard at night and the moon is anywhere near to being full, my yard is lit up with light. Amazing.

And when it is not close to full?

 

[Radagast]

And when it is not close to full?

The amount of light is proportional to the illuminated area of the moon.

 

[Astrophile]

The amount of light is proportional to the illuminated area of the moon.

Actually this is not correct. At First and Last Quarter, when half the Moon is illuminated, the Moon is only about one-tenth as bright as the Full Moon.

 

[Ophiolite]

Actually this is not correct. At First and Last Quarter, when half the Moon is illuminated, the Moon is only about one-tenth as bright as the Full Moon.

Radagast did not state that the proportionality was linear, so surely his statement remains accurate.

 

[eleos1954]

The word of God says:
Genesis 1:16: And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

Falsely so called science says:
The moon does not have light. The sun's light is reflected off the moon surface.


So which do creationists believe? Are you really going to "adapt" God's word to aethiest science unscientific explanations? No man has gone past the firmament (they tried to in Genesis and God confounded them).

Ezekiel 32:7

7When I blot you out, I will cover the heavens
and make their stars dark;
I will cover the sun with a cloud,
and the moon shall not give its light.

Mark 13:24

24 “But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light,

In step with science ... no sun .... no moonlight, not in contradiction with science.

In Genesis 1:16 ... its just stating the sun is a brighter light and the moon is the less bright light ... which of course is true as well

 

[Radagast]

Radagast did not state that the proportionality was linear, so surely his statement remains accurate.

It's like this (on a logarithmic scale):

But since perception is also logarithmic, the perceived intensity is remarkably close a linear function of phase.

 

[d taylor]

Ezekiel 32:7

7When I blot you out, I will cover the heavens
and make their stars dark;
I will cover the sun with a cloud,
and the moon shall not give its light.

Mark 13:24

24 “But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light,

In step with science ... no sun .... no moonlight, not in contradiction with science.

In Genesis 1:16 ... its just stating the sun is a brighter light and the moon is the less bright light ... which of course is true as well

If the sun and moon are thousand and millions of miles out in space. what does a cloud have to do with the sun not being able to shine on the moon.

That is because the sun and moon are locally above the earth. So a cloud can block out the sun over the whole earth. But still i do not believe just because the sun is blocked out, that is the reason the moon will not give light.

 

[Astrophile]

Radagast did not state that the proportionality was linear, so surely his statement remains accurate.

Yes, I agree.

 

[Astrophile]

It's like this (on a logarithmic scale):

But since perception is also logarithmic, the perceived intensity is remarkably close a linear function of phase.

Thank-you; I didn't know about this.

 

[Kylie]

Yes, some wasn't, the standard B&W was an 80 asa/iso 70mm emulsion, but they had a specially developed 16,000 film also ( the highest ISO film in common use at the time was an agfa 1,200, apart from a polaroid 3,000 which was only useful for very small prints). The colour films were adapted versions of Kodachrome and Ektachrome slide film, originally 64iso but pushed in use to 1,000.
The light source was less of an issue that the amount of light being reflected and the spread at that distance.

I would have thought that the distance between the sun and moon was essentially the same as between the sun and Earth. Have you got a source about this? I'd love to read more.

 

[Kylie]

I never addressed your camera comment, because it was not speaking to what i was talking about.

I was never talking about camera lens that have a $20,000+ price tag.

I am a poor artist, i am speaking about bridge cameras, one that the average working person can afford.

Nikon came out last september with the p1000, 125x zoom = 3000mm bridge camera ($995.00). I was saying if nikon, cannon, sony, etc.. ever come out with a 200 plus zoom it would again provide just a little more power of zoom and that possibly a little better (closer) image.

p1000, 125x zoom

View attachment 259651

Again, the times zoom on a lens tells me NOTHING about the actual focal length of the lens, and thus nothing about what the magnification actually is.

If you knew anything about cameras and had actually paid attention to what I said, you'd know that.

 

[Kylie]

The last so called mission to the moon was there, three days.

Cool, didn't know that.