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

[A_Thinker]

half is in shadow meaning, half is also in light making a full moon and a full moon gives off a halo of light.

But we don't see the whole of the lighted side all of the time ... and the halo is only going to occur on the lighted side.

I do not believe your explanation, the light would still be reflecting off the moon and would be seen. Whether facing the earth or sun the light would be reflecting off the surface of the moon in all directions, just like when it is facing the earth and be seen like the illustration i posted.

You can only see light reflected toward you. In other words, light has to be directed into your eyes to be seen. Light moving in any other direction can't be seen by the eye.

 

[A_Thinker]

So the moon is not a sphere lit by the moon.

Sometimes the truth is spoken, ... even by mistake ...

 

[essentialsaltes]

This has nothing to do with atmosphere.

Certainly it does. On a clear night, a full moon has no discernable halo. Do a google image search for "clear full moon". See for yourself.

and your photo is in not emitting light all around the edge of the moon

Of course it is. Look at it. Above the moon it is lighter than it is at the top edge of the photo. The brightness of the halo is not even around the edge of the moon. But neither is the lighting on the face of the moon, so there's no reason to imagine that the halo should be even.

 

[sjastro]

It amazes me how this nonsense thread continues to have legs.
As mentioned previously if the moon emits its own light then why does the sky go dark during a total eclipse of the Sun?

Then there is the data itself that shows moonlight is reflected sunlight.

The spectra have been normalised (adjusted) to simulate equal brightness conditions.
Note the similarities in the spectra in particular the Fraunhofer lines.
Paradoxically where the continuum part of the spectra (the jagged lines minus the Fraunhofer lines) diverge the most towards the red end or higher wavelengths is what we would expect for moonlight being reflected sunlight.
This is due to the greater reflectivity of red light off the moon's surface.

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

This gets down to incident ray (greater) vs. reflected ray (lesser).

I don't think a scientist is going to understand how a reflected ray can be proprietary to its reflector, do you?

The sun's [greater, incident] light hits the moon, and at that point it becomes the moon's [lesser, reflected] light.

Since only time we see any kind of object is when we see the light reflected from them then by your definition everything we see is "lesser light"

Dog poo light, wall light , ground light, sand light , water light.

Silly, but fits right there with other great creationist discoveries I guess.

 

[d taylor]

Certainly it does. On a clear night, a full moon has no discernable halo. Do a google image search for "clear full moon". See for yourself.

i do not need to do a google search, because i can not count the times (to many) i have seen a bright halo of light around the moon on a clear night.

 

[durangodawood]

It amazes me how this nonsense thread continues to have legs....

I can only think these flat earthy threads are a concerted effort to embarrass the faith.

 

[essentialsaltes]

i do not need to do a google search, because i can not count the times (to many) i have seen a bright halo of light around the moon on a clear night.

It's a shame you're so afraid of reality that you won't make even the simplest test of your own ideas.

 

[Kaon]

It amazes me how this nonsense thread continues to have legs.
As mentioned previously if the moon emits its own light then why does the sky go dark during a total eclipse of the Sun?

Then there is the data itself that shows moonlight is reflected sunlight.

The spectra have been normalised (adjusted) to simulate equal brightness conditions.
Note the similarities in the spectra in particular the Fraunhofer lines.
Paradoxically where the continuum part of the spectra (the jagged lines minus the Fraunhofer lines) diverge the most towards the red end or higher wavelengths is what we would expect for moonlight being reflected sunlight.
This is due to the greater reflectivity of red light off the moon's surface.

Because the moon acts as an LED. When the moon crosses the sun, the current that supplies light to the LED known as the moon is disrupted. Direct current will do, but the current is alternating; eclipses represent the nodes. Often, this means either a partial, or total darkening of the Moon LED, because the frequency has reached its node (it is partial if there is a phase shift).

This is why in a lunar eclipse, you still see illumination from the moon; its current source isn't disrupted. In a solar eclipse, the moon is directly in phase with the sun - but the current is zero for the moon (and nonzero for the sun).

The moon rotates on its face, not about its axis. Look at the moon for two months, and notice the dragon/man on the moon rotate clockwise throughout the month(s). The amount of angular displacement the face makes is much more than precession.

 

[sjastro]

Because the moon acts as an LED. When the moon crosses the sun, the current that supplies light to the LED known as the moon is disrupted. Direct current will do, but the current is alternating; eclipses represent the nodes. Often, this means either a partial, or total darkening of the Moon LED, because the frequency has reached its node (it is partial if there is a phase shift).

Another example of an electric universe variant that fails observation.
If a total solar eclipse is disrupting the current or flicking the off switch then it should be observed at any point on the Earth’s sunlit hemisphere.
Instead it is observed along a narrow band on the Earth’s surface which is consistent with a shadow effect.
Furthermore solar eclipses can only occur at new moon when the moon and sun are in conjunction.
A conjunction leading to a solar eclipse is a relatively rare event in which case by your logic the new moon should be visible to the observer most of the time.

This is why in a lunar eclipse, you still see illumination from the moon; its current source isn't disrupted.

Once again using your logic a full moon that isn’t eclipsed shouldn’t be disrupted either.
Since you think the moon acts like an LED then explain in terms of colour temperature how the moon goes from a higher colour temperature to a lower temperature during the eclipse stage before returning to its original temperature.

The moon rotates on its face, not about its axis. Look at the moon for two months, and notice the dragon/man on the moon rotate clockwise throughout the month(s). The amount of angular displacement the face makes is much more than precession.

Not sure of the relevance to your model but this is emphatically wrong.
Lunar precession is a long term effect.
The moon rotates on its axis approximately every 27 days.
We don’t observe this on Earth as the moon is in a synchronous orbit of 27.322 days due to tidal locking.
What we do observe is a wobbling effect due to libration.

 

[Kaon]

Another example of an electric universe variant that fails observation.
If a total solar eclipse is disrupting the current or flicking the off switch then it should be observed at any point on the Earth’s sunlit hemisphere.
Instead it is observed along a narrow band on the Earth’s surface which is consistent with a shadow effect.
Furthermore solar eclipses can only occur at new moon when the moon and sun are in conjunction.
A conjunction leading to a solar eclipse is a relatively rare event in which case by your logic the new moon should be visible to the observer most of the time.


Once again using your logic a full moon that isn’t eclipsed shouldn’t be disrupted either.
Since you think the moon acts like an LED then explain in terms of colour temperature how the moon goes from a higher colour temperature to a lower temperature during the eclipse stage before returning to its original temperature.


Not sure of the relevance to your model but this is emphatically wrong.
Lunar precession is a long term effect.
The moon rotates on its axis approximately every 27 days.
We don’t observe this on Earth as the moon is in a synchronous orbit of 27.322 days due to tidal locking.
What we do observe is a wobbling effect due to libration.

Ok.

 

[Astrophile]

i do not need to do a google search, because i cannot count the times (too many) i have seen a bright halo of light around the moon on a clear night.

The sky may have appeared to be clear, but there must have been a high layer of ice cloud to scatter the Moon's light to produce a halo. Did these halos appear only around Full Moon, or could you see them near to half moon or when the Moon was a crescent? Did you see 'mock moons' (paraselenae) at the same time as the halo?

 

[d taylor]

The sky may have appeared to be clear, but there must have been a high layer of ice cloud to scatter the Moon's light to produce a halo. Did these halos appear only around Full Moon, or could you see them near to half moon or when the Moon was a crescent? Did you see 'mock moons' (paraselenae) at the same time as the halo?

I am using the word halo but i am not taking about a cloud halo. I am talking about the light that is seen being emitted from a full moon a light that is completely all the way around the moon

 

[essentialsaltes]

I am using the word halo

I bet photographers know how to take a great photo of a full moon. Try googling "How to photograph the full moon?" and see what the images look like.

 

[sjastro]

I am using the word halo but i am not taking about a cloud halo. I am talking about the light that is seen being emitted from a full moon a light that is completely all the way around the moon

View attachment 267365

The halo is due to an overexposed image which also results in the lunar detail being washed out and of low contrast.
Since solar eclipses have been brought up in this thread here is an image of a partial solar eclipse I took a few years ago.

Where is the moon's light?

 

[d taylor]

I bet photographers know how to take a great photo of a full moon. Try googling "How to photograph the full moon?" and see what the images look like.

Photos or not, I still see when i am looking at the moon (especially full) in life (not from a photo) the moons light being emitted from the moon and lighting up the night sky.

I can take photos where it looks like there is no light and i can also take photos where the moon looks like the sun. The point is not what a photo shows, i just used photos to illustrate what i was trying to say about sciences version of the moon.

And that is if the moon is as science states a sphere lit by the sun. Then the moon will always be in a full moon stage and a moon in the full moon stage gives off a lot of light all the way around the surface and edge of the moon.

And i say that would be seen, even in the phase when the moon is just showing a small sliver of light in a crescent stage.

 

[d taylor]

Why does this reflected light example of an incandescent light lighting an object (ball covered with paper). Not reflect / duplicate what happens when the moon is photographed.

zoomed in they still appear the same.

But take that same paper and cover an incandescent light and this duplicates what is seen or can be reproduced when photographing the moon.

Then when zoomed in the light goes away and the surface is seen, the same effect is seen with the moon.

 

[essentialsaltes]

And that is if the moon is as science states a sphere lit by the sun. Then the moon will always be in a full moon stage

What? Why would that be? Even in your first paper ball example, the ball is not completely 'full'. That's what a sphere lit externally looks like. It has 'phases' depending on the relative position of the light source and the viewer.

You may also notice the absence of detectable halo on the paper ball.

Why does this reflected light example of an incandescent light lighting an object (ball covered with paper). Not reflect / duplicate what happens when the moon is photographed.

How doesn't it? The source is too close to the ball and diffuse compared to the sun/moon system, but that looks like a gibbous moon. Most of it is lit, but there's an 'anticrescent' of darkness on the side away from the light.

But take that same paper and cover an incandescent light and this duplicates what is seen or can be reproduced when photographing the moon.

Can you duplicate a crescent moon with this set up, please?

 

[d taylor]

What? Why would that be? Even in your first paper ball example, the ball is not completely 'full'. That's what a sphere lit externally looks like. It has 'phases' depending on the relative position of the light source and the viewer.

You may also notice the absence of detectable halo on the paper ball.



How doesn't it? The source is too close to the ball and diffuse compared to the sun/moon system, but that looks like a gibbous moon. Most of it is lit, but there's an 'anticrescent' of darkness on the side away from the light.

Can you duplicate a crescent moon with this set up, please?

Full moon shown in every phase

 

[essentialsaltes]

Full moon shown in every phase

View attachment 267414

Half of the moon is always illuminated by the sun, but the phases are what the moon looks like from earth, because we can see different amounts of the lit and unlit halves as the moon goes around the earth. It is only a 'full moon' when it's a full moon. Duh.

Could you duplicate a crescent moon with your internally illuminated sphere set up, please?