New insight about NASA Moon landing
-
Thanks for the answer
-
Peace to all,
Thank you Magnus for demonstrating once again, just like you did with Edip, that you allow yourself to formulate critics about things you don't even examine. The most disgusting thing is that you use the mask of reason and logic. yuck You want to be seen as a good thinker while, in fact, you're not. You're just an agitator and polemist. How sorry is your condition...
Did you watch the documentary I've sent ?
I think that no, Magnus, you did not watch it when you answered, because if you had watched it, you would have noticed, like Godsubmitter wrote, that "If you watched this video which @Kamzo19 kindly posted, you'd have heard that it says that they believe people landed on the moon, but the official footage was not the authentic one!". Are you not ashamed of yourself? If you did not watch it, why don't you just remain silent ? I'm beginning to think that something is attached to you and is nourrishing itself from this bad energy, just like astral parasites nourrish themselves from the bad energy of evildoers. When will you change this bad behavior, Magnus?
Anyway, I'm like you, Magnus, I believe, without any real evidence except those provided by NASA and that are not evidences because more than once, hairbrushing has been shown on them thanks to graphical filters, and because we cannot verify it, I believe that they went to the Moon. So you see, Scribbler, I'm not saying this is new. You can see it in the title of my thread "New insight...", this shows that I recognize and know that other insights about the authenticity of the Apollo moon landing have been brought during the past two decades.
I think, just like the documentary shows, that the images we all saw are fake images, and that the real footage of the landing I believe it happened, is for reasons I don't know, kept hidden from the public.
I just wanted it to be clearer. If I find something else, I'll try to keep you informed. Anyway, thank you for answering.
Peace peace
-
Peace to all,
Thank you Magnus for demonstrating once again, just like you did with Edip, that you allow yourself to formulate critics about things you don't even examine. The most disgusting thing is that you use the mask of reason and logic. yuck You want to be seen as a good thinker while, in fact, you're not. You're just an agitator and polemist. How sorry is your condition...
Did you watch the documentary I've sent ?
I think that no, Magnus, you did not watch it when you answered, because if you had watched it, you would have noticed, like Godsubmitter wrote, that "If you watched this video which @Kamzo19 kindly posted, you'd have heard that it says that they believe people landed on the moon, but the official footage was not the authentic one!". Are you not ashamed of yourself? If you did not watch it, why don't you just remain silent ? I'm beginning to think that something is attached to you and is nourrishing itself from this bad energy, just like astral parasites nourrish themselves from the bad energy of evildoers. When will you change this bad behavior, Magnus?
Anyway, I'm like you, Magnus, I believe, without any real evidence except those provided by NASA and that are not evidences because more than once, hairbrushing has been shown on them thanks to graphical filters, and because we cannot verify it, I believe that they went to the Moon. So you see, Scribbler, I'm not saying this is new. You can see it in the title of my thread "New insight...", this shows that I recognize and know that other insights about the authenticity of the Apollo moon landing have been brought during the past two decades.
I think, just like the documentary shows, that the images we all saw are fake images, and that the real footage of the landing I believe it happened, is for reasons I don't know, kept hidden from the public.
I just wanted it to be clearer. If I find something else, I'll try to keep you informed. Anyway, thank you for answering.
Peace peace
Peace!
Please refrain from strawmanning my position.
I never watched the video, and I never claimed I did. Without even having watched it, I dismiss it's central claim, if it makes one. I have heard Kubrick's name mentioned by lunar-conspiratorial nuts before, and I figured it is probably safe to assume that the youtube clip in question is most likely a repeated variant of the same nonsensical claims I have heard before. May God forgive me if I'm wrong in doing so.
I don't aspire to be seen as a great thinker, but I hope I am using my reason to discern truth from falsehood as best I can, under the circumstances.
If you want to talk about real stuff like rocket science or orbital mechanics or for that matter technichal aspects of photography I will do my best to answer any questions and learn what I need to know in order to do that. If you want to chase conspiratorial whisperings then you are free to continue on your own down that path, though I can tell you in parting and entirely from personal experience it's not the path a true believer wants to be on. -
Of course they did not land on the moon, because if they did, they supposed to land on the luminous surface.
(Qur'an, 7116)
And made the moon therein a light and made the sun a lamp?We were deceived into believing that the moon does not have its own light.
"If you just paid attention to the earth you live on
you will see a different earth to the one you were taught to believe in." -
Oh my God,
The full moon vs partially lit moon depends on how much light strikes the surface of the moon during a night when the sun does not shine on your part of the world but the moon which orbits the Earth catches the sunlight and thus shines up with a white light due to its sandy surface. It is so balanced that the moon is more lit depending on the time of the lunar month.
Sometimes the moon is visible before sunset and then you can see it clearly visible.
The moon does not have its own built-in variable light which depends on timing of the month.
In think that you do everything to justify a faulty interpretation of Quran and fall into the sectarian delusion of struggling backwards because the doctrine says something rather than empirical evidence.
Salaam
-
JavaLatte,
No matter how little you like it but your teacher are ignorant people trying to interpret an innocent text, so it is naive to say Allah is your teacher when Allah clearly is not your teacher but anonymous people of ancient time who make a throne for Allah when the language actually speaks of dominion.
You have never considered that people can be enlightened by the Rabb? If you are enlightened then you are clearly fit to be a teacher because you have knowledge.
The Rabb is not a teacher because the Rabb has no need of being a teacher for people who get absorbed will realize themselves. In the realm of Allah it works with plain understanding and realization. If the Rabb wills someone has knowledge it is just be and this person has knowledge.
But Quran is not your teacher through the Rabb in its mainstream interpretation for you absorb myriad bias and erroneous inferences along the way and pretty much a Pagan religion which has been forced to emerge in an innocent text. It is not the Rabb that you follow but ignorant minds.
And what you state concerning the moon is not factually right. The moon does not have any innate light emitting source but it depends on the sun radiating on it and during its night it is very cold there.
Salaam
-
There has even been unmanned probes measuring the climate and taken samples of the moon and mankind has instruments able to gauge a lot of its structure and dynamics and they know fairly much about the moon to say it does not have any prerequisite to emit light on its own. That would be true regardless if the 1969 lunar landing was a hoax or not. You have satellites in orbit with cameras and they see the moon and you have footage from space seeing the dark side of the moon. Even people who deem the lunar landing in 1969 a political game hardly deny mankind's activities in space.
What kind of conjecture are you indulging in concerning religion. Do you not see you are facing a personal radicalization? This is exactly the stuff that the sects are involved in. It is more important to them to fit some sectarian interpretation they believe in due to blind faith rather than using their rationality and logic to see the obvious.
Salaam
-
I do think like that. I hope someday you also aware about this, brother, God willing.
In the meantime, in an attempt to understand your point of view, because I find it very important in life to understand how others think...
...and I hope I'm not misunderstanding something here... but you're saying that you are of the opinion that the moon is sending out light that comes from itself (and no other celestial body), meaning that we are not dealing with reflection, but rather that the moon is its own independent source of light?
If so, I'm fascinated. If you don't mind me asking, because I'm actually interested in understanding your thinking, I'd really like to know
- Is the moon in your opinion a ball of gas (like the sun and certain other planets) or is it a rock with a hard and solid surface? Gas or rock?
- If you think the moon is solid and rock-like, then do you take it as there would be some self-luminescent substance covering the surface which gives rise to the light emitted?
Peace
-
- Is the moon in your opinion a ball of gas (like the sun and certain other planets) or is it a rock with a hard and solid surface? Gas or rock?
- If you think the moon is solid and rock-like, then do you take it as there would be some self-luminescent substance covering the surface which gives rise to the light emitted?
Peace
Salam ,
This is what i was thinking a while after sawing the Moon at daylight , does it look like a solid earthly (ardض surface? It does not . It's slightly diffrent from the substance of the sky .
This subject go deeper in understanding how the light light up ? How we perceive light ?
In my understanding from a research in the matter I come to
There is a substance In the earth atmospher who makes the Sun visible to us , the light from the Sun interact with that substance in the earth atmospher and lighted it up and produce the daylight , it's the daylight who makes the sun visible .
See for reference 91-03
The Moon could have a atmospher who allow sun substance to interact with it and produce that brightness at night "Nurr ".
Bearing in mind that in Arabic tongue there is difference between the name of what sun was made for and the name of what the moon was made for .
No lets examine something very important to verify that
In the Qur'aan it says that the sun was made to a Diaa'
And the moon to a Nurr , See for reference 10-05The Diaa' is a state of the Nurr , if the Nurr is too strong it produce The Diaa' , these doesn't mean that the sun got light from the moon but only to show the basic meaning for the two term from a Arabic linguistic point of view .
A solid substance as the earth / Ard doesn't interact with light source as the Sun to produce a daylight the interaction is in the atmosphere around the earth , this is why at night around the Moon it look all dark no daylight ? Although the sun light is directing to that area where the Moon is .
Why we do not see the brightness of the light of the sun at night In the sky ?
In my opinion its Simply because there is no daylight atmosphere in the sky at night , the English traduction of the Nahar as daylight is not accurate ,the daylight is the / Dya'a , notice the etymology of Day and Dya'a , Nahar is more about a opining stream or a running stream of something , from it River in Arabic called Nahr as it is a runing Stream of water.
This mean that the moon has a substance that allow him to be lighted up at night , wich is far to be a solid massive dusty matter like Stone but probabley more fludic substance .
Do this expriment look very attentively at a sunny day at the atmospher just very close to your eyes and you Will see a very thiny brightness lighting up like very small explosions .
-
...and I hope I'm not misunderstanding something here... but you're saying that you are of the opinion that the moon is sending out light that comes from itself (and no other celestial body), meaning that we are not dealing with reflection, but rather that the moon is its own independent source of light?
Yes.
(Qur'an, 7116)
And made the moon therein a light and made the sun a lamp?If so, I'm fascinated. If you don't mind me asking, because I'm actually interested in understanding your thinking, I'd really like to know
- Is the moon in your opinion a ball of gas (like the sun and certain other planets) or is it a rock with a hard and solid surface? Gas or rock?
- If you think the moon is solid and rock-like, then do you take it as there would be some self-luminescent substance covering the surface which gives rise to the light emitted?
I still don't know.
But, maybe you'll interested to read the questions & answers between me and brother Eric Dubay.
Me Btw, brother Eric. I wonder whether do you think that the moon has its own light? It looks like the light from the moon is not reflected light from the sun.
Eric D. Good observation Nina, you're right! The Sun?s light is golden, warm, drying, preservative and antiseptic, while the Moon?s light is silver, cool, damp, putrefying and septic. The Sun?s rays decrease the combustion of a bonfire, while the Moon?s rays increase combustion. Plant and animal substances exposed to sunlight quickly dry, shrink, coagulate, and lose the tendency to decompose and putrify; grapes and other fruits become solid, partially candied and preserved like raisins, dates, and prunes; animal flesh coagulates, loses its volatile gaseous constituents, becomes firm, dry, and slow to decay. When exposed to moonlight, however, plant and animal substances tend to show symptoms of putrefaction and decay.
In direct sunlight a thermometer will read higher than another thermometer placed in the shade, but in full, direct moonlight a thermometer will read lower than another placed in the shade. If the Sun?s light is collected in a large lens and thrown to a focus point it can create significant heat, while the Moon?s light collected similarly creates no heat. In the "Lancet Medical Journal,? from March 14th, 1856, particulars are given of several experiments which proved the Moon's rays when concentrated can actually reduce the temperature upon a thermometer more than eight degrees.
?The sun's light, when concentrated by a number of plane or concave mirrors throwing the light to the same point; or by a large burning lens, produces a black or non-luminous focus, in which the heat is so intense that metallic and alkaline substances are quickly fused; earthy and mineral compounds almost immediately vitrified; and all animal and vegetable structures in a few seconds decomposed, burned up and destroyed. The moon's light concentrated in the above manner produces a focus so brilliant and luminous that it is difficult to look upon it; yet there is no increase of temperature. In the focus of sun-light there is great heat but no light. In that of the moon's light there is great light but no heat.? -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, ?Zetetic Astronomy, Earth Not a Globe!? (144)
?Light which is reflected must necessarily be of the same character as that which causes the reflection, but the light of the Moon is altogether different from the light of the Sun, therefore the light of the Moon is not reflected from the Sun. The Sun's light is red and hot, the Moon's pale and cold - the Sun's dries and preserves certain kinds of fish and fruit, such as cod and grapes, for the table, but the Moon's turns such to putrefaction - the Sun's will often put out a coal fire, while the Moon's will cause it to bum more brightly - the rays of the Sun, focused through a burning-glass, will set wood on fire, and even fuse metals, while the rays of the Moon, concentrated to the strongest power, do not exhibit the very slightest signs of heat. I have myself long thought that the light of the Moon is Electric, but, be that as it may, even a Board School child can perceive that its light is totally unlike that of the Sun.? -David Wardlaw Scott, ?Terra Firma? (151-2)
So sunlight and moonlight clearly have altogether different properties, and furthermore the Moon itself cannot physically be both a spherical body and a reflector of the Sun?s light! Reflectors must be flat or concave for light rays to have any angle of incidence; If a reflector?s surface is convex then every ray of light points in a direct line with the radius perpendicular to the surface resulting in no reflection.
?Again, if the Moon is a sphere, which it is declared to be, how can its surface reflect the light of the Sun? If her surface was a mass of polished silver, it could not reflect from more than a mere point! Let a silvered glass ball or globe of considerable size be held before a lamp or fire of any magnitude, and it will be seen that instead of the whole surface reflecting light, there will be a very small portion only illuminated. But the Moon?s whole surface is brilliantly illuminated! A condition or effect utterly impossible if it be spherical.? -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, ?Earth Not a Globe, 2nd Edition? (97)
Me Thanks for the answer, brother Eric. If the moon has its own light, then this is another proof that the moon landing is hoax.
Eric D. Hey, yes, another proof is that the Moon is not densely physical, it is semi-transparent and therefore not capable of "landing on" in the first place. On a clear night, during a waxing or waning cycle, it is even possible to occasionally see stars and planets directly through the surface of the Moon!
On March 7th, 1794, four astronomers (3 in Norwich, 1 in London) wrote in ?The Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Astronomical Society? that they ?saw a star in the dark part of the moon, which had not then attained the first quadrature; and from the representations which are given the star must have appeared very far advanced upon the disc.? Sir James South of the Royal Observatory in Kensington wrote in a letter to the Times newspaper April 7, 1848, that, "On the 15th of March, 1848, when the moon was seven and a half days old, I never saw her unillumined disc so beautifully. On my first looking into the telescope a star of about the 7th magnitude was some minutes of a degree distant from the moon's dark limb. I saw that its occultation by the moon was inevitable ? The star, instead of disappearing the moment the moon's edge came in contact with it, apparently glided on the moon's dark face, as if it had been seen through a transparent moon; or, as if a star were between me and the moon ? I have seen a similar apparent projection several times ? The cause of this phenomenon is involved in impenetrable mystery." In the monthly notices of the Royal Astronomical Society for June 8, 1860, Thomas Gaunt stated that the "Occultation of Jupiter by the moon, on the 24th of May, 1860, was seen with an achromatic of 3.3 inches aperture, 50 inches focus; the immersion with a power of 50, and the emersion with a power of 70. At the immersion I could not see the dark limb of the moon until the planet appeared to touch it, and then only to the extent of the diameter of the planet; but what I was most struck with was the appearance on the moon as it passed over the planet. It appeared as though the planet was a dark object, and glided on to the moon instead of behind it; and the appearance continued until the planet was hid, when I suddenly lost the dark limb of the moon altogether.? I have personally also seen stars through the edge of the waxing/waning Moon. It actually happens fairly often; if you are diligent and specifically observing for the phenomenon on starry nights you can occasionally see it even with the naked eye.
?During a partial solar eclipse the sun's outline has many times been seen through the body of the moon. But those who have been taught to believe that the moon is a solid opaque sphere, are ever ready with ?explanations,? often of the most inconsistent character, rather than acknowledge the simple fact of semi-transparency. Not only has this been proved by the visibility of the sun's outline through segments, and sometimes the very centre of the moon, but often, at new moon, the outline of the whole, and even the several shades of light on the opposite and illuminated part have been distinctly seen. In other words we are often able to see through the dark side of the moon's body to light on the other side.? -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, ?Zetetic Astronomy, Earth Not a Globe!? (337)
?That the moon is not a perfectly opaque body, but a crystallized substance, is shown from the fact that when a few hours old or even at quarter we can through the unilluminated portion see the light shining on the other side. Stars have also been observed through her surface!? -J. Atkinson, ?Earth Review Magazine?
Me That's interesting, bro Eric. Do you think the sun and the moon, both also disc shaped?
Eric D. Yes, that's why the Moon only ever shows one side, no matter where/when on Earth, because there's only one side to see.
When you look up at the Sun and Moon you see two equally-sized equidistant circles tracing similar paths at similar speeds around a flat, stationary Earth. The ?experts? at NASA, however, claim your common sense every day experience is false on all counts! To begin with, they say the Earth is not flat but a big ball; not stationary but spinning around 19 miles per second; they say the Sun does not revolve around the Earth as it appears, but Earth revolves around the Sun; the Moon, on the other hand, does revolve around the Earth, though not East to West as it appears, rather West to East; and the Sun is actually 400 times larger than the Moon and 400 times farther away! That?s right, you can clearly see they are the same size and distance, you can see the Earth is flat, you can feel the Earth is stationary, but according to the gospel of modern astronomy, you are wrong and a simpleton worthy of endless ridicule if you dare to believe your own eyes and experience!
With haughty arrogance the nearest hypnotized heliocentrist will then inform you that the Sun is 865,374 miles in diameter and 92,955,807 miles from the Earth, the Moon is 2,159 miles in diameter and 238,900 miles from Earth, and those just happen to be the EXACT diameters and distances necessary for a viewer from Earth to falsely perceive them as being the same size! So, you see, silly Flat-Earther, it is all an illusion and the apparent equanimity of our day and night luminaries in the sky results from mere coincidental parallax perspective! The Sun does not revolve around the Earth as it appears; rather the Earth spins 1,038 mph under your feet and revolves 67,108 mph around the Sun! The Moon does indeed revolve around the Earth, but not as it appears! Though it seems to move East to West just like the Sun and everything else in the heavens, the Moon actually spins West to East at 10.3 mph while orbiting Earth at 2,288 mph, which combined with the Earth?s 1,038mph spin and 67,108 mph orbit around the Sun coincidentally results in all motions perfectly cancelling out making the Moon seem to move across the heavens with similar path and similar speed as the Sun while always only showing us one side of its surface, and perpetually hiding its ?dark side.?
?The Moon presented a special math problem for the construction of the heliocentricity model. The only way to make the Moon fit in with the other assumptions was to reverse its direction from that of what everyone who has ever lived has seen it go. The math model couldn?t just stop the Moon like it did the Sun, that wouldn?t work. And it couldn?t let it continue to go East to West as we see it go, either at the same speed or at a different speed. The only option was to reverse its observed East to West direction and change its speed from about 64,000 miles an hour to about 2,200 miles an hour. This reversal, along with the change in speed, were unavoidable assumptions that needed to be adopted if the model was to have any chance of mimicking reality.? -Bernard Brauer
?They want you to believe that the Moon's rotation is perfectly synchronized with its orbit so that's why we only ever see one side of the Moon, rather than conclude the obvious - that the Moon is simply NOT rotating. Moreover, they had to slow down the Moon's speed by 58,870 mph AND reverse its direction to West-East to successfully sell their phony heliocentricity system to a gullible public. I don't think there is one person in many, many thousands - regardless of education - who knows that the Copernican Model had to turn the Moon's observable direction around and give it a new speed to accommodate the phases and eclipses.? -Marshall Hall
-
Yes.
(Qur'an, 7116)
And made the moon therein a light and made the sun a lamp?No.
fhinna/in them (feminine plural as in 4127)
7115-16 did not see ye of how create the god seven heavens (feminine plural) layered and made the moon (masculine noun) fhinna/in them (feminine plural i.e. refers back to heavens) light of and made the sun lamp of
As far as moon landing remember in my youth speaking with the guy who designed the optics system which they put reflectors and point lasers which they pulse and measure the time it takes to bounce back to earth...
https//www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmVxSFnjYCA
Peace
-
No.
If you say "No", then it's up to you. But I say "Yes" for brother Zulf's question toward me.
fhinna/in them (feminine plural as in 4127)
7115-16 did not see ye of how create the god seven heavens (feminine plural) layered and made the moon (masculine noun) fhinna/in them (feminine plural i.e. refers back to heavens) light of and made the sun lamp of
Thanks for the input, brother. Wow, I think it could help this issue more clearer, God willing.
For me, it could be mean Therein (in heavens), there's the moon which function as light and there's the sun which function as lamp.
So, maybe I could say that the moon is light of heavens, and the sun is lamp of heavens. That's nice.
Have you ever found in the Qur'an a verse which tells that the light from the moon is reflected light from the sun?
Peace.
-
Of course the reflection of light from the moon does not produce heat because the radiation has already been absorbed by the moon which causes the heat production. You only see reflected light from a type of surface.
The reason there is such strong light emitted from the moon is because the sun beams mercilessly hit the moon surface due to its non-existant atmosphere which protects the Earth from much of the radiation and heat of the sun. Yet the surface of the moon absorbs the heat and you only see reflected light.
But telescopes can see all sorts of different stars and their dynamics and they can also see similarities with our own star, the sun.
It is the atmosphere that makes life possible on Earth or it would not have a balanced temperature and dangerous radiation.The point is the moon absorbs the heat and radiation but you see a very strong light on the surface and the moon is not a very good reflector but only due to the enormous light emission that you have light on Earth.
Salaam
-
I am open to the moon landing thing. One moment I feel it was a hoax and then another moment, it looks legitimate. My biggest question comes from the letter C written on this rock.
http//www.moonlandinghoax.org/resources/Apollo16CRock.jpg
Scattered directions of rocks also make the case untrustworthy. To make things worse, Nasa used "probably" when they were trying to explain why that happened. I wouldn't be surprised if Kubrik directed this "movie". It is common knowledge in US that CIA often holds discussion with Hollywood directors.
Isn't the verse clear about the sun being the giver of light to the moon?
-
Really, I shouldn't, but I couldn't help myself. I just had to remark on this guy Eric Dubay
The Sun?s light is golden, warm, drying, preservative and antiseptic, while the Moon?s light is silver, cool, damp, putrefying and septic.
- Light is light. There are no sun photons and moon photons. Photons and radiation is just that.
- Light cannot be damp!! (or septic for that matter)
The Sun?s rays decrease the combustion of a bonfire, while the Moon?s rays increase combustion.
- So we can put out a fire if we just shine sun light on it?? Doesn't seem to work for forest fire in Australia or California.
When exposed to moonlight, however, plant and animal substances tend to show symptoms of putrefaction and decay.
- No they don't. It's just because this guy seems to equate moist and low-light environments with moon light. This is of course insane.
but in full, direct moonlight a thermometer will read lower than another placed in the shade.
- Anyone can try this out. No need to take his word for it by the virtue of blind faith. Try it out and see if it is true or not. Add some common sense also.
If the Sun?s light is collected in a large lens and thrown to a focus point it can create significant heat, while the Moon?s light collected similarly creates no heat.
- O I wonder why. Could it be because the reflected light off the moon is so much weaker than the direct sun light? Hmm, yes!
In the "Lancet Medical Journal,? from March 14th, 1856, particulars are given of several experiments which proved the Moon's rays when concentrated can actually reduce the temperature upon a thermometer more than eight degrees.
- 1856? Is there some more recent studies than that?
The moon's light concentrated in the above manner produces a focus so brilliant and luminous that it is difficult to look upon it; yet there is no increase of temperature.
- Yes obviously. Since we talking about night time, the focused moon light would appear brilliant compared to the surrounding darkness. Obviously.
?Light which is reflected must necessarily be of the same character as that which causes the reflection, but the light of the Moon is altogether different from the light of the Sun, therefore the light of the Moon is not reflected from the Sun.
-
Ok, so if you compare looking straight into a flashlight on one hand, with observing the light (from the same flashlight) reflected off a dark blue chair on the other hand... would you deduce that these two "different lights" must come from different sources since the clear light and the dim blue light are of such different character??? Honestly, would you?
-
Isn't it so that the light of the moon is of "such different character" exactly BECAUSE it is reflected?? Think about it.
the Sun's will often put out a coal fire, while the Moon's will cause it to bum more brightly
- No, it SEEMS brighter because you look at the coal fire at NIGHT!
So sunlight and moonlight clearly have altogether different properties
- O really? What is actually a "property"? Let's not use the terminology and conclusion of centuries old science.
and furthermore the Moon itself cannot physically be both a spherical body and a reflector of the Sun?s light! Reflectors must be flat or concave for light rays to have any angle of incidence; If a reflector?s surface is convex then every ray of light points in a direct line with the radius perpendicular to the surface resulting in no reflection.
- HAHAHAHAHAHAHA... oh ok. So This means that ONLY spheres that themselves emit light from within can be seen. This means that you cannot see footballs (soccer balls), cannon balls, ball bearings, table tennis balls or ANY other spheres, simply because sphere do not reflect light.
Please don't be fooled with science talk mixed with insane conclusions (lies). Yes, rays of light are reflected in a direction perpendicular to the surface point of the convex reflector, but to say that this results in no reflection is both a contradiction plus insanity. By the exact same same logic and for the same reasons, even FLAT surfaces would not reflect light!! Only concave surfaces would, but only in the focal point.
This is really funny. I'm taking time to remark on these things just for the heck of it. This talk is either insane, or ignorant to a delusional level. I'm not sure whether the author actually believes this (out of mental illness) or if he has some malicious agenda to deceive ignorant people. The shaytans will after-all come to us from all sides. This is really hilarious.
Allow me to continue. And please think about it. I'm not mocking around!
Again, if the Moon is a sphere, which it is declared to be, how can its surface reflect the light of the Sun?
- Because ALL surfaces reflect light.
If her surface was a mass of polished silver, it could not reflect from more than a mere point!
- No! If you can see your own face being reflected in the silver ball, then much more that just "a mere point" is being reflected. Whatever you see in the ball is something being reflected. Ever hear of a mirror??
Let a silvered glass ball or globe of considerable size be held before a lamp or fire of any magnitude, and it will be seen that instead of the whole surface reflecting light, there will be a very small portion only illuminated.
- Extremely poor thinking and logic. The more flat ad smooth the surface is, the more mirror-like it will be. The rougher the surface, the more light will be reflected in all directions. Compare the mirror ball with a table tennis ball. The table tennis ball isn't invisible is it?
Hey, yes, another proof is that the Moon is not densely physical, it is semi-transparent and therefore not capable of "landing on" in the first place.
- Hilarius! You can simply buy a small telescope and look at the moon yourself. No need to take someone's word for it. Does it look translucent? No it doesn't. It's full of rocky craters, very solid indeed.
On a clear night, during a waxing or waning cycle, it is even possible to occasionally see stars and planets directly through the surface of the Moon!
-
Photos please!
-
And by the way, what the heck is the waxing-waning cycle if there is no sphere or orbit. Cyclic motion comes from spherical shapes. What are the mechanics of the phases of the moon?
-
It would also be marvelously interesting to find out exactly how the waxing-waning cycle occurs physically. Ok, so the moon is a disc, like Earth supposedly, and also not very dense. The moon is basically a disc-shaped cloud?
On March 7th, 1794, .... ? The cause of this phenomenon is involved in impenetrable mystery.
-
Hmmm, fresh science from 1794. Great, very reliable.
-
"impenetrable mystery". Yes, must be.
es, that's why the Moon only ever shows one side, no matter where/when on Earth, because there's only one side to see.
- Amazing that the disc moon is always keeping it's surface perpendicular to Earth. How does it do that?
That?s right, you can clearly see they are the same size and distance, you can see the Earth is flat, you can feel the Earth is stationary, but according to the gospel of modern astronomy, you are wrong and a simpleton worthy of endless ridicule if you dare to believe your own eyes and experience!
- Exactly HOW do you determine the distance to the moon disc and sun disc with your eyes only?
Hilarious, and frightening. I seriously didn't think people would stoop down to this level of refusal to think for themselves. I wonder what sort of emotional hang-ups or unconscious traumas are at the base of this kind of pathological abuse of the mind. It's no more a mystery to me that we have war, rape, fraud, genocide etc in the world when even normal people can believe things like these. I'm not talking about moon landings here being hoax or not... I'm sure history is 50% lies, but history is just tales written down in books. Reality and science though, can be observed and checked at any time. There must be some very serious identity issue at the core of this.
-
Thanks for the good reading, Zulf.
Salaam