New insight about NASA Moon landing
-
...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
-
the deep study of science and behaviour and truthness of quran always my favourite subjects.
anyway i think there is confusion between people here regrding the moon landing and the lights sources of moon.
ok let me clear one thing about moon landing we will talk later first of all what quran is saying focus plz again quran is referring moon light as (munir)"reflected light" how it reflects i will give u very common daily life example how moon works ,,, everybody know what phosporus do as a chemical properties it reflects the light that hit the surface,, in the night time at highway u notice arrows and road things that are reflecting when any car lights hit on them u can still see them if the light didnt hit it, but a dim side ... same like the shapes of moon as we all bodies are in a motion so motion change shapes change common law... with respect to that its not possible for a moon to generate its own light the facts of visions and light telling different story here so the moon got some particles or surface which reflect light ... the particles or surface of moon is different than earth and sun although.but these particles from same disk of big bang.just physical and chemical properties are different of earth sun and moon.one topic finish.
come on the moon landing now
personally i dnt believe they really landed on moon.what i believe , its explored but not by humans by machines. the machines that human invented. or may be they faked the moon landing 1969 but after some where between 90z they achieved regarding this event its very controversal and if they really reached there why till date no else country reached there. and russia failed till date whats going on people are even giving reference from quran witout having any specific knowledge what actually quran is saying.... anyway lets examine again what is quran saying about moon and space.
chap 54 verse 1 till 7 the hour draws near ,and the moon is breached.and if they see a sign they turn away and say ongoing magic.and they disbelieved and followed their desires, and every old tradition.while the news had come to them in which there was sufficnet warning a perfect wisdom but the warnings are of no benefit.so turn away from them the day will come when the caller will announce a terrible disaster,with their eyes humilated, they come out of the graves like scattered locusts.
so basically sunni think its the splitting of moon what they claimed about prophet , which is not true . but what happened with you guys you are giving reference for the moon landind whereas the whole story tells us this chapter of quran talking about day of judgement not about the day of landing or day day of splitting see the wordings again....
now i will gona tell u something else
sura rehman chap 55 verse 33 to 35
o assembly of mankind and jinn,if you can penterate the boundries of heaven and earth,then go ahead and penetrate,you will not penetrate without might. sooo which of the favours of ur lord u will deny? he sends against both of you projectiles(missiles) of fires and of copper so you will not succeed.
its clear that human r far away even jinss who have different properties of body are not even dare to cross the boundries of heaven and earth i dnt believe they landed there i have some key points to be noted here.
study of voice ,,,,ok everything need signals to communicate like reciever and sender and there are two things that give coverage to signals ... for example i m using mobile phone there is a reciver there and sender there in my phone that catches another signal from booster that installed in the town fair enough as soon as i loose the coverage of booster my signals lost my phone is just a toy now... i m talking about the earth there are sattelites to guide us anyway ... i lose my signals can anybody tell me who was giving them coverage when they crossed the coverage area how can they communicate with eachother at that era when even internat and tecnology was not so advance....as today date,,,
2nd thing the solar wind.... everybody know what i m talking
3 when they come back to world they use parasuite yeh ,,, how come they so sure they lannded safely without parasuit and they didnt even know the exact gravity figures again boolshit..
y didnt they showed us even a single photograph in which we see earth from moon ,,,,
fifth thing if u look at tghe vehicle that land on moon there is no atmosphere pollutionn happen for example if a plane land in a garden grass will start flying enna so see again how clear the surface of moon hahaha seems like hollywood is taking care of apollo throughout htier jouney
now see the movie in fast motion its seems like they are jumping in earthand fueling thing thier theory was telling us that they only have 20 sec fuel left when they landd moon... again bhoolshit tell them to show the properties of fuel consumption to an automobile engineer
there are lot of other things