Moon it's own source of light

[The Liturgist]

-
​

No, not according to God. It is He who sits above the circle of the earth,

You seem to be confusing God with your interpretation of one particular English translation of the inspired words of St. Moses the Prophet and the scribes and other clergy who contributed to his books (for example, we know that parts of Deuteronomy were not written by Moses, because the book describes his death, but the work clearly conveys his inspired words as a Holy Prophet).

But even then, this does not contradict the spherical Earth, but rather affirms it, because a sphere is a three dimensional circle. And thus all photos of our planet taken from outer space show a circle, but the circle is three dimensional, so one sees different continents.

 

[d taylor]

You seem to be confusing God with your interpretation of one particular English translation of the inspired words of St. Moses the Prophet and the scribes and other clergy who contributed to his books (for example, we know that parts of Deuteronomy were not written by Moses, because the book describes his death, but the work clearly conveys his inspired words as a Holy Prophet).

But even then, this does not contradict the spherical Earth, but rather affirms it, because a sphere is a three dimensional circle. And thus all photos of our planet taken from outer space show a circle, but the circle is three dimensional, so one sees different continents.

-
​

There is no such thing as a three dimensional circle. A circle is not even like a square, which can at least represent one side of a cube.

 

[d taylor]

=
​

For all to see, just as God states in The Bible. God place the sun, moon and stars in the raqia and not in an outer space thousands, to millions and billions of mile and light years away from earth.

 

[prodromos]

=
​

For all to see, just as God states in The Bible. God place the sun, moon and stars in the raqia and not in an outer space thousands, to millions and billions of mile and light years away from earth.

View attachment 353608


View attachment 353609​

For all to see, the sun and moon remain exactly the same size as they pass across our field of view, which proves they are not local, but are indeed very distant objects. If the earth was flat then Eratosthenes' measurements would put the Sun at about six and a half thousand kilometres, which means the effect of perspective on the size of the sun would be clearly apparent, being largest at noon and getting smaller towards dawn or dusk.

 

[d taylor]

For all to see, the sun and moon remain exactly the same size as they pass across our field of view, which proves they are not local, but are indeed very distant objects. If the earth was flat then Eratosthenes' measurements would put the Sun at about six and a half thousand kilometres, which means the effect of perspective on the size of the sun would be clearly apparent, being largest at noon and getting smaller towards dawn or dusk.

-
​

My photos are proof enough, to know you are speaking gibberish

 

[prodromos]

My photos are proof enough, to know you are speaking gibberish

Your photos are proof you know how to use a camera, nothing more.
If you take multiple photos of the moon throughout the day with exactly the same zoom etc. you will be able to confirm the truth of my so called 'gibberish'.
Let us know the results.

 

[d taylor]

Your photos are proof you know how to use a camera, nothing more.
If you take multiple photos of the moon throughout the day with exactly the same zoom etc. you will be able to confirm the truth of my so called 'gibberish'.
Let us know the results.

-
​

i do not need further proof as the photo is just an extension of what i actually see. A moon in front of the blue that is behind the moon.

if you need further proof go and take all the photos you want. But you will never take one of the moon 200,000+ miles out in space.

 

[The Liturgist]

-
​

There is no such thing as a three dimensional circle. A circle is not even like a square, which can at least represent one side of a cube.

Nonsense. A sphere is literally a three dimensional circle. This is why shadows of spheres are circular depending on the direction of light, like the shadow the Earth casts on the moon.

 

[prodromos]

i do not need further proof as the photo is just an extension of what i actually see. A moon in front of the blue that is behind the moon.

The "blue" is in front of the moon and is caused by Rayleigh Scattering. You can easily see that the moon has a blue tint when photographed during the day, but lacks the tint when photographed at night.

if you need further proof go and take all the photos you want. But you will never take one of the moon 200,000+ miles out in space.

Blah, blah, blah

 

[d taylor]

-

​

Here is a photo i took Tuesday and it is a good example of showing how the moon's light is being emitted from the surface or right below the surface of the moon. Every white area on the moon is light being emitted and even at some of the places, can be seen the beam or beams of light being emitted.

​

 

[d taylor]

Nonsense. A sphere is literally a three dimensional circle. This is why shadows of spheres are circular depending on the direction of light, like the shadow the Earth casts on the moon.

-
​

A circle is a shape consisting of all points in a plane that are at a given distance from a given point, the centre.

A sphere is not a plane

 

[prodromos]

-

​

Here is a photo i took Tuesday and it is a good example of showing how the moon's light is being emitted from the surface or right below the surface of the moon. Every white area on the moon is light being emitted and even at some of the places, can be seen the beam or beams of light being emitted.

View attachment 353622



​

Surprise Surprise, it lacks the blue tint of your daylight photo.

 

[The Liturgist]

-
​

A circle is a shape consisting of all points in a plane that are at a given distance from a given point, the centre.

A sphere is not a plane

In this respect a sphere is exactly like a cube. You can slice a sphere any which way and get a circular plane, and you can slice a rectangle any which way and get a rectangular plane, and so on.

What is more, in a sphere, all points on the surface of the sphere are equidistant from the center. Earth is of course not a perfectly smooth sphere, but a spheroid, although it does smooth out considerably in terms of the atmosphere, but there is a slight bulge towards the equator. Nonetheless, it is close enough to a sphere that a spherical globe and spherical instruments such as an artificial horizon and related gyroscopes are viable means of measuring distance, that are superior to any 2D map due to the distortion.

 

[The Liturgist]

Surprise Surprise, it lacks the blue tint of your daylight photo.

Indeed. This, and the existence of the flights around the Southern Hemisphere that don’t take ages to complete, are proof positive of the round Earth.

There is an important moral issue with some Flat Earthers, whol have falsely accused everyone who has worked for the various space agencies and commercial space companies in a scientific, technical or astronautical capacity such as pilots, astronauts and cosmonauts, as liars, as well as other professionals whose work causes them to be extremely familiar with the round shape of the Earth, for example, pilots flying high altitude aircraft.

This is why I think Christians should oppose the Flat Earth movement, because it is not only false, but is using Christianity as the basis for falsely accusing people of intentional dishonesty.

 

[d taylor]

Surprise Surprise, it lacks the blue tint of your daylight photo.

-
​

All that proves is that the moon is out in day light. The blue tint being picked up by the camera, is more than likely is coming from light reflecting off of water. It certainly does not prove that the moon is being seen through layers of atmosphere.

 

[d taylor]

In this respect a sphere is exactly like a cube. You can slice a sphere any which way and get a circular plane, and you can slice a rectangle any which way and get a rectangular plane, and so on.

What is more, in a sphere, all points on the surface of the sphere are equidistant from the center. Earth is of course not a perfectly smooth sphere, but a spheroid, although it does smooth out considerably in terms of the atmosphere, but there is a slight bulge towards the equator. Nonetheless, it is close enough to a sphere that a spherical globe and spherical instruments such as an artificial horizon and related gyroscopes are viable means of measuring distance, that are superior to any 2D map due to the distortion.

-
​

Slice a sphere into and you end up with a dome. As for your rectangle, that only works if all sides of the rectangle are rectangles. If the ends of the rectangle are square, then when sliced you will get a square.

Not a single circle in the picture

 

[The Liturgist]

Slice a sphere into and you end up with a dome.

Nope, that’s if you bifurcate it. And if you bifurcate a cube you will get two six-sided shapes of rectangular proportion that if stacked would equal the cube.

If you make a 2D slice of a sphere, or a cube, you get a circle, or a square, respectively. Likewise, a 2D slice of a tetrahedron (a four sided three dimensional polygon, which some people call a three-sided pyramid) will yield a triangle.

 

[The Liturgist]

-
​

All that proves is that the moon is out in day light. The blue tint being picked up by the camera, is more than likely is coming from light reflecting off of water. It certainly does not prove that the moon is being seen through layers of atmosphere.

Untrue, because if the moon was reflecting off of water during the day, it should retain the bluish hint of water reflections at night, and furthermore, the way water reflects presents a pattern that conforms to the uneven surface of the water, with the waves reflected, like what one sees on the ceiling of a swimming pool, and we don’t see that in your photo.

And this is all irrelevant, because we know from both solar eclipses and the monthly lunar cycle that the moon is not its own source of light. The moon is literally covered by a shadow of the Earth which can be discerned, whenever it is in a gibbous or crescent shape or is a new moon. Only a full moon is not covered by a shadow from the Earth, and this has to do with the relative orbits of the Earth and Moon to the Sun, over a cycle that is close to a month in length, hence the word “month.”

And this is how God provides us with guidance about the seasons, through the predictable movement of the moon and the constellations across the night sky on an annual basis, which is the result of the orbit of the Earth (which is the only phenomenon that explains all of the facts concerning the visible starfield).

 

[prodromos]

The blue tint being picked up by the camera, is more than likely is coming from light reflecting off of water.

Prior to this post, I assumed you had more than a basic understanding of photography. Now I'm beginning to wonder if you even have that.
Where have you ever seen reflected light cause a light source to appear a different colour, seeing as you claim the moon is a light source and not a reflector of light. It sounds to me like you just pulled that out from where the sun don't shine.

 

[prodromos]

All that proves is that the moon is out in day light. The blue tint being picked up by the camera, is more than likely is coming from light reflecting off of water. It certainly does not prove that the moon is being seen through layers of atmosphere.

Haven't you taken photos of the undersides of passenger jets flying at high altitude? If you have then you see they have the same blue tint as the moon.