Why are we able to see the Moon?

The moon provides its own light...

I've searched all the current scientific references I could find, and none support this bizarre notion.

In folklore, moonlight sometimes has a harmful influence.  For example, sleeping in the light of a full moon on certain nights was said to transform a person into a werewolf.  The light of the moon was thought to worsen the symptoms of lunatics, and to sleep in moonlight could make one blind, or mad.  Nyctalopia (night blindness caused by a lack of vitamin A) was thought to be caused by sleeping in moonlight in the tropics.

However, in the real world, "moonlight" is the reflected light that reaches earth from the moon, consisting mostly of sunlight, with some starlight and earthlight reflected from those portions of its surface which the sun's light strikes.  The full moon is about 1,000,000 times fainter than the sun and has an albedo of 0.136, meaning only 13.6% of sunlight incident on the moon is reflected.

Could you please cite some references that support your contrary claim that the moon "provides its own light" or is self-illuminating.

Fantasy? You're the one who decides NASA photos cannot be trusted, but fairy photos can. You're the guy who believes space itself is rubbing against the moon to make it white-hot.

try to stay on topic. you seem to have no knowledge of how photo manipulation changes with time.
the friction of space and the moon is indeed a complex topic, but cursory thought makes it clear that if part of the moon is constantly in motion (motion being movement over distance, or through space), that which it rubs against will be heated by friction. the movement of space fills the role perfectly.
not being willing to think about what you're trying to poke holes in is a bad habit.

Quote from: Misero on April 04, 2015, 05:58:07 AM

Fantasy? You're the one who decides NASA photos cannot be trusted, but fairy photos can. You're the guy who believes space itself is rubbing against the moon to make it white-hot.

try to stay on topic. you seem to have no knowledge of how photo manipulation changes with time.
the friction of space and the moon is indeed a complex topic, but cursory thought makes it clear that if part of the moon is constantly in motion (motion being movement over distance, or through space), that which it rubs against will be heated by friction. the movement of space fills the role perfectly.
not being willing to think about what you're trying to poke holes in is a bad habit.

Space cannot, by definition, move.
Moron.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on April 04, 2015, 11:26:59 AM

Quote from: Misero on April 04, 2015, 05:58:07 AM

Fantasy? You're the one who decides NASA photos cannot be trusted, but fairy photos can. You're the guy who believes space itself is rubbing against the moon to make it white-hot.

try to stay on topic. you seem to have no knowledge of how photo manipulation changes with time.
the friction of space and the moon is indeed a complex topic, but cursory thought makes it clear that if part of the moon is constantly in motion (motion being movement over distance, or through space), that which it rubs against will be heated by friction. the movement of space fills the role perfectly.
not being willing to think about what you're trying to poke holes in is a bad habit.

Space cannot, by definition, move.
Moron.

it can't move through space, no, that's absurd. it can still move, or rather move that which exists within it, but that's too much of a mouthful to say repeatedly when it is clear what i mean. try to focus on more than semantics.
semantics and an insult, and you think you're more intelligent. wow.

DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS IDIOT JROWE!!! HE IS NO MORE THAN A DUMB TROLL!!!

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on April 04, 2015, 11:47:39 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on April 04, 2015, 11:26:59 AM

Quote from: Misero on April 04, 2015, 05:58:07 AM

Fantasy? You're the one who decides NASA photos cannot be trusted, but fairy photos can. You're the guy who believes space itself is rubbing against the moon to make it white-hot.

try to stay on topic. you seem to have no knowledge of how photo manipulation changes with time.
the friction of space and the moon is indeed a complex topic, but cursory thought makes it clear that if part of the moon is constantly in motion (motion being movement over distance, or through space), that which it rubs against will be heated by friction. the movement of space fills the role perfectly.
not being willing to think about what you're trying to poke holes in is a bad habit.

Space cannot, by definition, move.
Moron.

it can't move through space, no, that's absurd. it can still move, or rather move that which exists within it, but that's too much of a mouthful to say repeatedly when it is clear what i mean. try to focus on more than semantics.
semantics and an insult, and you think you're more intelligent. wow.

Oh, I am more intelligent than you. Undoubtedly so. Unlike you, or Charles Bloomington, who use insults instead of making a point, I just add them in for spice and flavour after deploying legitimate responses. If you were as intelligent as me you'd get that it isn't actually a semantic distinction at all.
Also, nothing is ever clear what you mean, but that's your whole schtick as a troll, isn't it? That's your persona.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on April 04, 2015, 12:53:20 PM

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on April 04, 2015, 11:47:39 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on April 04, 2015, 11:26:59 AM

Quote from: Misero on April 04, 2015, 05:58:07 AM

Fantasy? You're the one who decides NASA photos cannot be trusted, but fairy photos can. You're the guy who believes space itself is rubbing against the moon to make it white-hot.

try to stay on topic. you seem to have no knowledge of how photo manipulation changes with time.
the friction of space and the moon is indeed a complex topic, but cursory thought makes it clear that if part of the moon is constantly in motion (motion being movement over distance, or through space), that which it rubs against will be heated by friction. the movement of space fills the role perfectly.
not being willing to think about what you're trying to poke holes in is a bad habit.

Space cannot, by definition, move.
Moron.

it can't move through space, no, that's absurd. it can still move, or rather move that which exists within it, but that's too much of a mouthful to say repeatedly when it is clear what i mean. try to focus on more than semantics.
semantics and an insult, and you think you're more intelligent. wow.

Oh, I am more intelligent than you. Undoubtedly so. Unlike you, or Charles Bloomington, who use insults instead of making a point, I just add them in for spice and flavour after deploying legitimate responses. If you were as intelligent as me you'd get that it isn't actually a semantic distinction at all.
Also, nothing is ever clear what you mean, but that's your whole schtick as a troll, isn't it? That's your persona.

i only use insults when someone is deliberately ignoring what i have said, or antagonizes me in turn. if you would read the post, i responded to your statement.
if something is unclear, say what, don't just handwave. otherwise i will have to include you are only evading. you also seem to be insisting space has no effect on matter, which seems absurd. where does matter exist, again?
if you have nothing to offer except blind assertions that i am a troll, when i have made my theory of the earth quite clear and detailed, that says it all, really.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on April 04, 2015, 12:53:20 PM

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on April 04, 2015, 11:47:39 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on April 04, 2015, 11:26:59 AM

Quote from: Misero on April 04, 2015, 05:58:07 AM

Fantasy? You're the one who decides NASA photos cannot be trusted, but fairy photos can. You're the guy who believes space itself is rubbing against the moon to make it white-hot.

try to stay on topic. you seem to have no knowledge of how photo manipulation changes with time.
the friction of space and the moon is indeed a complex topic, but cursory thought makes it clear that if part of the moon is constantly in motion (motion being movement over distance, or through space), that which it rubs against will be heated by friction. the movement of space fills the role perfectly.
not being willing to think about what you're trying to poke holes in is a bad habit.

Space cannot, by definition, move.
Moron.

it can't move through space, no, that's absurd. it can still move, or rather move that which exists within it, but that's too much of a mouthful to say repeatedly when it is clear what i mean. try to focus on more than semantics.
semantics and an insult, and you think you're more intelligent. wow.

Oh, I am more intelligent than you. Undoubtedly so. Unlike you, or Charles Bloomington, who use insults instead of making a point, I just add them in for spice and flavour after deploying legitimate responses. If you were as intelligent as me you'd get that it isn't actually a semantic distinction at all.
Also, nothing is ever clear what you mean, but that's your whole schtick as a troll, isn't it? That's your persona.

Do you have eyes? Don't respond to JRowe, he is a troll.

DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS IDIOT JROWE!!! HE IS NO MORE THAN A DUMB TROLL!!!

What is your problem?! Seriously, get a life, this is getting tedious now. I hope you're entertained by repeating the same pointless posts, no one else is.
If you don't like talking with trolls, go to a different site. Have you been paying attention? JRowe is probably the least likely to be a troll in that he's put more effort and originality than most into creating a 'theory', while Jroa's old posts are that of a Round Earther, Pongo's... Pongo, and Vauxhall has sex with turtles.
If you want to have serious discussion about FET rather than having lighter fun, head over to tfes.org and stop being a pain here. If you're not going to do that, stop complaining that there are trolls on this site. Everyone is fully aware of that fact. It's fun.

Quote from: LogicalKiller on April 04, 2015, 01:05:27 PM

DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS IDIOT JROWE!!! HE IS NO MORE THAN A DUMB TROLL!!!

What is your problem?! Seriously, get a life, this is getting tedious now. I hope you're entertained by repeating the same pointless posts, no one else is.
If you don't like talking with trolls, go to a different site. Have you been paying attention? JRowe is probably the least likely to be a troll in that he's put more effort and originality than most into creating a 'theory', while Jroa's old posts are that of a Round Earther, Pongo's... Pongo, and Vauxhall has sex with turtles.
If you want to have serious discussion about FET rather than having lighter fun, head over to tfes.org and stop being a pain here. If you're not going to do that, stop complaining that there are trolls on this site. Everyone is fully aware of that fact. It's fun.

Thanks but no thanks.

Thanks but no thanks.

Then stop complaining every time something happens that you don't like.

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on April 04, 2015, 02:07:50 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on April 04, 2015, 12:53:20 PM

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on April 04, 2015, 11:47:39 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on April 04, 2015, 11:26:59 AM

Quote from: Misero on April 04, 2015, 05:58:07 AM

Fantasy? You're the one who decides NASA photos cannot be trusted, but fairy photos can. You're the guy who believes space itself is rubbing against the moon to make it white-hot.

try to stay on topic. you seem to have no knowledge of how photo manipulation changes with time.
the friction of space and the moon is indeed a complex topic, but cursory thought makes it clear that if part of the moon is constantly in motion (motion being movement over distance, or through space), that which it rubs against will be heated by friction. the movement of space fills the role perfectly.
not being willing to think about what you're trying to poke holes in is a bad habit.

Space cannot, by definition, move.
Moron.

it can't move through space, no, that's absurd. it can still move, or rather move that which exists within it, but that's too much of a mouthful to say repeatedly when it is clear what i mean. try to focus on more than semantics.
semantics and an insult, and you think you're more intelligent. wow.

Oh, I am more intelligent than you. Undoubtedly so. Unlike you, or Charles Bloomington, who use insults instead of making a point, I just add them in for spice and flavour after deploying legitimate responses. If you were as intelligent as me you'd get that it isn't actually a semantic distinction at all.
Also, nothing is ever clear what you mean, but that's your whole schtick as a troll, isn't it? That's your persona.

Do you have eyes? Don't respond to JRowe, he is a troll.

I know that. That's why I mention it in my post. I'm with Jane on this, if you don't want to hear him, block him or go elsewhere.

Quote from: LogicalKiller on April 04, 2015, 02:50:38 PM

Thanks but no thanks.

Then stop complaining every time something happens that you don't like.

Thanks but no thanks.

Anybody—such as JRoweSceptimatic—who says that the moon "provides its own light" or is self-illuminating obviously has not the vaguest knowledge of astrophysics.

It's difficult to accept that anybody with even half an operative brain could truly believe this absurd claim.  I'm guessing that JRoweSceptimatic probably also believes it's made out of green cheese LOL.

Incidentally, it's not entirely clear who first to come up with this expression, but it became extremely common starting in the middle-16th century. Credit for the person to originate the expression usually goes to famed French monk and scholar François Rabelais, or the English writer John Heywood.  It seems as though most of JRoweSceptimatic's pseudo-science also dates from the middle-16th century too.

   

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 29, 2015, 07:21:42 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 07:13:51 AM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 29, 2015, 07:09:46 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 07:03:07 AM

Quote from: LogicalKiller on March 29, 2015, 06:59:09 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on March 29, 2015, 06:46:54 AM

can you people please stop treating space as if it has mass? if it does, it doesn't need to accelerate infinitely. if it does not have mass, however, which is what you insisted on earlier, bounding it by light speed or treating it like it's made of particles with mass is nothing more than sheer bs. in addition, we're not dealing with quantum probability waves, we're dealing with substance.

mainframes is the only person who's said anything of any value, however my problem with his statement is that it refers to something in space, not space itself.
i'll try to demonstrate this with three points, a b and c. the distance between b and c is twice that between a and b.

how long does space take to travel from a to be? clearly, it is instantaneous. everywhere that displacement is possible, space is, so any possible distance to travel, space has already covered. this gives us a distance d, and a time of zero. speed is therefore d/0, so infinite.
how far from b to c now? it covers twice the distance, in the same time: zero.
this means space accelerated from a to b, to b to c: and did so in no time at all. this is, by definition, infinite acceleration.

what is your problem with this? not one person has bothered to critique the math round earthers are so obsessed by, you're just asserting. have you no respect for math and equations?

it never fails to surprise me how much round earthers refuse to admit they're wrong, even when doing so doesn't touch their pet theory.

You're right at the beginning - space isn't limited by light speed, so it expands faster than light, but.
Space doesn't travel in universe, it just stays motionless. It doesn't travel, it expands at the edges of universe, but then you can't say about point a, b, and c. It's something like point a is at the edge of the universe and there's a space expanding, and the expansion of space does another points, b, c, d and so on, but then previous points aren't staying at the edge of the universe. Expanding space is like filling very, very blank... thing that doesn't exist. Expanding space makes non-existing medium existing. It brings there time, space itself and with expansion a matter also.

i am concerned with space's speed within itself: that is the only time displacement, and so speed, are relevant. it's nothing to do with the expansion of space.

Space usually has no speed, it's staying still, so you're wrong. Have you got anything beyond assertion?

how is space staying still when it occupies multiple points? i have given you the math, please respond.

You're wrong. Space is occuping multiple points, but motionless. What's wrong with that?

do you understand how speed is calculated?
displacement divided by time. between two points, there is displacement. this happens instantaneously, so the time is zero. a number divided by zero, you get infinity.
what's wrong with that?

You obviously have no idea what space, speed, displacement or even a point is. Displacement means moving from one point IN SPACE to another point IN SPACE. Space does not move through space. Space does not "occupy" multiple points as you say. In fact it doesn't occupy any points at all. Space IS the collection of points themselves, it doesn't exist within itself. Saying that there are two points in space does not mean there is a displacement from one point to the other. And space does not impede the movement of matter through it. Movement itself is purely relative and there is no such thing as absolute motion anyway.

Studying maths at uni person here!
This is one of the few times I'll side with JRowe. We can't technically divide by zero (the operation is badly defined. Including zero, the real numbers aren't closed under division, because zero takes you right out of them).
We can come arbitrarily close, however. We define the function x over epsilon, and let epsilon get as small as we want.
This 'diverges': we can pick any number N, and there will always be an x/epsilon that is larger than N. What that means, is that the function can get arbitrarily large: and that's what mathematicians generally mean by infinity.

If you pick any number, x/epsilon is larger than it. That can be used recursively. For an N1, our function has a value N2 that's larger. For N2, the sequence has a value N3 that's larger... and so on.

The answer is not infinity because if you look at the graph of f(x)=1/x and take the limit as x approaches 0 from the right, f(x) approaches +infinity. However, if you do the same but approaching x=0 from the left, f(x) approaches -infinity. If you graph the function on the complex number plane there are even more ways to take the limit as x-->0 and just as many different answers for 1/0. That is why it is undefined and not infinity. There can only be one limit if the value at that point can be said to be meaningful. The fact that there are multiple possible results means that it must be undefined.

Quote from: BiJane on March 29, 2015, 12:27:06 PM

Studying maths at uni person here!
This is one of the few times I'll side with JRowe. We can't technically divide by zero (the operation is badly defined. Including zero, the real numbers aren't closed under division, because zero takes you right out of them).
We can come arbitrarily close, however. We define the function x over epsilon, and let epsilon get as small as we want.
This 'diverges': we can pick any number N, and there will always be an x/epsilon that is larger than N. What that means, is that the function can get arbitrarily large: and that's what mathematicians generally mean by infinity.

If you pick any number, x/epsilon is larger than it. That can be used recursively. For an N1, our function has a value N2 that's larger. For N2, the sequence has a value N3 that's larger... and so on.

The answer is not infinity because if you look at the graph of f(x)=1/x and take the limit as x approaches 0 from the right, f(x) approaches +infinity. However, if you do the same but approaching x=0 from the left, f(x) approaches -infinity. If you graph the function on the complex number plane there are even more ways to take the limit as x-->0 and just as many different answers for 1/0. That is why it is undefined and not infinity. There can only be one limit if the value at that point can be said to be meaningful. The fact that there are multiple possible results means that it must be undefined.

True, though the argument's been made that positive and negative infinity are equal. Regardless, in the case being proposed, we were only concerned with approaching infinity from the positive, real numbers, to my knowledge, so plus infinity still seems a more reasonable answer.
Of course, it's possible to argue that infinity is never a meaningful answer to a mathematical equation, which is strictly speaking true, but 'arbitrarily large' is functionally the same thing.