Why doesn’t the sun have phases like the moon?

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on July 23, 2025, 06:27:12 AM

So, you don't think the energy from photons transfers?

It’s been covered before in a reality light can transmit through glass.  Or reflect off a mirror. 

Photons keep going until they are absorbed, scattered, refracted.  So on. 

That isn’t just dying.  Where the  inverse square law is that photons become more spread out with distance.  Which isn’t dying.

Why you can use a telescope with a lens bigger than the human and see stars too faint to be seen with the unaided eye.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on July 23, 2025, 06:27:12 AM

Historically, most light bulbs were hot to the touch.

Because incandescent light bulbs make waste heat.  They are like an electric heater.  Only the element called a filament for a bulb is a material when heated to high enough temperature also emits light.  Similar how heating steel can make it glow red, then with enough heat can turn yellow then maybe even white.

Is there anything you can’t Butcher Bulma.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on July 23, 2025, 06:27:12 AM

The sun

Illuminates the solar system and the moon. Similar to trees on earth where the side opposite of facing the sun is in shadow.  Why the moon has phases relative to earth as it orbits earth.  Why a lunar eclipse will disrupt the phases of the moon.

Regarding some of the other stuff.

In your delusional reality, you think light doesn't ever disappear, and you have a sun is 35.73 octillion lumens and 27 million degrees, yet only makes you blind if you stare at intensely. Where did all the extra light and heat go? Meanwhile, these stars won't make you blind even if you stare at them all night long. But they are supposed to be bigger and hotter and brighter. 

And you have stars that you cannot see at all without your telescope. Meaning their light disappears. Completely.  No, you are not "pulling light to yourself." You are extending your eyes' focal length to see light.  And the zoom is not that impressive.  It's mainly magnification and alot of rhetoric tricks (like conflating zoom and magnification).  Instead of looking at the fucking sky, put your telescope to decent use.  Find a very flat plane in Ohio or Kansas or whatever, and tell a friend to run ten miles in one direction while holding a candle. And you will in fact find out that your bullshit telescope probably cannot see that candle. And it's not because of curvature, it's because the candle shrinks to a dot.

Actually, it's because of rules of physics. Unless you are creating pure light (which even the sun does not do), it's basically doing the same thing as two candles with different conditions. One candle is given salt, which tends to make light burn more slowly. The other candle is given lighter fluid.  The latter burns with more brightness and heat, but lasts less time (though the oil itself has a burn time, we're focusing on how long it takes the wax to be consumed). LEDs are closer to pure light, but even they operate on the fundamental rules of Conservation of Energy. Trying to special plead away the rules of conservation of energy as though they do not apply to light is not going to impress me much.

In your delusional reality,

Read what’s posted instead of trying reinvent the argument.

It’s been covered before in a reality light can transmit through glass.  Or reflect off a mirror.

Photons keep going until they are absorbed, scattered, refracted.  So on.

That isn’t just dying.  Where the  inverse square law is that photons become more spread out with distance.  Which isn’t dying.

Why you can use a telescope with a lens bigger than the human and see stars too faint to be seen with the unaided eye.

In your delusional reality, you think light doesn't ever disappear...

Light disappears when it's absorbed by non-reflective matter.  How is that delusional.

...and you have a sun is 35.73 octillion lumens and 27 million degrees, yet only makes you blind if you stare at intensely. Where did all the extra light and heat go?

The sun is a sphere that radiates lights in all directions (129,600 square degrees).  The earth being about 7900 miles in diameter and about 93 million miles from the sun means that the earth receives about .00000005% of the sun's energy.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-much-suns-energy-reaches-earth-mark-bullard

Meanwhile, these stars won't make you blind even if you stare at them all night long. But they are supposed to be bigger and hotter and brighter. 

The sun is about 8.3 light minutes away.  The closest stars are around 5 light years away.  More than a few orders of magnitude farther away.

And you have stars that you cannot see at all without your telescope. Meaning their light disappears. Completely. 

No.  They are just to faint to see.  Big difference.

You are extending your eyes' focal length to see light.  And the zoom is not that impressive.  It's mainly magnification and alot of rhetoric tricks (like conflating zoom and magnification). 

Seeing light has little to do with zoom or magnification.  It has to do with aperture, or light gathering ability.  That's why your pupils dilate when the lights go out.

Instead of looking at the fucking sky, put your telescope to decent use.  Find a very flat plane in Ohio or Kansas or whatever, and tell a friend to run ten miles in one direction while holding a candle. And you will in fact find out that your bullshit telescope probably cannot see that candle. And it's not because of curvature, it's because the candle shrinks to a dot.

It's been said that on a very dark night, one can see a lit match from a mile away.  So why shouldn't a decent telescope see a candle from 10 miles away?

The reason it's called the solar system

Is because our sun is called Sol (yes it has a name, just like the planets), and the system is named after the star.
Your wilful rejection of reality doesn't change this.

At no point is there a shining quarter tree.

In that crappy video maybe. But you can easily get it in real life.
Get a light, a very bright one, and shine it towards a tree.
Then go stand looking at the tree from a right angle from where the light is hitting it.

It is really simple.

The additional complication you will face is that the tree is on Earth, with an atmosphere getting in the way, and lots of surfaces nearby which can scatter the light.

So for best results, put the tree in a pitch black room, as dark as possible, and as large as possible, with the tree suspended in the middle of the room.

This is not hard to understand, and pretty much anyone who has bothered thinking about lighting and shadows understands this.

If the moon's phase actually moved through the sky through rotation, then over the course of a single phase, it should always rise at the same time of day for the same time zone, should it not?

No, it shouldn't.
For the same reason that the sun doesn't rise at the same time for everyone.
The moon is not orbiting perfectly around the equator. So even if you just pick a single line of longitude, it will not rise at the same time every day.

If you want that, you need to pick a point where the moon is above the equator.

You then also need to note that as soon as you go off that same line of longitude, the rise time will vary. Both because you are now looking at a different spot on Earth, and because that change in time is also going to allow the moon to orbit a bit more to change the phase and change when it rises. It gets even more complicated when you change the day.
Again, if you want to do it honestly, look at the time it passes Meridian.

For the moon, however, it doesn't matter what phase it's in. In Chicago, the quarter moonrise on the 2nd is 1pm.

Yes, the 1st quarter moonrise on the 2nd is 1:03 pm, with the timezone UTC-5.
Going back to last month, it is 12:07 pm.
The month before it is 12:05 pm.
The month before it is 10:47 am.
The month before it goes to a different time offset and they had 9:56 am, which would be equivalent to 10:56 am.
Then 10:33 am (equivalent to 11:33 am).
Then 11:09 am (equivalent to 12:09 pm).
And that is half the year.
I can do more if needed. But we see it varies from 10:47 am at the earliest and 2:54 pm at the latest (in August).
That varies by just over 4 hours.
Part of this is simply because the moon isn't aligning its phase to the rise time, so there will be some offset (remember, almost an hour each day).
Meanwhile you are happy with the sun varying from 4 to 9.

But again, being honest and using the meridian, we see (adjusting so all are UTC-5)
6:43 in Jan
7:16
7:08
7:00
7:31
6:54
6:51

Again, such consistency.

If we instead go to Madrid, we very quickly run into a problem.
In Jan, the 1st quarter is 6th for Chicago and 7th for Madrid.
But then in Feb, it is the 5th for both.
This is because the phase happens at a particular point in time
And if you don't take this into account, you will end up off by over an hour.
So I will use the same DAY, so using the dates that the 1st quarter moon is for Chicago, to avoid the day offset.

Again keeping the timezone fixed so all times are UTC+2, we have
7:56
8:27
8:18
8:11
8:44
8:09
8:06

So basically just over 1 hour delayed.

But no, that 1 hour offset is NOT a problem.
That is because time zones are not magically aligned to every city in them.
And there are 2 ways to look at this.
The simplest is using solar noon.
Solar noon was 12:54 in Chicago on the 1nd and in Madrid it was 2:18, so a comparable offset.

So clearly it works fine, and you are still yet to show a fault.

Clearly, the moon is NOT being pulled along by Earth's rotation.

There you go trying to set up another irrelevant strawman.

we kinda have this issue.

You mean you have pathetic vague BS which you just lie about.

Basically, we have the moon in a consistent cycle. But in an orbit around the sun, this is impossible

Why?
Stop just asserting pathetic BS. Clearly explain just what makes it impossible.
Remember, other than a slight change in timings, all it takes to remove a simple orbit is rotating the entire system.

Just look at how utterly pathetic and delusional that crappy diagram is, and look at how pathetic and desperate and brainless it clearly shows you to be.

You appear to want to have the phases of the moon just based upon the angle of the moon in its orbit with absolutely nothing to do with the sun.
So much so that you are happy pretending the full moon should switch to be when the sun is behind the moon, which makes no sense at all.

If you bothered thinking about that complete and utter crap for a second you would realise it is crap.
But because you are far more interested in pretending the RE doesn't work, you are happy to regurgitate it here like a good little cultist.

Nor is it a solid sphere
or it would significantly be different from the phases depicted.

Try again.
It isn't a highly polished sphere.

Now stop with all the pathetic BS, and start explaining how the phases of the moon work in your delusional fantasy or show an actual problem with the RE, and again, vague pathetic crap and your pathetic lies don't count.

Read what’s posted instead of trying reinvent the argument.

It’s been covered before in a reality light can transmit through glass.  Or reflect off a mirror.

Photons keep going until they are absorbed, scattered, refracted.  So on.

That isn’t just dying.  Where the  inverse square law is that photons become more spread out with distance.  Which isn’t dying.

At what point does not dying become indistinguishable from dead?

1% light?
0.01%?
0.000001%
0.000000000000000001%?

Yeah, maybe light technically lasts forever in your suspension of disbelief and suspension of conservation of energy worldview.  But if it actually doesn't seem bright at all, that's kind of irrelevant. In a RE system, since light doesn't round corners easily, once sun sets, we should have some brief twilight, and then a very abrupt night time. Instead, we have gradations of twilight, starting with civil twilight, then nautical twilight, then astronomical twilight. As if the sun, despite not being visible, is still overhead, and is moving further outside of view.

At what point

Do some research and invest in some equipment for practical knowledge.  It’s lens diameter/aperture that lets a person imagine dimmer and dimmer stars.  Not focal length.  I can use the right eyepieces to get a 600mm focal length telescope and a 1000mm focal length telescope to have the same magnification.

But a 600mm focal length telescope with a 10 inch diameter lens is going to imagine stars whole magnitudes dimmer than a 1000mm focal length telescope with a 1 inch lens.

Bulma.  Done trying to derail this thread?

Why are phases of the moon interrupted by lunar eclipses.   Because the moon is illuminated by the sun. 

At what point does not dying become indistinguishable from dead?

What is the life cycle of light?  How is it born?  How does it die?

1% light?
0.01%?
0.000001%
0.000000000000000001%?

Relative to what?  What is 0.000001% light compared to 100% light?  You really need to learn how to ask questions that make sense.

Yeah, maybe light technically lasts forever in your suspension of disbelief and suspension of conservation of energy worldview. 

You keep saying "light" when you should be saying "photons" which are the smallest unit of electromagnetic radiation (which includes, but is not limited to, visible light).

But if it actually doesn't seem bright at all, that's kind of irrelevant.

If it doesn't seem bright, it's because there are few photons to be seen.

In a RE system, since light doesn't round corners easily, once sun sets, we should have some brief twilight, and then a very abrupt night time. Instead, we have gradations of twilight, starting with civil twilight, then nautical twilight, then astronomical twilight. As if the sun, despite not being visible, is still overhead, and is moving further outside of view.

Or, as if the sun has moved behind the horizon but its light is being refracted, diffused and dispersed for some time by the atmosphere.

At what point does not dying become indistinguishable from dead?

That depends on the instrument in question, the background, and if you going to be so utterly stupid to use a percentage, the intensity of the source.

1% of a candle is nothing compared to 0.000000000000000001% of the sun.

Yeah, maybe light technically lasts forever in your suspension of disbelief and suspension of conservation of energy worldview.

How many times are you planning on repeating the same pathetic refuted BS.
Again, conservation of energy DEMANDS it lasts forever.
That it cannot simply die.
Because light IS energy. And for that photon to stop existing, that energy has to go somewhere.
i.e. it has to be absorbed by something.

In a RE system, since light doesn't round corners easily, once sun sets, we should have some brief twilight, and then a very abrupt night time.

No, we shouldn't.
With a round Earth and no atmosphere, the sun should set and it should be dark, without any twilight.
With a round Earth with an atmosphere, the sun should set for those on the ground, yet still be shining for the air above them, giving us twilight and resulting in a gradual change to night.

Conversely, for a delusional FE system, where the ability to see the light is based upon distance, we should have the light around us gradually fade turning to night while the sun is still clearly visible.
Then only after it is night, should the sun eventually shrink to a point and/or fade into the background.
And if you have a north pole centred flat Earth, then the further south you go, including during the southern summer, the fewer daylight hours you should have.

What we see is fundamentally incompatible with a flat Earth, yet is exactly what is expected for a round Earth.

But again, this has NOTHING to do with the phases of the moon.
Something which only works with the RE model.
Something you are yet to show a single fault with the RE model and instead need to repeatedly lie.
Something you are yet to provide an explanation for for the FE model other than "[MAGIC!]".

How about you try to address that, or admit you have no explanation and cannot show a fault with the RE model?

More absurdity.

The sun is (said to be) 100 times the size of the Earth, but yet takes up 1/200th of the sky. How do I know this? Because on a earlier post, I created a 10 x 10 grid, and it fit inside on tiny box. Oh wait, I forgot the roof of the sky. Maybe 1/300th.

In civil twilight, the light of the sun is (said to be) "below" (beyond) the horizon by 6°. By 18°, it is astronomical twilight, and beyond that, night.

The light of the sun is simply an image (reminder) of the glory of God, not the real thing. I don't worship the sun, so I am not in awe of it. It's just a disc, and I say to it...


If even the image of God is so bright that it hurts your eyes, you ought to be in awe of the real thing, and not make of exaggerated numbers.

Relative to what?  What is 0.000001% light compared to 100% light?  You really need to learn how to ask questions that make sense.

What is 0.000001% of 100%? Even if you have full sunlight, if you then puff up the size then scatter it over distance, the result is the same. Whereas if the sun is really less than 3000 miles away, matters are significantly more manageable.

More absurdity.

On your part certainly.

The sun is (said to be) 100 times the size of the Earth, but yet takes up 1/200th of the sky.

Wrong again.
The sky is roughly a hemisphere, with Earth blocking the view to the other half.
That gives a total angular area of 2*pi steradians.
A rough approximation of the size of the sun is 0.000015 steradians.
That makes it closer to a 400 000th of the sky

But this is just you yet again appealing to pathetic crap because you can't address the topic of discussion.
If you need to understand this, this video can help:

God

Your imaginary fiend doesn't help you explain the phases of the moon. The best you get is you have no idea.

Whereas if the sun is really less than 3000 miles away

Then loads of things fail to match reality, including the phases of the moon.

Something you still can't explain, nor show any fault with the RE explanation.

More absurdity.

.

Address what was posted Bulma.

Do some research and invest in some equipment for practical knowledge.  It’s lens diameter/aperture that lets a person imagine dimmer and dimmer stars.  Not focal length.  I can use the right eyepieces to get a 600mm focal length telescope and a 1000mm focal length telescope to have the same magnification.

But a 600mm focal length telescope with a 10 inch diameter lens is going to imagine stars whole magnitudes dimmer than a 1000mm focal length telescope with a 1 inch lens.

Bulma.  Done trying to derail this thread?

Why are phases of the moon interrupted by lunar eclipses.   Because the moon is illuminated by the sun.

Hasn't it occurred to you?

Remember a few weeks back, when I tried to take a picture of the moon, and though my eyes could see it, I got a blurry and out of focus moon?

Even if your eyes are good enough, if the actual distance of a thing is  billions of miles away, there should be a disparity between what your eyes see and what the camera picks up. Mean that at a sunset, when the sun appears huge to your eyes, you pull out and take a shot of the sun and when you develop the picture, you're greeted with a strangely tiny sun. The sun and moon ought to also appear different sizes from how they look to our eyes, if it is an optical illusion. And the camera should expose some of this, because it is made differently from our eyes. But yet it shows the sun and moon the exact same size, even though it is made from a cheap frame and glass when you get past all the bells and whistles.

I'm not a camera geek. I used to be one, and I'd take shot after shot on vacations. But then I saw the best moments of my life and none of them I had a camera for, because we left it at home, and it was collecting dust. I now get better This was back when cameras were like 200mm lens average, and I never bought any lens add-ons. So you lost me with some of this jargon, but I'm guessing your doing some magnification with a 10x lens in addition to zoom, and you're fooled by the magnification and expecting it to enhance zoom.
Magnification does not increase distance. If zoom pulls to an object that you couldn't see, like a squirrel 2000 ft away, magnification allows you to see the squirrel as though it were 10x as big at that distance, so the tiny squirrel appears huge. But to see a deer at 4000 feet away you need more zoom, not more magnification.

You overestimate technology, and build its function around your delusions. Then you're surprised when I can do things without any technology. Like find north with no compass.

The really absurd thing is that you got away from the topic of the sun and moon and into camera stuff, which I largely make do with the subpar camera of my current Kindle (I think my old Kindle was better, but yeah "new" Kindle built using cheaper materials). And you think don't notice this glaring inconsistency. It's okay if you derail the conversation, but if I mention how light scatters, you'll just sorta pretend that didn't address the topic and and switch to camera talk.

---

So which thing posted do you want me to address. What you write? What JackBlack writes? What Markjo writes? Because it's exhausting to put up with the lot of you. Unless you're gonna admit that you're all a single troll using multiple accounts.

---

What is the life cycle of light?  How is it born?  How does it die?

You guys are the ones who use the term "die."

You keep saying "light" when you should be saying "photons" which are the smallest unit of electromagnetic radiation (which includes, but is not limited to, visible light).

We have behaved as though motes of lights are an object, nay, an immortal thing by naming them photons. But we do not do the same for heat. Thermal radiation or electrical radiation, we treat them differently.


See those tiny particles of a flame? The poor things have no name. They aren't pyrons or thermites or even flame motes. They are  correctly understood as heat that warms the air. And we can see these flame particles transfer heat into the air, and have it  mix with cool air during a cool night. And we can see it break down over distance, and we can feel it do the same, especially on a cold night.

But because you gave it a name (photons), oh no, the rules don't apply to this, it's important. Nothing more than the worship of light as an idol.

Lacking a name, I asked the AI, "light is to photon as heat is to" they gave me thermal energy. Which is wrong. Photons are light particles. There is no heat equivalent, because we happen to know that heat breaks down

 (you'll see that I use the term "breaks down" or "converted", not "dies", that's Data's handiwork mostly), and we can't maintain the lie because we have experience very cold places. But light? Light is cute. It doesn't destroy forests with fires, so let's call it a name. And claim that it extends forever. Sounds like special pleading to me.



While we on Earth universally see that both light and heat are conserved, special pleading says that supposedly super-distant stars (what Joseph Smith dubbed telestial, meaning "distant" rather than celestial "of the heavens") can have their light reach notionI showed said video not to show that I agree with its message but to show that this man at least understands there is a contradiction between conservation of energy which governs things like this


 (and which cannot be called a law unless it is upheld by the universe) and the notion that light from distant stars can be seen, which involves release of energy outward without exhausting the star.

I like the comment on the "Why don't perpetual motion machines ever work?" video.

Why don't we just get rid of these laws of thermodynamics, seems like a simple solution

To which commenters say "everything would be on fire". and that's pretty much how things would work if conservation of energy didn't work for light. All those stars we see would oversaturate Earth with light radiation. They don't. As the physics professor says, "I'm still alive. Physics works!"

Hasn't it occurred to you?

That you try to change the argument.

Address what was posted Bulma.

Do some research and invest in some equipment for practical knowledge.  It’s lens diameter/aperture that lets a person imagine dimmer and dimmer stars.  Not focal length.  I can use the right eyepieces to get a 600mm focal length telescope and a 1000mm focal length telescope to have the same magnification.

But a 600mm focal length telescope with a 10 inch diameter lens is going to imagine stars whole magnitudes dimmer than a 1000mm focal length telescope with a 1 inch lens.

Bulma.  Done trying to derail this thread?

Why are phases of the moon interrupted by lunar eclipses.   Because the moon is illuminated by the sun.

Address what was posted Bulma.

Again. Changing the topic, then accusing me of changing the topic.

I do not have to address what has been posted.

The topic is:
Why doesn’t the sun have phases like the moon?

Do some research and invest in some equipment for practical knowledge.  It’s lens diameter/aperture that lets a person imagine dimmer and dimmer stars.  Not focal length.  I can use the right eyepieces to get a 600mm focal length telescope and a 1000mm focal length telescope to have the same magnification.

But a 600mm focal length telescope with a 10 inch diameter lens is going to imagine stars whole magnitudes dimmer than a 1000mm focal length telescope with a 1 inch lens.

Bulma.  Done trying to derail this thread?

Which is a literal cut and paste of this about three posts ago.

Do some research and invest in some equipment for practical knowledge.  It’s lens diameter/aperture that lets a person imagine dimmer and dimmer stars.  Not focal length.  I can use the right eyepieces to get a 600mm focal length telescope and a 1000mm focal length telescope to have the same magnification.

But a 600mm focal length telescope with a 10 inch diameter lens is going to imagine stars whole magnitudes dimmer than a 1000mm focal length telescope with a 1 inch lens.

Bulma.  Done trying to derail this thread?

I'm not the one derailing the thread with senseless jargon about cameras.

---

Why are phases of the moon interrupted by lunar eclipses.   Because the moon is illuminated by the sun.

This is at least on topic. But it is most likely a begging the question fallacy. You've already assumed the answer before even asking the question.

If the phases of the moon being interrupted by lunar eclipse was really caused by the moon being illuminated by the sun, every single new moon should result in an eclipse. After all, you say the light of the sun hitting the moon from the back of the Earth is business as usual. What, is the sun flickering like a light bulb in a storm?

No, that doesn't "prove" the moon is illuminated by the sun. If anything, it proves there is a third object besides the sun and moon.

Quote

What is the life cycle of light?  How is it born?  How does it die?

You guys are the ones who use the term "die."

I don’t.  I only said it because you kept saying it.

Quote

You keep saying "light" when you should be saying "photons" which are the smallest unit of electromagnetic radiation (which includes, but is not limited to, visible light).

We have behaved as though motes of lights are an object, nay, an immortal thing by naming them photons. But we do not do the same for heat. Thermal radiation or electrical radiation, we treat them differently.

Actually, infrared radiation (A.K.A.thermal radiation) is transmitted by photons that have a lower wavelength than visible light.

See those tiny particles of a flame? The poor things have no name. They aren't pyrons or thermites or even flame motes.

They’re called sparks.

Sorry but I’m on my phone and that’s all the nonsense I can handle for one post.

The topic is:
Why doesn’t the sun have phases like the moon?

That you try to change the argument.

Address what was posted Bulma.

Do some research and invest in some equipment for practical knowledge.  It’s lens diameter/aperture that lets a person imagine dimmer and dimmer stars.  Not focal length.  I can use the right eyepieces to get a 600mm focal length telescope and a 1000mm focal length telescope to have the same magnification.

But a 600mm focal length telescope with a 10 inch diameter lens is going to imagine stars whole magnitudes dimmer than a 1000mm focal length telescope with a 1 inch lens.

Bulma.  Done trying to derail this thread?

Why are phases of the moon interrupted by lunar eclipses.   Because the moon is illuminated by the sun.

Remember a few weeks back, when I tried to take a picture of the moon, and though my eyes could see it, I got a blurry and out of focus moon?

Yes, you are incapable of using a camera, or aren't using a decent one.
That doesn't show anything of merit.

Even if your eyes are good enough, if the actual distance of a thing is  billions of miles away, there should be a disparity between what your eyes see and what the camera picks up.

No, this entirely depends on the camera, and settings (and your eyes).

Mean that at a sunset, when the sun appears huge to your eyes, you pull out and take a shot of the sun and when you develop the picture, you're greeted with a strangely tiny sun.

Only if you are incompetent.

fooled by the magnification and expecting it to enhance zoom.

Again, magnification and zoom are the same thing.
The only distinction is if you are doing it digitally vs optically.
Optically, they both take light and refract it to change the angle, meaning the angular size of an object increases with more zoom/magnification.
Digitally (or through other techniques), you just make the picture (or region of the picture) bigger.

Neither brings the object closer.
Do you know what does? Moving towards the object.

But notice how again you try to flee to pathetic semantic BS and irrelevant distractions, rather than explaining the phases of the moon.

So which thing posted do you want me to address.

The phases of the moon, what causes them?

You guys are the ones who use the term "die."

There you go playing BS semantic games rather than addressing the issue, while still trying to deflect.

The topic is:
Why doesn’t the sun have phases like the moon?

And yet you refuse to engage with it.

Which is a literal cut and paste of this about three posts ago.
I'm not the one derailing the thread with senseless jargon about cameras.

Which was done in direct to your pathetic BS attempts to derail the thread. And it explicitly called you out on that.

This is at least on topic. But it is most likely a begging the question fallacy.

No, it isn't.
It asks a simple question, and it provides an answer which actually works.

If the phases of the moon being interrupted by lunar eclipse was really caused by the moon being illuminated by the sun, every single new moon should result in an eclipse.

No, it shouldn't, as already explained you pathetic, lying POS.
Again, an eclipse requires a fairly good alignment, while a new moon and full moon happen regardless of how good the alignment is.

And again, if you actually track the angles properly, you see when there is that good an alignment, you do get an eclipse.
When the alignment is not that good, you don't but still get a new moon or full moon.


Now, done with all the pathetic BS, and going to actually try explaining how the phases of the moon work in your pathetic fantasy?

The phases of the moon, what causes them?

Shrugs..


Supposedly…

My theory is that the moon's phases are due to the way the moon's light charges and decharges, and that this day, contrary to the normal pattern of things, went new moon and fully obstructed the light of the sun as a perfect daylight new moon lunar eclipse.

Added.  I guess theory is loosely being used.  More like fantasy. 

Added.  I guess theory is loosely being used.  More like fantasy.

It's in my Bible. See?

And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky for the illumination of the day, to give directional light on Earth, and to watch¹ over the day and the night, and to separate between the day and the night. And let them be for signs, for seasons, for days, and for years.  And let them be for lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on Earth." And it was so.  And God made the two great lights: the greater light to rule over the day, and the lesser light to govern the night.  The sun was bright enough that it provided light and heat at any distance that it could be seen, but the moon was cooling and slowly brightened or dimmed over the course of a month.  And God made also the stars, to watch humanity to a lesser extent when night was at its darkest.  And God set them in the expanse of the sky to shine above all who lived on Earth, to separate the light from the darkness.  And God set a line between the sky and the land called it "horizon" and set the sun and moon to rise and to set upon the horizon, and for view to converge on the horizon.  And God set a great wheel in the sky, and set the stars on course with it, and named the center of this the "pole."²  And the land in the center was named Atland (אטלנטיס)³, and in its center was a great tree, a tree that God planted, which supported the connection of life to the divine, and was directly beneath the star above the pole.  And God saw that it was good.  There was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.

---

₁ To "watch" as in the sun (Uriel), the moon (Sariel), and the stars are all watchers, or angels.
₂ Note there is no mention of planets. Planets ( πλανωμένοι ἀστέρες ) are wandering stars and not three-dimensional masses of rock or gas.  The moon itself is mentioned as a "light" and not a solid mass that reflects light.  The round Earth theory has lied to people for years. The stars, sun, and moon shine light on the Earth.  Also note that there are day and night before there is a created sun and moon, these are not necessary for day or night.  The sun does not actually descend when it sets, it is always overhead, and perspective makes it appear to rise and fall.  In other words, at the same altitude, as the sun moves past, it will go up to 90 degrees and back down until it disappears from view.
₃ The Hebrew text reads "Atlantis."

If it's in the Bible (that I wrote ) then it must be so.

If it's in the Bible (that I wrote ) then it must be so.

I can’t wait to get to the part where Jesus raises the dead while reassigning their gender.

It's in my Bible. See?

Is Polaris in the bible as the North Star? 

Are lunar eclipses in the Bible?  Added: Or craters that are all over the surface of the moon. 

Where you elevate the lies of Eric D above god and creation when convenient. 

I know lying and bearing false witness is a sin.

Yet Bulma you are a pathological liar.

Care to address why you lied or are brainwashed into believing the lie Polaris is fixed, static, and sits on the northern celestial pole when it’s proven Polaris circles the northern celestial pole.

Bulma.  Care to address why lunar eclipses interrupt the phase of the moon.   

It's in my Bible. See?

No, no explanation is found there.

Again, done with all the pathetic BS, and going to actually try explaining how the phases of the moon work in your pathetic fantasy?

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on July 28, 2025, 08:12:44 PM

It's in my Bible. See?

Is Polaris in the bible as the North Star? 

Are lunar eclipses in the Bible?  Added: Or craters that are all over the surface of the moon. 

Where you elevate the lies of Eric D above god and creation when convenient. 

I know lying and bearing false witness is a sin.

Yet Bulma you are a pathological liar.

Care to address why you lied or are brainwashed into believing the lie Polaris is fixed, static, and sits on the northern celestial pole when it’s proven Polaris circles the northern celestial pole.

Bulma.  Care to address why lunar eclipses interrupt the phase of the moon.

Eric Dubay is not in this book.

But the Bible was flat Earth before I came. I only enhanced its level.

‘Now these were the visions in my mind as I lay on my bed: I was looking, and behold, there was a tree in the midst of the earth and its height was great. ‘The tree grew large and became strong
And its height reached to the sky,
And it was visible to the end of the whole earth.

Again, the devil *took Him to a very high mountain and  showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory;

He established the earth upon its foundations,
So that it will not totter forever and ever.

I did not put anything before God. Because nothing is beyond God.

This Bible also contains:

• Roco the fox from In The Beginning, the Bible anime
• Ancient aliens (sorta, though they were already mentioned)
• Giants (already mentioned!)
• An ancient nuclear war, as described in Hindu religious texts
• Elves
• Beastkin
• The sinking of Atlantis
• The World Tree

Huh. It does not include anything about eclipses. I guess I don't consider them important.

Are you suggesting that our understanding of the earth hasn’t improved over the past few thousand years?

This Bible also contains:

That lying and bearing false witness are sins where you been proven to be a pathological liar. Added. You know.  Things that are actually commandments.  But why let that get in the way of your trolling Bulma. 

Now.

Care to address why you lied or are brainwashed into believing the lie Polaris is fixed, static, and sits on the northern celestial pole when it’s proven Polaris circles the northern celestial pole.

Bulma.  Care to address why lunar eclipses interrupt the phases of the moon.   

Are you suggesting that our understanding of the earth hasn’t improved over the past few thousand years?

No, I'm not.

I'm suggest you've actually devolved in your understanding, because you've allowed "experts" to decide orthodoxy. 

Science comes from test ideas through experiments. When you don't do that, you trade one superstition (e.g. "demons cause disease") for another (e.g. "there are tiny particles called germs, and they spread through contact points, and washing regularly kills them").

Now, you may not think that it's superstitious, but the facts don't care. When no amount of cleaning will kill COVID or you get allergies despite regular hygiene while that family over there that never bathes lacks any allergy to milk, fish, or nuts (diminishing the idea of hygiene), when you have psychosomatic illness or develop aforementioned COVID without meeting another soul for months (diminishing the idea of communicability), the theory should at least be revised to include new wrinkles. If it isn't, then you have yourself a dogma.

This Bible also contains:

Lots of fantasy BS. It clearly is not a book describing reality.

And do you know what is entirely absent?
An explanation of the phases. That is something you lack as well.

I'm suggest you've actually devolved in your understanding, because you've allowed "experts" to decide orthodoxy.

And why do you think that?
Because you can't handle reality, and we accept reality which doesn't match your delusional fantasy.

Science comes from test ideas through experiments.

And that includes things like Earth being round and the moon simply reflecting the light of the sun.
Something supported by plenty of experiments.
Things you reject, because they don't match your fantasy.

What YOU have is dogma and delusional BS.

Now again, care to stop with all the pathetic BS, and actually try explaining how the phases of the moon work in your pathetic fantasy?

Science comes from test ideas through experiments. When you don't do that, you trade one superstition (e.g. "demons cause disease") for another (e.g. "there are tiny particles called germs, and they spread through contact points, and washing regularly kills them").

So believing that germs making you sick is a superstition?  Wow.  What counts as science in your book?

Now, you may not think that it's superstitious, but the facts don't care. When no amount of cleaning will kill COVID...

COVID is a respiratory disease that is primarily (but not solely) transmitted by viruses floating around in the air.  That's why people who masked up and or socially distanced tended to get sick less than those who didn't.

...or you get allergies despite regular hygiene while that family over there that never bathes lacks any allergy to milk, fish, or nuts (diminishing the idea of hygiene)...

Not sure what hygiene has to do with allergies, especially food allergies. 
https://www.carolinaasthma.com/blog/what-causes-a-person-to-develop-allergies/#how-do-people

...when you have psychosomatic illness...

Psychosomatic illness is when you stress yourself out into being sick.

...or develop aforementioned COVID without meeting another soul for months (diminishing the idea of communicability), the theory should at least be revised to include new wrinkles. If it isn't, then you have yourself a dogma.

Most theories, including allergies, COVID and the shape of the earth have been revised many times over the years as we learn more.  But thanks for admitting that FE is ancient dogma.

Science comes from test ideas through experiments.

Which we did with Polaris

Where it was shown to circle the northern celestial pole.

Where Bulma you are brainwashed and cannot accept the results of an experiment you can you yourself.

Bulma.  You are a hypocrite and a pathological liar.

Bulma.  Why are you brainwashed into believing lies. 

That's why people who masked up and or socially distanced tended to get sick less than those who didn't.

When I was in the military for nuclear, biological, chemical training.  I would have been drummed out for wearing one of these cheap Chinese face masks.  Or something made out of a t-shirt.  They are ineffective.  Personal protective gear is made to protect you.  Relying on someone else to wear their mask correctly is not personal protection for you.  Going to a restaurant having to wear a mask to get seated then taking your mask off to eat is stupid makes wearing a mask irrelevant.

Going into public seeing people move down their masks to talk makes masks irrelevant.


 Seeing people walk around with their noses uncovered makes masks irrelevant. 

Making children who weren’t going to wear cheap masks correctly wear masks when a good ventilation system with proper turnover rates and UV sterilization is more effective was stupid.  Cities made restaurants put up stupid plexiglass barriers, but couldn’t upgrade ventilation systems for schools?  Where it’s an OSHA standard that you are to eliminate the need for personal protective Equipment if you can use engineering controls. 


Have you had to wear a mask for long periods of times.  As in hours while working.  I have.  It sucks.  It leads to increased feelings of anxiety, confinement, and claustrophobia. 

One of the plants I worked out during the summer. We would soak through our masks with in minutes making masks irrelevant. 

Know what industry trains two.  The only way to wear a mask effectively is one that is donned correctly, that seals, worn correctly, removed correctly, disposed of correctly. 

Used masks on the ground was disgusting.

Here’s something to think about.  One of the routes I had to take to work was also used by garbage trucks during COVID.  Ever been behind a garbage truck in the rain with sludge blowing off of it.  Knowing it’s full of dirty diapers and used face masks?  I don’t know how there isn’t a pandemic everyday? 


Say.  Staying out of a hot biological area keeps you from getting infected.  No matter the PPE you wear prevents infection.  I think you are on to something. 

Added.  Still don’t know what loading nursing homes up with Covid patients was about in the context healthy family members were denied access to the same facilities to visit family.  Often to see their parents that were in their last days.  Would you want to die in a nursing home with Covid patients isolated from family? 

So stupid.