Astronomy Debunked: Solar Eclipses are not Caused by the Moon
January 25, 2013 by Madhudvisa dasa
Filed under Science
According to Vedic Astronomy, the most ancient and accurate system of astronomy on the planet, solar eclipses are not caused by the Moon coming in front of the Sun as astronomers believe. Rather the Moon is described as being further away than the Sun and what happens at the time of a solar eclipse is the Moon goes behind the Sun and a dark planet call Rahu comes between the Sun and the Earth.
Of course, because we have been conditioned to believe as fact the structure of the universe as it has been taught to us since childhood we find it very difficult to accept such a thing. But it only requires a little thought to see that actually the ‘modern’ scientific idea is incompatible with our observations and the timeless Vedic knowledge is compatible with our observations.
Look at the moon on a full-moon night. It is shining so brightly that it lights up the whole surface of the Earth. On a full moon night you can very clearly see everything. Of course it is not as bright as the sunshine, but everything is very clearly visible. And if you were to view the earth from space on a full moon night it would not be dark. It would be illuminated by the moonshine and all the features of the earth would be clearly visible.
As there is ‘moonshine’ there is also ‘earthshine’. Much of the earth is covered by water which is a good reflector of sunlight. In fact the scientists say ‘earthshine’ is much brighter than ‘moonshine’. And according to our understanding the earth is enormous in comparison to the size of the moon. So if the moonshine can completely illuminate this earth on a full moon night then the earthshine can completely illuminate the moon.
If Western astronomers are correct the solar eclipse would be the prefect time to see the moon illuminated by earthshine. The shadow created which causes the solar eclipse on earth is, according to NASA, at most 167 miles wide. So if you were sitting on the moon during a solar eclipse you would see an extremely bright earth planet with a dark circle of only 167 miles wide. This is not enough to diminish the earthshine in any significant way. So even though the sun is behind the moon, the full force of the sunshine is hitting the earth and reflecting off those shiny blue oceans and reflecting off the land also. So the moon is completely illuminated by earthshine, even though the sun is directly behind it.
Now if Western astronomers were correct, if you were in that 167 mile wide path of the total eclipse of the sun when the sun was completely covered you would of course see the sky become black and then you could see the stars. But if the sun was covered by the moon you would be able to see the moon quite clearly, in front of the sun, illuminated by the ‘earthshine’. Of course it would not be as bright as the full moon, but the earthshine would certainly illuminate the surface of the moon so we could clearly see it and clearly make out the features on the moon’s surface.
But this does not happen… During a solar eclipse the sun goes completely black and even though all the sunlight is blocked out and the sky goes black one can not detect the moon at all. It is just black. No moon. Of course we should be able to see the moon as it is being bathed in brilliant earthshine… The sun should disappear and we should see the stars and in the place of the sun we should see the moon, illuminated by the earthshine. But we don’t see this.
So what does that mean? It means it is not the moon that causes solar eclipses. We know from the Vedas that what causes solar eclipses is a dark planet, currently unknown in the Western world, which hides in the shadow of the moon. Rahu is relatively close to us, around about the same distance as we think the moon is, but it is completely black, it does not reflect light at all. So even though there is plenty of earthshine falling on Rahu, because it is a black planet none of that light will be reflected back so we will see the sun simply blacked out in the sky on a full eclipse. Which is what we do see.
So this is absolute proof that the assumption of Western astronomers that solar eclipses are caused by the moon coming between the earth and the sun is wrong. Because if that was the case we would be able to see the moon during the full eclipse of the sun as it would be bathed in quite bright earthshine….
The following video, while not completely correct, give some ideas about the Vedic concept of the universe.
Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!
Madhudvisa dasa
There is a simple explanation for this from “modern” science. The sun’s corona is comparable to the light from a full moon. Therefore it is quite difficult to see earth shine on the moon during a solar eclipse.
Hare Krishna Jim
It is not that it is ‘quite difficult’ to see the earthshine on the moon during a solar eclipse, you can’t see it at all. It is pitch black. You don’t have to look at the corona at the time of the solar eclipse. It is completely irrelevant. You can take your telescope and look at the moon during a solar eclipse. You are not looking at the corona all, you are looking at the surface of the moon, and regardless of whether there is a corona or not the surface of the moon should be illuminated by the earthshine which should be considerably brigher than the moonshine on earth on a full moon day because the earth is so much bigger than the moon. Sure we are not going to expect the moon to be illuminated like a full moon, and sure if you look at it compared to the corona it may be difficult to see the earthshine on the moon as you say. But nonetheless the earthshine must be there on the surface of the moon if the modern scientific theory is correct. And it must be illuminated to a considerably greater degree than the surface of the earth is illuminated at the time of a full moon. And you know quite well that on a full moon everything is clearly visible and if you look at the earth from space on a full moon night you can very clearly distinguish at least major features like water and land and mountains and deserts, etc.
So, if we are to accept the theory of modern science, then we must be able to see the major features of the surface of the moon during a solar eclipse because it is completely bathed in earthshine…
Let me know what you think. I agree that in comparison to the corona the details may appear dim, but they must be there and must be clearly visible through a sensitive telescope.
Thank you for your reply Madhudvisa dasa. Here is a picture that clearly illustrates that the moon is still visible(with the correct camera settings) during a solar eclipse:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/pictures-of-the-year/8221974/Pictures-of-the-year-2010-space-station-sun-moon-Mars-and-the-solar-system.html?image=19
Here is one more:
http://stereo.gsfc.nasa.gov/img/total_lg.gif
I’m sure I could find more if you would like more evidence.
I have two other questions:
If it is true that Rahu is coming in front of the sun during a solar eclipse and the moon is going behind the sun, then the moon shouldn’t be observable from anywhere on or near earth, correct. How is it that solar eclipses can only be seen from certain places on earth, while the moon is still perfectly visible from other places on earth at the same time, and also still visible from the international space station? Clearly the moon can’t be behind the sun otherwise the whole world would be unable to see the moon at that time.
My second question is: if it’s true that the moon is farther away from the earth than the sun it means that the moon is therefore larger than the sun(because it is a larger object when we look at it). Considering that, how do you explain lunar eclipses? How can earth, which is orders of magnitude smaller than the moon and so far away effect the moon with its shadow?
Here are several more pictures that clearly show the moon’s surface during a solar eclipse:
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap080920.html
http://www.astrosurf.com/lecleire/2010/solar_eclipse_lecleire1__.jpg
http://solar-center.stanford.edu/images/vojto1_pub_eclipse.jpg
http://www.scilogs.de/kosmo/gallery/16/hurzdyn.jpg
Thank you, Jim
Hare Krishna Jim
I have to admit I do not really understand how Rahu is causing the solar and lunar eclipses. That idea I am also exploring myself so I am grateful for your input on this.
The idea is that our current Western concept of the universe is a ‘predictive model’ which has been developed by earth-bound observers of a very vast system, the universe, and we really have a very limited view of the universe from earth. It is a very good model which explains what we observe in the sky, but we have to be open to the possibility that the model does not completely reflect the reality of the system. The Vedic model is also a very good predictive model and allows the exact calculation of all events we see occurring in the sky but it is using a very different assumptions as to how the universe works to get the same results as we get from the Western model…
Thank you for the images of the moon’s surface during the solar eclipse. It is interesting… You know these are days of photoshop and people will do anything to get an award winning photograph. It should look like this and any thoughtful person knows it should look like this so the temptation may be there to use photoshop to make it look like this… But we also know of course that it does not look like this… There are millions of photos of solar eclipses where the sun is completely blacked out during a solar eclipse. Obviously the moon should be clearly visible during a solar eclipse to the naked eye. The earthshine is very bright on the moon at that time because on the moon it is the ‘full earth’ at that moment except for the small black circle of the eclipse on the earth…
Of course you say it is all in the camera settings… But the moon’s surface should be clearly visible to anyone during a solar eclipse. This is easy to check the next time we have a solar eclipse. If it is true and you can see the surface of the moon during a solar eclipse you have a very good point… Because if Rahu is between the earth and sun at that time you could not see the moon…
As far as your first statement is concerned solar eclipses can only occur when there is no moon. You can only get a solar eclipse on the no moon day. So when there is a solar eclipse no one can see the moon from anywhere on earth nor can they see the moon from the international space station which is only about 200 miles up so they get much the same view of the moon as we do. And on the no moon day the moon is dark everywhere on the planet, so no one can see it. And anyhow for everyone else at that time, except for the people in the small area of the total eclipse, they have no hope of seeing the moon because it is daytime and the sun is in the sky so in the bright sunlight no one can see the dark moon. So you have not really thought this point out very clearly. It is not correct. If the moon goes behind the sun at this time no one will know because at that time no one can see the moon anywhere else…
As far as your second question, you are right, it is stated in the Vedic model of the universe that I am referring to that the moon is much larger and further away than the sun. Luna eclipses are not the earth’s shadow, but the same planet, Rahu, who causes the solar eclipses by coming in front of the sun, also causes the lunar eclipses by coming in front of the moon.
The sun and the moon appear about the same size in the sky and if the moon is really further away than the sun then one planet at the correct distance from earth would be capable of causing both the solar and lunar eclipses. It appears that Rahu may be something like what we think the moon is and maybe a similar distance away from us as the moon but I am not sure about this.
As far as I understand it Rahu is hiding in the shadows of the moon. So I think we can assume Rahu is always somewhere in line between the moon and the earth. And lunar eclipses can only happen on the full moon. So that means when the sun is shining directly on the face of the moon that we are viewing from earth. So to create a lunar eclipse that is only visible from a small area on the earth something has to come between the line of sight of the observer on the earth and the moon. Like a dark planet called Rahu. Now that would not create a shadow on the moon… That would just block out the moon for the observers in a small area on the earth and the moon would remain visible for everyone else on the earth.
Actually I do not know if this happens or not. But if the ‘modern science’ theory is correct and Lunar eclipses are caused by the earth’s shadow falling on the moon, by the earth blocking the light of the sun so it does not reach the moon at all, then the lunar eclipse would be visible from the whole half of the planet who could see the moon at that time. Because it would be a real shadow blocking the sunlight from falling on the same surface of the moon which is visible to half the planet at the same time.
The lunar eclipse only happens on the full moon, and on the full moon the moon rises when the sun sets and sets when the sun rises. So on the full moon day the moon is visible to half of the planet. On the no moon day the moon rises and sets with the sun so on that day it is not visible to anyone because during the night it is not in the sky and during the day it is dark and blocked out by the sunlight. So the only time we really get to see the moons surface bathed in brilliant earthshine on the ‘full earth’ day is during a solar eclipse…
Let me know what you think.
Madhudvisa dasa
With respect, and the lunar eclipse? If the moon is farther from the sun, how can the earth’s shadow covers the moon? Because without a doubt is the Moon which is cubrida by the shadow of the earth.
Hare Krishna Juan
The earth’s shadow can never cover the moon. The moon is far, far away, above the sun. What covers the moon at the time of the lunar eclipse is also Rahu.
It just looks like the moon may be covered by the shadow of the earth, but you have no way of knowing this. It is just a theory. The reality is something different.
Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!
Madhudvisa dasa
So Rahu being a completely black planet casts a shadow on the moon and makes it look red instead of making it disappear during the Lunar Eclipse?
Hare Krishna Shreyas
It is Rahu’s shadow on the moon. Rahu is between the sun and the moon. So it will not be any different from the earth being between the sun and the moon. So it will look exactly the same. If we assume both Rahu and the earth are solid round objects. So their shadows will look exactly the same when they hit the moon.
All we know from observing a lunar eclipse is there is something coming between the sun and the moon and we can see it is circular. But we do not know what it is. It could be Earth, but it could also be Rahu. Because the western astronomers know about earth and don’t know about rahu they have assumed it is earth. But actually it is rahu…
Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!
Madhudvisa dasa
Hare Krishna Madhudvisa Dasa
Point no. 1: From your earlier comments, Rahu causes the solar eclipse by coming between the earth and the sun.
Point no. 2: Again, from your comments, since Rahu is completely “black”, it is not illuminated by “earthshine”. This means that Rahu absorbs any light that is incident on it.
Point no. 3: “Western” scientists claim that the moon appears dim and red during the lunar eclipse due to scattering of light from earth’s atmosphere. If earth did not have an atmosphere, the moon would have disappeared completely.
Point no. 4: If Rahu absorbed all incident light (as you claimed), Rahu would make the moon disappear completely, because it would not allow any of the sun’s light to fall on the moon.
Fact: Rahu does not make the moon disappear during lunar eclipse.
Observation: Rahu is a perfect black body during solar eclipse and scatters light during the lunar eclipse, i.e. Rahu is black and not black at the same time.
Inference: Rahu theory leads to inconsistency about nature of Rahu. Hence, Rahu theory debunked. QED.
Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!
Shreyas
Hare Krishna Shreyas
Rahu is not a theory. It is a fact. The knowledge of Rahu is there in the Vedas. Veda means knowledge. It is not a theory and you can not “debunk” a fact… You may not completely understand the fact, but that is your fault, your incomplete understanding.
What makes you think that Rahu does not have an atmosphere? Why can’t Rahu have an atmosphere that can deflect and filter the sun’s light? It is irrelevant if Rahu is black and the earth is mostly blue. Because the sun is behind the earth and it is therefore black looking at it from the direction of the moon. There is no light reflecting off the earth if you look at it from the dark side, it may as well be black. So your argument is false.
Actually we can not know from the perspective of earth using our imperfect senses what is happening way out there in the sky. The materialists can only make a guess and test that guess against what they observe. So the western scientists actually have no real idea why the moon is sometimes [not always] red during a lunar eclipse. It is just that they have observed that it is sometimes red an even if it is not red it is still in the sky but just much dimmer than it should be. So based on these observed facts they guess what may be happening. And if the guess sounds reasonable and explains what they see happening fairly well it becomes the scientific doctrine. And, with all due respect, fools like you accept it as ‘fact’. It is not a fact, it is a theory.
On the other hand, we do not accept the imperfect information that we can gather from our imperfect senses as being very valuable. We have a perfect source of knowledge, the Vedas. Veda means knowledge, and what is written in the Vedas is correct. And it is written in the Vedas that the cause of the solar and lunar eclipses is Rahu. Now exactly how that is, we many not completely understand, but we accept the Vedas as our authority, not modern science. So the point is everyone has to have some faith in someone to get their knowledge from. You have faith in the scientists and you reject the Vedas. I have faith in the Vedas and reject the scientists. Actually I am correct and you are wrong. But there is an English saying “It is folly to be wise where ignorance is bliss.” Everyone accepts the ignorant ramblings of the scientists so if you speak the truth they will get upset… Still the truth is the truth and the scientists are ignorant fools.
Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!
Madhudvisa dasa
I don’t understand how is it possible that the moon is farther and bigger than the sun? Scientist have already traveled to moon. If it was that far we wouldn’t have been able to step on moon.
Hare Krishna Soun
You can not know if the moon is bigger or smaller than the sun by looking at the sun and the moon from earth. It is all relative. Both the sun and the moon appear to be the same size in the sky to us actually but Western science is telling us the sun is very far away and the moon is very close so the moon is very small and the sun is very big. This is an ‘educated guess’ only. Based on a hypothesis as to how the universe works. But if their hypothesis is wrong and the universe is working in a different way then it may well be that the moon is larger than the sun and further away from the sun. And we would never be able to tell the difference from our position on earth.
As far as scientists having traveled to the moon there is absolutely no evidence that scientists have traveled to the moon. There is plenty of information on the web about the “moon hoax”
http://krishna.org/did-man-really-walk-on-the-moon/
It is a crazy story. In the 1960′s with cave-man technology compared to today’s technology, they had six or so successful moon missions, putting men on the moon, transmitting live television from the moon, and safely bringing the men back to earth… That is a round-trip journey of about half a million miles each time. And in the 50 years since then no man has traveled more than 200 miles or so up to earth orbit. And now NASA is unable to send men to the moon… So the whole ‘moon mission’ thing is very, very suspicious.
So I think you can take it for a fact that the scientists have not been able to step on the moon.
Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!
Madhudvisa dasa
Rahu and Kethu are intersection points of Solar path and Lunar path. That is the reason the Hindu astronomy says that both are ‘Chaya’ graha which means ‘Shadow’ planets. They appears to be like planets but in reality there is nothing but intersection points. This was well explained in metaphor in sanskrit shlokas of Rahu and Kethu. When the moon overtakes the sun at the place where their paths intersect periodically, the sun or the moon is hidden from the earth’s view and is thus called a solar or lunar eclipse or in metaphor or symbolic language, it is said that Rahun or Kethu ‘swallow up’ moon or sun.
Hare Krishna Vimal
Yes. Hindu astronomy does say this about Rahu and Ketu. But we are not really talking about “Hindu Astronomy” here. We are talking about thece structure of the universe as it is revealed in Srimad-Bhagavatam. And there, in the Bhagavatam, Rahu is a planet. A solid object. The Rahu planet was created when the Mohini Murti form of Lord Krishna detected that the demon Rahu had dressed himself up as a demigod and was sitting in the line with the demigods to get the nectar. Rahu realized that although Mohini-Murti was speaking very sweetly to the demons, she did not actually intend to give them any of the nectar, so he intelligently dressed himself up as a demigod and sat in the demigod’s line. He was able to get some nectar but then Mohini-Murti realized he was Rahu, the demon, and immediately chopped his head off. So because the nectar touched his head the head became immortal, and Rahu’s head then became the planet Rahu who was always inimical to the sun and the moon and who therefore tries to attack them in the solar and lunar eclipses. So you see from the perspective of the Vedas Rahu is a solid planet.
Hindu astronomy is a different thing. Hindu astronomy, much like western astronomy, is not really for understanding exactly how the things are working in the universe, it is a predictive, calculation system. So Hindu astronomy, like western astronomy, provided formulas and methods of calculation that enable the prediction of the locations of the various heavenly bodies at certain points in time. This enables calendars to be constructed and the prediction of events like solar and lunar eclipses. There are different models also in Hindu astronomy. And western astronomy presents yet another model. But all the models, although they are based on different assumptions of how the universe works, are able to predict the movements of the heavenly objects fairly well.
For example the Hindu model uses a stationary earth, which is not one of the planets, and has all the stars and constellations fixed to the wheel of the zodiac and rotating. The sun, moon and planets also rotate with the zodiac but they have their own independent movement also so they are at different times seen in different houses of the zodiac. They appear to be wandering among the stars… On the other hand the Western model uses a rotating earth and relatively stationary stars and constellations, etc. So these are actually dramatically different models and obviously they are not both actually correct but because from our perspective on earth we see the relative rotation between the earth and the stars and other heavenly bodies, we have no way of actually knowing which assumption is correct. It could the earth is rotating or it could be that the universe is rotating around the earth. Because the relative movement is the same it would look identical to us.
In these astronomical models they are looking for predictive accuracy. That is the idea. If a astronomical model can make accurate predictions of the movements of the heavenly bodies that is useful for many purposes. But just because an astronomical model can make reasonably accurate predictions does not necessarily mean that the underlying assumptions made in the model that produces those predictions are correct.
The information we have about the universe in the Srimad-Bhagavatam, however, is different. That is absolute knowledge of the actual system. It is not a predictive model. We are getting actual eye-witness knowledge of the systems that cause the universe to function from great personalities like Lord Brahma who actually created the systems and Narada Muni who is a transcendental spaceman and who can travel at will to any place in the material and spiritual worlds. So Lord Brahma and Narada Muni are perfect authorities on the structure and workings of the universe so when we get information from them about the working of the universe it is perfect knowledge. Of course they are seeing the universe from a very different perspective than the perspective we see it from here on earth. Really we can see practically nothing of the universe. We can see a few points of light in the sky, that is all. We have only got a 2 dimensional view. We can see around the horizon 360 degrees and we can see the elevation from zero to 90 degrees. That is all. Only two dimensions. But the universe has at least three dimensions. So we have no ability to see the universe and if we can not see something then we have no ability to understand how it is working. If we want to actually understand the workings of the universe then we have to find a person who has perfect knowledge of the workings of the universe and hear about it submissively from him. So Lord Krishna, Lord Brahma and Sriman Narada Muni are three perfect authorities who actually know how the universe works. If we hear from them we will get real knowledge. Hindu astronomy or western astronomy is a different thing altogether. These are just calculation systems that allow the prediction of the positions of the heavenly bodies at various points in time. They do not necessarily reflect the actual situation and workings of the universe.
Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!
Madhudvisa dasa
It’s an amazing set of theories. The video you posted at the top was incredibly interesting and anyone claiming to search for knowledge should give it a look. That being said, I’m agnostic and not prone to believe the parts about agiant sea creatures holding up our very universe and what have you but then again I don’t rule anything out either seeing as there’s no way of knowing for sure other than Krishna comming down and personally telling me that is in fact how he rolls.
`The shadow created which causes the solar eclipse on earth is, according to NASA, at most 167 miles wide. So if you were sitting on the moon during a solar eclipse you would see an extremely bright earth planet with a dark circle of only 167 miles wide. This is not enough to diminish the earthshine in any significant way.”
Can you provide any reference?
Hare krishnaaaaaaaaaaaaaa………..
Just search for images of the solar eclipse from space any you will see the fully illuminated earth with a tiny black dot which is the solar eclipse. Or look at any map they produce that shows the area it is viewable from and you will see that is a narrow track that moves across the earth as the sun moves and you will see that it is only about 150 miles wide [some eclipses are wider than others. So it is a fact. The shadow created on the earth is only tiny in comparison to the size of the whole earth and would not diminish the 'earthshine' on the moon at all during the 'full-earth' day, and the 'full-earth' day on the moon, according to the modern scientists, must be much, much brighter than the full-moon day on the earth. The shiny water on the earth must reflect more sunshine than the dull moon rocks the scientists tell us the moon is made of and the earth is hundreds of times bigger in the sky from the moon then the moon is in the sky from the earth [according to the scientists...]
Anyhow, I think you see the point, during a total solar eclipse, if the moon is in front of the sun, the moon will be completely illuminated by the brilliant ‘earthshine’ and every feature of the moon will be fully visible to the naked eye at least during the totality of the eclipse.
You con find plenty of references for this but try to understand it…
Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!
Madhudvisa dasa
Ok. I have understood your point. But you have quoted that NASA says. You must provide reference. Otherwise, what is the meaning of quoting such a reputed society.
Just look it up yourself, can’t you even do a google search…
Try ‘solar eclipse from space’ then click on ‘images’
http://media.techeblog.com/images/solar_eclipse_space.jpg